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.

 

North side approach? vs South side damage?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
What is going on here? How can there be two totally different witness/evidence reports for the same event?

North side approach:
Here we have the multiple witnesses(for me the specific reports of the police officers)but none the less the other wits who were at citgo and report the flight path and the plane basically diving into the pentagon. Here we also have the FAA released video vindicating these wits. I also have a special edition life mag that was produced for 9/11 right after the attacks that shows this flight path as well(as far as the banking turn and then dive into the side of the pentagon on more of a direct impact point, from the graphic it is not possible to see if it was the north side approach, that is north of citgo but no less matches almost identically the faa video depiction.
(A basic summary)

South side damage:
Here we have the downed light poles(5) total. You have the generator damage which even to the naked eye appears to be caused by the rt engine. You have the actual damage to the building which shows that a plane entered at a sharp angle almost level (if not perfectly level) to the first floor actually punching a hole out on the cring that was perfectly level to the road.
(A basic summary)

Why the lack of actual video evidence of this event?
I worked on the same road that dulles is on, I lived about ten miles from the pentagon. Lived in the dc area from 99 to 05. There are video cameras just about everywhere, tourists are everywhere with there cameras, NEWS trucks with there camera crews covering stories local and national. More importantly tons of military, and I mean tons flying in and out of all the surrounding airports and bases. Not to mention that for people who might not know, DC and the buildings down there are really set up like fortresses. Security guards are visible and not so visible, one thing in common is that they all use video surveillance to accomplish this as does the pentagon. You can walk too close to one of these buildings out there and instantly be questioned or told to leave. How is it possible that the only actual video of the event which doesnt show us what happened because it took a picture every second or whatever it was. Either way all you can really see is that something came in exactly level that appears to have a large tail and was trailing a rather large white smoke plume(which no one seems to report) but is highly visible in the video. Why is this? Knowing the area like I did I expected to see multiple videos at the very least there would be one "naudet style" video out there. When this didnt show up right after the attacks I must admit I found it quite strange to say the very least. Then when the pentagon footage was released it was even stranger how could they (the pentagon)not have a perfect view of it with there multiple cameras around the building. Not to mention that the plane came exactly at the heliport, surely this was filmed in case of a accident, but security of the heliport none the less.

The light poles?
I can not see how IF: This plane was moving at 500 some mph or lets say similar to 11 and 175. How could these light poles bounce off the plane? Especially, not leaving any plane wreckage in any of the photos taken on scene that day? None? Wouldnt/Shouldnt of these LP's cut right through whatever part of the plane it hit, at least leaving a massive gouge. (I wonder sometimes if the white smoke was possibly put in the video to attempt to reconcile the LP damage?) Shouldnt there of been a massive deflagration of the plane already in process if a plane hat hit 5 LP's going 500 mph as it flew into the pentagon?

Summary: There are alot of things that only seemed to happen to f77. One of these being that there are witnesses(multi),officers no less, who all swear that f77 came north of the citgo but of course physical damage tells us otherwise. How can this be? How is it possible that the LP's didnt cause more damage? Hopefully soon we will know?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by baffledon911]




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by baffledon911

The light poles?
I can not see how IF: This plane was moving at 500 some mph or lets say similar to 11 and 175. How could these light poles bounce off the plane? Especially, not leaving any plane wreckage in any of the photos taken on scene that day? None? Wouldnt/Shouldnt of these LP's cut right through whatever part of the plane it hit, at least leaving a massive gauge.


I'm not certain what universe you live in where a 100 ton aircraft flying at 500 knots is expected to be taken down or have a huge "gauge" ("gouge", I think is what you meant) in it by a lamp post that is designed to break off when a 2000 lb car hits it at 30 mph, but I hope the weather is nice there.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by baffledon911


North side approach:
Here we have the multiple witnesses(for me the specific reports of the police officers)but none the less the other wits who were at citgo and report the flight path and the plane basically diving into the pentagon.


