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.

 

At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 :

page: 11
116
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
He! You must be Kent !
Nice to see you here!

Edit : No, he's not Kent Wien, the helpful online pilot from PlaneAnswers :

www.gadling.com...

Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!


But he's an airline pilot too, with a lot of years of experience in passenger planes, and an equally helpful one as Kent.
Thanks in advance for your expert advices, now and in the future.
You did met Reheat already, one of our resident aviation experts, and wheedwhacker is a recently retired airline pilot.
There must be more of them hanging around in here, we'll see when they turn up.

edit on 5/10/11 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
ProudBird, do you think the plane in my last post, flying 200 KTS, could make it to the Pentagon west wall in a clean configuration, while following that 22° right bank angle all the way with the same speed, on a slightly downwards trajectory, to make that descend from above the hillside where the Navy Annex is situated on, let's say from 300 yards above the west wall, up till 3 m high at the impact point at the west wall.

And to cover all the known witness reports, it perhaps has to level back from 22° to about 8° right bank angle.

Would it crash before it reached the west wall, or could the pilot pull a few aviation "tricks" to keep the plane on target?
What would the effect of sudden full throttle and a slight left bank be, initiated about 300 meters in front of Route 27 (Washington Boulevard).? To bring it back to an 8° right bank.
I think it would drift away a bit northwards, like Reheat also said, if I understand him right.


To clear it up, my biggest concern with this steady turn scenario is that it does not allow for change, i.o.w., new pilot inputs to keep the aim at the impact point.
All the fuzz with Reheat is about the North of CITGO gas station flight path witnesses, interviewed on camera a few years ago, who swear that the plane flew north of the CITGO canopy.

That immediately nullifies the official flight path, that is laid out by the NTSB and the 80RADES units as following a South of CITGO straight flightpath from over Columbia Pike in front of the south side of the Navy Annex 8 building wings.
Nearly missing the tall radio mast standing about 30 meters from the road, with its right wing tip.

When we take in account all the witnesses that in fact give evidence of a northern flight path solely by their position established from their words in online first days interviews, we can not deny anymore that the FDR is falsified, since that shows in its positional data, that strictly southern and nearly straight trajectory.

That is our dilemma, for a few years already. We had our hopes high with the opening of a Pilots forum by Rob Balsamo, but it is literally impossible to communicate with him and his "pilots" (I do not see many other airline pilots take part in the discussion anymore there) anymore, since he opted for a mystic fly-over theory and clings to it as if he spilled 6-second glue all over it.

That's why I try to amass a group of experts in this thread, and hope they will stay onboard for a prolonged time, so we can talk it out with eachother, official story followers and historical truth seekers alike.
We need expertise from guys and gals like you.
Not many female pilots in your group, if there are, please come also forward, it helps to have a "motherly" iron fist in here. A female Aviation Mechanic would be nice too.

Reheat would be excited, I'm sure. He reminds me of the new TV-series with Star Trek-famed "Captain" William Shattner in his new role as grumpy old dad who pisses his two sons off, any moment of the day, but can't go without them. I imagine him already, exchanging pieces of Nam-era stories online with such an Iron Lady.

Thus we could perhaps find a common consensus for the last seconds of Flight AA77, we all can believe in.
Reheat already got me to realize, that there is not much room in the NoC theory, concerning physical boundaries in aeronautical and aviation-physics rules for flying around in massive passenger planes.

That's why I do understand a lot better now, why the Pilots for Truth opt for a fly-over scenario.
That gives them immense more room to move that plane in.
Sadly for them, it's damn clear that the plane ended at a very specific, well known end point.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I suppose the plane flying in 22° right bank configuration can now much easier change back to about level flight. However, take in account it impacted with the right wing tilted up for about 8°.
So, just 14° left bank correction to level off needed during a few hundred meters in front of Route 27.


This is turning into stupidity personified. What is the radius of your arc? I know already and I've told you, but you keep ignoring it and coming up with total crap.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

I meant aircraft set off from civilian airports, squawking a civilian code, which changed in mid air that code to a military one, and then landed on a military base. And military planes which squawked military code, then changed to civilian and landed on military bases.
Is that normal every day behavior?

It means that someone like PfT member Tumetuesfaisdubien meticulously is analyzing the 80RADES radar data sheets, and comes up with these eventual anomalies.
I have to be careful with you regarding any PfT subject, it seems to work as a red flag on a Spanish bull.
But realize that probably still a group of reasonable sane people are flocking in that forum, and in my opinion this is one of the very sane ones.
I will look his texts up for you, it's quite interesting Sisyphus Labor he is doing for many months already.
I can only read as a guest there, just as you or any other non-member, which means that you have to copy/paste all links, and do the text formatting again, like the poster did before posting.


I replied appropriately to this earlier, but without detail. I'm not going to pfffft to read this crap, so you need to summarize it here. I can guess what this is all about, but I want to make sure first.

