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.

 

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

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CFerguson

So, I'm off my meds...


Glad you admit it. Acknowledging your problem is the first step.

You didn't answer *any* of my questions, so you are either trolling (duh) or don't really know anything about any of these things. Secon dchance...Here you go again:


How many transcontinental flights did that airplane have in the weeks prior to 9/11 where you claim the cockpit door *never ever* opened? How long does it take to fly from Newark or Dulles or Kennedy or Logan to SFO or LAX? How long did your ACARS sMoKinG gUn!!!11! last before you took it down because you admited you had no clue whatsoever as to what was really going on? At what speed will an aircraft "break"? What altitude will a departing KADW aircraft be when it crosses KDCA on a Camp Springs 1 departure? What altuitude will KDCA approach aircraft be in the airfield environment when in the terminal phase of their arrival procedures? What does the "P" in P-56 mean and why would a controller vector an aircraft (Gopher 06) toward and along the very edge of a "P" area?

Anyhow, I hope you jump on this generator trailer thread and explain to all of us (before you are banned again, of course), in your inimicable way, how a 757 can create that sort of damage from a north of the Citgo service station flight path. Or how it can fly over. Or fly by. Or disappear.


These all relate to your credibility and your inability and/or refusal to answer any of them speaks volumes.

And how much time do you have in tactical military jets?

On Edit: Forget about tactical military jets. Ever strap into an ejection seat? Your custom made flite-sim gamer recliner doesn't count.
edit on 16-3-2012 by trebor451 because: addition




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CFerguson
/pg6#pid13690607]Warren Stutt[/url]? A man who would be laughed off the stand if called as an expert witness? (if he ever made it into a court room).


IF, if..... Since you already have experience with some of your garbage in a Court Room tell us how that April Gallop affidavit you submitted worked out?

ETA: "Truthers" meet P4T - The epitome of failure.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by CFerguson
/pg6#pid13690607]Warren Stutt[/url]? A man who would be laughed off the stand if called as an expert witness? (if he ever made it into a court room).


IF, if..... Since you already have experience with some of your garbage in a Court Room tell us how that April Gallop affidavit you submitted work out?

ETA: "Truthers" meet P4T - The epitome of failure.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)


/Cap't Bob mode on

It...it...it...it was George Bush himself on that court who lied to us! They wern't experts like we are! They don't have the woo! The cockpit door never opened into the judge's chambers! April said there was no fuel - forget about the hundreds of others who were burned by this fuel or who DID say they smelled fuel! I'm a CAPTAIN! I know what fuel smells like! Our numbers are growing!

/Cap't Bob mode off



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Morg234
 



Error after error in the FDR....


What "errors"??



..... missing final points....


Already addressed. Here, knock yourself out:

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

(Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
January 2011)




Warren Stutt's AAL 77 FDR Decoder


This program decodes the raw Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL77) included by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) on CDROMs provided in response to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for information regarding the events of September 11th 2001.

The program allows you to selectively decode parts of the FDR file and generate a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing the selected information. The first line of the CSV file contains the parameter names and it can be opened by various programs including Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access.








Wow, again Proudbird??

Notwithstanding that this "decode" is irrelevant in that it's contained nowhere, absolutely nowhere within the official narrative, nor has it been verified or even acknowledged by the mouthpieces of the official narrative, you and the usual suspect "pilots" at this forum haven't stepped forward to even endorse it at the request of the authors who you're quoting in this thread!




This is a call for volunteers to review the papers. If anyone is interested a response would be greatly appreciated. You won't find the papers boring. Contact me by posting here or by email to flegge@iinet.net.au.


Not one of you!

It's no different from those who add their own subplot to the destruction of WTC7. NIST saya office fires and office fires alone brought that building down. Anything else piped in is irrelevant.

Stick to the OCT Proudbird.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Huh?

Warren Stutt's teasing out of the CV values filled in the parts that are missing from the oft-cited NYSB video re-creation of the American Airlines flight 77 FDR.

"Nuff said.

One day you, like the other ATS members who also were sent here to ATS to do the "P4T"'s "wet work" will realize that you've been conned.

I wonder where turbofan is? What a great screen name! I think it eventually sunk in, with him.

Toodles!



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Wow, again Proudbird??

Notwithstanding that this "decode" is irrelevant in that it's contained nowhere, absolutely nowhere within the official narrative, nor has it been verified or even acknowledged by the mouthpieces of the official narrative, you and the usual suspect "pilots" at this forum haven't stepped forward to even endorse it at the request of the authors who you're quoting in this thread!


