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.

 

Another slant on G Force

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
No, the initial hole was not much bigger than 16 feet.

posted by pinch
Ya got any proof of that? Or is this just your aeronautical intellect shining through?

Alleged fuselage impact hole between the 1st and 2nd story floor slabs


What does that look like to you between the windows Paisley? Thirty or forty feet? Danged hypocrites. When are you going to stop not giving a damn about justice for the 9-11 victims, many of whom were apparently some of your fellow military members? As a veteran, I can never stop caring and will never stop searching for 9-11 justice. I never gave up justice for Ruby Ridge nor Waco nor Oklahoma City, nor will I ever give up justice for the abandoned POWs and MIAs of Nam.

Original external image





posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
How did the official Flight 77 complete the dive from its FDR flight path to the hypothetical Mackey 4G manuever at 535 mph? None of this is indicated by the FDR. Nobody saw it.

And apparently according to Ryan Mackey's scale, each story of the Pentagon was 100 feet. No. Each story was about 12-13 ft and the aircraft allegedly fit inside that 12-13 ft clearance area beneath the 2nd story floor slab and entered through a tiny 16 ft wide hole.


posted by Pilgrum
True - the FDR didn't record that maneuver. It also didn't record the far more severe banking maneuver you're trying to push here. I checked the numbers and for the approx horizontal turn radius of 550m at 463 knots I get a vector for G in excess of 10G requiring a bank of about 85 degrees at least. Even if the speed was lowered to the 'barber pole' at about 340 knots the figures are still about 6G and 80 degrees bank. Both highly unlikely to have happened in a commercial passenger aircraft.

For the pilots out there - how much altitude would you expect to lose in 3 seconds or so in such an extreme bank?
I doubt the plane would make it to the building from the altitudes described by witnesses, let alone achieve a fly-over.

Where do you get a speed of 463 knots or even 340 knots? The nonsense from the official flight path fairy tale does not apply over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo. Your fantasy requires that the five light poles be struck at 535 mph and gently laid on the ground. Your official Hani Hanjour cartoon requires a specific flight path angle into the Pentagon 1st story which is not possible from north of the Citgo. A Wile E. Coyote cartoon impact is not required by the NOC.

For the realists out there; it happened. The NOC was witnessed by real live eyewitnesses and the naysayers are trapped in their denial. The decoy aircraft has been proven over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo and the FAA apparently now agrees. When are you guys finally going to open your eyes?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Just pointing out the painfully obvious fact that if the 'official' flight path maneuver is beyond the survivable limits of the aircraft, your theorised alternative maneuver is even less survivable and bordering on miraculous if it happened that way.

Have you been able to convince Sean Boger that the plane actually missed the building?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

What does that look like to you between the windows Paisley? Thirty or forty feet?


I see...so it IS your aeronautical intellect coming out. That photo you referenced is one showing the hole on the second floor. The first floor hole spans a much, much greater distance and is much wider, which is where all the the fuselage, wing roots area and the inner parts of the wing (which are the strongest parts of the aircraft, mind you, to support the weight of the aircraft body and wing flex). Taking a look at that composite photo you dismissed is called for, I believe, for a truer understanding of how silly your call of "sixteen feet" is.

The rest of this post, consisting of mostly sanctimonious "Look how great I am!" crap about supporting MIAs and POWs is off topic. Plus, having a 9/11 conspiracy theorist (Troofer) lecture me on things military and on POWs is the absolute zenith of complete absurdity and farce.


[edit on 13-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Utter nonsense. Are you claiming the ANC eyewitnesses could see that far past the roof of the Naval Annex? They could not. They were down below the Naval Annex. They could just barely see the top of the much taller Sheraton, and you desperately want them to see an aircraft much further away than that? The top of the Sheraton is barely visible even from much further away across Hwy 27.

I checked the figures and the aircraft would occupy approximately 10% of the roof width of the Navy Annex at that point, this is easily visible and of course it was approaching rapidly. I don't see that these people would have been unable to see it, I know that I can see a plane in normal weather at significantly higher range and my eyesight is quite bad.


