Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.

You refuse to answer my question. We know why because, you do not have any proof a plane crashed at the pentagon. Your avoidances is noted.

I'm not making the "flyover" claim. YOU are. And you can't demonstrate it.

All you can do is say that a C-130 can be at two different altitudes at the same time.

Please review this thread in its entirety until you get it:

Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by jthomas]

I believe you were asked what proof there was that a plane hit the pentagon.

You have been asked for 8 years to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The questions you refuse to answer have been on the table. To begin with, you haven't even interviewed any of these people who were there:

Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Your attempts to shift the burden of proof are laughable as they have always been. Now get to work and stop whining.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ec7a001859d.jpg[/atsimg]

There it is, the C-130 smack over the Pentagon just as the "explosion" takes place.

Just like that - magic!

So, it is no wonder that GenRadek and I caught you representing the [b[same event with contradictory claims.

Except that you have not pointed out a single "contradiction".

You are simply taking images out of context while failing to quote what the narration says during the presentation in order to make up your own "contradiction" that doesn't exist.

During the presentation when we show that image, we clearly point out how it is not OUR claim that the C-130 was flying away during the explosion and we expose how this proven false claim is attributed to KEITH WHEELHOUSE.

"...for anyone who may have seen the decoy jet fly away from the Pentagon."

Yes we show a graphic depicting what KEITH WHEELHOUSE described while explaining how this is not what happened and explaining how this acted as a cover for the flyover.

"...for anyone who may have seen the decoy jet fly away from the Pentagon."

Three minutes after the supposed jet flyover. NO decoy jet. NO C-130. You have neither, Craig Ranke, and you have NO eyewitnesses from all around the Pentagon testifying to any aircraft "flying over and away from the Pentagon." Because, as you have known all along, there was no flyover.

That is not a contradiction.

Only in your alternative reality. I've repeatedly demonstrated for three years your complete inability to support your claims.

We showed this graphic in the same presentation also:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df0a981c1355.jpg[/atsimg]

Not because WE believe this is what happened. But because we were depicting the proven false claim that KEITH WHEELHOUSE made.

I know that actually LISTENING to what is being said may be difficult for you but that is what is required for one to be intellectually honest when discussing the claims of another.

You cannot provide any positive evidence of any flyover. You've been called on the carpet for that repeatedly and you refuse to provide the required evidence.

CIT is finished, Craig Ranke. You cannot prove your claim that any aircraft "flew over and away from the Pentagon," as you have claimed all along.

You KNOW that is true, so stop pretending.

I hope for your sake that you DO end up backing out of the NYC conference next week. You will be made to look the fool we know you are.

Haven't been here much, or for a while, but I'll jump in...

You cannot provide any positive evidence of any flyover.

Are you aware of the positive evidence that CIT has already presented for the flyover, namely the very credible north of the citgo gas station witnesses, and the lack of any credible south of the citgo gas station witnesses? Then there's P4T's (Pilots for 9/11 Truth's) point that it's impossible for a plane to have pulled out of the dive required to have approached the pentagon low and level. Plenty of evidence that the light pole damage had to have been staged, from the impossibly lightly damaged windshield of Lloyd England's car, to the impossible testimony that he would have been able to witness the plane making a north of the citgo gas station approach. If memory serves, they even have 2 eye witnesses who saw a plane fly over; the fact that they say it was a second plane only means that the '2nd plane theory' got to them; there's no evidence that more than one plane approached the pentagon at the time of the explosion(s) there.

CIT is finished, Craig Ranke. You cannot prove your claim that any aircraft "flew over and away from the Pentagon," as you have claimed all along.

Contrary to your view, I have found that CIT and P4T have slowly been gaining ground. There are already proofs that unless the laws of physics were broken on 9/11, allowing the plane that approached the pentagon to pull out of an impossible dive, and a nearly industructible taxi cab windshield, the official story just doesn't wash.

reply to post by scott3x

You have things a little backwards. Many more witnesses said impact than flyover. The NOC argument is ridiculous, as physical evidence trumps selected eyewitnesses. If it was impossible for the maneuver to be made from NOC and the plane hit the Pentagon, then the path could not have been NOC.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

You have things a little backwards. Many more witnesses said impact than flyover.

