New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

Originally posted by Reheat
The fact that you say you don't know simply indicates that you wish to remain willfully ignorant.

No, Reheat, it means that I don't know why the E-4B was flying around the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Reheat
That's fine, but don't spew your ignorant implications toward people who have sworn to defend their Country and it's Constitution, not kill or assist in the killing of that Country's innocent citizens.

Why do you take flying leaps of faith to arrive at your illogical and incorrect conclusions? I don't know why the E-4B was flying around that morning. Neither do you.

Originally posted by Reheat
Desperate indeed! Considering the ignorance displayed in this thread there is nothing to be desperate about.

Then why resort to contradicting yourself, Reheat? If you weren't so desperate to reply and feel the need to defend the official story, then you might take more time to proof-read your posts and spot your own contradictions before you hit the reply button.

Reheat, can you explain how the alleged Flight AA77 hit the light poles, when in this thread, BigSarge described the plane appearing to turn?

[edit on 27-6-2009 by tezzajw]

Geesh, oh quit yer flappin Reheat, you just can't stand it cause Craig actually went there (several times, and all the way from California I should add), and dug up REAL evidence that refutes the official story. He's got you locked down, and at this point you're coming up with anything you can, and grasping at straws to please your sponsors. Wahaha. I love it. That you'd even mention the Constitution in some kind of delusional argument is the epitome of hypocrisy in your case.

To the rest of the readership here I should also add that Craig has provided this video for free in at least two visible places that I know of. Some of the accusatory comments on Youtube just totally boggle my mind- saying that he is just doing this for the money, and blah blah blah. BS. On the same token though, isn't it time we support the people that are really doing objective, investigative research like this out of their own time and money? And oh, btw, try to find a donate button anywhere. I can't find it. I'd literally have to email him to try and help. So those people saying that can shove it. It's not true.

Further, I am amazed that ATS has not asked Craig to be an investigative journalist for the new ATSnews.com site. Because if ANYONE around here has proven his ability to research this topic, and not merely just play armchair commentator, it is CRAIG RANKE by God. And please, that by no means sells short the great efforts of the rest of the CIT team, SPreston and many other that contribute here.

The supplemental presentations page is also very important to visit, in establishing the background and supporting information for this new video.

[edit on Sat Jun 27th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by tezzajw


You simply live to troll these threads, don't you.

There were accusations that the E4-B assigned as a NEACAP was flying out of Andrews on 9/11 for a possible nefarious purpose. I stated that it wasn't. There is nothing unusual at all for an E4-B to have launched during the attacks. At least one aircraft stays on alert at all times and one is usually very near Air Force 1.

They fly with a minimum crew of 48 people of all ranks, but there are usually more. To state or imply that one of these aircraft was airborne for some nefarious purpose is a vivid illustration of the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the "twoofer movement".

I'll say it again so you can make sure you get a quote for your archives. The E4-B was not launched and flying around for some nefarious purpose on 9-11. Although I don't know exactly that purpose it was for legitimate reasons. You should have a good copy now for whatever purpose you desire.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Reheat, can you explain how the alleged Flight AA77 hit the light poles, when in this thread, BigSarge described the plane appearing to turn?

You obviously know virtually nothing about flying. You have misquoted the poster "Big Sarge" as is so common among those with an agenda. Big Sarge said:

Originally posted by BigSarge The plane WAS NOT level coming in but did not APPEAR to be banking.

He also said:

Originally posted by BigSarge It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.

A large transport category aircraft that is "dipping" it's wings left and right will not be turning very much if at all. To turn requires that a bank be established and G applied for the aircraft to turn even a degree or two. What he described would be indicative of an inexperienced pilot fighting with the controls. We know from the FDR that there was a definitely "Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO) with pitch control and his roll control was extremely poor on the big turn to lose altitude, so it is reasonable to expect the same with bank control at the higher speed in the final moments.

In essence, the fact that he may have been fighting with roll control has nothing at all to do with hitting the light poles. After all, his objective was not to hit the light poles, but to hit the building and judging by all available legitimate evidence he was successful.


[edit on 27-6-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I see that you have nothing substantial to add to the subject of the thread. Instead you create a strawman of the honorable intentions and the quality of research has been done by those with "irreducible delusions".

I'd pay $$ to see the look on your face when all of these delusion come tumbling down. I dare say that you are going to be ashamed of this period of you life when you really discover how you were duped by fraudulent clowns.

