The Generator-trailer its cabin roof-gouge is made by a NoC flying AA 77.

That is a lot of hard reading, but even just by skimming it I see errors.

For starters, does the OP take into account the trailer being "blasted" back by the resulting explosion on impact with the Pentagon? If this was addressed, I apologize, but the amount of stuff written makes extremely difficult to follow.

Second, your approach picture in relation to the Navy Annex is incorrect as Terry Morin's account completely throws your made up path. He managed to watch the aircraft fly along the Annex, behind the line of trees at the end, and right down into the Pentagon. Your path has the airliner disappear from his view completely, unless he was standing on the roof or he somehow managed to run through the fence and far across the street to view the final second of Flight 77. He also never mentions any steep banks or sharp turns of the aircraft, which would have been required to pull off your banking turn. From all credible eyewitness accounts that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, not one mentions any massive turns prior to impact. ALL state a straight in controlled flight, engines at full throttle, and wings level, right up the the end where a minor adjustment is made with the left wing tip going up.

So, wow, LaBTop, all your hard work just got tripped up by two paragraphs. Maybe if you could provide some eyewitness acounts of the plane making such a steep and fast turn.

What is my evidence you ask? I'll just pull up Terry Morin's first account taken right after the events as well as Albert Hemphill.

Terry:

"Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB) I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.”

Albert:

At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike[..]He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building

Now then, I want to watch you shoehorn Terry's account first, into your little drawing for the NoC flightpath, taking everything into account of what he said, and explain just how he would be able to watch the entire flight from his vantage point, or any other points he may have run to to get a better view, taking into account that he watched the whole thing. Albert also states the plane plane being left wing down prior to impact and straightening up on impact. Your entire flightpath requires the plane to be in a high left wing up to fly around the Citgo for the NoC. But no one ever sees anything like this. Care to explain? Remember, the plane cannot make a flat and level high speed turn using just the rudder. No one mentions any large bank to the right either. So By these two gentlemen alone, your theory just falls flat on its face.

reply to post by LaBTop

As you know by now, I do not like him at all, since our confrontation in my only allowed personal thread there, up till the moment that that megalomaniac closed it and banned me.
Because I gave too many hints and facts that AA 77 did certainly not fly over the Pentagon.

All that work you put into this, and all for naught I'm afraid. Shame.

As to the person you mention above, I see no merit in using any of his, nor CIT's so-called "work". Even if, as you seem to think, some of what they did as "research" was "good".....the rest of their subsequent actions, and the sum total in aggregate of what they present, is so much garbage it negates any small amount of "good".

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice.......?


The so-called "NoC" meme is dead. This thread is DOA. Not only for the simple reasons (eyewitnesses) pointed out above, but (because let's not fool ourselves....we can 'argue' about the fact eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems, due to its generally acknowledged inexact nature)...setting that aside, there is the exact science and evidence that refutes this entire thread premise:

The "Black Box" Flight Data Recorder evidence.

The 84RADES radar recordings.

And, the most glaring and visual example of all....which you included in images in the OP, but for some reason go on to completely ignore....is the angle of the damage path inside the Pentagon. In the graphics, any impact that would have been into the building from a trajectory that had the airplane NoC would have resulted in a nearly 90° angle compared to the facade of that side of the Pentagon....this is clearly not the case.

I'm sorry, but this entire exercise in futility appears to be nothing but an attempt to shoe-horn a few eyewitness' testimonies (a few that contradict far, far more people's) by an incredible leap of illogic and machination that has certainly "jumped the shark", long ago.....

Originally posted by LaBTop
To Reheat : your signature link its text is a piece of hogwash, and you know it.

Perhaps I should be insulted, but I'm in good company because you also claim the same about NIST, ASCE, Firefighters in NYC, First Responders and all of the clean up folks at the Pentagon, plus everybody else and his brother that do not agree with your perverted views. I feel honored to be in such good company.