Actually, I never said that any of the witnesses claimed that the plane that allegedly hit the pentagon flew over it. I mentioned there were 2 witnesses who claimed that -a- plane flew over the pentagon, but that atleast 1 of those witnesses bought into the false story that it was a second plane. The idea that there were 2 planes, 1 that hit the pentagon, and another that flew over it, has been proven false, however. This leads to the conclusion that the plane they saw fly over the pentagon was, in fact, the plane that approached the pentagon.

I know that various witnesses believed they saw the plane hit the pentagon. Given all the evidence supporting the fact that the plane couldn't have hit the pentagon, however, this is more plausibly explained by the fact that the explosives set within the pentagon were set off immediately upon the initiation of the flyover, making it appear as if the plane hit it, when in fact it was flying over it, as it's unlikely that most people would have seen much beyond the blindingly bright explosion.

Those who -did- see a plane fly over the pentagon had a point of view that didn't see the explosion; so while they heard it, they didn't see it, and were thus easily able to see the plane fly over the pentagon. If memory serves, both of these witnesses now refuse to comment; if memory serves, atleast 1 of them works for the pentagon and I can easily imagine that they've been told not to speak further on the matter.

Originally posted by pteridine
The NOC argument is ridiculous, as physical evidence trumps selected eyewitnesses.

The NOC argument has both all the credible eyewitnesses -and- physical evidence proofs; the official story was done badly, as many crimes are; the only difference being that the people involved have so many resources to cover up their botched job. One example of those resources at work are the downed light poles. The downed light poles, far from being a solid piece of evidence for the official story, is actually its achilles heal; the damage to Lloyd's windshield is far too minimal to have been done by the 30 foot pole that allegedly speared it.

Ironically, it's those very same downed light poles, as well as the 5 frame video released by the government of the explosion at the pentagon that make the story even less believable; this is because, aside from the fact that the object coming towards the pentagon doesn't seem to be a 757 from what I can see, in order for it to make that approach, it would have had to have pulled out of a dive requiring it to exert 10gs. There's no way a 757 could have been able to do this. It gets even worse when we take a look at the NTSB data from the alleged AA 77 blackbox, which shows the plane at an even higher altitude; it would have required something like 34gs, something that no known aircraft can pull off. The above has been carefully explained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth video, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52.

Originally posted by pteridine
If it was impossible for the maneuver to be made from NOC and the plane hit the Pentagon, then the path could not have been NOC.

Unless the plane didn't hit the pentagon but flew over it instead, which atleast 2 witnesses have claimed.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
Are you aware of the positive evidence that CIT has already presented for the flyove

Distortion and manipulation of information and witnesses by the corporation operating as Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has been found.

You really must read this page:

911review.com...

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

What CIT and many other no-Boeing-impact focused efforts have created is essentially a historical vacuum in which readers and viewers are disconnected from the original larger context of the attack and its aftermath, in favor of the hyped soap opera mystery in which an elderly cab driver's apparent role in the attack is central, rather than officials in Bush Administration who were in charge that day.

Mike

Hmm I see Navy uniforms except one guy is in an Army uniform. Even looking at those pictures I see burning more than explosion. Those bodies were put under tremendous heat that a large amount of burning JP8 would cause. An explosion would be much less burning and a lot more destruction.

I find this a rather big difference that just can not be over looked to make a point, and once again testing for JP8 on those bodies or building would be an easy test. Firemen do it all the time to determine the accelerant in a fire.