Funny...remembering how Cap't Bob welcomed Warren Stutt and his research to PfT - until Stutt started to produce data that contradicted Balsamo's paranoid Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-take on the day. Add in how Stutt's joining and posting at JREF - the government loyalist site, even! - torqued his insecure ego off even more!

Faster and Funnier! Not quite as fast as how fast that latest Balsamo sock was banned, though.

And it may be irrelevant - like icing on an already iced cake - but how do you know Warren Stutt wasn't simply sent out here with his "data" to rile up an already paranoid and increasingly unstable Balsamo? All part of the Master Plan? Its worked....we have Balsamo creating sock after sock after sock here, coming back like clockwork, talk about obsessed!...*still* badmouthing Stutt months and months and months after Warren Stuff has left the stage on this issue.

Paranoid and unstable...yeah, that's Cap't Bob pretty much to a "t".
edit on 16-3-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


All fair and well.....I hate former President Bush (who was never legally elected, but leave that for another thread discussion) as much as the next guy!!!

I mean....GWB, "President Number 43" of the USA was NOT a person to admire, on any level....ever!

However, he was ALSO not "smart" enough....nor were any of his minions (Dick Cheney, I'm looking at YOU!) smart enough to "Pull Off" a "false flag" to this extent.

Those who gravitate to that sort of thinking are woefully ignorant of the many aspects that could have "gone wrong" in such a "plan" (and, no such "plan" existed, let me make that clear!!)


The TRUE failure of the Bush administration (did I MENTION, yet, THAT BUSH WAS NEVER"elected"??).....the TRUE failure of Bush was the bumbling of the Intel......THEY &%#$&ed it up...BIG TIME!!!

Read between the lines.......and, the IRONY is, each and every time a so-called "Truther" posts a bit of crap on the Internet (as in this thread's OP), the ones who are responsible for the Intellignece failures remain un-touched

Your focus (and I'm talking to YOU. "truthers"!!!

Your focus is "off target"....

GET IT TOGETHER!!!! And, stop you internal squabbling!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Huh?

Warren Stutt's teasing out of the CV values filled in the parts that are missing from the oft-cited NYSB video re-creation of the American Airlines flight 77 FDR.

"Nuff said.

One day you, like the other ATS members who also were sent here to ATS to do the "P4T"'s "wet work" will realize that you've been conned.

I wonder where turbofan is? What a great screen name! I think it eventually sunk in, with him.

Toodles!


Proudbird, Mr Ferguson has alreadt pointed out the many flaws in Warren and Frank's paper.


Originally posted by CFerguson

Originally posted by ProudBird
Delve into the Warren Stutt and Frank Legge work more deeply.  
 


I have, and it appears they do not have a clue as to FDR analysis.

See more here - 



Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
Click

Vertical and Lateral Acceleration do not shows signs of "impact", proving Longitudinal Deceleration was not due to "impact" as speculated by Legge/Stutt
Click

Warren Stutt's admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
Click

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
Click

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
Click

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
Click

More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt
Click

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
Click

Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
Click

A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"
Click

Warren Stutt Refuses to Address the tough questions
Click

Legge/Stutt Admit to Leaving Erroneous References in their paper as a "Honey Pot" trap for readers
Click

More statements from FDR Expert Dennis Ciminio
Click
Click


Source

Proudbird, why hasn't the NTSB claimed that such information is missing from their decode, and more importantly, why have they not acknowledged such a "corrupt bug" in their industry leading software in which Warren Stutt claims exists?

Secondly, why hasn't one pilot been willing to endorse the Legge/Stutt analysis? Why haven't you endorsed their work?

edit on 16-3-2012 by CFerguson because: (no reason given)


You guys are here 24/7 spamming this nonsense. Why won't you publically endorse this irrelevant little subplot to an already discredited narrative that you're all claiming is wrong!



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Wow, again Proudbird??

Notwithstanding that this "decode" is irrelevant in that it's contained nowhere, absolutely nowhere within the official narrative, nor has it been verified or even acknowledged by the mouthpieces of the official narrative, you and the usual suspect "pilots" at this forum haven't stepped forward to even endorse it at the request of the authors who you're quoting in this thread!


Funny...remembering how Cap't Bob welcomed Warren Stutt and his research to PfT - until Stutt started to produce data that contradicted Balsamo's paranoid Bush-Derangement-Syndrome-take on the day. Add in how Stutt's joining and posting at JREF - the government loyalist site, even! - torqued his insecure ego off even more!

Faster and Funnier! Not quite as fast as how fast that latest Balsamo sock was banned, though.

