It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The PentaCon

page: 10
65
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by pepsi78

From what I know and what I have seen in the pictures they were real close if not in the same position from where they were standing before, and that is uncacceptable if in deed a comercial airplane did hit those poles.



What about the numerous eyewitnesses who saw the plane hitting the poles, or the numerous eyewitnesses who saw debris from the plane all around the highway where the poles were knocked over?


Why do four peoples testimony, performed and edited by people trying to prove a plane didn't hit, outweigh the many more witnesses who saw the plane take the "official" flight path and the ones who saw the plane hit the poles?




There is only one non-anonymous account that direcly claims that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit.

That was Wanda Ramey. We tried to get a hold of her but couldn't.

Other than that you have a handful of people that merely mention the light poles in their accounts. They deduced it after seeing them on the ground.

We interviewed 3 of them.....Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, and Chad Brooks who ALL admited to us that they did not see the light poles get hit but merely deduced it after the fact.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
have a thorough look at "bart"'s original witness link I posted above.
It is full of inconsistencies.
People saw the plane dive, fly in a straight line in, bank from left to right and others from right to left, and not one witness described the exact location of poles he/she saw clipped, except one who was behind the cab driver.
Many describe a different plane, from small commuter to small passenger to exactly flight 77. And on impossible locations, if compared to other witnesses location indications.
Ever thought of a team of illusion hypnotists ?
Or just plain media influence. Ask the right questions and most people will say : yes, that's what I saw, since so many people already said the exact same thing on television interviews I've seen before I was interviewed.

And now it looks as if the whole Pentagon attack was a staged one, I would not trust that guy and the cab driver for a single moment.
Did you know the cab driver got a brand new cab from god knows who?
He just needed to file a report to his insurance and get a new windscreen for free! So, why a new cab? His cab was not damaged, except for the windscreen. The hood had not even a scratch!

I am still putting numbered location points on a Google map, from lot's of witnesses, not only the "bart" ones.
That plane was about every where between Alexandria, the White House, the Capitol, the Pentagon, up the Potomac river and all over Virginia.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
from bart's witness list :


CNN

PLANT (LIVE): Well, and speaking to people here at the Pentagon, as they're being evacuated from the building. I'm told by several people that there was, in fact, an explosion. I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky.[...]It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnessess I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion. That's about all I have from here.
September 11 Live CNN Transcript, Europe


That US military helicopter becomes more and more important.
Would be really interesting to know who was in it.
And why we didn't see any heli debris on the first photo's.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Bart's list :


Ramos

When she thinks of that day, Ramos also recalls another burn patient whom she treated just after getting Maj. Leibner into the ambulance. "I turned around and a burn patient was coming out," she said. "I was afraid I'd be caught with her in the line of fire." The woman's clothes were literally exploded off her body, Ramos said. "Her legs were so bad that her skin was coming off," she said. "She was really in shock. She had like a vacant stare. She was all sweaty, her legs were burned, and her clothes were blasted off her back because her back was bare. We got her onto a stretcher face down and DiDi started an IV, and they were ready to take her into the ambulance. We evacuated at that point." They later heard that the burn patient died a couple of days afterward. The victims exited the building in waves, but after a short while they stopped coming out. "After the first hour, it was very frustrating," Ramos said. "You felt hopeless," added Lopez. "You can't go in and no one is coming out." Ramos said she still gets galvanic skin responses when she recalls the events of that morning. "Everything was so busy, you couldn't remember everything," she said. (…)It took some time before Ramos, Maj. Leibner and others were able to talk openly of their experiences that day. "We went to several debriefings," Ramos said.
www.usmedicine.com...


Debriefings meaning talking in to witnesses until they all fit in the official picture ? I think so, in light of Jack's witnesses who seem to have been missed by debriefing teams.

EDIT :These teams consist mainly of psychologists and psychiatrists.
These people know very well about hypnosis techniques and methods to influence in every possible way their "patients". end EDIT.

[edit on 27/2/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky
According to some feedback I've read from John Lear, the tight turns required to have had AA77 fly just over the north of Citgo and still make to banking turns pass nearly over the light poles seems to be theoretically possible although would subject the airplane to high G's, and there are doubts if the alleged hijacker could have performed the manuever.


Now just a minute here darkbluesky...in case you don't remember, here is what I said:

OK, at 750 feet per second (450mph) it would take 4.66 seconds to travel that distance while completing one turn to the right of 35 degrees and one turn to the left of 40 degrees. Assuming you could make the turn to the right of 35 degrees in 1 second then from the right bank to the left bank in 2 seconds (that would be a bank angle change of 180 degrees at a rate of 360 degrees per second) then a 40 degree heading change in 1 more second you would have .66 seconds to level from a 90 degree left bank. The leveling bank from the 40 degree left turn would have to be at a rate of greater than 90 degrees per second or actually about 120 degrees per second. Assuming that both the wings and the tail were still on the airplane when it hit the Pentagon that would have been quite a feat of airmanship for a Arab hijacker on his first flight in the Boeing 757. Heck that would have been quite a feat even if the wings and tail were not still on the airplane.