My one question for a fly over is why use a C-130? All the deep special ops aircraft that we use are generic civilian style aircraft and so it would be easy to get a 757 or at least a 737 spec ops plane to do it, and it would also make more sense to put it in the hands of those that are trained to do highly classified events.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by scott3x


I know that various witnesses believed they saw the plane hit the pentagon. Given all the evidence supporting the fact that the plane couldn't have hit the pentagon, however, this is more plausibly explained by the fact that the explosives set within the pentagon were set off immediately upon the initiation of the flyover, making it appear as if the plane hit it, when in fact it was flying over it, as it's unlikely that most people would have seen much beyond the blindingly bright explosion.

Unless the plane didn't hit the pentagon but flew over it instead, which atleast 2 witnesses have claimed.

What evidence supports the speculation that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Two witnesses of how many that think they saw a flyover? Witnesses who guessed at a flight path? Planted broken light poles? The evidence says that a plane hit the Pentagon and cherry-picking selected statements from selected witnesses proves nothing.
Look back through the history of the posts on this topic and you will see how the story changed almost daily. One plane, two planes, flyovers, missile strikes, etc. The people who promote these many versions were trying to prove a coverup of some sort and finally settled on the monstrosity that you now see. The flyover theory is completely unsupported by any real evidence. I think CIT is either a disinformation site or a way of determining who the most gullible people on the planet are.
There is no evidence of explosives. All of the support columns were bent inwards, so the explosives and thousands of gallons of fuel had to be on the outside wall, right? Blindingly bright explosion that confused everybody while the invisible plane flew over? It only confused the authors of such a fantasy who are anything but blindingly bright, themselves. They argued their way into this corner and can't do anything now but talk really loud and ignore reality or admit that they were wrong.

Response to pteridine, Part 1

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
I know that various witnesses believed they saw the plane hit the pentagon. Given all the evidence supporting the fact that the plane couldn't have hit the pentagon, however, this is more plausibly explained by the fact that the explosives set within the pentagon were set off immediately upon the initiation of the flyover, making it appear as if the plane hit it, when in fact it was flying over it, as it's unlikely that most people would have seen much beyond the blindingly bright explosion.

Unless the plane didn't hit the pentagon but flew over it instead, which atleast 2 witnesses have claimed.

What evidence supports the speculation that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon?
Two witnesses of how many that think they saw a flyover? Witnesses who guessed at a flight path? Planted broken light poles?

Atleast one witness who unequivocally stated that he saw a plane fly over the pentagon. Witnesses at the Citgo gas station who were absolutely sure that they saw the pentagon fly on the north side of the gas station, instead of the south, before making its final approach to the pentagon, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that certain elements of the official story are simply impossible:
(1) From what I have read, the light pole that allegedly speared Lloyd England's taxi cab simply couldn't have done the damage to the cab.

(2) The plane simply couldn't have pulled out of the dive it would have had to have made in order to both clear the VDOT antenna, hit the light poles and make its final approach to the pentagon low and level as per the 5 frame video of the plane allegedly hitting the pentagon.

Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence says that a plane hit the Pentagon and cherry-picking selected statements from selected witnesses proves nothing.

The only selectivity I have seen here so far is that of those who defend the official story's position. Why did you not address the second part of my last post to you, making it necessary to bring up the same points again?

Originally posted by pteridine
Look back through the history of the posts on this topic and you will see how the story changed almost daily. One plane, two planes, flyovers, missile strikes, etc.

I am already aware that various theories have floated around as to what happened at the pentagon. And I will certainly admit that for a time I too was unsure as to what occurred. However, with time and the (sometimes grudgingly) help with the issues that I got from both P4T and CIT before getting banned from both (just because you agree with someone on something doesn't mean they have to like you in general), I have been able to move on from believing what they say to being able to defend it.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]

Response to pteridine, Part 2 (last part)

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of explosives.

You may wish to take a look at this page from 9/11 Research:
Eyewitness Accounts Suggest the Pentagon Attack Involved Explosive Detonation

Originally posted by pteridine
All of the support columns were bent inwards,

Untrue:

This shows the columns bent OUTWARD. While true, they may be bent to the left, they still seem to bent out.