And it may be irrelevant - like icing on an already iced cake - but how do you know Warren Stutt wasn't simply sent out here with his "data" to rile up an already paranoid and increasingly unstable Balsamo? All part of the Master Plan? Its worked....we have Balsamo creating sock after sock after sock here, coming back like clockwork, talk about obsessed!...*still* badmouthing Stutt months and months and months after Warren Stuff has left the stage on this issue.

Paranoid and unstable...yeah, that's Cap't Bob pretty much to a "t".
edit on 16-3-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)


And here we have the Pilotsfor911Truth supersock calling somebody else a sock - pot calling kettle...

Read the links quoted in my post. Warren discredited himself and still refuses to answer basic questions. And when he does, he puts himself more in a muddle.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Are you a "pilot" too?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by trebor451
 


All fair and well.....I hate former President Bush (who was never legally elected, but leave that for another thread discussion) as much as the next guy!!!

I mean....GWB, "President Number 43" of the USA was NOT a person to admire, on any level....ever!

However, he was ALSO not "smart" enough....nor were any of his minions (Dick Cheney, I'm looking at YOU!) smart enough to "Pull Off" a "false flag" to this extent.

Those who gravitate to that sort of thinking are woefully ignorant of the many aspects that could have "gone wrong" in such a "plan" (and, no such "plan" existed, let me make that clear!!)


The TRUE failure of the Bush administration (did I MENTION, yet, THAT BUSH WAS NEVER"elected"??).....the TRUE failure of Bush was the bumbling of the Intel......THEY &%#$&ed it up...BIG TIME!!!

Read between the lines.......and, the IRONY is, each and every time a so-called "Truther" posts a bit of crap on the Internet (as in this thread's OP), the ones who are responsible for the Intellignece failures remain un-touched

Your focus (and I'm talking to YOU. "truthers"!!!

Your focus is "off target"....

GET IT TOGETHER!!!! And, stop you internal squabbling!!!!!!


The "plan" wasn't the work of a genius.

If it were we wouldn't be discussing it here today. They had a whore media and either very gullible fools or paid disinformationists to keep the ball rolling with doubt, innuendo and blatant horsekack from obscure forums such as this one through the printed and audio media and finally pumped out of the TV.

Go find a poll that shows that more people believe the 9/11 OCT. You are the "conspiracy theorist" here Proudbird.

And you guys need wiggle room to explain the many discrepancies and holes in the OCT.

No need for a genius plan at all

Do you believe that WTC 7 fell through "office fires alone"? Why did the NTSB fail to see those "missing seconds"?

If you're claiming that there are "missing seconds", aren't "truthers" right to demand an explanation? I'm not like you Proudbird. I don't blindly swallow.

Now are you going to give Warren and Frank a hand or not? "Reheat"? "trebor"?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



The "plan" wasn't the work of a genius.


No....the "plan" was dastardly, and conceived by criminals and people intent on stoking terrorism.

It was audacious in its scope, but certainly (in that era) not impossible to pull off. Today, the same event (a simultaneous wave of multiple hijackings) cannot be pulled off...at least, not in the USA.

I have related a personal observation, before. I certainly hope that no one gets any ideas, but here goes:

In 2008 (yes....well after 9/11, 2001) I personally witnessed a severe breach of safety on a KLM flight in Europe. I will point out that for U.S. air carriers, after 9/11, we were VERY aware of security, and the integrity of the cockpit.

But, on this KLM flight in 2008 (London to Copenhagen) I was in Business Class, so up front. (I rarely fly in Coach....I will pay whatever it takes to avoid Coach).

I saw the usual pre-9/11 lax attention being paid, as the Flight Attendant did her normal routine of serving the pilots their beverages and breakfast (the flight was morning, before Noon....we had arrived on an over-night BA from Dulles, to London....Business Class, of course!).

The F/A served the pilots, and the cockpit door left wide open, for several minutes. (As she went back-and-forth, busied with getting their stuff...).

AGAIN, this was perfectly ordinary, even for U.S. air carriers, prior to 9/11. Very, very, very common. (NOT now, of course)....


I am saying that "IF" (big if) such a concerted attack by those who would willingly commit suicide in carrying it out, were to be planned again??

Not in the USA, next time. I would urge ALL airlines to tighten up, and be on guard.







edit on Sat 17 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer


Read the links quoted in my post. Warren discredited himself and still refuses to answer basic questions. And when he does, he puts himself more in a muddle.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Are you a "pilot" too?


Balsamo loves when his minions lie. This poster is no different. I went to the link above and read it. I even went to page 2 where Balsamo said this:


Warren tried to reply again... once again, avoiding the questions and the fact that his whole paper has now fell apart, using his own calculations.

Warren, I will not approve anymore of your posts/rants until you answer the questions and correct the confirmed disinformation you have presented in your paper.


