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

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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 _


I like the way you think. I think you're almost there.

But consider for a moment my way of thinking.

By "staging" I mean at least 2 things.

1. Deception (Obviously)
2. Intent (i.e. To achieve some sort of goal etc.)

With "staging" there more than likely is a Specific Goal.

For instance, say you want to "stage" a nice 5 course meal and to have it all be cooked and ready to eat all at the same time. You have to plan it and coordinate it to pull it all off. There is a goal. A good meal all done on time.

With "staging" at the Pentagon therefore, you have to naturally ask yourself, "Well what's the Goal?"

You gonna stage something that immense all willy-nilly? Is that how you cook, put the quickest done thing on first and hope for the best? No. If there's "staging" and you control the scene then you control the Goal the staging is in place to help achieve. You follow? Now what is it?

People, thinking that 9/11 was a terrorist scenario, just simply think hitting a big building with a big plane is the Goal.

Even you seem to lean this way in your post, when you indicate that you'd hit the inside of the Pentagon first, towards the outside so as to have more time to plant parts etc. So right there you simply think the Goal is just to hit something big and American with a plane. Right?

But is it?

I'm saying if there were no "staging" then hitting a big important building with a big airplane would probably just be what was going on. But the second you see or suspect there is "staging" then it becomes clear that there must be more to it than just simply that.

Now you make a great point, 'why hit the building near the expressway where everyone can see?' Right? Good point. Seems crazy to do that if you're trying really hard to deceive everybody, I get it.

To this I say, "There is 'staging' (and therefore a Goal) and therefore, since you're controlling the scene, whatever happened was meant to happen for some reason. It does seem stupid to hit the building where everyone could potentially see the deception, but it was done, and so I say, that therefore, it must've needed to be hit regardless."

I know I know, what am I saying?!

I'm saying there was something on that side of the Pentagon that wasn't on another side or around the corner or in the middle or on another building, that absolutely needed to be taken out and it was so imperative that they even had to do it with the knowledge that the expressway was indeed right there.

But it was thought important enough a target to go ahead and hit it anyway. That's what I'm saying.

Now earlier I talked about the generator and its gouge in terms of height, but consider also its placement in terms of proximity to the Pentagon. It's not right next to the Pentagon, parked there like the Fire truck or that van or car (apparently there's no problem parking stuff right next to the Pentagon wall) and it's not further out on the grass where it wouldn't likely get hit and be seen as crazy to be out there and smoking... no, it's right in that spot between the hole and the expressway (with all those prying eyes) and it's on fire and smoking PROFUSELY.

Go figure.

If I uploaded a plan view wireframe drawing of the Pentagon scene on a test like sheet for people to mark up and I grade and I said like, "Ok, Question 4, you must draw with a red 'X' and mark the spot on this drawing where it would be optimal to place some sort of accident related obstruction to most effectively block the most damage from the most prying eyes, go at it."

You could not find a better location for anybody to place their 'X' than the actual location of the smoking generator.

They had to hit that side of the building (for a specific reason - because it was done 'in full view, full daylight') and because they had to they also had to do their best to conceal just exactly what they hit it with.

Remember there are images and video of broken plane parts on the ground but no images or video of intact plane parts in the air, i.e., an airplane in flight.


Cheers




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


About the eye witnesses on the expressway...

Let's say you're driving in downtown L.A.

Maybe you're heading for Starbucks... all of a sudden, in the other lane, maybe 2 lanes over, two or three, along comes a car the police are chasing, like you see sometimes live on the web from the news helicopters. This car is fast, speeding, and it's smoking too, you look and it seems like the engine or something is on fire there's plenty of smoke etc. But buddy is on the run and buzzes right past you and keeps on going.

Now maybe you're not the only one going to Starbucks, and it is L.A., there are tourists and shoppers and people eating out, not to mention other drivers going in your direction, coming toward you and others coming in at the intersections. There are people waiting at the lights and crosswalks waiting to cross etc.

Maybe 100-150 people around.