The only reason I will be doing this is to show you how ignorant truthers fool the gullible into believing a conspiracy exists when there is a very simple explanation.

First, how did this idiot determine that an aircraft was civilian or military? Just explain it in your own words....



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I have no idea what has happened to LabTop nor where he has gone, and could quite frankly not care less.

What we've witnessed in this thread is very typical "truther" behavior. It is so typical it fits a classic pattern we see time and time again. He asked for my help to determine via aeronautics if his claim of a ridiculous North of Citgo flight path at the Pentagon was valid. I showed him that while it was remotely possible the humongous bank angle required for the turn was NOT described by any of his cherry picked witnesses. That bank angle would be remarkable and unforgettable by anyone who witnessed it. He then tries different bank angles and speeds to make this possible violating his own witnesses testimony while still not adhering to a turn radius that makes the turn possible.

While he knows how to put numbers into an online turn calculator, he has no understanding of what the numbers produce or mean. All of his calculations produced an impossible turn radius that was much larger than the radius required resulting in an impossible scenario. When this was pointed out several times, the discussion was switched to other "truther" delusions such as the CD of WTC 7. On and on it goes..

When presented with FACTS that shows the delusion is false, change the subject or continue to devise other mysterious "truther" mantras to make the delusion possible. All are rooted in ignorance, lack of knowledge, and gullible behavior in the belief of a conspiracy theory where none exists.

LabTop was vividly shown in this thread that the NOC delusion was near impossible to extremely unlikely, yet we'll see this same type of crap again in the not too distant future gobbled up by another "truther" who thinks he has the solution to figuring out the conspiracy. On and on it goes ad nauseum....

LabTop, you don't need expert aeronautical help, you need a psychiatrist.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
One would think that with all of the conclusive evidence that LapTop and all other "truthers" have would want this thread to stay near the top; After all it is so conclusive that "trluthers" should want this to stay at the top of the stack so that it would provide an impetus for a new investigation or the winning of a Pulitzer Prize worth millions of $$.

I must say I am surprised............................NOT!.

:LapTop, I think you are a coward.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

edit on 10-10-2011 by futuredude because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Reheat,
I am still searching the PfT forums for that post by Jan Zeman, about his USAF-civilian-USAF identification of planes tracked by multiple 80RADES radar stations.


These are not that one, I'm still searching, but nevertheless also interesting :

PfT thread : 84rades Vs. Ntsb Animation, gross mutual inconsistence?
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Aa77 Fdr Heading Divergence, speed/heading vs Lat/Lon :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

PfT thread : 9/11gate, "AA77" FDR numerology.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...


tumetuestumefaisdubien :
Mar 2 2011, 06:10 AM Post #39


(rob balsamo @ Mar 1 2011, 01:49 PM) *
The above is claimed to be an exchange between "Ground Control" and "American 77" requesting push off the gate and taxi to runway 30.

There are many problems with the above.


Yeah, there's maybe also the problem I (unwittingly) mystified Mr. Farmer our FDR plane pushed from the gate at 8:12.
In fact it was most probably at 8:10:46...so at 8:12 it would be a bit late to ask the tower...


EDIT: I've also plotted and subsequently overlayed this:



Not to support Mr. Stutt, but to show how almost exactly the pathway pattern fits the pattern of the relatively narrow taxiways, contrary to some of the latest Mr. Farmer's "ideas" about the INS inflight allignments. And there's I think clearly the push from the southern side of the Concourse D is possible and could be quite logical, but definitely not confirming the gate D26. (and yes, to avoid silly notes, I did exactly adjusted the overlay picture scale to have exactly same dimensions as the original pathway pattern)
The red circle at the bottom is a place of possible adjustment of the INS (as my friend pilot suggested to me as a possibility) where the plane is standing, heading -67.8 westwestnorthwards (which happens to be almost exactly our runway angle) all the time 12:17:39-12:18:53, yet the coordinates "mysteriously" shift >38m southwards during this timespan and if I would exclude this shift, the pathway pattern then would fit the taxiways almost absolutely exactly for the plane departing the Gate D20 ...but I'm not insisting on the idea, because it would also need an assumption the coordinates were shifted after the fact, which I would not much wonder, judging after comparing UnderTow's coordinates with the ones from Mr. Stutt and then yet with the ones made in NTSB ...they're always somehow different, usually hundreds of meters...yet the pattern remains.



This above post from tumetuestumefaisdubien at PfT is the one which tickled my text-analytical gland.
And since Jan Zeman is a graduate in Electronics and in Psychology from a Czech University, he knows the peers-process, where others check your written words.

In fact he already addressed the adjustment of the INS at the start of Runway 30, but failed to implement all the other positional "ghost-jumps" in his map with the taxiing trajectory from Gate D26 towards Runway 30 in it projected, his thin green line with the seven 90° jumps in it.

