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

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

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...


I say both #3. A Wall of text that requires more than two posts is a certainty.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by huh2142
 


Sorry 'bout that. The number sequence has been corrected...



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
6 - Return and answer all of my questions.

LaBTop,

Well where to start?

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.

Second, this idea that a plane actually hit but at a different angle is new to me. It's got me wondering. Like what's the difference? Right? 42 degrees, 86 degrees, 167 degrees, what does it matter? You're still saying a plane hit the Pentagon right? So why does the angle matter?

If it's true what you propose I can think of two reasons to cover it up.

1. The light poles are already down on the first angle, and
2. The trajectory through the building follows from this first angle...

And so for both instances it would look pretty funny if the unreleased tapes showed the plane going in more perpendicular. And that is perhaps why there is no security cam video. (And a mad rush to gather up the others.)

What makes you think a plane caused the gouge in the generator trailer?

Couldn't it be caused by explosive charges or a swift missile?

You got trusted witness reports of an actual passenger plane crossing the expressway and slamming into the Pentagon wall?

You may want to maybe show an elevation view of a scale model jet at the new angle so we can see if the wing section you suggest caused the gouge is where the gouge actually appears.

For any of you others, can you show me with any pics or diagrams why the new angle suggested is impossible?

Also, can you debunkers provide a list of about 6 witnesses who stick to a South Side Official Story plane approach?

I still see a lack of plane parts for even the new angle, again, you sure it was an actual physical passenger jet?

Your wall of text is full of useful detail but even I just skim it. Try posing your whole idea up front in a small paragraph with crucial points and then down below lay out the details and references for those who want more info or for those who will dispute.

Just a suggestion.

Otherwise, good work.

I hope you will address my current and future questions with as much thought and detail as you display in your posts. Your suggestion of a new different angle and your posting of the office names/locations was very helpful to me.


Cheers
edit on 15-3-2012 by NWOwned because: sentence structure



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Or, as already pointed out about a hundred times.....

The Boeing 757 was visually identified. By many laypersons, and also trained observers.

The Flight Data Recorder is the definitive evidence....but of course, feel free to disregard it, to perpetuate your fantasy (why not?)...


It is most astonishing when people persist in their delusions.....most fascinating......



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

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.


Really. Lamp posts designed to break-away by a 2,500 lb car traveling at 35 mph are going to rip the wings off of a 90 ton airliner traveling at 750 feet per second.

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.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Really.


Yes really.



No wonder the Truther movement is so screwed up.


Yeah, because we have to deal with folk like you.



The same crap keep coming back again and again and again.


And it won't stop, in fact your complaining will only encourage it.



Whatever...keep bringing on the same old crap.


Will do



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

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.


I understand what he is sayng I'm just wondering why the angle matters or why there would be a need to 'cover it up'.

The only thing I can come up with is that if the scene was "staged" or let's say "engineered" then different 'teams' might be assigned different tasks, in building teams, light poles teams, remote controlled airplane teams etc.

Let's say the hit is scheduled for 11 AM and so to get "ready" the teams go into action. The last team to "arrive" though, is the air team with the plane. If the plane didn't hit the light poles then those poles would have to be down before the air team arrived. Right?

And if there was a plan afoot consisting of not just hitting a big building with a plane but something more targeted (like taking out the Navy ONI) and a strip of demolition explosives were arranged in a line extending from the light poles... just saying.

And then all of a sudden in the air there's a directional snafu and the "plane" is 40 degrees off and hits more perpendicular. Then you got all the "teams" in on it going "Oh No!" and running out and confiscating the local area tapes and not showing Pentagon tapes because they all show a more perpendicular impact and that's a no-no because the poles are already down and the demolition streak (we come to find out) goes where a perpendicular plane doesn't or wouldn't.

So we really need to examine whether or not part of the right wing actually damaged the generator in the way it seems damaged which appears to be more 'perpendicular'.


Cheers



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   


The NTSB information is factually accurate.
reply to post by ProudBird
 




Doesn't follow the official flight path in its final moments.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 





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.