So, unless Balsamo approves of the answer, it wont get posted?


Typical actions of the brainless dolt.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Sure you read that link sigma six?

If you had you'd have seen that Warren tried to change the subject back to ACARS having made a half arsed reply to questions regarding his "data" that have been left hanging for over a year, and still are. Genius. Take back the "lie" accusation.

And noted that you ignored the other links. Genius.

Speaking of genius, Proudbird, was that post actually addressing my last one?? Namely, the claim that WTC7 fell by "office fires alone", that the NTSB has distributed false information, that there are "extra seconds" that they apparently ignored or weren't aware of, and that "truthers" (or non govt spam bots) are right to demand an explanation? That your unverified subplot is totally irrelevant?

Have you come across any poll where the majority of participants believe the OCT?

Finally, why have none of the "pilots" here stepped forward to give credence to Warren and Frank's paper? Specifically you, Reheat and trebor?

Jeez, like trying to get blood out of a stone with you guys.

Try harder.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Sure you read that link sigma six?

If you had you'd have seen that Warren tried to change the subject back to ACARS having made a half arsed reply to questions regarding his "data" that have been left hanging for over a year, and still are. Genius. Take back the "lie" accusation.


Yes, I did read it. Warren was posting other information on another thread and Blow Hard Balsamo stopped him and forced him to answer other questions Balsamo had. Warren answered them, Cappy Booby didn't agree, Warren posted again... and Balsamo deleted the post. This is what he does. You, are either a blind follower, or you are indeed him. In addition, you (Balsamo) used to log in under Turbofan's account here in the past, so I would not be surprised if you are in fact, doing this again.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Let's see. Rob answered all of Warren's half-arsed speculation and opinions with sourced facts that make Warren's "counterargument" bull.

Warren...



Unfortunately, I can't check your true altitudes because you did not state what altimeter settings and temperatures you used.


Rob?..




I used the Baro Cor column altimeter settings you provided and this... www.luizmonteiro.com...

Your calculations are wrong. However, for arguments sake... lets say your calculations are accurate... .even your own calculations do not merit the 50-120+ foot "altitude divergence" "...increasing as the plane descends" claimed in your paper. Your own calculations are 10-20 foot difference when compared to TDZE+RA.

Are you willing to concede that the "altitude divergence"... "Thus even at normal speeds a significant error, increasing as the plane descends, is consistently found." claimed in your paper is...

1. Wrong and ...

2. due to the fact that the RA is measuring from an object higher than the ground during the approach?


No answer from Warren. Or have you?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Warren...




In my opinion, the true altitudes I calculated are not necessarily the ones displayed to the pilots and this is why I found an altitude divergence while pilots do not experience this problem. In my opinion the pressure altitudes are raw data which is corrected by the Flight Data Computer using not only the altimeter setting and temperature, but other factors as well. Therefore where you calculate a true altitude of 174 feet at the end of the flight in this post, the altitude displayed to the pilot would be less than that, since that true altitude calculation has been corrected only for altimeter setting and temperature and not the other factors that the Flight Data Computer also corrects for


Rob...




"Other factors"? What other factors Warren? Why do you just make stuff up? The altitude read by pilots on the altimeter is the height above sea level when adjusted for local pressure using the Kollsman window.

This is known as True Altitude. Period. If the local pressure is 29.92, True Altitude equals Pressure altitude. Period.

The only benefit the pilots have when advancing to a more sophisticated jet, is that the Air Data Computer (ADC... there is no such thing as a "Flight Data Computer") removes any possible lag and error found in smaller cockpits such as a 172. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't help your theory as the FDR gets it's data from the ADC, just like the pilots. The FDR doesn't have it's own separate static system...lol. Although some have tried to use the "lag" excuse... but failed miserably. Just like the pilots have to adjust their altimeters to local pressure to get a True Altitude readout, we have to adjust the FDR Data to determine the same True Altitude. Adjusting Pressure altitude to determine True altitude is straight forward, unambiguous and taught to every student pilot on this planet.

Click and learn. Not only does your opinion mean nothing, especially considering the fact that you admit you have no experience whatsoever in aviation. but your opinion is wrong. Stop making # up to suit your theories.


No answer.

Warren wanted to talk about a totally different topic a year after leaving these questions and many more hanging. 3 years after Rob helped him with his "decode" and talked him through the aviation technobabble.
What did Warren do? Ignored Rob and twisted the data to try and squeeze the aircraft into the Pentagon.
Ignored the many flaws pointed out to him and went ahead and penned a paper with Frank Legge that is pure disinfo.