So you watch the guy in the stolen car with the smoking engine whiz past you. Down a ways, maybe 1000 or 1200 feet, there's an intersection and a crash, turns out buddy runs a red light and smacks into a minivan going through the intersection.

Later the cops (confiscate all the traffic cams, lol) and interview everyone who comes forward and those right around the impact.

Now of those 100-150 people, yourself included, how many do you think would fail to mention the smoking engine? If you pulled over to give your report what would it sound like? Would you mention the smoking engine? No? What about everyone else? You think everyone would fail to mention it? No way right?

You (or if not you) then someone out of 100-150 people, someone would either specifically say or casually mention, "Ya I saw him approaching at a high rate of speed, his engine was on fire and smoking, that's all I know, I had to leap out of the way because he caught me right in the crosswalk." Something like that. Somebody (maybe you) would mention the smoking engine.

But at the Pentagon, not a single eye witness did.

What am I talking about?

The later released 5 frame gate cam video. It shows a smoke trail. A smoke trail no witness mentions. A smoke trail hypothesized to come from the right engine of 'the plane' hitting a light pole. There's even an animation of it made by some company, of a jet crossing the Pentagon lawn with a smoking right engine.

Only problem with it is no witness mentioned it.

Not even the people on the expressway. Not even that guy we had in here who claimed he was on the expressway and the 'plane' flew right over the road 400 feet directly in front of his windshield. Not a peep.

So I say there is either something wrong with the witness accounts or there's something up with the gate cam video. Or BOTH.

Take online poker. With online poker there is a problem with "collusion". You could be sitting at a table playing for real money and the nine other people sitting there might just be partnered with the third guy to your left.

The other 9 people might not even be different people but just all that third guy on your left.

It's a big problem in poker. There you are playing for real money and all the other people at the table are in collusion and playing against just you. It looks like everyone is doing their own thing but it turns out maybe you're the only one getting played because they're all 'in on it'.

There's this expressway near the Pentagon hit and there's cars on it. But how many of these cars are being driven by people 'not in on it'? How much collusion is there on the Pentagon expressway?

Sure, you're there and only driving to work, but if the scene is "staged" then the perps know when the hit will be.

So you get 100 of your friends in their cars out on the highway, doing nothing but circling the Pentagon at the appropriate time. Immediately after impact the tapes are confiscated and the expressway is closed.

So you only need to simulate citizens in cars for a very short period of time prior to the hit. It would not be difficult at all, if you were serious about your "staging" to have almost every single car on the expressway beside the Pentagon hit occupied by a guy (or gal) on your "staging" team.

Not hard at all to drive a car... around and around. And to be on a certain stretch of road at a certain time.

The expressway had cars on it but who was driving? And if at the time of the hit it was all your "staging" team each in their own vehicle then who was really there and close enough to report that the plane parts were all planted? Why if the only people close enough to see anything were the people in the cars and they were 'in on it' then that would give you even more time to plant the parts.

People always say: "People on the highway would've seen..." Ya so, it doesn't matter if they're not going to tell.


Cheers



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 





The later released 5 frame gate cam video. It shows a smoke trail. A smoke trail no witness mentions. A smoke trail hypothesized to come from the right engine of 'the plane' hitting a light pole. There's even an animation of it made by some company, of a jet crossing the Pentagon lawn with a smoking right engine.

Only problem with it is no witness mentioned it.

Because it wasn't smoking until after it had crossed the expressway.
The smoke didn't start until after it hit a pole. I dno't know if it was the light pole on the road that also hit the car or one closer to the building. But either way the distance is 1000 feet or less.
The plane was traveling about 750 feet per second. So the time is just over 1 second from pole to building.
Was the smoke actually smoke from a damaged engine or fuel pouring from ruptured tanks? If it were raw fuel the trail would vanish almost instantly. So the lack of people mentioning smoke is understandable.

And to suggest that ALL THE CARS were government perps is not reasonable. Thousands of people would have mentioned that the road was closed to normal work a day cars. Plus you would have hundreds of government perps that knew they were part of some plot when they were ordered to drive cars around the Pentagon expressway while the plane crash was staged.