Originally posted by Reheat
You simply live to troll these threads, don't you.

Who made you a member of my fan club?

Originally posted by Reheat
I'll say it again so you can make sure you get a quote for your archives. The E4-B was not launched and flying around for some nefarious purpose on 9-11. Although I don't know exactly that purpose it was for legitimate reasons.

Reheat affirms his contradiction. He doesn't know why the plane was flying around, but he knows that it wasn't doing anything wrong.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by BigSarge It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.

A large transport category aircraft that is "dipping" it's wings left and right will not be turning very much if at all.

Then why did BigSarge state that it may well have been turning? You weren't there to see it, Reheat, so we're both relying on the same words that BigSarge used.

What he described would be indicative of an inexperienced pilot fighting with the controls.

Until BigSarge can be interviewed, on location, to describe what he saw, you're merely guessing what he was describing.

When I read BigSarge stating 'not flying in a direct path', then I wonder how the plane was able to line up the five light poles in a row and knock them all down.

I'd like to see BigSarge identified and interviewed on location. I've made no judgement calls about what he may or may not have seen.

reply to post by Reheat


Yeah? Well let me tell you something Reheat. If we ever do manage to get a new independent investigation with real teeth, and it is proven that the official story is true, I will calmly write Craig an email, and a few others, and politely thank them for being the patriots they are. They saw wrong things and inconsistencies, went extremely out of their way to do something about it, and were proven wrong. Salute, noble effort, but we were wrong, have a nice day. And that will be that.

But until then, I remain steadfast abut pursuing a new investigation. There will be no waste of taxpayer dollars this time around. And I beg to differ with you that I have not contributed anything substantial to this thread. I have posted links to supporting evidence, and ran my own calculations on the likelihood that the flyover witness was telling the truth. And in addition to that have gotten into it with ATS management over this, posted the story at other sites, written to a Senator, and just submitted a story on this to Rawstory. So don't make me feel useless, please. I am doing what I can.

Originally posted by SPreston

This is the first documentary that focuses solely on the Pentagon that is presented in such a way that should wakeup a lot of people after viewing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Click on a question to view the answer. This area is a work in progress. Many more questions will be answered here over time, and a number of the current responses will be expanded. Be sure to hit Control F5 each time you visit this page to refresh it and see any new links that have been added.

1. If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew?

2. Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the building?

3. What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?

4. Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

5. Didn't the government match DNA found in the Pentagon to the passengers of Flight 77? Why isn't this valid evidence proving that it hit the building?

6. Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?

7. How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

8. Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?

Source

Hold on.... I'm a true believer of a 9/11 cover-up, but why does this video say that it's impossible for a plane to have hit the building because of physics and the physical damage photographed, yet they then pull up eyewitness accounts of people seeing a plane headed toward the Pentagon on a different flight path than what the government has stated? If the people saw a plane, then that means a plane should have hit it. That seems to be a contradiction.

Like I said, I am a serious believer in a 9/11 cover-up and support any rational evidence that supports the cover-up that is put out there, but this video contradicted itself in that sense.

[edit on 6/28/0909 by Mookie89]

reply to post by Reheat


Reheat, All that is nice about the E4b but the fact is you can blame your superiors for creating all the hoopla and conspiracy around the E4b supposedly non nefarious flight. Even CNN picked up the story while they were still trying to figure out if it was a e4b and what it was up to(some 5 6 years later).

Only when there were serious questions being raised as to if it was up there watching the attack as it happened did they come out and say it took off 5 mins after the attack. Another one of those lovely 9/11 coincidences. Makes you wonder though, they prepped that big military jet at Andrews and launched it just barely missing the attack but yet they couldn't get one little fighter off the ground to protect DC. BIG FAILURE there. I would think even you can admit it was one giant cluster *!%$.

I mean think about it, according to the OS 20 some odd guys who didn't know anything about the US and all of us. They only came here to do the job, never had done anything like this before. Actually had us, their enemy, train them how to fly. These guys were able to completely thwart and defeat our entire military, the entire system from A to B. According to the OS at least.

I do have a question though you can help me with or anyone who knows can help me with.

I'm watching the OP's video and it appears that f77 never lost a visual of the building. Was this the case? I was always under the impression that before coming to say the Navy Annex that he was hugging the ground close enough that he might not have seen the building till he came to the annex.