There is no possible way that anybody flew this profile in a Boeing 757. None. Nada. Not by intent not by accident. It is totally one hundred percent impossible. If you look carefully at the numbers above they show a totally impossible maneuver.

"Doubts that the alleged hijacker coud have performed this maneuver?" There are only 2 ways this maneuver could have been performed by anybody including me:

(1) No way
(2) No frigging way on earth. Period.

Thanks for the input.



John, Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe you could have been as direct and to the point in your first response. As I recall your first response included nothing after:


Heck that would have been quite a feat even if the wings and tail were not still on the airplane.


But thanks for lending your expertise to the issue nevertheless.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Thank you for your hard work and quality production. The witnesses are very credible and have a lot of guts to tell the truth as they remember it.

It is my sincere desire that they suffer no adverse fallout from speaking the truth. Also to both of you, please be careful, I do not trust our "intelligence" apperatus, as far as I can throw it. Put nothing past the spooks.

Peace,

John



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It takes balls to suggest the plane could have flown on the north side of the station and still knock down all the light poles.

Not only will pilots laugh at you but anyone with common sense will as well!


Anyone with common sense would realize that the 100s of people required to plan and pull off a government controlled event like the 9-11 attack on the pentagon would have thought through the plan in great detail and would have never included the "staged light poles" component.

In response to your previous request:



Blue is the ground track, yellow is the flight track. The radius looks tight in this perspective, which suspect is why you asked me to overlay it on this particuar picture, however you'll see on the plan view it's notthat tight a turn. Also, I'd still like to know the source of the perspective view if thats not asking too much.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I expect darkbluesky to come up with a flightpath where the body of the plane would have passed over the north east top of the Citgo gas station canopy.


Thats exactly what I've been saying.


And, if that could ever be true, we would have seen a HUGE black plane shadow in the Citgo video, sliding over the ground from left to right through the video.
(Look at the shadow of the canopy in above smaller picture at 13:00 hrs.)
There is no such moving shadow at all to observe, which clearly proves that the plane passing on the north was much further away than passing over the canopy.


This photo?


The shadows seen in the 1304 shot would have been much longer at 0930. If the plane flew over, or nearly over the canopy, it would have cast a shadow well to the west, surely out of view of the Citgo surveillence cameras.




EDIT: darkbluesky,
Why did you remove this picture, used the last by g210b in this post at page 8 :
i128.photobucket.com...
Post : www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's very bad taste to do that kind of thing at this moment.
You disrupt the flow of discussion, what are you afraid of, loose of face?
I have it saved, btw.
[edit on 26/2/07 by LaBTop]


I did delete them from my account but they are still visible in the thread so Im not sure what you're prattling on about

If you or someone else restored them, thank you.

As for being afraid of loosing face? Not at all.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
That is too funny.

And quite impossible and NOT what the witnesses saw.

The second image has the plane coming from the opposite direction!

You better try that again.


Here is where the plane came from:




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

John, Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe you could have been as direct and to the point in your first response. As I recall your first response included nothing after:


Heck that would have been quite a feat even if the wings and tail were not still on the airplane.


But thanks for lending your expertise to the issue nevertheless.




Please accept my apologies darkbluesky. This has got to be the first time I have ever been accused of being less than direct. Aparently you missed my sarcasm about the wings and the tail not being on the aircraft after having completed such a maneuver.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
That is too funny.

And quite impossible and NOT what the witnesses saw.



Impossible according to John Lear. John is not the only pilot on ATS but he is the only pilot who consistently takes the conspiracy angle with regard to almost any topic. I find this discredits his opinions, at times. And if your're wondering about his opinions, just read his signature line

I don't think you really want to talk about what the witnesses saw do you?
Lets see,

One witness saw a United Airlines Airplane
One saw it for .5 secs, maybe 2 secs
One couldn't recall which pump he was at.
Two, the two most credible IMO, state unequivocally they saw the airplane impact the building.

Lagasse even says he say the aircraft yawing left as it hit, which would dindicate it was on a SE to NW heading or it was yawing hard because it's left wing hit stationary object(s) before impacting on the Pentagon


The second image has the plane coming from the opposite direction!

