G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

Don "Puppy" Bouchoux was driving in vicinity of the Pentagon and literally had the airliner fly over the top of his car.

Donald Bouchoux: I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me

So was it *literally* on top of his car or 200 yards in front of him? Is Donald going around telling people it was "literally" on top of his car, Pinch? Tsk tsk.

Did you ask him which side of the Citgo he saw it approach on??? Why not? Did you show him the Noc interviews? Why not?

Did you know he could have been fooled also?

Mike Rioux saw the approach and impact from Rosslyn? All the way from Rosslyn? Did he have binoculars and how did that little plane grab his attention? Couldn't he have missed the flyaway? Suuuure he could have. A large explosion would keep him fixated on just that and a low flying plane in South parking would blend into the mismash of trees and buildings. Did you ask him which side of the gas station he saw it on?





[edit on 7-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

So was it *literally* on top of his car or 200 yards in front of him? Is Donald going around telling people it was "literally" on top of his car, Pinch? Tsk tsk.

Did you ask him which side of the Citgo he saw it approach on??? Why not? Did you show him the Noc interviews? Why not?

What is funny is how you have a problem with someone like Bouchoux who quite obviously shoots your theory to hell with his witnessing of the aircraft hitting the building while you DON'T have any problems with Brooks or Lagasse or Boger or Walter witnessing the aircraft hit the building. Selective witnesses approval from CIT, I guess.

Mike Rioux saw the approach and impact from Rosslyn? All the way from Rosslyn? Did he have binoculars and how did that little plane grab his attention? Couldn't have missed the flyaway? Suuuure he could have. A large explosion would keep him fixated on just that and a low flying plane in South parking would blend into the mismash of trees and buildings. Did you ask him which side of the gas station he saw it on?

Have you interviewed Rioux? Do you know what office he was in in Rosslyn? Do you know what view he had? Have you been to his office or from his view point? Have you been to the view point I had from the 11th floor of Crystal Park 3 where I saw the smoke plume just begin to billow and never saw any "fly over"?

Let me know those things before you continue this farce.

As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.

And why didn't Chris Stephenson see the "overflight" of the south parking lot when he had an absolutely perfect view of that area? Do you think that he would have missed an aircraft flying low from a direction where aircraft *never* fly headed straight for P-56? Aircraft were landing from the south so witnessing an aircraft flying around the south parking headed up or across the river would have been VERY noticeable to a trained tower observer like Stephenson. A large explosion (which he and others saw and watched for "several seconds") meant they would have most definitely seen a "large commercial aircraft" (Robert's description) at "fifty feet or less than a hundred feet" toodling its way across a multi-thousand car parking lot ("a large commercial aircraft" flying across a mulit-thousand car parking lot at 50 to 100 feet and nobody sees it - uh-huh).

This is a CIT version of swiss cheese.

reply to post by SPreston


Because its a crime scene? Or have you already forgotten this fact? Heh, and how do you know it was never processed or ID after the fact?

That part looks exactly like the part from a 757 like I pointed out. What else could it be from? And please, dont say a missile, unless you can show me a missile with a 124ft 10in wingspan and is 178ft 7in long with two large engines that hang from the wings.

Also, I would like to know when would they have been able to plant anything? How would that work? You set off a huge explosion right in front of the Pentagon and which will have hundreds of people from all over the areaccoming out and seeing WTF happened and THEN have a bunch of agents running around throwing debris on the lawn from a dump truck? AND no one notices this, right? Were they wearing stealth suits?
You see why we have hard time taking truthers seriously?

What is funny is how you have a problem with someone like Bouchoux who quite obviously shoots your theory to hell with his witnessing of the aircraft hitting the building while you DON'T have any problems with Brooks or Lagasse or Boger or Walter witnessing the aircraft hit the building. Selective witnesses approval from CIT, I guess.

No, I had a problem with the hearsay you presented allegedly from the mouth of Bouchoux claiming the plane flew "literally on top of his car" when he claimed it was "200 yards in front of him". I was mainly giving you a hard time. Yes, Bouchoux could be a genuine witness and he could be an op, after all he is military and a military consultant. He could have been fooled or he could be lying. One would not know until he is interviewed and details are clarified and confirmed. There is no theory and he didn't shoot anything to hell except some of his credibility if that is truly what he told your buddy there.

