The PentaCON

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
why the OS doesn't make any sense is or should be obvious. There is no evidence of a jetliner at ground level which is where it supposedly hit.

I pointed this out before but like any other inconvenient truth it gets quickly dismissed,... but all the same, this speaks louder than excuses

www.leenks.com...

where is the grass (peeled back from the jet-wash), or the cars that were even supposedly hit by a light-pole -that must have been struck by the starboard side wing ( according to OS theory) putting the taxi-cab underneath the plane... supposedly

perhaps this too can be explained away but the one thing that is consistent in all this 911 fairytale is that everything requires explanation and still remains unbelievable. Even the four frames that were released fail to show these jet force winds, in fact they do show a trail of smoke and yet that would be impossible to have with a jet engine forcing air back and being confined to vertical airspace alone since the ground was a barrier that air doesn't pass through easily. How then can it be defined as a jumbo jet absent those simple observations?.

where there is smoke there is fire and yet another lie needs to be stressed in order to keep the lie alive.

So what is the excuse this time deniers? Perhaps a crosswind counter-acted the jet-force winds or perhaps the engines were off and it glided into the Pentagon instead? Maybe Pentagon grass is crazy glued in place? Oh, maybe it wasn't grass but paint ... that would account for ... nothing

At some point don't you just get a slight suspicion that there is more than you were told?

The only reason I post this is to demonstrate yet one more inconsistency in the OS. No need to comment, I have better things to do with my time than having to keep explaining reality to those who don't know which side of a tale to believe in.




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic


www.leenks.com...

where is the grass (peeled back from the jet-wash),


You need to learn the difference between static and dynamic thrust.

At 740 feet per second FLT 77 was very dynamic.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
No need to comment, I have better things to do with my time than having to keep explaining reality to those who don't know which side of a tale to believe in.


I take it that you don't want to explain your reality to those who desperately need your guidance. You posted because you don't want comments and have better things to do with your time.

Is this post akin to a dog marking territory or do you secretly want to respond and have this post as an escape hatch when you back yourself into a corner?

Was it a missile, flyover, drone, or demolition and CGI?

You could fall back on the standard truther variant and say "I don't know what it was but that there are too many holes in the story and events just didn't happen the way I expected them to."

Have at it.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by anoncoholic


www.leenks.com...

where is the grass (peeled back from the jet-wash),


You need to learn the difference between static and dynamic thrust.

At 740 feet per second FLT 77 was very dynamic.


At ground level it makes no difference to a standing object whether it was jet wash or flatulence what does matter is the airflow and it has only one direction of flow in a jet engine, straight back regardless what altitude you seem o think makes that difference. The point was the grass was unblemished.. Do you know how little it would take to peel grass? What would it have taken to flip a cable roll that is visible in the photos? Of course they were put there after the "plane" passed by I am guessing is your next statement because you guys always got an answer except one... the right one.

I am not infallible, BUT, neither are any of you. As far as I see, you all live in a fantasy world where you believe what you are told to believe rather than trust common sense that seems to be absent on 911 and like good little stooges you all so want to embrace the evil .

Sorry to disappoint but I tend to look at more than a single reasoning and draw my own conclusions.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by anoncoholic
No need to comment, I have better things to do with my time than having to keep explaining reality to those who don't know which side of a tale to believe in.


I take it that you don't want to explain your reality to those who desperately need your guidance. You posted because you don't want comments and have better things to do with your time.

Is this post akin to a dog marking territory or do you secretly want to respond and have this post as an escape hatch when you back yourself into a corner?

Was it a missile, flyover, drone, or demolition and CGI?

You could fall back on the standard truther variant and say "I don't know what it was but that there are too many holes in the story and events just didn't happen the way I expected them to."

Have at it.


my reality? If it were my reality you had to worry about you wouldn't be in the # you are in with mass murder coming in vogue.

Here again you trolls prefer to make this personal about me and my thinking rather than the common sense of logic leading you through the motions. Suspend belief in physics, suspend it in all your senses and deny the explosions, the molten steel, the evidence tampering and hasty removal contrary to crime scene protocols and just keep buying the goop they feed you because like a mushroom you thrive in the dark when fed bs.

Can I say positively what happened? No, neither can anyone but those involved ... however, the one thing I am sure of is none of them would come forward without a firm foundation of public support protecting them and people like the deniers are preventing any disclosure on that basis alone.

It would be far better to just keep your "opinions" to yourselves and let a new investigation have the chips fall where they may. Unless of course YOU have something to hide?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


This is where you should began. It is a thoroughly researched thread, and settles the issue here on ATS:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon


But, if this thread was begun solely on the incorrect notion of grass needing to have been "peeled back" from the engines' thrust gases, then I even more greatly recommend you get acquainted with that thread, above.

And then, go find some books on aeronautics, jets, jet engines, flying, etc, etc.