Originally posted by LaBTop
You feed on the gullible.

Well, apparently not. You just said my stuff was hogwash!

Originally posted by LaBTop
And I showed you in many posts that a downward attack angle from over the center of the ANNEX roofs, leading north of the CITGO gas station, in a very normal and low 23° bank angle and then after passing north of CITGO, a slight right turn by AA 77, a hundred meters or so before it would continue to fly straight over the 4 ANC workers standing between their maintenance buildings compound on the south rim of the Arlington National Cemetery grounds, continuing in its very low slightly downwards banking turn to cross over the Washington Boulevard (Route 27) and slam into the west wall. Some say it made a slight left banking correction when over the Pentagon lawn.

At least you know what hogwash is because you just wrote a huge load of it in this paragraph.

Originally posted by LaBTop
You keep insulting me, and about everybody else, without any form of moderator warning, so from now on I take it as fact that you must be a main shareholder in ATS, or even its secret owner, since I get punished at even the slightest ATS rules infringement, and you can go on untouched for years.

Now, why or how in the world do I insult you? I strongly disagree with what you write and how you write it. Why in the world would you be insulted because I keep telling you that you are wrong and provide the proof to show it. Perhaps if you listened and absorbed what I've had to say you'd feel less insulted and actually learn something. Instead, you keep posting tripe with a horrible writing style that hardly anyone can read and keep feeling insulted. Maybe it's time to change?

Originally posted by LaBTop
It's getting so stupid to react on your posts, that I should not react anymore on any of you, my usual "fan club" members. So, bye bye fans.

Well, if you feel stupid "reacting" to my posts, perhaps that tells you something right there.

ETA: The premise of your entire OP is WRONG proven by the entirety of the evidence you choose to ignore. You then try to use Jack White's photos and his analysis when ALL of his stuff should immediately go into the HOAX bin. With this kind of support you should feel truly insulted due to succumbing to his hoaxes. What was that again about me feeding on the gullible?

The smoking generator is a smoking gun.

I've mentioned this before in another thread but I'll recap it here.

I have reason to believe that the Pentagon scene was "staged". That being so, why would any such thing be necessary if an actual passenger jet truly did strike the Pentagon? You wouldn't need to "stage" anything if a real plane was used. I go so far as to include the smoking generator in all of this. Why? Well what's it doing? It's smoking. Why is it smoking? It's on fire. Why is it on fire? It was hit by an airplane in passing. Was it now?

Like are you sure? You got any video of it being hit? You got any witness accounts of seeing it get hit? You got ANY decent film of an airplane at all? No? So you got tales of an airplane, a damaged generator and a billowing vertical smoke plume. Yeah, that's about right. And so you automatically assume and think that one thing must follow from the other cause and effect like then right, even though you don't have any video of the strike?

It's like that thing I seen on the web about reading a short paragraph with all the correct words in it except that the letters of each word are mixed up, turns out, the brain don't care if the letters are in the right order, long as the letters are there for each word the brain can read the paragraph.

There's a smoking generator with a gouge on top in front of a damaged wall with plane parts scattered over the lawn but there's no video. Brain steps in and says: "Well, what must've happened is a plane came charging in, hit the generator, hit the wall, exploded and left bits of itself scattered about!" Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm pretty much convinced the Pentagon scene was "staged".

And that means I think the smoking generator was 'in on it'.

Think about it. A plane comes in at just the right height to damage and set a fire and produce generous smoke plumes in an object set directly between the most heavily damaged section of the Pentagon wall and the closest part of the nearby highway. Convenient.

A plane comes in and flies just the right height to hit it but not topple it over like the light poles. Interesting. The light poles were anchored too, unlike the trailer which was just sitting there on its wheels alone. Comes in and hits it at all and not fly over, or flies too low and completely obliterates it. Right? You follow?

It's like the Earth, closer to the sun we'd burn up, further out we'd freeze. Why we're right in the sweet spot zone! Just like that generator.