Again, Pinch. Since the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo, it did NOT and could NOT hit the Pentagon. Understand yet?

Mike Rioux saw the approach and impact from Rosslyn? All the way from Rosslyn? Did he have binoculars and how did that little plane grab his attention? Couldn't have missed the flyaway? Suuuure he could have. A large explosion would keep him fixated on just that and a low flying plane in South parking would blend into the mismash of trees and buildings. Did you ask him which side of the gas station he saw it on?

Have you interviewed Rioux? Do you know what office he was in in Rosslyn? Do you know what view he had? Have you been to his office or from his view point? Have you been to the view point I had from the 11th floor of Crystal Park 3 where I saw the smoke plume just begin to billow and never saw any "fly over"?

Let me know those things before you continue this farce.

Did you interview Rioux? Do you know what office he was in? Do you know what view he had? Have you been to his office from his view point? Do you realize that is why I asking you those questions? Read them again. No I have never been to the floor of Crystal Park 3. Did you see the plane approach on the south side of the Citgo? No? Well then your account is irrelevant, isn't it? Didn't you say you saw the fireball, Pinch or are you changing your story to the smoke plume afterwards. Because a smoke plume after doesn't mean there was no flyover. It just means you missed it, Champ.

As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.

Do you call him Captain Bob because you have no control over your emotions, Pinch? Are you an angry man that always has to talk down to people? Is that how you were raised? I think you should seek some help with anger management. The anger just oozes from your pores. the overflight very well could have ended up in a part of P-56.

And why didn't Chris Stephenson see the "overflight" of the south parking lot when he had an absolutely perfect view of that area? Do you think that he would have missed an aircraft flying low from a direction where aircraft *never* fly headed straight for P-56?

Really you have a view from the tower as the naked eye would see it to show he had a "perfect view"? You talked to him? Did you confirm he wasn't staring at the area where he saw the plane disappeared behind Crystal City buildings? Did you confirm that he wasn't staring at the fireball/smoke plume as the plane made it's escape?

Aircraft were landing from the south so witnessing an aircraft flying around the south parking headed up or across the river would have been VERY noticeable to a trained tower observer like Stephenson. A large explosion (which he and others saw and watched for "several seconds") meant they would have most definitely seen a "large commercial aircraft" (Robert's description) at "fifty feet or less than a hundred feet" toodling its way across a multi-thousand car parking lot ("a large commercial aircraft" flying across a mulit-thousand car parking lot at 50 to 100 feet and nobody sees it - uh-huh).

He can't see south parking or a low flying aircraft over south parking. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence, Pinch.

Stop making things up, Pinch.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Why don't you confront the NoC witnesses and tell them they are wrong? Tell them you saw the smoke plume from Crystal Park 3 and they are wrong.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

For the record....



After watching The PentaCon Sgt Lagasse refused to admit to us that the north side approach is irreconcilable with an impact.

But he also refused to back off his north side claim.

Here is how he replied when we asked him if he now realized how his account contradicts the ASCE and 9/11 Commission reports:

"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station."

-Sgt William Lagasse

Confront him Pinch. Set him straight with your groundbreaking analysis/conclusions on him seeing the plane on the north side.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by pinch
but those with whom he flew see him as he is... a fool and an idiot.

"...those with whom he flew.." ????

your quote is the appropriate reply here...

LAUGHING my freaking HEAD off!

Exactly...

Tell us "Pinch", who exactly on that thread "flew with" Kolstad. It appears they're still trying to figure out who he is!

Mod edit: Removed name calling

Mod edit: Removed insult

Regards,
Rob

(PS, My "off topic" post that was removed was a reply to Reheats challenge on the Sopwith/F-22 engagement. Not sure why mine was off topic when replying to a seemingly also off topic post which stayed. It appears Reheat and Pinch read and replied to it, but those also stayed. Still havent heard from Reheat via email though to hammer out the details... not surprised...)

typo

[edit on 8-10-2008 by johndoex]

Mod Note: I should have removed this post as well, but then you would probably wonder why, so I left notes and removed the offending lines instead so that you might learn something.

[edit on 10/8/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by pinch
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.

Quote directly where i "claim" the above or admit you lied and retract.


Geeeze...