Dont know what your talking about. Both of the hypothetical flight paths I drew pass over the north corner of the canopy. If you're talking about how far to the north, or where the flight path was further to the west, I'd say you have no reliable witnesses that can acurately say exactly what the ground path was. It happened 6 years ago and the event occured in 2 seconds according to the witnesses.



Here is where the plane came from:






So says one of your irrefutable witnesses Mr. Edward Paik.

[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

There is only one non-anonymous account that direcly claims that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit.

That was Wanda Ramey. We tried to get a hold of her but couldn't.


Which means what? Her account doesn't count because she wouldn't talk to the CIT?

And no you are wrong, there is more than one account, apparently you missed these from page three or four.


source

As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces - that is what these shards were covered with. I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash.


How does that fit in with your story?

Or this one,


www.msnbc.msn.com...

"Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think. (...) "There were a lot of people with severe burns, severe contusions, severe lacerations, in shock and emotional distress"


Is he lying about seeing peices of the plane on the highway as well?

Why is Kat Gaines missing from your list?

At this point I wonder are you just being disingenuous, or outright lying?


911research.wtc7.net...

Kat Gaines, heading south on Route 110, approached the parking lots, saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. "



www.guardian.co.uk...

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."


Are you now going to retract your statement about only one "non-anonymous witness"?

If not, we can conclude that the CIT are the real pentaCON and that you have no interest in facts.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Let's read Stg Legasse's comments about banking turn direction and yawing.


The witnesses
Some witnesses could see the impact of the plane on the building. It is interesting to examine their accounts.

Pentagon's police sergent William Lagasse, in an email discussion with Dick Eastman and Ken Varden (APFN web site), wrote (see the page on "THE LAGASSE CASE" for complete text) :


From: Lagasse, William,
To: Dick Eastman

Mr. Eastman
.../... There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting


This point is very interesting in Sgt Lagasse's statement. Sgt Lagasse writes that he has had some experience flying, and describes what could have been caused by a violent ("uncoordinated") push of the pilot on his left foot during the crash. As a matter of fact, is is more probably a move under a force reaction when the plane hits the facade of the Pentagon under a 50° angle (40° from the perpandicular). In the series of sketches drawn for the first part of the crash (see end of previous page), approximately up to the point where the front of the fuselage and the wing have been destroyed and/or have entered the Pentagon, I have drawn this yaw movement to the left. I did it having in mind just the physics of the shock, not remembering Sgt Lagasse's statement when making these sketches. All this seems to me coherent afterwards : the torque around a vertical axis (yaw) given to the plane's body by the front part of the fuselage hitting the facade must be higher than the torque given by the starboard wing hitting the facade near pillar 22 : as already stated, the wing tip has probably been broken, and the wing detaches itself from the belly of the plane under it's own inertia.


The entire web page link:

www.earth-citizens.net...



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   


This photo with my markings is meant to show the impossibility of a Boeing 757 completing the path marked in blue. The red lines mark the time at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4.66 seconds and are drawn in the approximate bank angle for the period of time.

Assuming the Boeing 757 was going approximately 450 mph or 750 feet per second we start the time at “0” at the corner of the Citgo.

One second later the aircraft is at the loop and begins a left bank. Assuming that a Boeing 757 could make a left 90 degree bank in one second at 450 mph, which it can’t, (that would be a roll rate of 90 per second) it will have to hold that bank angle until the completion of the 40 degree turn at 3 second red line. Since we are assuming that it takes 1 second to perform the bank that leaves one second to make the 40 degree turn. This is beyond impossibility for a Boeing 757 airliner. Maybe a current fighter jet whose pilot had on a fully functioning “g” suit. But not a Boeing 757 airliner.

At the completion of the turn at the 3 second point you now have 1.66 seconds to roll level before you hit the Pentagon. Rolling level from a 90 degree bank and descending to hit the lower part of the Pentagon is beyond impossibility, for this reason: as you yank the airplane out of the 90 degree banked turn the wings which are ‘lifting’ you in the turn now create a ‘lift’ to the airplane in the ‘upwards’ direction which means the pilot has to simultaneously ‘push’ the control column forward with enormous pressure to counteract the ‘lift’. To yank the airplane out of a 90 degree bank while simultaneously pushing forward to keep the airplane from rising and to hit the Pentagon at 10 to 20 feet above the ground and without hitting the engine pods against the ground is beyond possibility. It is just plain ridiculous.

Take a timepiece of any kind and follow the above scenario for 4.66 seconds. You will see what I mean.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


This photo with my markings is meant to show the impossibility of a Boeing 757 completing the path marked in blue. The red lines mark the time at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4.66 seconds and are drawn in the approximate bank angle for the period of time.

Assuming the Boeing 757 was going approximately 450 mph or 750 feet per second we start the time at “0” at the corner of the Citgo.