Coincidence you ask, or some sort of Plan!!


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned

I'm pretty much convinced the Pentagon scene was "staged".

Uhhh If you were in charge of staging the Pentagon hit would you choose the side closest to the expressway?
I mean it would take some time to carry out all the bits and pieces and place them on the lawn.
How many cars would pass by during that amount of time?
How many right seat passengers travel that same stretch of road everyday to work looking out the window?

If I were planning the hit, I would have the plane hit the inner rings first traveling outward.
That way I would have plenty of time to set up the debris hidden from the public.


But then again there's all those pesky witnesses that actually saw the plane cross the expressway. So your being convinced otherwise goes out the window.

[Truther logic]

Originally posted by NWOwned
The smoking generator is a smoking gun.

Could've have fooled me. Seems to me it was be a smoking generator.

Originally posted by NWOwned
I've mentioned this before in another thread but I'll recap it here.

Yes, I would too. It is so important it needs to get out in search of the "truth".

Originally posted by NWOwned
I have reason to believe that the Pentagon scene was "staged".

OK

Originally posted by NWOwned
That being so,

Oops. Did you forget to mentioned something here?

Originally posted by NWOwned
why would any such thing be necessary if an actual passenger jet truly did strike the Pentagon?

It wouldn't, but I'm sure this is not the answer you're looking for.

Originally posted by NWOwned
You wouldn't need to "stage" anything if a real plane was used.

True

Originally posted by NWOwned
I go so far as to include the smoking generator in all of this. Why? Well what's it doing? It's smoking. Why is it smoking? It's on fire. Why is it on fire? It was hit by an airplane in passing. Was it now?

That's amazing logic there. But, I see above that it was a "smoking gun" and guns usually smoke after they are fired, but they are not actually on fire, Since an airplane slammed into the wall behind it, it is reasonable to presume the airplane hitting it was the cause.

Originally posted by NWOwned
Like are you sure?

You don't suppose someone smoking near the fuel did it, do you?

Originally posted by NWOwned
You got any video of it being hit? You got any witness accounts of seeing it get hit? You got ANY decent film of an airplane at all? No? So you got tales of an airplane, a damaged generator and a billowing vertical smoke plume. Yeah, that's about right. And so you automatically assume and think that one thing must follow from the other cause and effect like then right, even though you don't have any video of the strike?

Well, I can't speak for you, but 125 people died in the building, all those onboard the aircraft died and most of their families are still grieving for them. Also, aircraft parts scattered all over the place is a BIG CLUE along with a missing American Airlines B-757 aircraft.

Originally posted by NWOwned
It's like that thing I seen on the web about reading a short paragraph with all the correct words in it except that the letters of each word are mixed up, turns out, the brain don't care if the letters are in the right order, long as the letters are there for each word the brain can read the paragraph.

I don't have a video of my conception and birth, but I do know that I was born. Perhaps you're different.

Originally posted by NWOwned
There's a smoking generator with a gouge on top in front of a damaged wall with plane parts scattered over the lawn but there's no video. Brain steps in and says: "Well, what must've happened is a plane came charging in, hit the generator, hit the wall, exploded and left bits of itself scattered about!" Maybe. Maybe not.

Surprise me! Where did that airplane go? Do you suppose it's still there suspended in mid air, do you?

Originally posted by NWOwned
I'm pretty much convinced the Pentagon scene was "staged".

You've convinced me that's what you believe. It is noteworthy that I did not use the word think. There's no evidence that you do that at all.

Originally posted by NWOwned
And that means I think the smoking generator was 'in on it'.

Yes, that's obvious by now. My dog thinks I'm mean because I make him go outside to do his business. I can't convince him that's not true either. Hang in there, things will become clearer eventually...

Originally posted by NWOwned
Think about it. A plane comes in at just the right height to damage and set a fire and produce generous smoke plumes in an object set directly between the most heavily damaged section of the Pentagon wall and the closest part of the nearby highway. Convenient.