Why are conspiracy theories so complicated? You would have to involve so many other people to cover all the events that lead up to that day.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by GenRadek
 


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


Do you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever? Did they teach you that in school, or did you skip that day in class?

Go back to my post, and look at the key words I used and what I stated. I'll give you a headstart, cause I can see your eyes glossing over whenever you need to read and learn something by yourself instead of having someone spoon feed it to you with a sock-puppet.

Key words: Truthers, Rube-Goldberg device, failure, over complication, sure to fail
Video: Peter Griffen and his "Breakfast Machine"

Now lets hear those gears start cranking in that brain of yours, and see if you can figure it out yet.

If any ATS member wish to assist Danbones, please do so.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by NWOwned
 



Why are conspiracy theories so complicated? You would have to involve so many other people to cover all the events that lead up to that day.


Hence my use of the Family Guy video, and the fun of watching Danbones slamming his head into the wall trying to understand the meaning behind it!



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


It was not "staged"!! The "Rube-Goldberg device" comes into play, yet again.

But, in any case, this is yet again, a false diversionary tactic:


Remember there are images and video of broken plane parts on the ground but no images or video of intact plane parts in the air, i.e., an airplane in flight.



There are "images" of the airplane in sense. The 84th RADES radar recordings. There are also "images" in the memories of countless eyewitnesses. To include the crew on the National Guard C-130, and the Air Traffic Controllers in the Washington National Control Tower.

Of course, Sean Boger, he was in the Heliport Control Tower at the Pentagon...he saw it too. Along with countless others.

In the annals of major airline accidents (prior to 9/11) show the video or images of those crashes. Do you understand that by definition "accidents" are unexpected? Do you understand the concept of "accident"? Do you realize that even in 2001....unlike today, people did NOT have a camera in every cell phone?

I had the Motorola 'Razr' flip-phone, and also a Nokia cell phone that flipped open to use the keypad for texting. NONE of those had a camera in it.

Try using some common sense, and some proper research.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


NWOwned, I like your logical approach.

This next one, is a problem at hand, needing some logic to solve the puzzle.
Look up the victims placement drawing, I believe in the ASCE report.
The spots their dead bodies were found, or their body parts.
The plane victims spots were colored different.



There are quite a lot of bodies situated near or in front of a clearly closed door. They did not get through them.
This can be caused by displacement of the door frames, thus causing them to stuck.
Or, they plain simply were locked.
Those doors were leading to a corridor, a hallway with access to elevators and a way out.

Later reports said that all ONI personnel at duty were killed, except one young officer, who was sent to bring a message. He was the only survivor, with lots of burns.
It seems like all the Navy ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) personnel were found in front of doors they ALL went to, of which they were quite sure it was normally OPEN.
It also is quite clear that that first report by a military source is not what happened.
They said all the ONI victims were killed instantly at impact.

Yup, and the tooth fairy then moved all their bodies to exits routes.
They clearly were nearly all or all, still moving after the impact, but could not escape their locked offices.

Why did they all go to exits? Because these were the brightest of the brightest. You did not get into the ONI offices if you lacked just a tad bit of intelligence. You instantly make the best, most logical decisions.

Now think for a moment, all these bright young and older people, all died in front of those doors.
That could mean that some rat had locked those doors, as part of the plan, the Goal of the Pentagon attack.
The ONI certainly had electronic locks. With the right credentials, one could remotely lock them all.

Look again at that drawing.
The officially pushed term Exit Hole turns out to be an Entry hole, blasted inwards by a wall breaching unit.
That's a military device, made of hard plastic, with a thicker rim running around the "shield" that can be filled with water, yep, simple water. On site they clamp the device to the wall to be breached with two 4 by 4s, a thick detonation cord is already laid inside a long indented notch line cast under the thicker outer rim, meant to hold that DET-cord.
When the device is set up tight against the wall they want to walk through later, and shored with 2 planks, they ignite the percussion-cap, and nearly all the explosive power will go in the direction of that wall's bricks, and blow a neat round hole in it. The small part of the explosive power that bounces back from the device after ignition, together with the plastic and water, bleeds very fast off, the more distance it travels. That's why you saw only a few windows broken on the second floors of the B-ring wall.