Originally posted by Mookie89
Like I said, I am a serious believer in a 9/11 cover-up and support any rational evidence that supports the cover-up that is put out there, but this video contradicted itself in that sense.

Did you watch the entire video? The point is made that the plane flew over the Pentagon and not actually impacted.

posted by Mookie89

Hold on.... I'm a true believer of a 9/11 cover-up, but why does this video say that it's impossible for a plane to have hit the building because of physics and the physical damage photographed, yet they then pull up eyewitness accounts of people seeing a plane headed toward the Pentagon on a different flight path than what the government has stated? If the people saw a plane, then that means a plane should have hit it. That seems to be a contradiction.

Like I said, I am a serious believer in a 9/11 cover-up and support any rational evidence that supports the cover-up that is put out there, but this video contradicted itself in that sense.

Well just think about that for a moment.

There is directional damage along a verified damage path or trajectory according to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY script and according to the actual evidence and photos of the Pentagon.

Alleged official directional impact damage path at the Pentagon
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1d89121b233.jpg[/atsimg]

In these diagrams of the damage patterns, there is an easily proven damage path (constant trajectory) through the Pentagon which is perfectly lined up with the alleged damage path through the light poles, and aligned with the alleged Entrance and Exit Holes of the building.

Alleged official directional impact damage path at the Pentagon
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8861d7576607.jpg[/atsimg]

If the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex as proven by multiple eyewitnesses and now supported by the FAA, then that aircraft could not possibly have created the official damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior in direct alignment between the alleged Entrance Hole and the alleged Exit Hole into A&E Drive. Also that aircraft flying from Over the Naval Annex had ahead of it multiple 40 foot tall light poles and an overhead highway sign which were not laying on the ground. Therefore that aircraft necessarily had to be flying 40+ feet above ground level and high above the 1st floor.

Alleged Exit Hole along official flight path
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4dfae47323a4.jpg[/atsimg]

Evidence proves that there was no damage to the building foundation which would have been caused by an aircraft diving down at a steep angle. The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY script and simple common sense demands that the aircraft be flying low and level with the lawn before striking the 1st floor wall which is why the Pentagon Building Performance Report came to their official conclusion.

Alleged Entrance Hole along official flight path aligned with cable spools
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3ae476430d1.jpg[/atsimg]

Also there is not one single piece of evidence that an aircraft hit the Pentagon on the upper floors nor evidence that an aircraft hit the Pentagon in another area nor from a different more northerly trajectory. None.

Level with the ground necessary to miss foundation
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59f7da40185b.gif[/atsimg]

Conclusion: The aircraft which flew Over the Naval Annex could not possibly have hit the Pentagon, and there is no evidence that two commercial aircraft flew low and towards the Pentagon from the West at or near the same time.



[edit on 6/28/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Reheat
The E4-B was not launched and flying around for some nefarious purpose on 9-11. Although I don't know exactly that purpose it was...

You do realize that what you just said is an oxymoron, don't you? You don't know what purpose the E-4B was doing up in the air, but you know it wasn't for nefarious purposes?

Being more honest and truthful, you should say that you don't know that the E-4B wasn't doing anything nefarious because you don't know what it was doing in the air.

You should look at the definition of "denial disorder" in my signature and then go talk to someone about it. Those who have certain disorders don't recognize the signs and it's up to those around them to tell them. You also do seem very angry, unhappy. That's more reasons to go talk to someone.

I did provide several sources as to the "official" reason why 3 of our E-4B's were airborne on 9/11, and that was because they were participating in the multiple wargames/exercises. But since the E-4B is a command and communications platform, it is possible that 9/11 could have been carried out from one of the E-4B's.

reply to post by SPreston

Level with the ground necessary to miss foundation

(refer to image from SPreston's post)

That graphic from your post won't copy/paste, but look at it! Again, you are using innuendo, guesswork, allegations and downright flawed graphics to attempt to justify your delusions!

That diagram shows a yellow line, below the outline of the B757, and it is labeled "bottom of center fuel tank", or some such nonsense.

That would have the fuel tank hangin' out in the breeze!!! So, the rest of the graphic lacks credibility. WHY/HOW do you, or anyone else, know that the airplane impacted EXACTLY at the slab between floors? What if it was a foot higher? Two feet? One foot, 11 inches? Two feet, 7 inches?