Corrections:

450 mph = 660 ft/sec
The total distance traveled on the yellow line is 0.36 miles (1,900 ft)

Total elapsed time from first red line indicating wing attitude to pentagon impact (assume average speed of 450 mph) is 2.8 seconds not 4.66 seconds.

I realize this makes completion of the manuever even more difficult than you state but I don't understand how a man with your flight experience could miscalculate so.

I'm also not sure why you drew the wing attitude indicators on the ground track vs. the flight path.


[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Corrections:

450 mph = 660 ft/sec


You are correct. The 750 feet per second was for 450 knots.


The total distance traveled on the yellow line is 0.36 miles (1,900 ft)


Somebody gave me 3500 feet. I did not figure it myself.


Total elapsed time from first red line indicating wing attitude to pentagon impact (assume average speed of 450 mph) is 2.8 seconds not 4.66 seconds.


at 450 mph and 1900 feet this would be correct.



I realize this makes completion of the manuever even more difficult than you state but I don't understand how a man with your flight experience could miscalculate so.


I said I could fly, not add or subtract.



I'm also not sure why you drew the wing attitude indicators on the ground track vs. the flight path.


I will draw it again. Thanks for the tip.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
450 mph = 660 ft/sec
The total distance traveled on the yellow line is 0.36 miles (1,900 ft)

I realize this makes completion of the manuever even more difficult than you state but I don't understand how a man with your flight experience could miscalculate so.


This was your post to me darkbluesky:

posted on 23-2-2007 at 06:29 PM (post id: 2978992) - single - this post REPLYQUOTE


: Originally posted by johnlear
OK. Thanks. The radius of the turn doesn't help me. I need the distance from abeam the Navy Annex where he begins his right turn of 35 degrees and then goes into an immediate left turn of 40 degrees. If I know that approximate distance then I will know the time he travelled that distance. Then I can compute the rate of turn required to make those 2 turns in that amount of time. Just offhand I would say at 450 kts that the bank angle for each turn would have to be 90 degrees at 3 or 4 G's.

If you don't have the time to figure the distance I will do it this evening. Thanks.



posted by darkbluesky
Understand. Let's assume....conservatively.... AA77 is 1000 ft from Navy Annex when right 35 degree turn starts. That would make distance to Pentagon from Navy Annex approx 3500 ft.
[edit on 2/23/2007 by darkbluesky]


Now. Darkbluesky did you say in the above post that the distance from the Annex to the Pentagon was 3500 feet or did I misread that?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Since I'm tiring of this topic, this will be my last post.... at least for a few days.

After doing a few calculations of my own I must agree with Johns assesment the last bank to the left could not have been performed @ 450 kts.

However, since certain aspects of the accuracy of the FRD data seem to be in question by both sides of the debate....I'm going to point out the following:

A 757 could have passed over the corner of Citgo thereby being visible to the observers while looking in a generally northerly direction, and
performed a high g banking left turn taking it over the lightpoles if it's air speed was around 300 kts.

An air speed of 300 kts w/ a 75 degree angle bank would exert 4 Gs - a &$& casn with stand 6-7 Gs.

At 300 kts the travel time from Citgo to impact would be 3.8 seconds.

300 kts w/ a bank angle of 75 degrees gives a rate of turn of 15 deg/sec and a min. turn radius of 2,000 ft. (with no altitude loss - the plane was decending, therefore could have achieved the same turn radius with a slightly higher airspeed.)

This picture shows the turn radius of 2000 ft and course change of 50 degrees:



Time required to complete last turn = 3.3 seconds

Plenty of time and within G load specs at 300 kts.

My only point is that if we dismiss some data we can dismiss or question other data, in this case, the actual air speed. If we accept the airplane was travelling near 300 kts, it could have performed the maneuver I'm suggesting.

It makes more sense to me than a totally unecessary "light pole knock down crew" and an "airplane parts planting crew" and an "explosives deployment crew" and.......



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Now. Darkbluesky did you say in the above post that the distance from the Annex to the Pentagon was 3500 feet or did I misread that?


Yes John, But you asked specifically for the distance from abeam the annex.

My crudely drawn flight path we're discussing today begins just over the Citgo station....1900 feet to the Pentagon.

No matter, I agree with your turn rate calcs at 450 kts.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by johnlear

Now. Darkbluesky did you say in the above post that the distance from the Annex to the Pentagon was 3500 feet or did I misread that?


Yes John, But you asked specifically for the distance from abeam the annex.

My crudely drawn flight path we're discussing today begins just over the Citgo station....1900 feet to the Pentagon.

No matter, I agree with your turn rate calcs at 450 kts.



Ok. I see where I dropped the ball. Sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join