The gouge indicates a totally different attack angle (about 80°) than the official 42° one.
Thus, the internal damage could never be the result of a plane spearing through that damaged path, up till that entry hole :


Gate Crasher wall breaching kit :



Look at the space occupied by Special Navy use :




Then look at the Pentagon victims positions in those blue spaces in the Navy Operations Center that could have never been speared by an 80° angled attack plane :





Also look at the green spaces in front of that blue block.
That's where the Army auditors were working on the missing trillions receipts.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Hey you, my JREF "fan club".

How dare you to keep on blabbering in this thread, that gives evidence that the whole damn SoC attack path pushed by the government is one big pile of baloney, because the photos of the gouge indicate a totally other attack plane angle, that enforces the NoC attack path, which is now endlessly giving evidence of by me.
Ask Frank Probst if he's a liar. He saw with his own eyes, after he dove to the ground near those twin trees in front of the Heli pad, that the NoC attack plane its right wing tip slashed through the roof of that generator cabin build on that heavy 3-axled trailer.

So, true "debunkers" as you are, you completely ignore the full body of evidence laid before you, and derail this thread again, into a truth bashing Fest, and the endless boring promoting of the very one conspiracy theory, the official one, we, the true debunkers of the SoC path, do not believe in.

How utterly dense can you be.
edit on 12/3/12 by LaBTop because: Had the urge to add JREF



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 





Also look at the green spaces in front of that blue block.
That's where the Army auditors were working on the missing trillions receipts.

You do remember there was a fire????

Other than that what's the point of your post? Personally I find your posts are too long to attempt to digest. They rehash the same old conspiracy claims. Only they don't seem to get to a concise point.
But that's just me.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


You can't debunk what you don't digest
and the op even put in pictures for the non digesters too

what about readers digest?

Im sure the OS would present pictures and film if they could
except it might not support the OS if they did

as the OP tends to show here with his effert and attention to detail
edit on 12-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well, it turned out that, I believe Penny Elgas said, in her phone interview with Jeffrey Hill from the PumpItOut forum, where you can find lots of interviews by him with other witnesses, that one thing that amazed her, was the enormous amount of photo cameras and video cameras she saw after leaving her car, all photographing and filming the events.

It could be another one who said it, but I'm quite sure she was it. I posted that remark with a link here on ATS.

Thus, the Goal was that as many people as possible would witness a plane impact, and record as much as possible of it. That's why the center lanes were blocked with an "accident". They wanted as many witnesses who stood in a traffic jam, so they for sure saw the plane smash in that west wall.
So, all of them would thus enforce the notion, that ALL the damage would have come from that plane impact.
(Also on a real SoC impact path, the plane would not have a chance to get through the whole 3 Rings, it would also have reached only the back wall of the E-Ring.)
And it flew much slower than the recovered last part of the FDR wants us to believe.
Too many witnesses give evidence of a slower plane.

The problem is, that the plane for whatever reason, had to take a shortcut around the CITGO station.
And thus did manage to impact at about the intended spot, but did not went further in then the back wall in the first ring, the E-ring. In a 80° entrance path. That's why they had to bring the wedge-1 portion, where the plane lay under, down. To cover the plane wreck. And be able to truck its evidence away, after all civilians were waved away in the next days. Then the military took over.
Show me one photo of what came out from under the collapsed part. You can't, because that part was only removed by the military Engineers unit that cleaned up the whole impact area, before the ASCE engineers were allowed in for FOUR hrs only, on the 4th of October, and reported to come into a totally cleaned area.
Not a shimmer of a plane to be found (read the last ASCE report pages ! ).