Admittedly, there is a web page that has argued against the theory that the fact that the columns bent outward necessitates that the damage was instigated from within:
911review.com...

However, there is a lot more evidence to support the theory that the plane didn't crash into the pentagon, as I have already made clear.

Originally posted by pteridine
Blindingly bright explosion that confused everybody

Not the people who didn't see the explosion, but were still in a position to see the plane fly over, as I have already mentioned.

Originally posted by pteridine
while the invisible plane flew over?

I've never claimed that the plane was invisible, only not something that people would see after being blinded by the explosion that occurred just as the plane initiated its flyover.

Originally posted by pteridine
It only confused the authors of such a fantasy who are anything but blindingly bright, themselves.

I think that they are quite bright. I think that some of them have a tendency of shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to explaining things to others, however, and it's something that I've made clear to them. But having difficulty explaining the reasoning for one's points is not the same thing as not knowing what one is talking about. It's only the difference between, say, a scientist who's a teacher and one who isn't. I think that Craig Ranke is fairly good at both explaining things as well as understanding where others are coming from, which, I believe, is how he can manage to write here without coming to the conclusion that it's just a waste of time.

reply to post by scott3x


“At least one witness who unequivocally stated that he saw a plane fly over the pentagon. Witnesses at the Citgo gas station who were absolutely sure that they saw the pentagon fly on the north side of the gas station, instead of the south, before making its final approach to the pentagon, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that certain elements of the official story are simply impossible:
(1) From what I have read, the light pole that allegedly speared Lloyd England's taxi cab simply couldn't have done the damage to the cab.
(2) The plane simply couldn't have pulled out of the dive it would have had to have made in order to both clear the VDOT antenna, hit the light poles and make its final approach to the pentagon low and level as per the 5 frame video of the plane allegedly hitting the pentagon.”
……..1. Who would know what damage the light pole would do? This is pure speculation and without grounds. As an element of a conspiracy, it would be really foolish to include such a thing. Why bother?

…….2. I believe that this explanation assumes that the NOC path is valid. As it did hit the poles and impact, I would say that this physical evidence says that the various eyewitness flight path accounts are incorrect and that the NOC path is not true, that the one whole flyover witness out of the many people who were there that day is hardly something to hang a theory on.


“The only selectivity I have seen here so far is that of those who defend the official story's position. Why did you not address the second part of my last post to you, making it necessary to bring up the same points again?”
……I don’t care about the official story. I care about reason and logic. The official story is a best guess and so far the evidence says it is a reasonable one. The CIT “evidence” is obtained by selecting the desired bits of the interviews and neglecting everything else. This entire fantasy has no basis and the perpetrators of said fantasy force the “evidence” to fit their desired conclusions.

“I am already aware that various theories have floated around as to what happened at the pentagon. And I will certainly admit that for a time I too was unsure as to what occurred. However, with time and the (sometimes grudgingly) help with the issues that I got from both P4T and CIT before getting banned from both (just because you agree with someone on something doesn't mean they have to like you in general), I have been able to move on from believing what they say to being able to defend it.”
….. Why did they ban you from their site? Perhaps you asked a question they didn’t want to answer. They certainly have no tolerance for individual thought or even any kind of thought. You must memorize the ever-morphing official PFT/CIT story and defend it even if it has no substance.

“You may wish to take a look at this page from 9/11 Research:
Eyewitness Accounts Suggest the Pentagon Attack Involved Explosive Detonation”
…….I looked at the page and saw no evidence of anything other than the description of the impact of a high-speed multi-ton projectile loaded with an incendiary. Airliners are better missiles than any non-nuke in the arsenal. Why waste time with explosives when you have the biggest bullet available. This is a fact that the truthers don't understand but that the hijackers did. The “smell of Cordite” is the smell of nitrogen oxides which form in high temperature flames.