I started from that point up, back towards Gate D26, to remove the distances that were "ghost-jumped" while the pilots were fast-aligning AND taxiing further. The planes movement while doing that, was not registered during the fast align process, and makes it seam as if the plane jumped left and down, or right and down. And this, seven times. The last time near Gate D26, when the tow had already moved the plane from its parking spot at Gate D26. It shows the first, sudden 90°displacement ( "ghost jump" ) when the normal first align was performed after engines start, but before the tow was uncoupled.
The overall pattern of the taxiing was laid upon the map first (Jan's thin green line), aligning certain fixed points like the runway and the taxi lanes with the positional data lines.

You call him an idiot (normally you should have been immediately banned here, but it is clear that you have absolution in this 9/11 forum, probably caused by your aeronautical expertise), but you seem to forget that his research proved his own first gate proposal wrong (my first ones too, btw), and specially Balsamo's stubborn clutching to a northern gate to this date, too.
In fact, with a small correction, his data proved the whole PfT thesis of a suspicious other than D26 departure gate, totally wrong.

AA77 departed from Gate D26, PERIOD.

Which makes their expertise at least questionable, when I, a non-pilot, can so easily prove these professional pilots, wrong on such an important, for them, subject.

edit on 11/10/11 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



While he knows how to put numbers into an online turn calculator, he has no understanding of what the numbers produce or mean. All of his calculations produced an impossible turn radius that was much larger than the radius required resulting in an impossible scenario. When this was pointed out several times, the discussion was switched to other "truther" delusions such as the CD of WTC 7. On and on it goes..

When presented with FACTS that shows the delusion is false, change the subject or continue to devise other mysterious "truther" mantras to make the delusion possible. All are rooted in ignorance, lack of knowledge, and gullible behavior in the belief of a conspiracy theory where none exists.

LabTop was vividly shown in this thread that the NOC delusion was near impossible to extremely unlikely, yet we'll see this same type of crap again in the not too distant future gobbled up by another "truther" who thinks he has the solution to figuring out the conspiracy. On and on it goes ad nauseum....

LabTop, you don't need expert aeronautical help, you need a psychiatrist.


And you need a good spanking from your mother or father, so you remember again how to engage in civil online behavior.


I have not seen a logical reaction by you on my last post regarding bank angles :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These words of yours are pertinently wrong :
""Reheat : All of his calculations produced an impossible turn radius that was much larger than the radius required resulting in an impossible scenario.""

I introduced the exact same viable turn radius of 2.7 kilometer (8806.9 feet) as in my posted map with the 3/4 blank portion in it, but a new lower speed and a much lower bank angle of 22°, which are not rejected by the online calculator based on possible stall speed reasons, to arrive at a viable fixed turn radius for that map I posted with the 3/4 blank portion in it.

You keep holding on to a much higher speed and your bank angle of 55 to 60° for a NoC path.
Probably based on the FDR speed data from the last 10 seconds.
With no explanation at all, if and why my new proposal of 22° is, or is not, within the range of possible or impossible bank angles and speeds, and not causing an accelerated stall.

You also do not explain why ALL witnesses describe at least a 20° right bank in the last 10 seconds, and the recovered FDR does NOT.

When you read my only thread at PfT (see my OP) you will find months of work done by me which unearthed more than a handful of known 9/11 witnesses, who described, with their own voice (audio recordings), all a plane coming at them, in a circa 20° right wing-DOWN bank angle configuration, and then at the last moment, just before it reached Route 27, the onset of a left bank correction, which lifted the plane's wings into a level flight over Route 27 its lamp poles in front of the Helipad, and then proceeded that left bank correction into tilting the left wing further up, and the right wing further down, to slam the plane in the west wall at about an 8° right wing-tilted-UP angle.
That's an overall correction of in total 30°. And not 14° as I wrongly wrote in one of my last posts.
This all based on those witnesses, and the fact that no lamp post in front of the Helipad were damaged, as can be seen in all videos and photos. However, the 5 much further south positioned lamp poles (in the path of a possibly SoC flying plane) were downed.

That undoubtedly means that you can not apply the online calculator for the whole FIXED turn radius filled in by me, nor by you. We both can assume the plane to have been flown while following nearly all of that fixed turn radius, corrected its path just north of CITGO a bit to the south by banking slightly more to the right, and in the last 1.5 seconds, it has corrected that flight path slightly back leftwards.
When you take that last left bank correction as a fact seen by so many witnesses, it means that the pilot must have used a strong but small manual input to its ailerons and perhaps the tail rudder combined, to achieve that last correction causing it to fly a few yards northwards.
Because a last moment change from right to left bank will cause the planes nose to divert northwards on its last 200 meters long flight path.

It introduces additional inputs by the pilot, which make it in fact illogical to use that online calculator, since it firstly, is not precise as it states itself, and assumes fixed speed and bank angle, ALL the way.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
When I read all my own Reference-links, and your words, it becomes clear that there is not much room for additional pilot inputs, when we want to hold on to a north of the CITGO canopy flight path, towards the ANC witnesses in a slightly right wing-down attitude, and then a new extra slight right wing-down turn towards Route 27, and then that last onset to a left turn and bank, changing from right wing up to right wing down.