1. Robert Turcios saw it "pull up".


2. Maria De La Cerda thought it hit "on top".

3. Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it banking around and flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion.


There is only one thing for a plane on the north side approach to do.

All of these people could not be so drastically wrong in the exact same way.

13 north side witnesses = proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is where the plane flew.







posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Let me throw these in for good measure.






posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Enjoy these. comment or question. Hope you like. Nice thread OP.
Peace









posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It was awfully nice of you to post photos for the OP of all of those who said the aircraft impacted the building! I'm sure once he know that he'll thank you for a job well done of finding impact witnesses.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
I'm not certain what universe you live in where a 100 ton aircraft flying at 500 knots is expected to be taken down or have a huge "gauge" ("gouge", I think is what you meant) in it by a lamp post that is designed to break off when a 2000 lb car hits it at 30 mph, but I hope the weather is nice there.

Pseudoscience? You do realize that a plane flying 500 miles per hour is going to strike the light poles with more force than a car travelling 30mph, correct? Do you also realize the transfer of momentum from the moving object to the light pole will not stop at, but continue past, the breaking point of the base and accelerate the light pole to near the speed the plane was travelling? In what fantasy world do you live where Newton's 3rd law of momentum doesn't apply(you know, the one that makes sure that the light pole hits the plane's wings with as much force as the wings hit the pole)? Why is there no damage to lawn consistant with being hit from a pole that was transfered momentum from that 100 ton aircraft moving 500mph?
These are some of the questions you must seriously think about when entertaining the idea that the light poles were downed from AA77.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by pinch
I'm not certain what universe you live in where a 100 ton aircraft flying at 500 knots is expected to be taken down or have a huge "gauge" ("gouge", I think is what you meant) in it by a lamp post that is designed to break off when a 2000 lb car hits it at 30 mph, but I hope the weather is nice there.

Pseudoscience? You do realize that a plane flying 500 miles per hour is going to strike the light poles with more force than a car travelling 30mph, correct? Do you also realize the transfer of momentum from the moving object to the light pole will not stop at, but continue past, the breaking point of the base and accelerate the light pole to near the speed the plane was travelling? In what fantasy world do you live where Newton's 3rd law of momentum doesn't apply(you know, the one that makes sure that the light pole hits the plane's wings with as much force as the wings hit the pole)? Why is there no damage to lawn consistant with being hit from a pole that was transfered momentum from that 100 ton aircraft moving 500mph?
These are some of the questions you must seriously think about when entertaining the idea that the light poles were downed from AA77.


Not to belabor a point, but I was addressing the original author's claim that the lamp poles would cause severe damage to the wings of the aircraft, an absurd claim when the relative masses of the two traveling bodies(aircraft/automobile) are examined in light of what the lamp pole is designed to do when hit by an object. Ypou choose to change the topic of what I was addressing - so be it.

Transference of speed from the aircraft to the light poles is something that will definitely happen, no doubt, but what the actual physics of the event are and what exactly happened to the poles is an action that is as random as the throw of a die. If you'd like to model the event with an appropriate model or simulation (i.e. not the cartoon that Captain Bob drew up) to determine the various possibilities of action and post the data that you gather from the model, please feel free and I'd be glad to examine it.

Till then, physical evidence/damage trumps whatever personal opinion you have of what went on.

Regarding "damage to the lawn", I wasn't aware that high-def images of the lawn and road-side areas around the pole locations were available that showed unequivocally. Can you provide me those images so I can determine for myself there was "no damage to lawn consistent with being hit from a pole"?

Your opinion that there was no damage to the lawn, I'm sorry to say, doesn't carry any weight with me.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 



Yes Mr Pinch I am currently stationed in your solar system, planet Earth to be precise. I am fully aware of the papers or articles written about the performance of the light poles and what they are built to do. Yet as another poster mentions we still have the problem of newtons laws. But even common sense should tell us that there would be major damage to a thinly aluminum shell that is pressurized and moving at 500 mph. The pentagon video shows us that there appears to be a large smoke plume trailing the plane(similar to a rocket in appearance). It would seem to me though for the damage to be much greater, especially, if it can be shown that it hit the wings..wouldnt of this surely punctured the wing tank there by creating much more visible fire?