“This shows the columns bent OUTWARD. While true, they may be bent to the left, they still seem to bent out.”
……..They are bent to the left because that was the way the airplane was travelling. Seeming to be bent out is “seeming.” To bend them all in the same direction, charges would have to be placed on the opposite sides of each column. All explosives for the inner columns would have to be placed the same way. If you were working in the Pentagon and saw the charges placed against each column, what would you do? Keep working? Then there is the matter of the fuel. Thousands of gallons of fuel would have to be placed on the outside wall and throughout the building. Did you see a tanker truck parked near the impact hole? This theory is really ridiculous. The perpetrators of such crapola have no technical backgrounds in the areas they need to make coherent stories.

“Admittedly, there is a web page that has argued against the theory that the fact that the columns bent outward necessitates that the damage was instigated from within:
911review.com...
However, there is a lot more evidence to support the theory that the plane didn't crash into the pentagon, as I have already made clear.”

……There is no evidence that the plane didn’t crash into the Pentagon. You have pointed out fallacious arguments and edited interviews. Before you were banned, did you ask what happened to the flyover plane or who was in the coffins of the passengers? Did you ask how the complex conspiracy was carried out? These guys tend to theorize without thinking about the details.
The entire NOC, flyover, planted evidence and bodies, CD story is on a par with the holographic planes and death rays from space WTC story. At least those guys don’t ban you for impure conspiracy thoughts.

reply to post by jthomas

What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.

You refuse to answer my question. We know why because, you do not have any proof a plane crashed at the pentagon. Your avoidances is noted.


I'm not making the "flyover" claim. YOU are. And you can't demonstrate it.

All you can do is say that a C-130 can be at two different altitudes at the same time.

Please review this thread in its entirety until you get it:

Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by jthomas]
I believe you were asked what proof there was that a plane hit the pentagon.

You have been asked for 8 years to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The questions you refuse to answer have been on the table. To begin with, you haven't even interviewed any of these people who were there:

You still refuse to answer my question. You have spun this in every way you can to avoid answering my question, why is that jthomas?

Answer the question? You can’t can you!

reply to post by Lillydale


Then I respectfully suggest you get your eyes checked if you cannot see it. You also might want to dump your false belief on the issue.

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by Jezus
It is impossible to know all aspects of the conspiracy.

I find it easier just to stick to the basic contractions and anomalies that prove SOMETHING else happened.

If a car crashed into the pentagon but it didn't look anything like any other car crashes, would you think it was odd that their was no video evidence to prove it?

Personally, i see a big hole in these theories until i see a solid reason for risking the plot by faking the pentagon plane. It's not enough to concede that we can't understand their reasons/tactics.

The extreme lack of evidence for a plane crash out weighs doubt from a lack of motive.

Reply to pteridine, Part 1

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

Who would know what damage the light pole would do?

I admit I don't truly understand the physics involved, but I will present the argument which was presented to me by a member of the CIT forum, RLW, in a thread I had created there:

Let's look at some physics here. Even if the aircraft where moving at 200 ft/sec (which is about half as fast as is claimed) and the wing hit a light pole either one of 3 things can happen (assuming it wasn't a glancing blow, i.e. the wing hit the very tip of the pole..which is not the case if the video above is right).

1, The point of impact of the light pole can be accelerated so that it is also moving at 200ft/sec. Now assuming that it makes a 5 ft gash in the wing (or bend in the pole) that gives it the distance of 5 ft to go from at rest to 200 ft/sec. Now using these two formula s=1/2 a t^2 where s = distance traveled, a= accelration, t = time, and the formula V=a t where V is the velocity and a the (average) acceleration and t the time we can solve them for t where t = 1/20th of a second for the pole to go from being at rest to moving at the pointy of impact at 200 ft/sec. Plugging that into the second equation gives an acceleration of 4000 ft/sec^2 or about 124 g's. To compute the force on would have to compute the moment of inertia of the pole. But rather than do that let me say that it would be huge.