In that case we must construct two new but combined turn radii that let the plane arrive in front of Route 27, about 30 meters southwards from the west wall impact point on the other, east side of Route 27.
It performs that last onset to a left bank and thus hops-over the obstacles beside Route 27 its lanes, and slams its nose in the second floor slab, which does not move back at all, of course. The whole thick, re-bar enforced concrete floor is behind that impact point. As you can see in the first photos, that floor was only about 2 meters damaged at the point of impact.


That can only mean a much slower speed and different bank angles than shown in the last seconds of the recovered FDR.

Or, all witnesses lie or are totally misjudging what they saw.
Which is nearly impossible, when all the additional evidence like the CITGO video showing Sgt Lagasse under the far northern end of the CITGO canopy, the CITGO ceiling flash, and photographs at the scene are taken in account.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I have not seen a logical reaction by you on my last post regarding bank angles :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I don't see any bank angles in that diagram, only an arced line. For the umpteenth time now, what is the radius of that arc?


Originally posted by LaBTop
These words of yours are pertinently wrong :
""Reheat : All of his calculations produced an impossible turn radius that was much larger than the radius required resulting in an impossible scenario.""

I introduced the exact same viable turn radius of 2.7 kilometer (8806.9 feet) as in my posted map with the 3/4 blank portion in it, but a new lower speed and a much lower bank angle of 22°, which are not rejected by the online calculator based on possible stall speed reasons, to arrive at a viable fixed turn radius for that map I posted with the 3/4 blank portion in it.


My words you've quoted are NOT WRONG and you've just proven it. Calculate the radius of your arc. It is smaller than 8806.9', which shows your bank angle and speed CAN NOT fly the arc you've drawn. That's my point and it's still valid. Thanks.


Originally posted by LaBTop
You keep holding on to a much higher speed and your bank angle of 55 to 60° for a NoC path.
Probably based on the FDR speed data from the last 10 seconds.
With no explanation at all, if and why my new proposal of 22° is, or is not, within the range of possible or impossible bank angles and speeds, and not causing an accelerated stall.


I simply use a higher speed because the majority of the witnesses indicated the aircraft was very fast. LaGasse said the aircraft was at 400 Kts and he touts himself as an aviation knowledgeable person. You believe everything else he said why not his estimate of the speed? Was he wrong about only one aspect of what he witnessed? If you want to use Morin, then explain how he could see through the buildings of the Navy Annex. You can't unless he's Superman with xray vision. You want to use Boger, yet the aircraft was coming straight at him making speed near impossible to judge. Where was the aircraft when it first saw it? You're playing the same silly game CIT played with speed. They bragged about how fast the aircraft was based on witness statements until they discovered the turn at high speed was not possible. Then suddenly the aircraft was flying much slower. A prime example of confirmation bias and it stinks from you just as much as it stinks from them...


Originally posted by LaBTop
You also do not explain why ALL witnesses describe at least a 20° right bank in the last 10 seconds, and the recovered FDR does NOT.


I can not explain what witnesses said any more than you can. There is such a spread and variance in what the witnesses say that I consider them mostly ALL unreliable. They place the path all over the place. There is consistency in describing a variance in the bank angle for momentary periods, i.e. the inexperienced terrorist pilot was over controlling and essentially rocking the wings back and forth resulting in virtually no turn at all in any direction. The FDR validates this.


Originally posted by LaBTop
When you read my only thread at PfT (see my OP) you will find months of work done by me which unearthed more than a handful of known 9/11 witnesses, who described, with their own voice (audio recordings), all a plane coming at them, in a circa 20° right wing-DOWN bank angle configuration, and then at the last moment, just before it reached Route 27, the onset of a left bank correction, which lifted the plane's wings into a level flight over Route 27 its lamp poles in front of the Helipad, and then proceeded that left bank correction into tilting the left wing further up, and the right wing further down, to slam the plane in the west wall at about an 8° right wing-tilted-UP angle.
That's an overall correction of in total 30°. And not 14° as I wrongly wrote in one of my last posts.
This all based on those witnesses, and the fact that no lamp post in front of the Helipad were damaged, as can be seen in all videos and photos. However, the 5 much further south positioned lamp poles (in the path of a possibly SoC flying plane) were downed.


I have told you repeatedly that I'm not going to pffft to read anything. I have to take a shower to wash off the smell even when I type that site.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. Try typing your thoughts in understandable English if you want me to reply to it....



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
When I read all my own Reference-links, and your words, it becomes clear that there is not much room for additional pilot inputs, when we want to hold on to a north of the CITGO canopy flight path, towards the ANC witnesses in a slightly right wing-down attitude, and then a new extra slight right wing-down turn towards Route 27, and then that last onset to a left turn and bank, changing from right wing up to right wing down.