There are many pictures and or video on the internet of things called birds(from our universe) that seem to create major damage when struck in the air. Lets say we entertain the thought of the planes right engine swallowing up one of the lights on one of these poles(as we are told this is what caused the white smoke from the right engine). Wouldnt of this instantly started a fire to erupt out the back of the engine. There is a video on the net of a jumbo shown doing this on take off where if I remember correctly this is what instantly happens.

Either way, I agree that it would not of instantly brought down the plane before it hit the building, but, for there not to be at least parts of this plane laying around where the plane struck these LP's seems to defy logic.

BTW, thank you for the correction I seemed of to missed that spelling.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Pinch you could very well be correct I have no degrees in physics but yes I have looked at the pictures of supposed damage done to the LP's and they appear to have bent in most cases while also braking off at the bottom. Either way how could this leave so little if any of the plane left behind. What caused the white smoke plume? If a jet engine took in a large peice of metal ie the top of the LP wouldnt this instantly cause a fire in that engine? A large visible one.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by baffledon911
reply to post by pinch
 


Pinch you could very well be correct I have no degrees in physics but yes I have looked at the pictures of supposed damage done to the LP's and they appear to have bent in most cases while also braking off at the bottom. Either way how could this leave so little if any of the plane left behind. What caused the white smoke plume? If a jet engine took in a large peice of metal ie the top of the LP wouldnt this instantly cause a fire in that engine? A large visible one.


Apparently, you have no knowledge of how wings/fuel tanks are constructed. The leading edge of the wings is composed of large wrap around panels riveted into much stronger spars. The fuel tanks inside the wing are somewhat protected and a relatively light weight light pole WOULD cause damage to the wing, but not necessarily enough to also rupture a fuel tank or ripoff a panel.

There was, in fact, a fiberglass portion of a wing which landed inside a lady's car. It entered through her sun roof and landed on her passengers side seat. I'm not going to search for that photo, but if you want to pursue this issue it is somewhere on the 'net.

A substantial foreign object entering a jet engine will definitely cause damage to that engine. An actual fire is neither assured nor would it necessarily occur instantly. It was only a matter of a couple of seconds from the light poles to impact and there is no way to determine how much damage might have occurred. FDR data for that portion of the flight is missing, so it is and will remain an unknown.

You are simply engaging in endless speculation by concentrating on this issue anyway. AA77 struck the Pentagon and many people died there. Engaging in trivial minuteau is not going to change that.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


Craig,
Here is your opportunity to tell us how all of those people probably several hundred based on those photos are what being paid off to claim they removed body parts, plane debris, collected DNA, ETC.
How about all that damage was that caused by the explosives that you claim civilian contractors planted?
Does Disneyland have a Delusion Land?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by TheBobert]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


I think of Newton were alive today he would request that you not pervert his work.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
The fuel tanks inside the wing are somewhat protected and a relatively light weight light pole WOULD cause damage to the wing, but not necessarily enough to also rupture a fuel tank or ripoff a panel.


But i have shown a report that a wing section was ripped off a plane by hitting a light pole.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


the light pole it hit....was it the same breakaway lightpole like the ones at the Pentagon? Or was it the heavy reinforced lightpole at the car lot at the site of that one aircrash?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
the light pole it hit....was it the same breakaway lightpole like the ones at the Pentagon? Or was it the heavy reinforced lightpole at the car lot at the site of that one aircrash?


It doesn't really matter. Hitting a light pole at high speed (if its a breakaway or not) would still cause damage to the wings.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Apparently, we all know you do not wish to discuss these issues Reheat. Amazingly, you show up on every single one ready to chime in with your debunking comments and personal attacks. Upon reading your "Noc page" I noticed you are a fighter pilot, what exactly are you doing here then? I can only imagine that any discussion of non official speculation on your part would be hazardous to your job or pension. You may not realize it but most of the debunkers look just as crazy as the so called truthers.

