It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Reheat
I'm taking bets as to what Labtop will do now with this thread. Here are the choices:
1 - Stay away for a week or so until the thread is either way down or off the page.
2 - Return to argue with more walls of text that no one can understand insisting that his 23 degree bank will fulfill his NOC to impact delusion.
3 - Immediately start another ridiculous thread full of his trivia with more walls of text few can or will read.
3 - Return and admit he is wrong, but construct a typical wall of text....all excuses as to why he made a mistake.
4 - Return and apologize for misleading everyone because he is an honest "truther" like he said he is...
Originally posted by Insolubrious
There is no way the plane could knock down the lightpoles and continue on it's trajectory into the bottom floor of the pentagon. The wings would of been ripped off and there would of been debris and fuel all over the place.
Originally posted by trebor451
Really.
No wonder the Truther movement is so screwed up.
The same crap keep coming back again and again and again.
Whatever...keep bringing on the same old crap.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by NWOwned
LaBTop is insisting the plane impacted at a near 90 degree angle relative to the Pentagon wall. Perpendicular impact. This is suppose to be proof that the plane flew NoC somehow which required it to do a near fighter-plane style turn to do so. What LaBTop fails to understand is that had the plane impacted on the angle he states, the damage would have gone through the Pentagon straight through. But the damage does not correlate with the actual damage done. So he comes up with another BS diatribe about how secret teams of demolition experts and engineers snuck inside and cleaned up the actual perpendicular direction of damage, and then destroyed the interior that was not hit and realigned the damaged interior to the "OS" version of the angle of impact. All of this done in a matter of hours.
In other words, he is living in fantasy land where anything is possible with teams of ninja stealth experts.
reply to post by ProudBird
The NTSB information is factually accurate.
I still want to know and discuss exactly what the Navy ONI office does (since everyone involved in it at the Pentagon DIED on 9/11), so that's the first thing.
Doesn't follow the official flight path in its final moments.
The heading was indeed 70 degrees plus or minus a few tenths. The resolution of the data in the FDR appears to be .3-.4 degrees, or so and the final measurement is 70 (exactly). We can probably infer that the reading was 70.0 given that precision of the data in the that column (and keeping in mind that it appears to change in increments of .3-.4).
From the FDR: The track angle (mag) was 71.4 and the track angle (true) was 61.2. The true heading was 59.8. Those were all recorded by the FDR in the final full frame (except track angle true, which was recorded in the previous time). These values were all fairly stable so I'd assume these are reasonably precise measurements.
Originally posted by Insolubrious
Originally posted by trebor451
Really.
Yes really.
reply to post by ProudBird
Look at the heading. And remember there is a difference between magnetic headings and true courses (maps are aligned to True North. In the D.C. area, the magnetic declination (variation) is about 11° West. So, looking at the final heading before impact (070°) and then subtracting11° from that, the True Course (Ground Track) was about 59°. (We can quibble about tenths of degrees if you wish....but that would be silly, since the facts are there, and obvious...minor arguments about tenths of degrees are pointless).
Originally posted by trebor451
You maintain that street lamposts, designed to break away from their base when hit by a 2,500 pound car traveling at appoximately 35 miles per hour, are going to rip the wings off a 180,000 pound airliner traveling at 750 feet *per second*.
Originally posted by Insolubrious
Originally posted by trebor451
You maintain that street lamposts, designed to break away from their base when hit by a 2,500 pound car traveling at appoximately 35 miles per hour, are going to rip the wings off a 180,000 pound airliner traveling at 750 feet *per second*.
The total weight of the car or a plane has absolutely nothing to do with it! One small area of the wing does account for the entire weight of the plane so your argument is completely invalid. That 'weight' is distributed to a much larger area than a car, which by comparison makes it much weaker.
Originally posted by Insolubrious
Originally posted by trebor451
You maintain that street lamposts, designed to break away from their base when hit by a 2,500 pound car traveling at appoximately 35 miles per hour, are going to rip the wings off a 180,000 pound airliner traveling at 750 feet *per second*.
The total weight of the car or a plane has absolutely nothing to do with it! One small area of the wing does account for the entire weight of the plane so your argument is completely invalid. That 'weight' is distributed to a much larger area than a car, which by comparison makes it much weaker.