Well, you have me now. I suppose it could have approached at cruising altitude, but then it would have missed the building. Since it slammed into the building, yes an approach at low altitude was not only convenient, it was necessary.

Originally posted by NWOwned
Coincidence you ask, or some sort of Plan.

Based on what you've surmised above, I'd say you are right about this one.

[/Truther logic]

reply to post by NWOwned


You mentioned the "brain" in this post....might want to engage it now:

You got ANY decent film of an airplane at all? No?

Got any decent film of the crash of Pan Am 102? No? Well then, how do we know it happened?

Got any decent film of the crash of TWA 800? No? Well then, how do we know it happened?

Got any decent video of the crash of American 1420? NO? Well then, how do we know it happened?


How do we know that none of those "crashes" weren't "staged"? There is no video of the events. For al you know, Pan AM 102 was (ahem) "blown up by terrorists" over Scotland, while in flight. Who's to say that teams of black-clad Ninjas didn't swarm in to Lockerbie and "plant" all of that airplane debris? And victims' bodies??

That is the essence of your "reasoning", here.

TWA 800 was all in pieces, and in the ocean, for Pete's sake! Even easier, by your "standards". Just float the debris out on a barge and dump it overboard....right? Do you also think that is what happened?


Oh wait.....there are a few things that tie those, and just about 99.9% of every major airliner crash together....the Flight Recorders (so-called "black boxes").


Hmmm...(note to self).....might need to go back and "re-think" this "Pan Am 102 and TWA 800 were staged" idea....needs a bit of tweaking.........

I really have to marvel at the logic Truthers have when it comes to this. For starters:

Why is it that Truthers need a "Rube-Goldberg-esque" crackpot theory that is so overcomplicated, it is sure to fail or be extremely noticeable? Like the Pentagon.

The idea: A hijacked plane crashes into the Pentagon. Sounds simple, is simple. You just have terrorists hijack a plane, as it has been done for decades with air-travel, fly it towards a target, and then kamikaze into the largest structure that is visible in DC. That is how the terrorists thought it. Just like the Bushido kamikazes of WWII, they took inexperienced suckers, I mean, patriots, instilled them with visions of grandeur and serving the Emperor, and glory, gave them the most rudimentary pilot training ever, consisting of take off and basic flying ability, then sent them in waves to crash into ships that are throwing up a hail of fire, and are ziging and zaging in the open ocean. Here the terrorists took actual flying lessons, a managed to pilot and impact a massive building that was stationary. Simplest ever.

Now, how do Truthers twist it? The plane is either A) remote controlled and loaded with fuel and explosives; B) Fake; C) a real plane is somehow switched with a small drone or a look alike, and is sent into the Pentagon; D) a real plane is aimed to fly over the Pentagon and pyrotechnics go off to mask the flyover and then debris is planted everywhere inside and out; E) a missile is somehow launched and masked to look like a 757 and impacts the Pentagon and then airliner debris is planted everywhere. Now the plane/missile/drone/etc is suppose to fly along an extremely prepared flightpath, that requires it to fly over certain areas at a certain time, in order to knock lamp posts down, clip a tree, fly over a few roads, go SoC, fly along the Navy Annex parallel, clip a generator trailer and then impact the Pentagon and have the internal debris go in the same direction as the planned flight path. Now, the plane for some reason, is not flown along the flight path as prescribed and went NoC, but somehow the light poles need to now be staged to give the illusion that the plane flew and hit them in the middle of morning rush hour with thousands of potential eyewitnesses. The plane hit from a NoC approach, which means now everything is off kilter and no longer aligned with their prepared final approach. So now, they need to realign the flight path damage inside the Pentagon (this is assuming that the plane was actually impacted) scatter debris all in front of newsmedia and thousands of people watching, scatter debris outside, and plant the black boxes that show the final moments along the "correct" flightpath. But now the radar data also needs to read the "preplanned" route so now THAT needs to be redone, and the black boxes, and now they need to somehow preset the eyewitnesses that witnessed the event and have them be corrected.

