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

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Waypastvne, I think I stand corrected, I remember vaguely now that it perhaps was a motorized vehicle that hauled those pole pieces on its flatbed and took them to the VDOT facility. Sorry for the confusion.
.
Nevertheless, a 9/11 planner would opt for this one to bring prepared "broken" poles near to where he would like to plant them. And it still is strange that these three I could find in Hired photo's were so damn close by poles 1, 2 and 3.

And because of what I posted in my above post! That 42° ASCE angle is totally incoherent with a path through those 5 "broken" poles...!




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
You have to realize that the members of the ASCE team that were allowed into the Pentagon crash site only for 4 whopping hours in the beginning of October 2001, after the military had meticulously cleaned all aircraft and building debris away, and only broken, distorted, bended and cracked (once heavy re-barred) concrete columns were left to photograph by these frustrated ASCE members.
Frustrated because they knew they were being fooled. And they expressed that clearly in their report.

One thing they were very sure of : that cleaned up internal damage path they photographed was 42° from the C-Ring exit hole all the way through C,D and E-Rings, to column 14 at the E-Ring impact point.

And I repeat, that 42° line when extended outwards, does exactly CUT THROUGH THAT GOUGE in the roof of the generator trailer, in its original position parallel to the west wall, and then the official story FAILS :

The rest of that extended line goes substantially southeast of the center line through those 5 light poles !
It even goes along the Pentagon side of Route 27, where the official FDR data-based flight path passes Route 27 on the totally opposite side, the west side.


QUESTION :
What has flown along that 42° flight path, that made that 51.8° deep gouge in the generator trailer its roof ?

Note that some sort of a US Tomahawk-type or USSR Yacont-type guided missile has 4 big, very sharp tail fins.... and two big sharp nose cone belly fins.
Note that any other kind of guided projectile can have been utilized.
edit on 16/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   


Exponent, there must be something wrong with that impact point, the 42° line does not end at the C-Ring hole, so to see.
So I probably have to go find a Google Earth sharp angled to the ground 07 Sept 2001 map where I can see the fifth window to the north, counted from the start of the protruding southern piece of facade in the Pentagon's west wall.
That's the column 14 impact point. On the second floor slab height.

The above map with all those angles is meant to show that even when the ASCE members would come up with an explanation from fiction, namely that we must measure their 42° angle as beginning from a perpendicular line to the west wall, in that case I have already offered the counter argument : impossible.

EDIT : Use the (CTRL plus +) keys simultaneous to blow up this map to the max in your browser, Firefox at least does that perfectly, 7 times in a row and that results in the max magnification.
edit on 16/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

The above map with all those angles is meant to show that even when the ASCE members would come up with an explanation from fiction, namely that we must measure their 42° angle as beginning from a perpendicular line to the west wall, in that case I have already offered the counter argument : impossible.






I finally took the time to look at what you're on about.

This is what the ASCE report says:

The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building.

That means their impact angle is 48 deg from the face of the wall or 42 deg to a line 90 deg to the wall.

Look up the definition of NORMAL.

After doing the math I found the ASCE"s impact angle came out to heading of 58 deg true north.

The damage trail heading is 61.5 deg.

To sum up you are making a big fuss over "approximately" 3.5 deg.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
What i want to know is who and when was the smoke generator moved from the NSO offices to the Pentagon?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by LaBTop

The above map with all those angles is meant to show that even when the ASCE members would come up with an explanation from fiction, namely that we must measure their 42° angle as beginning from a perpendicular line to the west wall, in that case I have already offered the counter argument : impossible.


I finally took the time to look at what you're on about.

This is what the ASCE report says:

The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building.
That means their impact angle is 48 deg from the face of the wall or 42 deg to a line 90 deg to the wall.

Look up the definition of NORMAL.

After doing the math I found the ASCE"s impact angle came out to heading of 58 deg true north.
The damage trail heading is 61.5 deg.

To sum up you are making a big fuss over "approximately" 3.5 deg.


I am familiar with the term "the normal to", and that's what I drew in my above GE-aerial.
The red normal to the west wall, and the dark-blue normal to true north.

I only seem to have been influenced by my good old friend Korsakov, who caused me to swap my "48° " with my "42° " annotation. And thus let me draw the wrong 42° line.
Thank you for pointing that out to me. That's why peer review is so damn important, we will in the end come up with an acceptable theory for anyone. With solid evidence, as laid before everyone, reading it.
No holding back facts and deductions. Saves a damn lot of time, Reheat.

I must not try to do analytical jobs when I am working up to the new morning light.
I knew very well of the "angle to the normal on the wall" - issue, since I have earlier in this thread posted an ASCE report impact drawing with that angle shown as a little arc between the normal on the wall and the internal damage path line.
I did check it, as you can see in my text above, but I was probably so groggy from sleep deprivation that I couldn't think right anymore and swapped the two values.

I hope that when we can get the exact impact point its latitude and longitude figures at last right ("exponent" already asked for it), I and anyone else interested, could draw at last a GE map with the exact right impact point and the exact flight path lines in it. (ASCE and FDR)

I am only at lost how to use that angles feature in the Ruler window from Google Earth 07-09-2001 historical map.
I have tried to draw lines that should indicate an angle in that Ruler window field that would be either 62.5° or 42°, but always get totally different values shown in that field, when I check these same angles with my own rulers, triangles and graduated arcs.

Can anybody explain that to me?
How I can use the much more precise degrees of the line angle indication in the Ruler function of Google Earth.
The lat and long is easy to set, you see them change in the bottom center of any GE map, when moving the pointer.

Because I am getting quite sure, that we end up with an exact drawing with no discrepancy anymore of 3.5°.
My use of graduated arcs etc, is not exact enough on these kinds of maps.
I have to look back at my own post where I posted that conversation from 2006, where magnetic heading, ground track, etcetera, were re-posted and linked by me. In there was the real ground path based on the FDR data.

My drawn 42° to the wall path is not the 42° to the normal on that wall.
That one must be drawn somewhere in between the 62° FDR path and my light blue 42° to the wall path. Then it shows an 42° angle to the red colored normal-line, drawn by me as 90° on the wall.

I am however afraid that we still end up with a few degrees difference, since about everyone here seems to agree on the 61 to 62 degree figure deducted from the FDR's last fully readable data frame.

I however have found at several websites a drawing with an angle of 60.25° as the true north FDR flight path angle.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This is my post at page 4 with the precise angles deduced from the FDR in it :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Track angle true was 61.2°. The true heading was 59.8°


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.


So, can we at last agree in unification that the true north track angle was 61.2° ?

And how do I have to interpret the angles value belonging to a certain line I draw in Google Earth its Ruler window?
edit on 17/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
This whole issue has at last been solved by myself, see my last post in my NoC versus SoC thread :

www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join