So, they had to use their demolition charges about 1 minute after impact (the white hot spit out of an explosion cloud, I have on photo), because they of course were a tad bit amazed that THEIR plane came from the wrong direction.
Some quick discussion, and they decided to set off the demo charges, whatever happened there after.
That's why they chased every one away with a phone call that a second plane was on its way to Washington.
They had to collapse that Wedge 1, that was needed at all costs, to hide the real attack angle, that would have ruined their whole prepared, downed by a SoC plane, 5 light poles fairy tale.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


You keep going on about the "gouge" in the generator? And its "angle"?

Yet, ignore ALL of the other evidence that supports the real impact angle, and the actual approach angle?

This is called "confirmation bias". (And, did the generator move, perhaps, when it was struck?? Did you address this, if so, can you point it out?)

As to another reply......you're in your car, in traffic. Maybe you do have a camera there with you. The jet is coming in at over 800 feet per second.

How many people are fast enough to react in time, to such an event? Think about it......



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
(Also on a real SoC impact path, the plane would not have a chance to get through the whole 3 Rings, it would also have reached only the back wall of the E-Ring.)


What "back wall of the E-Ring"?

More epic fail. I just love it when these Truther Experts come in here or there or anywhere with their 15 paragraphs of "analysis" and then trip over their clown shoes while climbing ouit of the clown car with some brilliant statement like "back wall of the E-Ring".

There is no "back wall of the E-Ring" till you get to the 3th floor. The first 2 floors of the E, D, and C rings were all single floors with no walls to separate the rings. Wherever the organizations needed to be separated, they were separated by standard office wall material made up of sheetrock and other general construction materials.

"Back wall of the E-Ring". I love it. Keep those hits coming!



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
There still are masses of people, who still think that in the following photos, you see bended COLUMNS. They are wrong. Those columns are gone, what you see are horizontal strips hanging down from their re-bars.
And those two concrete STRIPS you in reality see dangling down, do not at all indicate a SIDEWAYS angle of attack.
They just ended up hanging down like that, their re-bar bended just enough to hold them up hanging under that angle. The same goes by the way for the same type of strip dangling down in the center of the fuselage-hole, at the obliterated column 14 position, to be seen in the 7th photo on the linked-to "damage.1accesshost.com" page.

The gouge in the generator cabin's roof gives away the real angle of attack, of about 80°. And not the 42° angle the ASCE report did want you to believe.
And that real angle is another FACTUAL piece of evidence, that the plane came in from north of the CITGO station, and impacted under an angle of about 80° to the west wall.
As I have said and gave factual and extra NoC-eyewitnes evidence of, for some years now. But CIT were the first to show us all, what direction William Lagasse pointed at, when he said where he saw the plane for the first time in his eye sight, and thus pass him north of that CITGO station's most northernly canopy part. Where he stood under to fill up his patrol cruiser's tank. The same direction his colleague sergeant Brooks pointed at, in the same video taped piece of historical important evidence.
We have a many minutes long piece of security video taped evidence of him standing exactly there, under the rim of that northern CITGO canopy. The famous FBI confiscated CITGO-video. Uncovered through a FOIA action.

The first 2 photos on this page show the nose cone impact point at column 14 (the 2-window wide hole) where the strongest beams, namely the longitudinal beams of AA 77's fuselage must have entered like a huge spear.
In the second photo you can see, that the dangling concrete cover-strips with some re-bar sticking out of them, at the column 15, 16 and 17 positions, are not columns at all, but horizontal strips of concrete, placed against the rim of the first floor, and these strips were the basis for the limestone panel-strips.
The first real columns in that second picture are column 17 and 18.
Columns 13 to 16 were all obliterated by the fuselage, the wing roots with the landing wheels in them, and both the jet engines impact.
The plane's bottom must have flown in, just above the cable spools.
And than the front sides of the wing roots hit at those re-barred concrete strips, causing them to break from the floor rim, and to be left dangling down.

For years, about everybody coming up with no-plane theories and strong doubts that AA 77 in fact did hit the west wall, used these pictures to first show the official angle of attack and impact ("columns" bended to the left. They were however no columns), then to feed the impression that those non-columns were in the way of incoming heavy plane parts, like the wing roots and the jet engines. Those parts had already impacted and entered, and after that event those strips fell down but kept hanging on their top-right re-bars.