The ENGINES are underslung, and would still enter the First Floor, and wreak havoc. Support columns being devastated, stuff collapsing all around, it was chaos.

AND, once more....the 'eyewitnesses'. The only way any of them could be absolutely, positively certain that the airplane they saw was DIRECTLY over the Annex buildings if they were AT the Annex building. Judgement of angles and distance? Relative size of the airplane, and therefore its exact ground track?? By unqualified 'observers'? Pretty flimsy to hang your hat on.


EDIT because Preston likes to bring lots of pictures and prose. Well, here's an actual scholarly examination, without the 'influence' of those who have already made up their minds, and pound square pegs into round holes to make their "conclusions" of a "NO PLANE" fit. (I can't get the pictures to work, will have to follow the link):

www.aerospaceweb.org...

According to the accepted story, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by five al Qaeda terrorists as it was traveling from Washington DC to Los Angeles. The aircraft involved in this hijacking was a Boeing Model 757-200 with the Boeing customer code 757-223 and the registration number N644AA. This same aircraft is pictured above in a photo taken at Logan International Airport in Boston on 7 August 2001. The terrorists steered the plane into the west side of the Pentagon killing 59 passengers and crew as well as 125 victims on the ground.

Those who doubt this version of events point to wreckage at the Pentagon as proof that some other kind of aircraft or missile was actually responsible for the attack. Probably the one piece of debris that has prompted the most debate is the following photo of what looks like a rotary disk from the interior of the plane's engine. This disk could be part of a fan, a compressor, or a turbine rotor from inside the engine, but the blades are not present and were presumably knocked off in the impact.


(see link for image)
Rotating engine disk visible at the Pentagon

(see link for image)
Close-up views of the Pentagon engine component

Based on the sizes of the person standing next to the debris and other objects in the photographs that we can use for comparison, it has been estimated that the disk is approximately 25 to 30 inches (63.5 to 76.2 cm) across. Obviously, this piece is far smaller than the maximum engine diameter of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more leading many to draw the conclusion that the item is not from a 757 engine. That conjecture causes conspiracy theorists to believe that a much smaller vehicle must have struck the Pentagon instead.

However, we have already seen that rotating components within a turbofan engine can vary widely in size. In order to determine whether this component could have possibly come from a 757, we need to take a closer look at the engine installed aboard the aircraft registered N644AA. Boeing offered two different engine options to customers of the 757-200. Airlines could choose between the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 family or the Rolls-Royce RB211 series. The particular engine model chosen by American Airlines for its 757 fleet was the RB211-535E4B triple-shaft turbofan manufactured in the United Kingdom. A drawing illustrating the overall size of this engine is pictured below.

(see link for image)
Diagram of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan

Note the relative sizes of the forward portion of this engine compared to the central core. Clearly, the section housing the fan is much wider than the turbojet core that contains the compressor and turbine components. We can get a clearer view of the relative sizes of components within this engine in the following cut-away drawing of the RB211-535.

(see link for image)
Cut-away of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan

Using these images and other diagrams of the RB211-535 engine, we can obtain approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs (without blades attached) are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon.

(There is more, see link)


[edit on 6/28/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
I'll say it again so you can make sure you get a quote for your archives. The E4-B was not launched and flying around for some nefarious purpose on 9-11. Although I don't know exactly that purpose it was for legitimate reasons.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Reheat affirms his contradiction. He doesn't know why the plane was flying around, but he knows that it wasn't doing anything wrong.

There is no contradiction at all. You are just desperately trying to devise one. The illogical thought is that it was doing something nefarious without the slightest bit of evidence. That is strong evidence of ignorance of how the system works, an inherent mistrust of the military and paranoia.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by BigSarge It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.

Originally posted by Reheat
A large transport category aircraft that is "dipping" it's wings left and right will not be turning very much if at all.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Then why did BigSarge state that it may well have been turning? You weren't there to see it, Reheat, so we're both relying on the same words that BigSarge used.

They are the same words only now that I've corrected your misquote. May have been turning is not the same as turning as if I had to tell you that. I'm not at all surprised that you're unhappy with my explanation as it doesn't fit your delusion.

Originally posted by Reheat
What he described would be indicative of an inexperienced pilot fighting with the controls.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Until BigSarge can be interviewed, on location, to describe what he saw, you're merely guessing what he was describing.