Which of the above seems most probable? My brain started to hurt after trying to write and consider all the Truther's versions of what happened at the Pentagon.

Can any Truther give a better explanation to cover all the bases?

Personally, I believe in Occam's Razor. Simplest is the correct one. Why do truthers need a Rube-Goldberg contraption? Personally I believe that all truthers do is this:

reply to post by GenRadek


yeah, it's just like those 5 frames from that security camera... right?

reply to post by psyop911


I'll ask you this then:

Do you honestly believe that if there truly was a clear shot of the plane and the impact, would the truthers accept it? Would they accept it if one discovered unseen footage of it, and it clearly shows an impact?

Be honest.

I already know the answer.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psyop911

 

I'll ask you this then:

Do you honestly believe that if there truly was a clear shot of the plane and the impact, would the truthers accept it? Would they accept it if one discovered unseen footage of it, and it clearly shows an impact?

Be honest.


I already know the answer.

All this is meant to mislead you away from the 911 war games and Israels planning and execution of the attack.

And you know it.

Originally posted by NWOwned
The smoking generator is a smoking gun.

I've mentioned this before in another thread but I'll recap it here.

I have reason to believe that the Pentagon scene was "staged". That being so, why would any such thing be necessary if an actual passenger jet truly did strike the Pentagon? You wouldn't need to "stage" anything if a real plane was used. I go so far as to include the smoking generator in all of this. Why? Well what's it doing? It's smoking. Why is it smoking? It's on fire. Why is it on fire? It was hit by an airplane in passing. Was it now?

Like are you sure? You got any video of it being hit? You got any witness accounts of seeing it get hit? You got ANY decent film of an airplane at all? No? So you got tales of an airplane, a damaged generator and a billowing vertical smoke plume. Yeah, that's about right. And so you automatically assume and think that one thing must follow from the other cause and effect like then right, even though you don't have any video of the strike?

It's like that thing I seen on the web about reading a short paragraph with all the correct words in it except that the letters of each word are mixed up, turns out, the brain don't care if the letters are in the right order, long as the letters are there for each word the brain can read the paragraph.

There's a smoking generator with a gouge on top in front of a damaged wall with plane parts scattered over the lawn but there's no video. Brain steps in and says: "Well, what must've happened is a plane came charging in, hit the generator, hit the wall, exploded and left bits of itself scattered about!" Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm pretty much convinced the Pentagon scene was "staged".

And that means I think the smoking generator was 'in on it'.

Think about it. A plane comes in at just the right height to damage and set a fire and produce generous smoke plumes in an object set directly between the most heavily damaged section of the Pentagon wall and the closest part of the nearby highway. Convenient.

A plane comes in and flies just the right height to hit it but not topple it over like the light poles. Interesting. The light poles were anchored too, unlike the trailer which was just sitting there on its wheels alone. Comes in and hits it at all and not fly over, or flies too low and completely obliterates it. Right? You follow?

It's like the Earth, closer to the sun we'd burn up, further out we'd freeze. Why we're right in the sweet spot zone! Just like that generator.

Coincidence you ask, or some sort of Plan!!


Cheers

You are definitely on the right track when you see the BSers out in force against you.
A dog with a mallett up his arse can see that the pentagon attack was
staged, with a plane flyover and timely explosions (destroying the very
area (recently renovated (ideal for planting explosives)) containing the records
holding the key to the whereabouts of the unaccounted for trillions announced
the previous day by slimey rumsfeld) passed off (with media complicity) as a BS
terrorist attack (just like other events that day).
There were no victims in this charade, which involved hundreds of emergency drill
participants/workers!

Are we getting it yet? We were duped!