Sean Boger spotted the aircraft over the roof of the Navy Annex coming directly at him. If the aircraft was coming directly at him from the VDOT antenna on the left side of the photo, it would have completely missed the light poles and the official impact hole. Boger placed the aircraft to the right of the Citgo as did the ANC eyewitnesses. If the aircraft was coming straight at him and banked to his left, then how could Boger mistake it for your imaginary aircraft way over on the official flight path and nowhere near the Naval Annex? He verified the accounts of the ANC eyewitnesses.

(Bolding mine)

Sean Boger also explicitly saw the plane impact the building from the best possible viewpoint. As you say, how can he be mistaken?. The answer is of course that eyewitnesses are often mistaken on matters both trivial and extremely important. I don't deny that their corroboration is certainly interesting, but I have already explained how I feel that the physical, DNA and eyewitness impact evidence is much stronger than essentially 3 corroborating accounts and a huge amount of speculation.


That also is utter nonsense. You do not know the capabilities of the aircraft You do not know the possible modifications to the aircraft.

The capabilities or modifications to the aircraft are irrelevant, no plan could ever hinge on the requirement to execute an extremely tight turn with minimal bank for no apparent reason. The theory is on its face ludicrous, and even if it were not, the bank angle is not aircraft dependant, it is a simple requirement of physics. A banked aircraft's lift vector can be separated into a horizontal and vertical component. If the vertical component is set to the aircraft's weight (so it does not descend) the resulting horizontal component turns the aircraft. From this we can calculate the angle of bank required to give these values.


You do not even know the speed of the aircraft.

I took an incredibly low speed for the aircraft, potentially below takeoff speed, because the curve you drew is absolutely extreme.


Unless you are claiming the eyewitnesses are all lying, they saw it happen above their heads and therefore it happened.

I think they are mistaken, not lying. To lie, they would have to know they are wrong, I don't believe they do.


It is rather sickening watching you wallow through your desperate denial. What do you have against justice for the innocent victims of 9-11?

This is a terrible Appeal to Emotion fallacy. I have nothing against justice for victims of 9-11 but as I don't believe the US Administration was directly responsible, what do you expect me to do?


No, the initial hole was not much bigger than 16 feet.

How can you say this when presented with a clear picture showing this? This is a composite of many pictures, but the extent of damage on both sides was photographed early on. Can you not see where the damage in your picture is located in this composite? Your picture shows only damage between the first and second floor, which was a result of the upper fuselage. The lower fuselage and wings/engines impacted the ground floor and this is clearly shown in the image I posted.

I encourage you to respond, but I would try and pressure you to provide actual evidence. For example, when you claim that eyewitnesses could not possibly have seen the plane on the south path, please provide the evidence for it. It took me only a few minutes to find John Farmer's Google Earth file and confirm it against his latest analysis, from there it was trivial to make the shots you see above. You could have done the same, or at least indicated a method of testing your claims. We need to discuss facts rather than our own personal feelings.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

posted by Pilgrum
Have you been able to convince Sean Boger that the plane actually missed the building?

Sean Boger will have to look at the evidence and decide for himself, won't he? When Boger sees that the aircraft coming straight at him from over the Naval Annex and NOC and banking to the right could not possibly get anywhere near the light poles it was alleged to knock down, he will have to make a decision won't he?

When Boger sees that the aircraft coming straight at him from over the Naval Annex and NOC and banking to the right could not possibly create the damage path through the Pentagon it was alleged to, he will have to make a decision won't he?

When Boger sees that the aircraft coming straight at him from over the Naval Annex and NOC and banking to the right would have created a much different damage path through the Pentagon which was never there, he will have to make a decision won't he?



Perhaps Sean Boger has already made that decision, but is under orders to keep his big mouth shut or else.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
When Boger sees that the aircraft coming straight at him from over the Naval Annex and NOC and banking to the right could not possibly create the damage path through the Pentagon it was alleged to, he will have to make a decision won't he?

He will have to make a decision yes. Whether he was incorrect about the side of the Citgo, or whether somehow, despite only being a couple of hundred feet from the impact point, he mistook a plane flying over the building, for one impacting. I think it's quite unlikely h e will believe himself to be somehow deceived.