2. The other option is that the wing shears off, i.e. the pole never gets up to 200 ft /sec speed before the wing passes by and thus slices through the entire wing. But that didn't happen.

3. The 3rd option (and most likely) is that the pole would sheer into two pieces. But that didn't happen either.

That leaves 1. So if the pole at the point of impact were moving at 200ft/sec then when it hit the taxi it would still be moving about that same speed (though it would have a huge rolling moment since the base would presumably be moving much slower..but lets ignore that for a "moment"). So then the pole would have to decelerate from 200/ft/sec to at rest (though actual 40 mph since the car was moving the other way..but lets ignore that too for now). And the back seat cusion was the only thing to stop it. And let say it stretched 2.5 ft before bring the pole to a stop. That would mean the pole would go from 200 ft/sec to 0 ft/sec in half the time as before, or 1/40th of a second, and the force would be (on average) 250g's. That must have been some fabric that seat cover was made of!

But never mind that. What became of the rotational movement of the pole? For if one end of the pole is moving at 200 ft/sec (as required since neither the wing nor the pole was sheered) and the other end of the pole was moving much slower (since nothing hit it) that means the pole was tumbling at about 1 revolution per second. So what stopped its tumbling motion? The glass of the windshield? Hardly? So never mind the car swerving to a skidding half at 40 mph. We have to deal with a pole with one of its ends moving at 250 mph or so. I would have thought that would pop off the roof of the car like a can opener (even if the magic seat cushion arrested the forward motion of the pole). For if the pole where tumbling something had to counter that rotatioanl force. And in this case it only seems that it was a broken windshield...though how it would have lined up along the direction of his car travel is another problem.

But the whole notion that that much angular momentum could be imparted to the pole in 1/20 of a second is absurd anyway. The pole would have sheered into two pieces...or the wing..whichever was the weaker. And that suggests the 4th option, that the plane didn't hit the poles but that they were downed by some other means. [/e]

[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]

[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


Ask the poster about the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions. Ask about energy expended in breaking the base of the pole, detaching the lamp, the modulus of elasticity of teh aluminum alloy used in the pole, the aspect angle of the aircraft, the fluid dynamics of the airflow around th eplane and engine, and whether a wing or engine struck the pole. Then ask how high school physics could solve those equations. No one can calculate the trajectories of the light poles. Pretending to calculate energies and trajectories of light poles is just more noise to cover up the unbelievably idiotic flyover theory.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

Originally posted by scott3x
(2) The plane simply couldn't have pulled out of the dive it would have had to have made in order to both clear the VDOT antenna, hit the light poles and make its final approach to the pentagon low and level as per the 5 frame video of the plane allegedly hitting the pentagon.

2. I believe that this explanation assumes that the NOC path is valid.

No, it does not.

You seem like the type who might actually read the following, which I transcribed, from Pilots for 9/11 Truth's video, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, so here goes:

9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52

Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

Remember, the scale of this presentation is 100 feet= 1 cm box. To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.


Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:
781*781 = 609,961
609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared
292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

781*781 = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1,057.3/32 = 33G

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem such as aircraft pulling out of a dive.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

Ask the poster about the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions. Ask about energy expended in breaking the base of the pole, detaching the lamp, the modulus of elasticity of teh aluminum alloy used in the pole, the aspect angle of the aircraft, the fluid dynamics of the airflow around th eplane and engine, and whether a wing or engine struck the pole. Then ask how high school physics could solve those equations. No one can calculate the trajectories of the light poles. Pretending to calculate energies and trajectories of light poles is just more noise to cover up the unbelievably idiotic flyover theory.

I don't agree with your last statement about the flyover theory being idiotic. However, I thank you for bringing up the issues regarding the light pole. I'd love to ask RLW to address the points you bring up. Unfortunately, I've been banned from CIT, so that's not impossible. I will no longer use this argument unless I can get the issues you bring up addressed.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
The only selectivity I have seen here so far is that of those who defend the official story's position.