The third photo on that same page seems to show the wooden stair that led to the generator cabin on that trailer, blazing in a fire. It is however a fire that burns on the side panels of that diesel tank container that was attached at the front of that trailer.
In much later taken photos we still see the intact stair steps. The stair was however broken in two parts, a top and bottom one, as can be seen in days later photos.

REFERENCE :

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
by Jim Hoffman. Version 0.9, March 28, 2006.
911research.wtc7.net...

The below photo, courtesy of Disclose.tv :


More detailed photos from the generator trailer :
911review.org...

This is a drawing from the internal damage path, with additional remarks by me to show the real, about 80° attack angle of the plane, and its resulting impact into the Wedge 1 part of the E-Ring. It came no further than the back wall of that E-Ring, it thus ended up under the later collapsed part of that Wedge 1. Thus covering its remains with all the rubble from the partial collapse. Convenient for the planners, who did not want at all, that rescuers would be able to later report where the plane parts really were situated :




This is the best (NAVY) aerial photo I have found by now, of the whole Pentagon, where you can see where and how the diesel-tank/generator-trailer stood, before 9/11.
The part of the trailer nearest to the corner of the fence is the diesel tank, the rest is the generator cabin :
www.history.navy.mil...

The next photo is an enlargement out of the history.navy.mil pre-9/11 photo, with my remarks about the real form of the gouge as can be seen in my former linked to photos of that gouge.
There is lens-distortion to be included in angle measurements, however, it is obvious that it is a 75° to 80° angled gouge. Which is factual evidence that the plane, AA 77, flew into the west wall under an attack angle that was much bigger than the officially proposed 42°, thus followed the north of CITGO flight path, which is also evidenced by the by now overwhelming evidence from the NoC eyewitness pool :

Original Navy photo :




Same photo, zoomed in and cropped by me, with my remarks :





Source : thewebfairy.com...
A very high resolution photo from minutes after impact, the generator trailer is very sharp to see. It is also obvious, that something behind that trailer is burning heavily. There was another, whitish trailer parked, parallel to the generator trailer :






Below is another photo with a lot of details you will not find in other photos, like how high that fence was compared to people's lengths.
And you can draw a line from the top half yard/meter of that fence to the first floor rim, under the two windows wide impact hole on the second floor, which must have been the trajectory of the bottom of the plane's fuselage when it would have come in from a 42° angle. It does not fit the story of an engine and a flap guide rail both impacting the trailer, or making that hole in the fence.
If the engine made that hole, the whole trailer would have exploded in thousand pieces.
The only possible explanation is the out-most guide rail making that roof-gouge, and one of the inner guide rails were then tearing the top part of the fence plus barb wire with it. I mean the inside guide rails to the right of the jet engine, on the right wing.
The diesel tank front part of the trailer must have been a lot lower than the generator cabin's roof :

Source : i29.photobucket.com...






This is a 8:38 minutes news video with the very first minutes video footage at the Pentagon, after the impact, in it. Most people will not have seen this footage before :




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



The gouge in the generator cabin's roof gives away the real angle of attack, of about 80°. And not the 42° angle....


Did, or did not, the generator get moved on impact?

Further down in the Post I am replying to (click the link), the diagram from the accurate PBPR (Pentagon Building Performance Report) shows the actual (accurate) damage path inside the Pentagon.....but someone (OP? Was that you??) added an outline of a B-757 at the WRONG angle, for some unknown "reason"??

I am beginning to think this is a waste of time....this thread.......



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You first.
Did you notice a few posts up, in my post, the sentence :
""Look at the space occupied by Special Navy use : ""

And did you had your pair of spectacles on, when you had a short glance over that drawing of the 3 Rings?
The thick red lines are the boundaries of the 3 Rings, and yes, every well informed and educated forum writer here knows for years already, that the first 2 floors were long office spaces, covering that whole space. The roof was above the second floor.
Btw, I think that I was the first one to explain that to stubborn posters in the longest ever thread at ATS.