Finally, if there is no intellectual fortitude to embark on a dangerous mission of education and discovery, here is a video demonstration to ponder:



Did the sand on the beach get "peeled back"? Did the man filming (or anyone else) get knocked off his/their feet?

Can this be explained?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


This is where you should began. It is a thoroughly researched thread, and settles the issue here on ATS:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon


But, if this thread was begun solely on the incorrect notion of grass needing to have been "peeled back" from the engines' thrust gases, then I even more greatly recommend you get acquainted with that thread, above.

And then, go find some books on aeronautics, jets, jet engines, flying, etc, etc.

Finally, if there is no intellectual fortitude to embark on a dangerous mission of education and discovery, here is a video demonstration to ponder:



Did the sand on the beach get "peeled back"? Did the man filming (or anyone else) get knocked off his/their feet?

Can this be explained?


Did the plane pass at ground level? No. Are the people 40 feet tall to put them in line with the jet wash? No. Is the sand at engine height? No.

How then can you definitively say this video is representative of jetwash at ground level?

I looked at the link here and also saw a link from that link with an opposite take so who do you believe?

Personally I believe my own eyes, my own ears, not some video created in the span of years to aid the lies nor a vid made to sway opinions. I do stand by 911eyewitness as I do know the person who filmed it and he isn't hiding behind anon user names on youtube which not only lends him credibility, it also made him a target to be discredited by tptb which as much as validates his video IMO

Believe what you want as you will anyway.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
IIRC - the plane was at a downward angle when it hit the building - wouldn't that put the jet wash at an *upward* angle?

No evidence? What are you basing this on? How can we respond to blanket statements too vague to address?

Specifics please...
edit on 19-10-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Well, if you're going to complain that those jets crossing the beach in St. Maarten are "too high", then it's just going ot be harder to explain and educate.

*waypastvne* already showed the direction to go....it is the difference between the effects of static thrust (when a jet is parked on the ground, brakes set and wheels chocked) and dynamic thrust (wen the jet is in flight).

Try to work it out.....say the thrust rating for an engine is 20,000 pounds. When the jet is parked, not moving, all that force can have a far greater effect than when in flight...because, in flight, the energy in the thrust is being expended in order to provide the forward force needed to fly, and to stay aloft. The net energy coming out the exhaust, in flight, is not affecting its surroundings in the way a stationary engine is.

Perhaps your local library can be useful for learning, find books on aeronautical theory and the dynamics of flight.

Meanwhile, there is always Google search, handy at your keyboard. Maybe a read-through of this:

www.pprune.org...

Or, physics forums, and science textbooks.

:



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic


regardless what altitude you seem o think makes that difference. .


Silly truther, 740 feet per second is a velocity not an altitude.

740 fps would be subtracted from the engines exhaust velocity in relation to the ground. The exhaust coming out of the engine would be pretty close to standing still in relation to the ground.

You need to learn the difference between static and dynamic thrust.

edit on 19-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 



IIRC - the plane was at a downward angle when it hit the building - wouldn't that put the jet wash at an *upward* angle?


The pitch attitude just prior to impact was nearly level. However, the amount of time the jet was actually at an altitude of just a few feet off the ground was extremely brief. Its velocity (based on the FDR Indicated Airspeed of about 462kts seen in last frame of the NTSB video) was at least 780 ft/sec.

This is probably the best version (that I've found) on YouTube of the NTSB animation derived from the FDR. It is full-length, from the taxi onto the runway for take-off at Dulles, up to impact (actually, the data was garbled at the end, but a computer expert managed to find a way to recover the final moments. The NTSB put this video out in a bit of a hurry, and they had not yet done the work on that last data. You can see the mistake NTSB made by looking at the time reference. "EDT" should have read "UTC" [GMT]).

( skip to the end, if you don't want to watch for 90 minutes..
)


edit on Wed 19 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird


The pitch attitude just prior to impact was nearly level. However, the amount of time the jet was actually at an altitude of just a few feet off the ground was extremely brief. Its velocity (based on the FDR Indicated Airspeed of about 462kts seen in last frame of the NTSB video) was at least 780 ft/sec.

This is probably the best version (that I've found) on YouTube of the NTSB animation derived from the FDR. It is full-length, from the taxi onto the runway for take-off at Dulles, up to impact (actually, the data was garbled at the end, but a computer expert managed to find a way to recover the final moments. The NTSB put this video out in a bit of a hurry, and they had not yet done the work on that last data. You can see the mistake NTSB made by looking at the time reference. "EDT" should have read "UTC" [GMT]).


The result of Truthers attempting to grasp physics: (caution: graphic)





posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
meh I'm not going to explain myself since you guys are all so smart and really do know everything there is to know about 911 so let me just ask a simple question once again.

If all is so innocent and benign as far as the WTC and the Pentagon goes, then why the need to lie about any of it?


Google Video Link


I think you guys need to stop smelling the roses and wake up and smell the coffee. There is something going on here that none of you naysayers can explain yet for some reason known only to yourselves you are not only beholding to the OS but take every opportunity to belittle or denounce any who challenge the tales.