People are mentally slower than dogs with malletts up their arses, it appears NWowned!

reply to post by pshea38

A dog with a mallett up his arse can see that the pentagon attack was
staged, with a plane flyover and timely explosions (destroying the very
area (recently renovated (ideal for planting explosives)) containing the records
holding the key to the whereabouts of the unaccounted for trillions announced
the previous day by slimey rumsfeld) passed off (with media complicity) as a BS
terrorist attack (just like other events that day).

Only if you ignor the eye witnesses from the expressway.
And you still don't get it that 2.3 trillion is more that the ENTIRE DEFENCE BUDGET FOR 8 YEARS. No money was missing.

reply to post by LaBTop


Dear god sir what an amazing post.

so much evidence and theory to offer.

Well done!

I'm still reading ;-P

reply to post by DaRAGE


don't forget to seriously consider the OS supporters proof of rebuttal using FAMILY GUY as a reference


Im sure all the forensic acountants investigating the missing trillions and others that died that day are rolling in their graves over that one.

Im sure one day they will issue the actual film of the event taken from any one of the gazzillion cameras as proof of what happened for sure....
nawwww ....the oS spporters would all get lynched if the peeps en mass ever found out the real truth.

C) a real plane is somehow switched with a small drone or a look alike, and is sent into the Pentagon

reply to post by GenRadek


They (The US military) believed that they could pull this off convincingly without any loose ends in 1962.

As much as it would be funny for such a scene as CIA agents sitting round a table shaking their fists to "Damn those Truthers!", do you honestly think the FBI's actions in seizing all tapes that caught the event, and the gov't's refusal over the past 11 years to release a single frame of AA 77 flying into the Pentagon hinges on the fact that a small group of skeptics may not "buy it"?

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by DaRAGE

 

don't forget to seriously consider the OS supporters proof of rebuttal using FAMILY GUY as a reference

Im sure all the forensic acountants investigating the missing trillions and others that died that day are rolling in their graves over that one.

Im sure one day they will issue the actual film of the event taken from any one of the gazzillion cameras as proof of what happened for sure....
nawwww ....the oS spporters would all get lynched if the peeps en mass ever found out the real truth.

edit on 11-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

So sad that you cannot understand the reason why I chose this particular clip. But I guess to use one's intelligence is too much ask for nowadays. Maybe a fellow ATSer can explain it to you in simpler terms.

reply to post by GenRadek


you used it because you have NO evidence to support your position

reply to post by DaRAGE

so much evidence and theory to offer.

Well done!

So you think that in the planning stage the government perps figured that they could scoop up all the tapes from all the businesses surrounding the pentagon before the owners decided to publish them?
That sort of sounds like a government plan. Stupid as it is.
And these same perps were so sure that no one passing on the expressway would have a video camera?
Once again it sort of sounds like a government plan. Stupid and missing key points.

Any one of thousands of tourists and passer bys could have had a video camera pointed at the perps placing debris around the crash site. But the governemnt planners were so sure no one would see it in broad daylight on a clear sunny day.
Even morons who rob quick marts think farther ahead than that.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by pshea38

 

A dog with a mallett up his arse can see that the pentagon attack was
staged, with a plane flyover and timely explosions (destroying the very
area (recently renovated (ideal for planting explosives)) containing the records
holding the key to the whereabouts of the unaccounted for trillions announced
the previous day by slimey rumsfeld) passed off (with media complicity) as a BS
terrorist attack (just like other events that day).

Only if you ignor the eye witnesses from the expressway.
And you still don't get it that 2.3 trillion is more that the ENTIRE DEFENCE BUDGET FOR 8 YEARS. No money was missing.

If the eyewitnesses contradict the evidence, then they are mistaken or lying!
Many eyewitness accounts are contradictory, so which accounts do you choose to believe?

So rumsfeld didn't announce trillions unaccounted for the previous evening?
And the military accounts section of the pentagon wasn't wiped out on 9/11?