Office of Navel Intelligence



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Well his idea is that the Pentagon impact was all staged by [insert your favorite evil boogieman world govt organization here] as it was done with fake planes/missiles/drones/etc. He claims that the plane had a "preset" flight path that required it fly along a certain route to impact the lightpoles. The angle it impacted in the real events was 43 degrees I believe, in relation to the Pentagon's wall. LaBTop insists it in fact impact 90 degrees, with zero proof of course, and the need to cover it up, well, is to make believe it flew the angle as it was reported by which it hit the lamp posts. You see, this does not make a lick of sense for someone to have to do anything like this, and this is why we "debunkers" laugh at such desperation because well know that these Rube-Goldberg styles of planning just make it that much more impossible to go off without a hitch and so much harder.

In fact, I too wonder what the point would be to stage the lightposts and "cover up" the impact angle and such. The Truthers are making it so damn complicated, that it makes less and less sense to us rational thinkers. I get a headache trying to follow such warped logic.

Also in regards to the tapes, it has also been addressed countless times before (the 83 tapes) and they all have been checked and of all maybe two showed some part of the impact, the rest were not even from this state. People would have noticed MIB running around planting airplane parts and such, but the facts are that the plane hit the way it did, and the damage in the Pentagon proves it. LaBTop needs to go into fantasy world to explain THAT part away, and all rational thinking is out the _

Occism's Razor. Plane hit the way it did. No need to make it complicated to the point of absurdity.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 



Doesn't follow the official flight path in its final moments.


Yes, it does.

Note also, you used a very good example video, since it is full...from takeoff at Dulles, to where the recording ends (in that representation) just prior to impact.

Keep in mind that the FDR info for that NTSB video was done quickly (just a few months) afterwords, and the last four seconds (approximately) had not yet been properly decoded, due to some corrupted data. (The last seconds were later teased out by Warren Stutt...but that video does not include them).


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).


Here is a discussion, from way back in 2006 about it:


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.


(source)

And, this image was posted:



The green line is the so-called "NoC' ground track....obviously did not happen that way.

Here's another similar image to convey the idea, and the reality, that there was no "NoC" ground track....it is a long dead fantasy, and it's amazing that anyone would still attempt to 'argue' for it being the case. It is nonsense:




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by trebor451
Really.


Yes really.



Funny how you left out the meat of my post, so I'll mention it again for the benefit of all the gentle readers out there.

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*.

edit on 15-3-2012 by trebor451 because: format



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   


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).
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well that's that "mystery" solved. Another feature of Flight 77 in the FDR is it's diving approach, in contrast to the aircraft recording from the Pentagon, whose fin suggests it is level and hugging the ground.


edit on 15/3/12 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 


The NTSB video, it must be explained (yet again) ended before those images taken by parking gate camera.

The airplane (in the NTSB animation) had not yet reached that point!!

And as to "diving"....look at the actual pitch attitude ....where the video freezes, he's at 180 feet MSL, and about 4° nose down. The airplane arrested its descent as it neared the ground, and was level from there until impact.

Rather simple thing to understand, really....



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

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.


With that kind of irrational thought, it's no wonder you are a "truther". I suggest that if you have an education of any kind your should request a refund...



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Error after error in the FDR, missing final points and a 10 pixel smoke plume and grey smudge.

Footage from an I-395 traffic camera would clear a few things up.
edit on 15/3/12 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

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.


Its post like this that keep me coming back here! Classic! This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The 757-200 wingspan is 124 feet. Fuselage diameter is 12 feet, which means there is approximately 55 feet of wing per side of the aircraft. Total fuel carried is 11,500 gallons, but an estimated 10,000 gallons was on board at impact. Each wing holds 2,170 gallons and the main fuel tank holds 6,900 gallons. Aircraft fuel systems burn main fuel tank fuel first, so the approximately 1,500 gallons that were burned during flight left approximately 5,400 gallons of fuel in the main fuselage tank and the wing tanks full with 2,170 gallons each.

One gallon of jet aviation fuel (Jet A) weighs approximately 6.84 lbs per gallon, so lets round down to 6 lbs. That means the weight of each wing’s fuel component weighed 13,020 lbs, or a little over 6.5 tons.

And you are telling me that a 55’ foot long airfoil weighing at LEAST a total of six and a half tons traveling at something around 750 feet per second is going to be ripped apart by a 20-some-odd foot 8 inch diameter aluminum light pole designed to break away when a car hits it.

Faster. and. funnier.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join