There are major questions regarding f77 this post was mainly regarding the wits (particularly the police officers) who all claim the plane came from one direction when OBVIOUSLY the physical damage shows it coming from the other. This is just one thing regarding f77, you could also answer (with your military background) how f77 managed to infiltrate the pentagons airspace without one of you pilots getting there to stop f77 considering it was mia for around 40mins after faa knew we were under a serious attack?? Or how he managed to fly for those forty mins and into some of the busiest air traffic in the country without coming close enough to set off any warnings to any of the other thousands of planes in his immediate airspace??

No, Ill predict youll comeback with more attacks and slander or just out right ignore everything except which you can cast doubt on. Please dont waste my time on my thread. I would hope to get qualified information from you though seeing as you seem to possess some vital insight being a fighter pilot that is. If not though why dont you press ignore on me, save us both some time.

Remember, positive speculation is a good thing.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by baffledon911]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by baffledon911
 


What's going on indeed

With north side witnesses versus south side witnesses in particular and witnesses to the impact also. The damage path through the building is aligned with the FDR bearing (~60 degrees referenced to true north) as are the damaged light poles which is the 'south side' flight path and physical damage is somewhat more tangible & absolute than human memories. The suggestion of the light poles being planted on Washington Blvd on a weekday morning totally un-noticed is too far outside the envelope of reality to warrant any consideration at all. The generator was too close to the building to be absolutely certain of direction plus it was actually moved by the impact.

Perhaps I need to do a little digging to work out when the first NOC witness(es) were actually positively ID'd as such and by whom (IE how long after the event).



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBobert
 


Your one line post did nothing to address the claims. This post, like the vast majority of your posts, have no substance. Why don't you prove why my claims are wrong and you might change my mind.
Tell me, how the same force was not applied to the wings in each collision as the force that was applied to them by the wings?
What law of physics allows for there to be no transfer of momentum from the plane to the light poles so that they will not be accelerated by the collision?
I do not personally believe that we need high definition photos of the poles to see that there is no damage to the lawn by any of the poles as suggested by an earlier poster. If you folks need hi res photos to believe there is no damage, then perhaps it is your duty to request your government make these things available to the public(while you're at it, perhaps you could convince them to release all the security tapes and civilian tapes they may have confiscated of the attack).

[edit on 20-9-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by baffledon911
 


Now I understand that you are a Conspiracy Theorists and are "just asking questions" known as JAQing. Pardon me for giving you a good answer to what seemed to be your greatest concern. The least you could have done is thank me for taking the time to address your concerns about light pole damage to AA77. Yet, you castigate me for what you believe are personal attacks obviously seen in other threads directed toward FRAUDS and CHARLATANS. Did you not also notice that I am being personally attacked, as well? Even by you in the post I am addressing.

Then after you've read my paper on why the North of Citgo crap is wrong, you change to another major concern regarding why two Security Policemen said the aircraft flew a different flight path than what the physical evidence shows. I specifically addressed that in my paper, but apparently it went completely over you head. Not only that, but then you proceed in a thinly disguised accusation that I can not discuss speculation because I WAS a USAF Fighter Pilot at one time in my career.

Then you set up a hostile environment on why NORAD did not "shoot down" the hijacked aircraft by distorting the fact that even tho' most everyone knew there was an attack the FAA DID NOT KNOW THE LOCATION OR INTENT OF AA77 for those approximately 40 minutes you quote. Furthermore, they never told NORAD or anyone else in the USAF or military about the aircraft until approximately 2 minutes before it hit the Pentagon.

If you were under the age of 10 or you were born after 2001 there are legitimate reasons for having a few questions about 9/11. But, if not, you are simply JAQing. I now believe it is the latter. Have a nice day!

Mod Note: Please discuss the issue without being disrespectful to other members.

ATS General Discussion Etiquette - PLEASE READ

[edit on 9/20/2008 by Hal9000]




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join