Perhaps Sean Boger has already made that decision, but is under orders to keep his big mouth shut or else.

One cannot legally order this as every serviceman of any type must disregard illegal orders. Of course I know you're only speculating and doing so wildly, but it would be nice if you had evidence before accusing people of complicity.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
When Boger sees that the aircraft coming straight at him from over the Naval Annex and NOC and banking to the right could not possibly create the damage path through the Pentagon it was alleged to, he will have to make a decision won't he?


posted by exponent
He will have to make a decision yes. Whether he was incorrect about the side of the Citgo, or whether somehow, despite only being a couple of hundred feet from the impact point, he mistook a plane flying over the building, for one impacting. I think it's quite unlikely h e will believe himself to be somehow deceived.

The aircraft Boger witnessed had to be above those light poles in the foreground


Seeing that not one single light pole, between the Pentagon wall and the aircraft Sean Boger personally witnessed coming straight at him from over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo, was knocked down, any person with an open-mind might wonder how the aircraft could possibly impact the 1st floor at the official speed of 535 mph. Of course I do realize that the concept of open-mindedness does not apply to fanatical faith-based defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Poles #27, 26, 24, 25, 23, 22, 20, 21, 6, 7 were still standing and
there was no possible way the aircraft could knock down the staged
poles #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 from the flight path ONA and NOC
Actual locations of Pentagon light poles

The light poles were 40 feet tall and perhaps the engines and fuselage could have missed the light poles, but there is no possible way the 124'10" wingspan wings could have missed the light poles unless they were more than 40 feet off the ground. Of course the banking aircraft would have needed to level the wings in order to get low enough to the ground to hit the 1st story and under the 2nd story floor slab. At the official speed of 535 mph (781 feet per second), how did the aircraft Boger was watching, jink down to 1st story level in that short distance after the light poles, and in less than one second timespan?

Furthermore, the aircraft needed to be level with the ground in order to avoid damaging the foundation, because the alleged impact area foundation was not damaged. Therefore the aircraft Sean Boger was watching had to either impact at about the 3rd or 4th story, or flyover the roof. Have you any evidence exponent of an aircraft impact at the 3rd or 4th floor? And why were light poles #1-5 staged if an aircraft actually impacted the Pentagon?


Sean Boger
Sean describes the plane as approaching from "in front of the Navy Annex" and that it was "tilted" or coming in "on an angle" or a bank.

He said he could see the gas station and without hesitation said the plane was on his right side of the station:

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station...it would be on my right hand side."

He says he did not see it hit any light poles but strangely he thought it hit a highway sign.

In further description of the bank he says:

"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like...not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle."

Like Levi and the CITGO witnesses, Sean also believes the plane hit the building while his placement of it proves that it could not have.

Even though they both believe in the impact, it can not be denied that they both definitively corroborate the north side claim so this continues to demonstrate how effective the deception really was. If they weren't deceived they would likely have never talked to us in the first place.
www.thepentacon.com...



[edit on 10/14/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Have you any evidence exponent of an aircraft impact at the 3rd or 4th floor?

Of course I don't SPreston, you have simply invented a scenario here which is not supported by anyone. Why would you expect someone to have evidence of it?


And why were light poles #1-5 staged if an aircraft actually impacted the Pentagon?

The evidence for light poles being staged is that the plane was not on the correct path, if the aircraft was on the correct path (and Sean Boger was mistaken about its approach angle) then all evidence lines up just fine. Light poles were struck by the plane in its descent to ground level.

You're also not responding to my posts above which I would appreciate.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

posted by exponent
You're also not responding to my posts above which I would appreciate.

I already replied to your google earth nonsense. The Naval Annex is not a little flat pancake on the ground. The Arlington Cemetary eyewitnesses could not possibly see over the Naval Annex roof to that ridiculous position you drew on your map.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
I already replied to your google earth nonsense. The Naval Annex is not a little flat pancake on the ground. The Arlington Cemetary eyewitnesses could not possibly see over the Naval Annex roof to that ridiculous position you drew on your map.