I don’t care about the official story. I care about reason and logic. The official story is a best guess and so far the evidence says it is a reasonable one.

I strongly disagree.

Originally posted by pteridine
The CIT “evidence” is obtained by selecting the desired bits of the interviews and neglecting everything else.

Again, I strongly disagree. Can you cite an example of them doing what you describe or do you expect me to take your word for it?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
I am already aware that various theories have floated around as to what happened at the pentagon. And I will certainly admit that for a time I too was unsure as to what occurred. However, with time and the (sometimes grudgingly) help with the issues that I got from both P4T and CIT before getting banned from both (just because you agree with someone on something doesn't mean they have to like you in general), I have been able to move on from believing what they say to being able to defend it.

Why did they ban you from their site?

2 sites; both P4T and CIT. The apparent head of P4T apparently did it because he felt that I had "lied". In point of fact, I'd simply made an honest mistake. I explain what I believe was his motivation for banning me in this post, over at Unexplained Mysteries.

As to CIT, they're closely connected; I asked a question or 2 more over there, and then found that I was banned. No explanation was given. For all I know, they never even explained it in the forum; I can't tell since I can no longer see it.

I certainly don't think that it helps them when they even ban people who agree with their stance on what happened at the pentagon. I hope that they will learn from their mistakes in this regard, atleast.

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps you asked a question they didn’t want to answer.

I can agree with this, but I think that we'd disagree as to why they didn't want to answer it.

Originally posted by pteridine
They certainly have no tolerance for individual thought or even any kind of thought.

I disagree here. However, some there have a tendency of seeing shadows where there are none. There is a saying:
"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you".

But not -everyone- is after you. And just because a person doesn't initially understand an argument doesn't mean they're a disinformation agent trying to waste your time. Again, I hope they learn from their mistakes in this regard atleast.

Originally posted by pteridine
You must memorize the ever-morphing official PFT/CIT story and defend it even if it has no substance.

On this, we strongly disagree. I certainly agree that there are people at PFT and CIT that are prickly. I've said as much to their faces; Rob Balsamo even admitted as much. But the fact that they're so prickly that they'll ban even people who agree with them if they don't "get" everything that they believe fast enough doesn't mean that they're mistaken, just impatient. And, as I said before, seeing shadows where there are none. It's something I hope they will learn, because I certainly believe they have a lot of information; and I have appreciated the videos from both sites. But in the ending, you need more the videos; you need foot soldiers, who are able to argue the various points. I essentially consider myself to be such, despite the rough ride I've endured at their sites.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
You may wish to take a look at this page from 9/11 Research:
Eyewitness Accounts Suggest the Pentagon Attack Involved Explosive Detonation

I looked at the page and saw no evidence of anything other than the description of the impact of a high-speed multi-ton projectile loaded with an incendiary.

Perhaps I should quote part of it. I'd like to see how you explain this off as the allegedly crashed airliner's doing:

Many of the over 100 eyewitness accounts in Eric Bart's compilation recall characteristics of the explosion that accompanied the September 11th attack on the Pentagon that are suggestive if not conclusive of the detonation of a powerful explosive device. Two such characteristics are:

* A sharp detonation wave and silvery flash
* The smell of cordite

These reported characteristics might not be explainable by the rapid combusion of jet fuel alone. Neither do they necessarily indicate the presence of explosioves, given the effects of a high-speed crash.

I know you address the cordite smell below, but I don't see how you addressed the sharp detonation and silvery flash point.

Originally posted by pteridine
Airliners are better missiles than any non-nuke in the arsenal. Why waste time with explosives when you have the biggest bullet available. This is a fact that the truthers don't understand but that the hijackers did. The “smell of Cordite” is the smell of nitrogen oxides which form in high temperature flames.

Alright, I don't have a counter to this, so will let go of the cordite claim for now atleast.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by scott3x]