Well at least you people are consistent with your unsourced claims and strawmen... where does it end? Better yet, keep it up, it helps expose your weak tactics.


typo

[edit on 8-10-2008 by johndoex]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
No I have never been to the floor of Crystal Park 3.

No, but, I've been outside the building on suspended scaffolding.

Just not on 9/11.

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by pinch
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.

Quote directly where i "claim" the above or admit you lied and retract.

From your post on your site on Oct 3 2008, 12:43 AM in the "Faa 2008 Replay" thread:

One thing that really stands out when i first saw this video a few days ago (briefly) was that it has radar returns well past the pentagon for "LOOK", meaning east of the pentagon, even east of the potomac.

How can "LOOK" (presumably AA77) be generating radar returns east of the pentagon when it allegedly impacted the pentagon according to the govt story?

For those who would like reference...

You can clearly see P-56 reference/outline in UT's video above and that "LOOK" generates radar returns almost to the east side of P-56.

See P-56 here and notice the east end of the outline. Well east of the Potomac... and.. .drum roll... pentagon...

Preston even says, same thread (qualifying the description of "minions"):

They are past the Potomac anyway and are not supposed to be.

Since you and your league of extraordinary pals claim AA77 (or "The Aircraft") didn't hit the Pentagon, it must have flown on past the building. Where did it go, though? As absurd as it is, we'll accept for discussion's sake Robert's claim of this aircraft at 50 to 100 feet above a multi-thousand car parking lot (even though nobody saw this, even the DCA tower operator who had a beautiful view of the east side of the Pentagon), flying....where?

Returning to the above quoted words, any claim of a flight path "almost to the east side of P-56" (Captain Bob) and "past the Potomac" (Preston) would indicate a belief that, since an aircraft cannot stop in mid-air (unless The Aircraft NOW has vectored thrust), said flight path would have to fly into or transit P-56.

I'm curious how you will twist the above words into something it isn't.

Originally posted by johndoex

Tell us "Pinch", who exactly on that thread "flew with" Kolstad. It appears they're still trying to figure out who he is!

Exactly. It looks like your Big Navy Fighter Jock wasn't all that Big to start off with. Reputation is everything in naval aviation and Kolstad has squandered whatever he had to start with. Further, there is still that huge question of how a reserve aviator could be a Top Gun instructor - Navy Fighter Weapons School instructors were always active-duty officers, something that Kolstad would have an interesting time doing if he followed the career path he has lined out.

Plus, 250 traps is nothing for someone with his supposed "career". Hell...I got 200 on my first cruise. I'd say he had one fleet cruise in Tomcats (VF-211, the record shows). Perhaps he is another Tom Harkin?



I have no doubt Kolstad was indeed a naval aviator, but his claims still smell up the joint.

Hey Pinch, you ever make it to Top Gun? Envy is a sin ya know..

Spoken like someone who has never strapped on a tactical jet.

Actually, no, never went to Top Gun. I was number 2 or 3 in line in my squadron to go. Flew against the Top Gun boys plenty of times, though, at Fallon during air wing dets and with their road show when they came to Oceana. Did you ever make it to Top Gun? or even strap on a navy jet? Didn't think so.

Your touting of Kolstad as some sort of subject matter expert in this G-force calculation thread is absurd and asinine at best

I've just reviewed, with dismay, the last few pages of this thread.

The Mods have come in, as needed, with gentle reminders as to topic.

I would like SOMEONE to definitively prove, beyond any doubt, the premise of this thread title...."G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible"...

What have been offered, seems to be the same ole', same ole'...."I'm a better pilot than you!!! Nyah, Nyah!!!"

To what I've been reading, it's childish.

Now, before I get 'Flamed'....I should point out that I do actually have several thousand hours in both the B757 and B767.

But, irrespective, any airline pilot who operates large jets, or any retired pilot you used to operate large jets in recent years will understand how a jet, even in the hands of a hack pilot with a few hundred hours, could still be flown in to the ground, at a directed point.

We pilots ALL know that you put a target in the spot in the windscreen, in your eyesight....if it drifts down, you're going to over-shoot....and vice-versa.

Come on!! Professional pilots know how to care about limits....250K below 10,000, Flap/Slat extension speeds....gear speeds....they vary whether during retraction or extension, depending on the airplane. There's also the 'extended' speed, something else to consider....as a professional pilot, as pertains to your airplane.