Are you saying the altitude is too low? How about you present some evidence for it? Given the two heights, it is a trivial problem to see the angles involved.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
Have you any evidence exponent of an aircraft impact at the 3rd or 4th floor?

posted by exponent
Of course I don't SPreston, you have simply invented a scenario here which is not supported by anyone. Why would you expect someone to have evidence of it?

Why must you deceive? At least thirteen eyewitnesses place the decoy aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo. This flight path would necessarily invoke this very scenario because the still standing light poles are still in the way. In order to impact the Pentagon wall from north of the Citgo, the decoy aircraft must somehow get over the still standing 40 ft light poles and then somehow get down to ground level in less than a second to fulfill the official level impact into the 1st story. The manuever is impossible.

Existing Light Poles Viewed From Citgo in May 2000

And the damage pattern into the Pentagon through the E D and C Rings would be at a wrong angle. Again impossible.


posted by SPreston
And why were light poles #1-5 staged if an aircraft actually impacted the Pentagon?

posted by exponent
The evidence for light poles being staged is that the plane was not on the correct path, if the aircraft was on the correct path (and Sean Boger was mistaken about its approach angle) then all evidence lines up just fine. Light poles were struck by the plane in its descent to ground level.

You left out the other 12 eyewitnesses who would also have to be mistaken about the over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo flight path. Plus you have the added impossibility that your aircraft could not possibly impact those five 247 lb light poles with those wings and survive, let alone pull up to a level flight inches above the lawn. Those 247 lb light poles impacting the wing tanks at 535 mph likely would have ruptured the wing fuel tanks and there is no sign of spilled jet fuel nor fires on the road nor lawn anywhere.



[edit on 10/14/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
The manuever is impossible.
...
And the damage pattern into the Pentagon through the E D and C Rings would be at a wrong angle. Again impossible.

You are correct, and as a result of this we can say that the two events are mutually incompatible. If the plane impacted The Pentagon, it cannot have passed north of the Citgo.

Do you think Sean Boger is likely to mistake a plane flying over The Pentagon with one impacting?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
Why must you deceive? At least thirteen eyewitnesses place the decoy aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo. This flight path would necessarily invoke this very scenario because the still standing light poles are still in the way. In order to impact the Pentagon wall from north of the Citgo, the decoy aircraft must somehow get over the still standing 40 ft light poles and then somehow get down to ground level in less than a second to fulfill the official level impact into the 1st story.
The manuever is impossible.
...
And the damage pattern into the Pentagon through the E D and C Rings would be at a wrong angle. Again impossible.


posted by exponent
You are correct, and as a result of this we can say that the two events are mutually incompatible. If the plane impacted The Pentagon, it cannot have passed north of the Citgo.

Do you think Sean Boger is likely to mistake a plane flying over The Pentagon with one impacting?

You are incorrect and as a result of this we can say that the two events are mutually incompatible. If the plane passed over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo, it cannot have impacted The Pentagon.

Do you think Sean Boger is likely to mistake a plane flying over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo with one impacting the Pentagon on the 3rd or 4th floors?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Do you think Sean Boger is likely to mistake a plane flying over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo with one impacting the Pentagon on the 3rd or 4th floors?


This doesn't make any sense, nobody is claiming the plane impacted on the 3rd or 4th floors other than you. Please simply answer my question, it shouldn't be too hard should it?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Perhaps Sean Boger has already made that decision, but is under orders to keep his big mouth shut or else.


I believe we can safely disregard that suggestion as he had no problems telling his story to amateur investigators unless, of course, he's been recruited to actively supply a little disinfo here and there to muddy the waters O_o. I don't think he's telling anything other than what he recalls of a traumatic event that lasted a few seconds prior to the impact. A little disorientation under those circumstances is common. He wouldn't have missed something as distinctive as the plane banked at near right angles to the ground - no-one reported observing such an event.

This quote of his:

"It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost at an angle."

Is a good description of the 'official' angle of impact which places the plane impacting with the right engine and nose almost simultaneously. The NOC arcing approach results in the plane arriving at the wall distinctly nose first, almost square to the wall regardless of bank angles or altitude.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join