A paper that the alleged Top Guns here on this forum refuse to publically endorse even though they quote the crap out of it!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Warren...




OK, I agree a radio altitude system that only looks down from the aircraft is useless in detecting that the aircraft is about to fly in to a vertical cliff


Rob...




"Vertical cliff"? Did I calculate 90 degrees based on your theory? No Warren, I didn't.

There isn't a GPWS in this world which will warn you if you are about to hit a 90 degree brick wall from level flight. EGPWS does have a terrain database, yes, but it doesn't map buildings and obstacles in front of the flight path.
According to your theory regarding Radio Altimeter Tracking capability, the terrain will 'outrun' the Radio Altimeter capabilities on a mere 27 degree slope. This is far less than a "vertical cliff".

Considering all the buildings and obstacles on the approach to the Pentagon, and the 90 degree sides of those obstacles, if your theory were correct, the RA would be FAR behind the airplane. Your theory weakens your argument. "Vertical cliff"? Why are you so intellectually dishonest? Are you able to concede that your theory is wrong? This is where practical experience trumps your admitted amateur "opinion".


No answer.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Warren...




I have now addressed all your points.




No, I'm not Rob. Genius.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



Hi TPE -

the infinite patience you're showing us, by trying again and again

to deal with these J-raffish type entities, is highly admirable.

The food and drinks are on me, should you ever decide on a trip

to "down under"! ('
')

Cheers



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
So, let's return to the crux of the matter, that mysterious quite deep gouge in the cabin-roof of the generator trailer.
I'll post shortly 2 drawings based on the best and biggest picture I have posted in this thread of that gouge.
In both photos I used, when the ratios near a 1 on 1 ratio, a square roof form, the attack angles become in such case even slightly bigger in both cases, up to a few degrees bigger.
Picture 1 : Somewhat distorted length to width ratio of the roof = 12 cm : 10 cm ( 1.2 : 1 ).



In there I will show you all how you can reconstruct the real degrees angle at which the plane flew into the Pentagon. And that's not the 42° as computed by the guys from the Pentagon ASCE report.
It's much bigger than that.

You simply use your pair of compasses again, measure the length of the cabin roof, but not the width of it, since that is distorted in all those pictures.
But we know one simple thing for sure, that width stood perpendicular (90°) on the length.
Thus we draw a line under 90° with the measured length of that roof in that photo, about as long as we think that it would be in reality. Then we draw the back-length line under a 90° angle with the width we just drew.
And conclude the now oblong figure of that roof by adding the opposite width line.

Take your p.o.compasses and measure the length of the distance from the bottom right corner to the start of the gouge on the gouge-photo. Take that over to the oblong figure you just drew and put a dot on the bottom line, which is the start of the gouge made by the guard rail of the right wing of AAL 77.

Do the same for the distance of the top right corner of that roof to the end of the gouge on the photo. And put a dot on the top line, which depicts now the end of the roof gouge, as if seen from above.

When you measure the angle of the line that connects both dots, you will find an angle of about 62° to the roof's side its length.

Since that roof side line's length stood parallel to that long fence along the maintenance and building area in front of the west wall of the Pentagon as seen on areal photos made by the USAF a few days before :

Original Navy photo :



and also just as parallel to that same west wall, we now may conclude that that guide rail or any other piece of the right wing that stuck out from under it, did cut through that roof under an angle of about 62°.
And since all parts of the wing that stuck out from under it stood perfectly parallel with the planes body (streamline reasons in flight) we may conclude that the plane flew on about a 62° angle course at that point from the west wall, where that trailer stood.

Which is far too different from the official theory which needs a 42° angle to let the plane fly through the 5 downed lightpoles before it struck that cabin roof.

Which demonstrates with great certainty, that those 5 light poles were artificially downed, but certainly not by that attack plane.


I have used another even more distorted photo from that trailer's cabin roof plus gouge in it.
Picture 2 : Distorted length to width of that roof = 12 cm : 4 cm ( 3 : 1 ).



If I use the same technique on this above photo, it results in a 51° angle, still far too much different from the 42° attack angle needed for the official story to be true.
The 5 downed light poles in all photos of them still can not contain a viable flightpath of the body and wings of AAL 77 nearly on a centerline in between these 5 light poles, and still enter the entrance hole at column 14 in the west wall. And follow a center line through the internal damage of 42°.

Thus, we arrive at a possible attack angle to the west wall of the Pentagon by AAL 77 of a range between 51° and 62° based on the two photos I have of that generators cabin-roof gouge cut out in it by a sticking out part from under the right wing of AAL 77.
One less and one more distorted photo caused by the different X and Y-angle axises of the positions of the camera its lenses when the photo was shot.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join