But, these 'Limitations' are not ever close to being exceeded, in Normal Ops. That's why our Procedures are so specific.

BUT, a suicidal maniac would not care!!!

Gear stays up, Max Throttle....just aim and hit the target. No Slats/Flaps needed, since we don't know how to land this thing....just aim and destroy!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, before I get 'Flamed'....I should point out that I do actually have several thousand hours in both the B757 and B767.

Yeah, yeah... we get the idea, Tim. You mention it in every third post that you type. I think by now, WE ALL KNOW about your thousands of hours at the stick. We all miss you when you don't post for a few days in a row.

Gear stays up, Max Throttle....just aim and hit the target. No Slats/Flaps needed, since we don't know how to land this thing....just aim and destroy!!

Ok, fair enough, if we're talking about a top pilot.

To me, the crash seemed a little too 'perfect'. A little too 'precise'.

There was an extremely small margin of error, in that the alleged plane could have scrubbed the grass, overshot the building or only connected with a glancing blow. Instead, it just 'perfectly' hit, as a pinpoint strike...

[edit on 8-10-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza, I only respond to you since I respect every one of your countrymates, down-under.

I will NOT argue this issue with you, unless you can tell me that you have actualy physically been here, in the area, and have seen, with your own eyes, the Pentagon (as I have).

Until you can convince me that you saw, on September 12, 2001, with your own eyes (as I have) the damage to the Pentagon. UNLESS you can tell my why I felt the slight 'tremor' (tembler) as I stood on my second floor of my house....just after 1000 local time....I learned later it was when the upper floors of the Pentagon collapsed....and I lived close enough that I could feel my house shake.....and I didn NOT feel the initial impact, it was the subsequent collapse, and was reported later, in the media....

Please tell me why my testimony is invalid.

Again, I have a great admiration for Australia, but I just think you need to realize that some of us were closer to it that you, on that day.

Originally posted by pinch

Spoken like someone who has never strapped on a tactical jet.

The reason for those instantaneous "swapping ends" 34 G's in the OP premise is that the person who devised that has likely never pulled more than 2 G's in his total experience. *SNIP* Insult removed

*SNIP* More insults removed

Perhaps some people fly like the OP hypothesizes, but I doubt that the jihadist pilot of AA77 was that stupid. He wanted to impact the building and fulfill his commitment to Alla and he did. The evidence is overwhelming that he was successful in spite of those who don't know how to fly attempting to show otherwise with deceptively applied mathematics.

Mod Note: This post should have been removed, but you don't seem to change your posting pattern, so I left notes and removed the offending lines instead so that you might learn something.

[edit on 10/9/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by pinch
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.

Quote directly where i "claim" the above or admit you lied and retract.

From your post on your site on Oct 3 2008, 12:43 AM in the "Faa 2008 Replay" thread:

One thing that really stands out when i first saw this video a few days ago (briefly) was that it has radar returns well past the pentagon for "LOOK", meaning east of the pentagon, even east of the potomac.

How can "LOOK" (presumably AA77) be generating radar returns east of the pentagon when it allegedly impacted the pentagon according to the govt story?

For those who would like reference...

You can clearly see P-56 reference/outline in UT's video above and that "LOOK" generates radar returns almost to the east side of P-56.

See P-56 here and notice the east end of the outline. Well east of the Potomac... and.. .drum roll... pentagon...

Preston even says, same thread (qualifying the description of "minions"):

They are past the Potomac anyway and are not supposed to be.

The above is not "our claim", its what the FAA Radar shows which i looked at "briefly". Nor do we claim AA77 is flying "into" P-56. You lied, inserted words, and twisted it up into a supposed factual claim we made.. its ok, we're used to your strawmans.

Since you and your league of extraordinary pals claim AA77 (or "The Aircraft") didn't hit the Pentagon,

Please quote exactly where Pilots For 9/11 Truth specifically make the claim that AA77 didnt hit the pentagon from pilotsfor911truth.org, or admit you lied again.

Heres a hint:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

03/26/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: [email protected]

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

snip...

Signed: pilotsfor911truth.org...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Everything in the above press release is fact.

Returning to the above quoted words, any claim of a flight path "almost to the east side of P-56" (Captain Bob) and "past the Potomac" (Preston) would indicate a belief that, since an aircraft cannot stop in mid-air (unless The Aircraft NOW has vectored thrust), said flight path would have to fly into or transit P-56.