You've provided a perfect example of why I normally don't response to disingenuous questions.

Originally posted by tezzajw
When I read BigSarge stating 'not flying in a direct path', then I wonder how the plane was able to line up the five light poles in a row and knock them all down.

If you wonder about it, then it's your problem to explain how they got there, not mine. Since the aircraft obviously impacted the building and you think the light poles are important, you figure it out. Don't bother to explain, I'm not interested.

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'd like to see BigSarge identified and interviewed on location. I've made no judgement calls about what he may or may not have seen.

He said he has been interviewed, just not by frauds who are only interested in his account if it's fits their delusions. I don't blame him a bit if he refuses as he is likely to be the object of a smear campaign on the Internet if he doesn't utter the right words.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


No one is stopping you from doing an investigation. Go ahead, but don't ask me to pay for it.

Anyone with knowledge of the "truth movement" knows that your definition of a proper investigation is one that establishes an "inside jobby job".

Your rationalization of the damage done by the truth movement is pathetic at best, criminal at worst. All it has done is waste a lot of time and diverted attention away from the real culprits of 9/11. If it has done anything it has emboldened terrorists to continue their activities because a small segment of the American population supports them.

And you have the sheer audacity to call that Patriotism! Your delusions know no bounds.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
reply to post by Reheat

 

Reheat, All that is nice about the E4b but the fact is you can blame your superiors for creating all the hoopla and conspiracy around the E4b supposedly non nefarious flight. Even CNN picked up the story while they were still trying to figure out if it was a e4b and what it was up to(some 5 6 years later).

My superiors? I'm retired, so my only superior is my wife!

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Only when there were serious questions being raised as to if it was up there watching the attack as it happened did they come out and say it took off 5 mins after the attack. Another one of those lovely 9/11 coincidences. Makes you wonder though, they prepped that big military jet at Andrews and launched it just barely missing the attack but yet they couldn't get one little fighter off the ground to protect DC. BIG FAILURE there. I would think even you can admit it was one giant cluster *!%$.

Now your delusions kick in. It is customary that NO PRIOR notice of when or what an E4-B does is publicized. That is proper in view of the nature of the aircraft and it's mission. It's correctly known as a National Secret.

That military jet at Andrews that you say was prepped was on alert. That fact that you don't understand why no fighters were over DC is vivid evidence that you don't understand 9/11 at all. Not a clue. I'm not about to waste hours of my time relieving your ignorance. If you want to know why fighters were not over DC, the information is available, but you won't find the information on a "truther" site.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
I mean think about it, according to the OS 20 some odd guys who didn't know anything about the US and all of us.

Wrong. They knew what they needed to know to accomplish their intended suicide mission.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
They only came here to do the job, never had done anything like this before. Actually had us, their enemy, train them how to fly. These guys were able to completely thwart and defeat our entire military, the entire system from A to B. According to the OS at least.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that there was not a colossal intelligence failure. However, the culprits of 9/11 did not defeat our entire military at all. It was primarily a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue, not an Air Defense issue. This again illustrates that you don't understand the 9/11 at all. The military can not protect the US from a several types of attacks, not the least of which is a biological or a small scale nuclear attack . Once you understand that, you'll understand the REAL WORLD, not an imaginary one in which the military forces of the US are equivalent to Superman.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
I'm watching the OP's video and it appears that f77 never lost a visual of the building.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Was this the case? I was always under the impression that before coming to say the Navy Annex that he was hugging the ground close enough that he might not have seen the building till he came to the annex.

I don't know if he could see the building the entire way or not. However, he obviously could see it when he rolled out of the big turn to lose altitude. All he had to do was maintain a heading and considering the light winds he would be pretty close. The FDR shows that he stepped down in altitude as he approached. He probably had studied the terrain to the West of the Pentagon and also knew that if he aimed and the South Corner of the Navy Annex, he would be close. All of this is just educated speculation, but as we know he was successful in whatever techniques he used.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Whatever are you slobbering on about?

Do you have a problem with the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY?

So do we. Surprise surprise surprise. Duh.

It won't work with the evidence will it?