In that case we must construct two new but combined turn radii that let the plane arrive in front of Route 27, about 30 meters southwards from the west wall impact point on the other, east side of Route 27.
It performs that last onset to a left bank and thus hops-over the obstacles beside Route 27 its lanes, and slams its nose in the second floor slab, which does not move back at all, of course. The whole thick, re-bar enforced concrete floor is behind that impact point. As you can see in the first photos, that floor was only about 2 meters damaged at the point of impact.


It's OK with me if you want to make an already near impossible turn more improbable. I've no objections to that at all.



Originally posted by LaBTop
That can only mean a much slower speed and different bank angles than shown in the last seconds of the recovered FDR.


How you arrive at this conclusion is known only to you. I'm not sure that I even want to know how you arrived at this conclusion...


Originally posted by LaBTop
Or, all witnesses lie or are totally misjudging what they saw.
Which is nearly impossible, when all the additional evidence like the CITGO video showing Sgt Lagasse under the far northern end of the CITGO canopy, the CITGO ceiling flash, and photographs at the scene are taken in account.


I don't quite understand this, but then again it plainly shows that you only want to consider stuff that proves your confirmation bias, not the mountain of evidence that proves otherwise. Quite pathetic really.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I wonder why Labtop has avoided his thread for several weeks now? Where is this watergate you're talking about? Like most truthers it is characteristic to run a hide when your delusions are destroyed.

This North of Citgo crap has been destroyed over and over again by folks knowledgeable of the aeronautical issues involved. Apparently, LapTop has given up on proving his point, which he has worked on for weeks and has been posting at other CT Web Sites profusely trying to prove his claim. Yes, if I had made as many simple mistakes even after repeated explanations as has been made here I'd probably run and hide too, maybe forever.....



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Reheat, just a simple question for now :

I have several hard witnesses at hand, who all say that they stood IN FRONT of the Pentagon's Helipad or just a few meters beside of it on Route 27 its northbound lanes, when that plane passed over them or just a few tenth of meters in front of them.
Passing over that road just before it smashed into the second floor slab of the west wall of the Pentagon.

That does not fit the proposed crossing of the said plane diagonally over the same Route 27, but much more southwards, very near the bridge in that road, over the last part of Columbia Pike leading to the Pentagon's South Parking. And crossing the lawn also diagonally.

Can you prove to our readers, that they are describing their positions totally wrong, and stood in fact much more southwards, a few hundred meters even?
Which of course means you must provide us with new video or audio interviews with these people, in which you are capable of changing their minds to such positions, that they would fit the official crossing point under the downed light poles.


In fact, your use of the word coward above, describes you much better then me.
You tried to mislabel me with that term, while you are the one that keeps repeating that you do not want to look up the first pages of my thread at PfT.
You defend your behavior with cowardly reasoning. You seem to become sick when you have to read their drivel.
The problem with that is, you do not have to read their drivel, when you click the link I provided you with.
You only read my "drivel", since I am the only one writing there for a few pages. In which I provide all the necessary evidence.

You can find all the linked evidence (audio interviews with these witnesses by several US Institutions and by the owner of the PumpItOut website, videos and newspaper excerpts) in the first pages of my thread there.

And by the way, you, as the local aeronautical expert, did not come up with the "Watergate" watertight reasoning, which I however provided you all with, that the official FDR provides us with all the necessary data to prove that Flight 77 did in fact left from Gate D26, like all the interviewed airport personnel already stated to the FBI shortly after 9/11.

How's that, for an online experience with an honest "Truther" ?

I started this thread with the intention to prove that Flight 77 left from Gate 18 or 20 on 9/11, and during the process of contemplating on the evidence in hand, had to reposition myself to a firm conviction that it left in fact from Gate D26, as the official story told us.

Which however does not prove that that whole official story is the ultimate truth.
I still have all those witnesses, saying that the end of the official story can not be true.
And photographs of positions of said witnesses.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Regarding standing "in front of" the Helipad, this picture puts it into better perspective:



Route 27 is angled Northeast/Southwest, crossing over Columbia Pike at the cloverleaf. Green highlight indicates the witness Peggy Elgas's location, on Route 27.

Someone who, as you said, was right "in front of" the Helipad and saw a large jet that up-close would likely tend to over-state the proximity. In any case, had the jet actually "flown over" them, and they were standing, then it's unlikely they would be alive today to talk about it.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Reheat, just a simple question for now :

I have several hard witnesses at hand, who all say that they stood IN FRONT of the Pentagon's Helipad or just a few meters beside of it on Route 27 its northbound lanes, when that plane passed over them or just a few tenth of meters in front of them.
Passing over that road just before it smashed into the second floor slab of the west wall of the Pentagon.