Did you notice the thin dull gray lines all over that drawing?
Well, that's what we call in engineering circles : WALLS.

Sometime we refer to them as dry walls, or dividing walls, or brick walls, or concrete walls, or ....but I think you know the drill by now.

Did you read something in my simple word "wall", something that implemented "concrete", or "brick", or something else, that's so hard that you will manage to break your stubborn skull on, after you ran to your keyboard to AT LAST get that irritating LaBTop rökker?

What a pity, it's clear to anybody else who viewed that drawing I posted just before, that I meant those dry walls that were there to divide the working places. (Except of course the ones that felt the need to back you up with a few stars.
)
Those WALLS at or near the thick red line that indicates the first ring space boundary.
But you know by now, that it is quite childish to boast about this kind of really dumb conclusions based on misrepresentation of your opponents written words. Normally you would be called a liar, but in your case; its enough to wish that you grow up and get an interesting life.

And to indicate to the better equipped readers, that the nose of the plane, penetrating under that attack angle, did not get further, after being compressed in the shrinking process caused by the enormous deceleration, after being slowed down at the moment of impact, by the newly inserted net of thick H-steel beams, the KEVLAR netting in front of that, around all windows (1.5 times stronger than steel), the reinforced concrete walls in between the windows and also in front of the steel beams, the limestone plates, the outside masonry and the huge horizontal space of the thick second floor re-enforced concrete slab, filled with re-bars. And the 10,000 dollar a piece new installed 10 cm thick armored-glass windows, weighting a ton per piece, set in new thick steel window frames.
A lot of them survived the impact unbroken. Which also strongly indicates that a lot of the debris lost already a lot of its initial speed in the deceleration process.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by LaBTop
 


You keep going on about the "gouge" in the generator? And its "angle"?

Yet, ignore ALL of the other evidence that supports the real impact angle, and the actual approach angle?

This is called "confirmation bias". (And, did the generator move, perhaps, when it was struck?? Did you address this, if so, can you point it out?)

As to another reply......you're in your car, in traffic. Maybe you do have a camera there with you. The jet is coming in at over 800 feet per second.

How many people are fast enough to react in time, to such an event? Think about it......


1. What "all" evidence? Five on the ground laying light poles, who by the way not one believable witness saw getting hit? Because they were already placed laying there, which can be the only explanation for such a lack of notion of those poles being hit and cut down.
That internal damage path? Did you READ my posts? I asked the readers to read the last few pages of the ASCE Pentagon Performance Report. And find it your self, you have Google search at your side, day and night, I have no time to go link-chasing for you lazy few-liners.
The whole place was meticulously cleansed, by the Army Corps of Engineers, in the days after 9/11, up to the 4th of October, when those poor researchers from ASCE, with their Army chief (same one who did the OKC "report" ) were shoved in, to observe an empty space with cleaned up remnants of columns, and the floors.
Any rogue unit had all the time of the world to construct that cleansed up damage path as found and described by the ASCE team. And they took good care of them, a whopping FOUR hours to investigate! Take photos, notes, measure, take samples.... Oh, sorry, no samples. Damn, what a pity, no chance to examine any concrete from the Pentagon columns or floors by civilian researchers, later, to test on explosive remnants. Pity. Coincidence, sure.

In the last pages, all of them express their utter despair about the level of investigation they were allowed to reach.
There was not a plane part, as small as a dime, to be found inside that cleansed out internal area. Everything was already hauled away. If you are an experienced report reader, you feel the misery of those guys drip from the pages. And they have put such pressure on the report editor, that they managed to get those lines regarding their mistrust in their own results, printed in that ASCE report.

2. Of course every one with a bit of brain can read my text about it, and see with his own eyes in my posted photos that the generator was moved by the impact of that flap guide rail (to about 46° to the west wall line), and that the same generator was shoved back a day later, back nearly to its original position, parallel along the long netted fence. Why do you think I do all that work to find the best and sharpest photos of that trailer? Btw, I have many more which I will also post, when the time is ripe.