Again, if there was nothing to hide then why is their obvious lies regarding evidence, never mind the fact that evidence was spirited away to a foreign country contrary to all conventional wisdom regarding preservation of a crime scene.

The day any of you adequately answer these questions is the day I might consider your explanations.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Is that why the last 5 minutes of the video are frozen before impact, the garbled data? Any idea when NTSB is going to release a final version? That would be very interesting to see what the recovered. Until this point, it's mostly been educated guesses and speculation, on the exact final moments of Flight 77.

And while I do believe that Flight 77 did impact the Pentagon, the thing that puzzles me most is that it wandered without transponder for quite some time, had already been hijack confirmed about the time Flight 175 hit the South tower. So for over a half hour, the plane was milling about somewhere over Kentucky and onward. Yet no jets were scrambled to defend the capital until very shortly before Flight 77 crashed.

This has never been explained to my satisfaction, why for about a half hour, no one, not even Cheney, thought it might be a good idea to get some planes over the city NOW. Two jets have already crashed into New York landmarks. While no one was 100% certain what was going on, just these two events should have been enough for every security and defense chief, all the way up to Dick Cheney, to get those Andrew's jets up in the sky. Even though the majority of Andrew's squadrons were down in North carolina, with the word from high up, and damn the horses, they could have been called back to DC in plenty of time to intercept Flight 77, especially if they broke the sound barrier. While this is a no-no in normal times over CONUS, I think these particular circumstances warranted a waving of that rule.

Yet I am puzzled there wasn't a single defensive jet in the sky over DC for over a half hour after 2 planes hit the towers. Whether it was deliberate, or a case of a bunch of Neo-Con monkeys caught with their pants down, I haven't decided yet. Maybe a mix of both?

Either way, Flight 77 puzzles me the most. Though as I said, I do believe it hit the Pentagon, piloted by psychopathic religous extremists, with a lot of innocent people on board, and killed even more people in the Pentagon. I'm not 100% convinced of much beyond that.

edit on 19-10-2011 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

, never mind the fact that evidence was spirited away to a foreign country


What was the exact date that the first boat load of evidence left for this foreign country ? I want to know exactly how fast it was spirited away.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 



Is that why the last 5 minutes of the video are frozen before impact, the garbled data?


Not sure if the NTSB made it that way, or just the person who uploaded it to YouTube left it on still frame for hat long.

It is evident, though, where the airplane was pointed. Warren Stutt is the Aussie resident (a Kiwi native, actually) gentleman who coaxed out the final second or two from the encoded data.

"About My FDR Work"

AAL 77 FDR Decoder



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


As to the delay in getting the air defense into the Washington, DC area ---a rather good read on it (among many informative books out there, and covering other aspects of that morning) is titled "Touching History", written by a pilot.

Lynn Spencer's website



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by userid1
 



IIRC - the plane was at a downward angle when it hit the building - wouldn't that put the jet wash at an *upward* angle?


The pitch attitude just prior to impact was nearly level. However, the amount of time the jet was actually at an altitude of just a few feet off the ground was extremely brief. Its velocity (based on the FDR Indicated Airspeed of about 462kts seen in last frame of the NTSB video) was at least 780 ft/sec.

This is probably the best version (that I've found) on YouTube of the NTSB animation derived from the FDR. It is full-length, from the taxi onto the runway for take-off at Dulles, up to impact (actually, the data was garbled at the end, but a computer expert managed to find a way to recover the final moments. The NTSB put this video out in a bit of a hurry, and they had not yet done the work on that last data. You can see the mistake NTSB made by looking at the time reference. "EDT" should have read "UTC" [GMT]).

( skip to the end, if you don't want to watch for 90 minutes..
)


edit on Wed 19 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
[/quote

so how long does it take to be caught in engine thrust?
rather than animation why not demonstrate real world dynamics?


www.myspace.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the links, especially the last one. I'll check it out, see what I think. I've heard differeing explainations and theories, but nothing that has fully satisified.

The Ozzie guy's work will be especially interesting what he can extract. I doubt it will shut the no-planers up, but other parts of the Truth movement might be satisfied with its contents.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


Let me guess....the video you linked is one of the examples of jet blast blowing a car.

From an airplane the is not moving, or moving very slowly. Correct?

When the jet flying, the effective velocity of the airflow out the back of the engine is minimal....the "ooomph" of power the engine is developing is being used to propel the airplane.

I'm well aware of what a jet engine can do, when you are on the ground. We have to be very cognizant of this fact, when taxiing and maneuvering in close quarters on the ramp. Every airline has a recommended power setting, depending on airplane model and type, that one does not exceed when object, vehicles, buildings and equipment are in proximity aft of the airplane. When we're very heavy, and want to begin to move for taxi, sometimes this "break-away thrust" setting (as it's called) must be used judiciously...and you have to have patience, because the heavy jet has inertia to overcome.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join