I don't give a flying flip how many witnesses you "cherry pick" to fit your delusion. Everyone of them that I could access said they saw the aircraft hit the building. ALL of the physical evidence indicates that it hit the building. The ASCE/Purdue "Building Performance Report" detailed the damage path through the building. Aircraft parts and DNA of all on board (except for one small child) were recovered and identified. I am not about to analyze witness statements and YOUR interpretation of their position and YOUR interpretation of what they describe. Your opinions and your analysis are irrelevant. You have repeatedly demonstrated and inability to learn and understand what you are doing.... In other words, your credibility is ZERO;


Originally posted by LaBTop
That does not fit the proposed crossing of the said plane diagonally over the same Route 27, but much more southwards, very near the bridge in that road, over the last part of Columbia Pike leading to the Pentagon's South Parking. And crossing the lawn also diagonally.


You have no problem moving the path several hundred meters from where Morin said it was AND you have him seeing through several buildings in addition to that. Vividly smacks of confirmation bias. You obviously exhibit Double standard BS to perpetuate your delusion.


Originally posted by LaBTop
Can you prove to our readers, that they are describing their positions totally wrong, and stood in fact much more southwards, a few hundred meters even?
Which of course means you must provide us with new video or audio interviews with these people, in which you are capable of changing their minds to such positions, that they would fit the official crossing point under the downed light poles.


I'm not about to get involved in your minutiae. The evidence is already abundant and readily available. I choose to view all of it in perspective, not truther "cherry picked" crap. The problem is not their positions, it's YOUR interpretation that's the problem...


Originally posted by LaBTop
In fact, your use of the word coward above, describes you much better then me.
You tried to mislabel me with that term, while you are the one that keeps repeating that you do not want to look up the first pages of my thread at PfT.
You defend your behavior with cowardly reasoning. You seem to become sick when you have to read their drivel.
The problem with that is, you do not have to read their drivel, when you click the link I provided you with.
You only read my "drivel", since I am the only one writing there for a few pages. In which I provide all the necessary evidence.


Typical truther projecting is clear. I have a chest full of medals earned in combat proving that I'm not a coward. What have you done besides post verbose drivel on the internet? (no response required it's rhetorical)


Originally posted by LaBTop
And by the way, you, as the local aeronautical expert, did not come up with the "Watergate" watertight reasoning, which I however provided you all with, that the official FDR provides us with all the necessary data to prove that Flight 77 did in fact left from Gate D26, like all the interviewed airport personnel already stated to the FBI shortly after 9/11.


I guess you've missed the clue that I don't give a flip about your calculations regarding where the aircraft was at Dulles. You're really slow to realize that you are irrelevant regarding anything related to 9/11. As soon as I reviewed the audio tapes from both Ramp Control and Ground Control and read the accounts of the Airline personnel I had the answer. Your calculation are extraneous garbage.


Originally posted by LaBTop
How's that, for an online experience with an honest "Truther" ?


An "honest truther" is an oxymoron. Any honest person would come back here and acknowledge that I've proven your crap wrong due to the bank angle required for the flight path you've invented. Instead you come back with more "truther" garbage. I see that NONE of your witnesses described the airshow type bank angle required to fly your flight path as I've vividly proven in this thread.


Originally posted by LaBTop
Which however does not prove that that whole official story is the ultimate truth.
I still have all those witnesses, saying that the end of the official story can not be true.
And photographs of positions of said witnesses.


Only in your dreams, "truther".
edit on 13-11-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Reheat : Any honest person would come back here and acknowledge that I've proven your crap wrong due to the bank angle required for the flight path you've invented. Instead you come back with more "truther" garbage. I see that NONE of your witnesses described the air-show type bank angle required to fly your flight path as I've vividly proven in this thread.


So to see you keep clutching to the published FDR speeds in the last seconds.

Well, let's end squabbling over my proposed, much slower flown VIABLE flight path in a circa 22° right bank, as in reality seen and described by all ANC witnesses and Sean Boger, and its radius.
May I note, without you ever "vividly" giving any exact figures to prove anything in my last proposal wrong.
Or, is it possible that you can not imagine your government ever lies to you, thus you take their figures for that huge end speed for granted?

What is that radius I drew in my map, according to you?
Exact figure please, in feet and also in meters. And how you measured it, compared to which known distance in that aerial photo. Or did you use Google Earth? Then I want to see a scaled to my map's dimensions, Google map with that radius its dimensions in it.

I myself compared it to the length of the Navy Annex its 8 Wings, looked up via Google. And then used my pair of compasses. So its an approximation, but one that I thought to be appropriate to fill into the online radius calculator.
And when you enlarge my blank map, you clearly see those small yellow crosses I placed at the known positions and lines of view of the witnesses I mentioned regarding my proposed NoC flight path. To my knowledge, that is the best and most exact placement of witness positions, based on their statements and interviews, online. And lo and behold, that circle I drew based on that radius, goes right through all five positions and the impact point.
And yes, it still is an approximation, but good enough i.m.o.
It could be that the real flight path lays in between tight boundaries surrounding my flight path, when we believe all those witnesses.
Thus, the real, most exact radius must be determined, and then filled into that same online bank and speed calculator. At a much slower speed than the FDR gives.