3. What? Where did I blabber about the lack of drivers, driving in the outer lanes, or standing in traffic jam in the center HOV lanes, who had perhaps made photos while the plane crossed over them, or impacted?
No where! That's impossible!
I just typed a few hours ago, that there was an amazing amount of cameras around to take footage of the events AFTER the impact. AFTER those people who stopped or were already standing still, got out of their cars, to shoot the aftermath of that impact.

And you live in Washington D.C., and I really think you are an honest, but mislead man.
Why the hell, don't you go to William Lagasse (I think his email is still up) and talk to the man? Eye to eye.
I assure you, that you will return a re-birthed man. With a whole new view on your leaders.
Why not visit sergeant Brooks the same day? or Sean Boger?
Phone up Penny Elgas, and let her explain WHERE she stood when that plane crossed over Route 27, just a few cars in front of her.
Find Christine Peterson, Vin Narayanan, Frank Probst. Just ask them one question :
Where were you standing at impact?

Come then back to me, and I will lay out the logic for you, why all their statements lead to the inevitable conclusion, that that plane went over Route 27, just south of that traffic board that spans half of that road. Just beside it. And just beside those twin trees in front of the Heli pad, growing then along the guard rail of Route 27.

Just as you can see in my posted Steve Riskus photo montage, made by that Italian blogger who's name I can't hold in my brain.
Not just a few meters north (in front) of that OTHER traffic board, spanning the whole road, standing a few hundred meters south.
That's what your leaders want you to believe.
You KNOW how many times they have lied to you, why is it so inevitable for you, to believe them in this case, a crowbar case for our mutual past and coming history.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by LaBTop
 



The gouge in the generator cabin's roof gives away the real angle of attack, of about 80°. And not the 42° angle....


Did, or did not, the generator get moved on impact?

Further down in the Post I am replying to (click the link), the diagram from the accurate PBPR (Pentagon Building Performance Report) shows the actual (accurate) damage path inside the Pentagon.....but someone (OP? Was that you??) added an outline of a B-757 at the WRONG angle, for some unknown "reason"??

I am beginning to think this is a waste of time....this thread.......



The ACCURATE ASCE report?

Are you in for a surprise? Because that was the subject of my hacked 1.5 GB file.
Do you really want to discuss together with me, that report? Are you serious?

Come on then, I lead you by the hand through that full report.
Start refuting all the evidence that I already laid in front of you in this thread, regarding the conclusions and the whole text of that piece of misinformation.

(Your trailer moving question is already adequately answered in my above few posts.)
edit on 12/3/12 by LaBTop because: Changed 2 to few.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


This is THE chance to show us, that you're an honest man.

Post those multiple lines from the last pages of that ASCE Pentagon Performance Report, the ones where they themselves express their utter disdain about the value of their own report.
And what tiny chance they got to reach even a low level of plausibility of their own research results.

Post the copied text, just to show us that you can also post research that not fits your rusted-in trust in your leaders.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


And I like your detailed evidence presentation style.

Navy ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) you say?

See, now we're getting somewhere.

Next you'll tell me that the job of Navy ONI is total Global Control of all Worldwide U.S. Military or some such thing right?

And that when that gets knocked out Command automatically transfers to some other group, like, I don't know, NATO or the U.N. or something?

What does Navy ONI actually do? Yes I want to know lol

That building needed to be hit exactly where it was hit and since the FED is printing money even as I type this (I'm sure) then I venture to guess it wasn't to knock off a few diligent accountants.

That light pole thing is a farce, the cab driver, please. I watched the CIT video and was troubled that the two cops seemed certain of their positions and yet they went with the flyover. You going with an impact at a different angle I had not heard or considered. I'd like to see what you have of decent credible average citizen witness accounts of seeing the plane cross the highway and impact. (And not anyone married to an FBI Agent or 'six degrees' from Donald Rumsfeld or anything.)

I'm willing to cut back on the 100 "staging" team drivers on the expressway if an actual plane was used. It makes sense to allow regular people to witness it, that would play better and use less insiders. But that light pole stuff is nonsense.


Cheers





top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join