Level with the ground necessary to miss foundation
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59f7da40185b.gif[/atsimg]

Here you can see where the fuel tank bulge hangs below the 757 fuselage. I did not make that drawing above; I just used it as a reference to show the alleged relationship of the official position of the make-believe Flight 77 alleged 757 aircraft with the Pentagon wall and 1st floor area.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/87172c7919cf.jpg[/atsimg]

It was the official Pentagon Building Performance Report page which decided the aircraft was flying level across the lawn with the engines mere inches above the lawn before the alleged impact with the wall, at or below the second floor slab. That drawing represents their conclusion rather well.

Page 14
Two photographs
(figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.

Page 18
The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s. As it approached the Pentagon
site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.

When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building
(0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a
few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aerial
photograph modified graphically to show the approaching aircraft).

The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon
until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that
was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10
second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had
rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had
traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft
struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15). Impact of the
fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second floor
slab.The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and
the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the secondfloor
slab to above the second-floor slab (figure 3.16)

www.fire.nist.gov...

Of course there were several eyewitnesses (Paik and Morin) who testified that the actual aircraft flew over their heads and Over the Naval Annex. There is no possible way they mistakenly misrepresented an aircraft which was supposed to be far to their south and nowhere near the Naval annex. This is what they should have seen to their south and they did not did they?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f823368d000d.jpg[/atsimg]

Therefore it was impossible for the actual aircraft, PROVEN Over the Naval Annex by 20+ actual verified living eyewitnesses (and likely more to come), to have knocked down the five light poles and to have created the actual official damage path through the Pentagon.

Impossible.



[edit on 6/28/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by Reheat

I don't know if he could see the building the entire way or not. However, he obviously could see it when he rolled out of the big turn to lose altitude. All he had to do was maintain a heading and considering the light winds he would be pretty close.

He also could simply have lined up on Columbia Pike (Rte 244)

I know someone who lived in an apartment building on Columbia Pke, 9th floor, who was on his balcony and saw the airplane go by.

reply to post by SPreston


AH, HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Here you can see where the fuel tank bulge hangs below the 757 fuselage.

(Please refer to Preston's image. Go ahead. Preston thinks the MLG Wheel Well fairings are the Center Fuel Tank!!! HA HA HA HA!!!)

You've been punked, kid! Your diagram, with the yellow line, whoever told you those bulges is where the Center Tank is, all of them have taken you for a ride!

I did not make that drawing above; I just used it as a reference to show the alleged relationship of the official position...

Yes...and, I say again, you've been punked! See, this is using ANY information that fits YOUR version of events, and not questioning it (even if it turns out to be wrong). But, real info from people who actually know things? If it doesn't "fit", just throw it out!

Yup...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You spent 10 minutes or so of your life in a failed attempt to shift a "denial disorder" to me as opposed to where it actually belongs.

What I've said is not a oxymoron at all. It is the result of my knowledge of the mission of the NEACP E4-B and my knowledge of the Air Force operational structure and the people.

I spent most of my adult life in the Air Force and have been to War twice with them. You obviously have no knowledge or understanding of how that works. That's perhaps one of the reasons you're a "truther".

I can assure you that if I had a mental disorder I would visit a mental health counselor. I would not send him/her a grainy photo of my head or brain and ask for a diagnosis. That's in contrast to what most "truthers" do in analyzing the events of 9/11.

I live in the "real world", not in some paranoid schizophrenic world where every event, every action of those sworn to defend this Country are called into question without one shred of real evidence.

Your time would be better spent finding some real proof of your delusions rather than trying to shift mental disorders onto those who are onto your sick Internet based game of trying to shift the blame for 9/11 to someone or something other than the true culprits who perpetuated the dastardly acts.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Mookie89

Hold on.... I'm a true believer of a 9/11 cover-up, but why does this video say that it's impossible for a plane to have hit the building because of physics and the physical damage photographed, yet they then pull up eyewitness accounts of people seeing a plane headed toward the Pentagon on a different flight path than what the government has stated? If the people saw a plane, then that means a plane should have hit it. That seems to be a contradiction.

Like I said, I am a serious believer in a 9/11 cover-up and support any rational evidence that supports the cover-up that is put out there, but this video contradicted itself in that sense.

That's a great question Mookie and it was answered by SPreston but also in extreme detail in #2 of the "FAQ's" you quoted from the OP:

Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8404ecb9b18a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d743db3c85ca.jpg[/atsimg]





[edit on 28-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]