And remember, if you can't believe that an FDR can be falsified, another government, the French, falsificated the last several seconds of the FDR of one of the first demonstration flights of their new Air Bus, which then crashed at Mulhouse Airport. Then they sacked the pilot who did not agree with them, saying he caused that crash. The other who agreed, still has his job. Much later it came known that the software was faulty at very low heights and did not allow the pilots to recover from a bad landing procedure, by not allowing giving full power to the engines.

And if you are right and my impact point is not exact, then we move the center point a tad bit to the south. Or north, whatever fits an average viable flight path at any acceptable speed and bank, as seen by so many.

I predict that we still will end up with a viable flight path based on all witnesses, and that it will fit into the online bank calculator and will come up with viable lower speeds and viable radii.
But only when you are willing to accept that the speed then must have been a lot slower than depicted in the last few seconds of the official FDR.

Of course, when you are able to convince me that all those extra witnesses I came up with, beside the 13 ones interviewed on camera by CIT, are all delusional, we at last can end the whole Pentagon discussion, in this one thread, here and now.

Another question that has to be solved :
Does the official FDR describe a continuous right bank between about 20 to 30° in the last 10 seconds of its flight, just before impact? As described by all witnesses who describe a banked flight.

In my opinion, the official flightpath its last few kilometers, based on that recovered FDR, is depicted as a totally straight flight path running from south of the Annex and far south of the CITGO gas station. No bank of any importance involved.
As Reheat said before in this thread, at the end the pilot was pulling the steering column's wheel left and right, but since it were such fast movements, that did not influence the plane's straight path towards impact.
If we believe these last FDR seconds its data.

And here we have several persons who all saw a plane flying in a long right bank of about 20 to 30°, coming at them in multiple seconds (Sean Boger, Heliport controller: 10 to 12 seconds), indicating a low speed, after it passed the Annex its roofs.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Reheat, to answer your post in detail :
Do you by chance loose track time and time again of your own argumentation?


LaBTop : Passing over that road just before it smashed into the second floor slab of the west wall of the Pentagon.
Reheat : I don't give a flying flip how many witnesses you "cherry pick" to fit your delusion. Everyone of them that I could access said they saw the aircraft hit the building. ALL of the physical evidence indicates that it hit the building.


Well, in my part of the world "smashed into" indicates the same as "hit"......
Reheat, it has been made very clear by me in this thread that I am convinced that an airplane smashed head-on into the huge concrete second floor slab above the ground floor at the west wall of the Pentagon. At a near 90° angle.
Which is also a clear opposite stance against the very unlikely proposal of CIT and PfT of an intended near miss of the Pentagon and thus a fly-over of the plane.
So don't keep trying to make it seem as if I do endorse that fly-over theory.
I do not.

Reheat. About Terry Morin looking through a building : after the plane thundered above his head on its way to impact, he ran from his position just five steps outside the door to the 5th Wing's hall on the open air path between the Wings, to the entrance of that path, inbetween Wing 4 and 5 of the Annex and then onto the parking lot beside the Annex. And the plane was still flying high enough to easily be seen from that parking. It is another indication that it flew a lot slower than the end of the FDR depicts.

I still doubt those last 10 seconds data from that FDR. They do not fit into too many witness accounts.
They didn't have to change any of it up till those last 10 seconds, when the plane perhaps had to avoid that radio mast south of the side of the Annex.
All of the earlier data did not have to be changed, the flight went right as it was planned, except those last 10 seconds, as all these witnesses indicated a different path and aerial conduct than the FDR flight data depicted in those last 10 seconds.


Reheat : You have no problem moving the path several hundred meters from where Morin said it was AND you have him seeing through several buildings in addition to that. Vividly smacks of confirmation bias. You obviously exhibit Double standard BS to perpetuate your delusion.


About Terry describing the position of the plane he saw :
He saw it disappear behind the tree line at the bottom of the hill behind the Annex's 8th Wing.
Did you look up how long that tree line was on 9/11, and from where to where it extends? The last northernly trees are in front of the CITGO's western entrance, that's where the two Pentagon Police sergeants were situated behind the northern end of that tree line, one at his car in the parking lot right behind and nearly under these last trees, one under the northern canopy of the CITGO.
Terry saw only the tail of the plane above those trees, after the body of the plane disappeared behind and was blocked from view after that, by that same tree line.

You could even make a quite precise descend angle calculation (see the formulas section of the US professor I linked to), based on Terry's position on the Annex parking and the height he described while it passed over him inbetween the Annex 4th and 5th Wing, and his description, of him only seeing the tail above and behind that tree line, after he ran several steps outside the Annex walls onto the parking lot.
And I am quite sure that steep angle of descend would not be possible at the huge speed at that spot, that the official FDR data would like us to believe in. Perhaps at the much slower speed I propose.