Your prejudging of MY "belief" is completely wrong. That is of course unless you have ESP? We are on the correct site for such a topic, but in the wrong forum section. Nice try at backpeddling "into" though...

By the way, although i dont really mind as i am a pilot unlike you, changing the name of an ATS member is against the rules (eg. Capt Bob).

1. My name is Rob Balsamo
2. My ATS member name is johndoex

You can call me Capt Rob if you like though... I have an old screename capttrob at other sites.

I'm curious how you will twist the above words into something it isn't.

We already seen your twist which was easily exposed.

Regards,
Rob

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Gear stays up, Max Throttle....just aim and hit the target. No Slats/Flaps needed, since we don't know how to land this thing....just aim and destroy!!

So then why did "Hani" go on a sightseeing tour of the Arlington area opening himself up to intercept within Washington Class Bravo airspace if its so easy to just point and shoot?

See following video and side marker to 31:51 for start of scene
video.google.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I will NOT argue this issue with you, unless you can tell me that you have actualy physically been here, in the area, and have seen, with your own eyes, the Pentagon (as I have).

Please tell me why my testimony is invalid.

Tim, you're a great bloke. We all know that. Most of us respect your opinion. However, we also know that you're an emotional man. At times, you let your emotions cloud your impartial judgement. I like you, so I need to type this.

Here's some questions for you:

Did you see the flight path of the alleged plane? No. Neither did I.
How does that make you more of an expert than me?

Did you see the impact of the alleged plane into the Pentagon? No. Neither did I.
How does that make you more of an expert than me?

Did you hear the explosion or the screaming of the alleged jet engines as the alleged plane raced to its target? No. Neither did I.
How does that make you more of an expert than me?

Ok, so you felt the tremor at 10am, as the Pentagon roof collapsed. Did you initially know what it was? No. You stated so. You only learnt about it after the fact, like me.
How does that make you more of an expert than me?

You saw the damaged hole, with your own eyes, from a distance. Did you see the damage close-up? No. Like me, you saw the damage close-up on TV.
How does that make you more of an expert than me?

The fact that you were close to the Pentagon when it happened, does not make you more of an expert than me, from across the other side of the world. It means that you're more emotionally attached than I am. You went to a funeral for a Flight Officer. I didn't know anyone affected by 9/11.

Yes, you have massive expert experience in a 75/67 plane. Granted. I would also guess that almost all of your experience was under normal flight conditions, with only minimal hours flown under some form of duress. You are an expert and you have an expert opinion about the flight characteristics of the plane.

However, you do not have any expert knowledge about how four alleged hijackers, with limited experience, might react when faced with imminent death. Remember, they were probably subject to aircraft warning sirens and they were certainly under duress on their suicide run. Do you really know what goes through a man's mind as he's about to die? Your opinion of what the hijackers may or not have been able to achieve under stress, is no more valid than mine.

Could they have aimed for such a precise target, without undershooting or overshooting at those speeds? Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly an amazing hit, given that it was their last actions in this life.

Essentially, for some reason, because you were close to the scene, you feel as you have some sort of knoweldge that I (or others) don't possess. Which is in fact, not true. Whatever happened at the Pentagon, you and I both MISSED it. We did not see it. Both of us saw an extensive amount of coverage on TV. Whether you're in the same suburb, or across the world, the TV pictures were the same.

Unless you consider staring at a gaping hole from a distance, which you did and I didn't - I don't see how you feel that my opinions and attempts to find the truth are less valid than your's?

What is your opinion of the first-hand witnesses who SAW the alleged plane fly North of Citgo? You know, the same plane that you DID NOT SEE...

EDIT: Other than feeling a tremor and seeing a gaping hole (after the fact) what does your testimony contribute? Nothing. You tell your personal, emotion story, sure. However, you don't offer any proof that the alleged Flight AA77 struck the Pentagon, as per the official story.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by johndoex

Useless prattle snipped.

I've alerted on these posts, both mine and Captain Bob's. A digital pissing contest that in no way addresses the topic of this thread is detrimental to whatever "discussions" that might, by chance, ensue (as rare as that happens).

I might start up a separate thread that discusses "qualifications" of these people.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by pinch]