Keep in mind the position the female witness inside her room at the Sheraton Hotel described the plane to be in. BESIDE the south wall of that high hotel. Not ABOVE its roof. So you can't say that the plane already dived down from there.
It must have flown nearly perpendicular to the ground from where Edward Paik, the garage owner saw its right wing and body through his low front office window at street level (but not its left wing; one can calculate the boundaries of his possible angles of view through that window easily, the plane must have flown there already dangerously low) nearly over upper Columbia Pike in front of that office window, to beside the Sheraton Hotel just over Columbia Pike, to over Terry Morin's head (about 100 feet high I believe he said) just inside the path between the Annex Wings 4 and 5, and then low over the Y-shaped antenna on the 8th Wing's roof where the Helipad controller Sean Boger in his Control Tower at the Pentagon said he saw it first appear over.
And he estimated it took about maximum 10 seconds from that point up to the impact.


Solely the accounts of the two Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks at the CITGO alone however, indicate already a falsification of these last 10 seconds of the FDR.
They both swear the plane flew North of the CITGO's gas station's northern canopy.
And STILL do so, to this day.

We all can understand that your patriotic feelings are badly hurt by the witness accounts of these two, who still serve their and your government.
And thus, if you deep inside believe that these two Pentagon Police Sergeants, who give the expression they are not delusional, are obviously describing honestly where they both saw that plane fly past them, you must now live in a personal hell.
Because any sane person listening and viewing their interviews, will feel that they are honestly and sincerely telling us where they saw that plane fly.
North of the CITGO station's roof, very low in the air.

Become a 9/11 hero, and talk with these two, still government payed colleagues of you, record it, and prove to us and yourself that they are wrong. You get one of my medals, if you do succeed. I hope and think they could talk to you, a medal clad combat veteran.

Or prove to yourself and us, that they are right. Then I will get all of your medals.
Because you probably will not want to wear them anymore, in case you get convinced their testimony reflects that north of CITGO flight path. And influential parts of your government thus falsified 9/11.

As long as these two men do not change their testimony as recorded on that online video, I and countless others will never be convinced by any aeronautical wisdom you and anybody else will try to throw at us in the 9/11 Pentagon discussions, we are the ones who viewed these videos of these two officers with an open and neutral mindset to begin with.
Then, after hearing them, we were changed...

"Highlights from interviews with eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks" :
www.youtube.com...




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



.....I am convinced that an airplane smashed head-on into the huge concrete second floor slab above the ground floor at the west wall of the Pentagon.


Whew. (Wiping brow).


At a near 90° angle.


Oh? Then this is complete rubbish? All of the people involved lied, and continue to lie? Little bit difficult to reconcile, wouldn't you think?:

THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT

(Graphics of note, pp 36, 37, 38 and 39)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
ProudBird, another believer of the official story shows in his quote below to understand the heart of the matter, regarding the last few kilometers of the flight path.
There are too many witnesses, who's statements do not fit the official STRAIGHT flight path in its last few kilometers after it passed over the Annex.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Varemia : Obviously, there will be issues with people not being able to judge accurately where exactly the plane is, and I did see the testimonies by the two officers who swore it was on the other side of the Citgo Gas Station. It is weird, and I can't explain why they saw it there, because they certainly seemed sincere, and based on their positions, it is difficult to say it could have been anywhere else, since the gas station was obscuring the opposite direction's view.


So there are also honest "Trusters", a great relief.

See also post #5 in my PfT thread :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

And then listen to the FULL phone interview with Penny Elgas, by Jeffrey Hill, the owner of the PumpItOut forum.
www.pumpitout.com...

And all his other phone interviews with key witnesses. He is one of the very few who did take the time and effort to find their telephone numbers and contact them and record their conversations.
Note then that they BOTH clearly avoid the issue of her position on Route 27 as the Plague.
That would have been the first and most important issue to be resolved before touching any other subject regarding Penny Elgas her testimony during her very detailed 9/11newspaper interviews. And the interviews of all the witnesses by the Library of Congress a few months later, and the ones interviewed in December 2001 by the Center for Military History (CMH) group.

See post #10 in my PfT thread :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

James R. Cissell :

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me.
I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle," said Cissell.


Like this for a rough example :




See also this link to an Italian language blogger page by someone named Tuttle, where Steve Riskus explains in emails to this blogger :
Tuttle's page :


Riskus came very close to the plane and it passed the road at an angle almost perpendicular to the direction of travel of the car which he was driving.


Riskus drove southwards on Route 27, and was nearly passing the northern corner of the west wall when he saw Flight 77 crossing Route 77. See image 3.

Tuttle drew in his images 1 and 2 the red line indicating where he thought Riskus saw the plane cross Route 27 about 30 meters too far north. It passed about 20 meters south of the Helipad, as we know from the impact point photo's.



new topics

top topics



 
116
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join