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.

 

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by exponent
Stop pretending that it's some even balance of evidence. It's a ludicrous proposition and means you have to ignore people literally standing next to the impact who watched it hit. On the other hand the witnesses we're discounting mistook left from right in that 1/4 of a second 10 years ago. I'll take 'stood and witnessed the plane impact' over 'mistook which side it passed him on'.

Then why did you join this thread?

I joined this thread to either confirm or refute labtop's results. Once you started making outlandish posts I thought I would correct you on the reality of the balance of evidence.

Do you have any answer to my statements? How can you trust a few people who could mistake a minor detail vs the huge weight of evidence showing a passenger airliner hit the pentagon?




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Do you have any answer to my statements? How can you trust a few people who could mistake a minor detail vs the huge weight of evidence showing a passenger airliner hit the pentagon?


Did I ever say there was a balance in evidence? Nope. Can you trust the OS? Nope. Why? Because the FBI has covered up several elements and had the 9/11 Commission redact several things. Therefore, I have every right to be skeptical. Your thinking is very logical, but so is mine. If one thing is being covered up then I have every right to think other things may be covered up. Did I ever say eyewitness testimony was the end all/be all of this whole discussion? Nope, not once.

If you don't like socializing with people who are skeptics then do not log on to a conspiracy forum. This is where your thinking is a little F'd up.

Here's my analogy..

You're a person who hates horror movies...you still go to the movies to see a horror film...and come out of the theater complaining about how you hated the movie. It doesn't make sense to me why you're here
edit on 13-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by homervb
 


Look fellow... If I wanted advice from you I'd ask for it. In the meantime I'll do what I want to do regardless of whether you like it or approve or not.. Get it?


LMAO, yurp, this is you being WRONG. Don't like that feeling do you? You're so use to thinking you're right. You legit have no reason to be here except for too much time on your hands. I really don't know anyone else who would willingly spend their time doing things they don't enjoy. And you say truthers lack logical thinking? Look in the mirror fellow



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by exponent
Do you have any answer to my statements? How can you trust a few people who could mistake a minor detail vs the huge weight of evidence showing a passenger airliner hit the pentagon?


Did I ever say there was a balance in evidence? Nope. Can you trust the OS? Nope. Why? Because the FBI has covered up several elements and had the 9/11 Commission redact several things. Therefore, I have every right to be skeptical. Your thinking is very logical, but so is mine. If one thing is being covered up then I have every right to think other things may be covered up. Did I ever say eyewitness testimony was the end all/be all of this whole discussion? Nope, not once.


Then why don't you start a thread dealing with your "skeptism" as opposed to being off topic and disrupting this one. This is a technical discussion dealing with FACTS, not your playground for dealing with your misgivings of what you refer to as the "OS" (whatever that is)..


Originally posted by homervb
If you don't like socializing with people who are skeptics then do not log on to a conspiracy forum. This is where your thinking is a little F'd up.


Socializing? This is some sort of trivial game to you, isn't it?


Originally posted by homervb
Here's my analogy..

You're a person who hates horror movies...you still go to the movies to see a horror film...and come out of the theater complaining about how you hated the movie. It doesn't make sense to me why you're here
edit on 13-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)


And here's my analogy:

You're a person who likes horror movies. You go to the movies to see a horror film...and come out of the theater telling all of your friends about the "real life" horror event you just witnessed. It doesn't make sense to me why you think it's real and not a fantasy created by Hollywood to make $$. You're not a skeptic, your a "truther".
edit on 13-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Then why don't you start a thread dealing with your "skeptism" as opposed to being off topic and disrupting this one. This is a technical discussion dealing with FACTS, not your playground for dealing with your misgivings of what you refer to as the "OS" (whatever that is)..


Um...all these threads are about skeptism. You've just managed to be so self indulged in your own world of the Official Story you managed to forget this is a CONSPIRACY FORUM. Skeptics > then people who believe the Official Story = 9/11 Conspiracy Forum



Socializing? This is some sort of trivial game to you, isn't it?


Game? Far from it. This is a message board meant to be for those who are interested in the possible conspiracy surrounding 9/11. Not the forum for people who believe there IS NO CONSPIRACY.




And here's my analogy:

You're a person who likes horror movies. You go to the movies to see a horror film...and come out of the theater telling all of your friends about the "real life" horror event you just witnessed. It doesn't make sense to me why you think it's real and not a fantasy created by Hollywood to make $$. You're not a skeptic, your a "truther".
edit on 13-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)


No, I'm a skeptic. You have jumped on the bandwagon of labeling skeptics as truthers in an attempt to create some kind of wall between people who believe the Official Story and those who question it. If truthers weren't labeled "truthers" then they would be every day citizens questioning the actions of their government and their accounts of 9/11. Without that wall you put up you fear danger that other people might question their government.

And for the record & to throw a wrench into your labeling, I am one of the few people here who have continually stated that I DO NOT believe the government was directly involved and that I believe someone other than 19 guys armed with box cutters managed to play the American defense system. I DO NOT believe it was an inside job nor do I believe 19 guys with box cutting utilities just happened to kill 3,000 people.

You really are the one with illogical thinking here. This thread may have been thrown off track but that's only because some idiot decided to reply with "Well everyone saw a plane so your theory doesn't matter".

Seriously bro, see a therapist. You are indulging yourself in something you hate on your own free time. You need to talk to somebody. Label me anything you want, because I know it scares people like you to not have a label for everyone.


edit on 13-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Actually, this is a forum for discussing the conspiracies and determining their veracity, not for circle-jerks with believers.

The "official story" supporters are just as welcome to enter discourse here as you are, and the opinions of these people are not meant to be ignored simply for having a differing opinion than you.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Eyewitness testimony is useful but you're the one saying eyewitnesses would be able to tell what exact aircraft hit the building.


I didn't say that at all. In fact I doubt that more than a handful would be able to.


I've never said an aircraft didn't hit the building. I don't rely on eyewitness testimony because I know every-day civilians are not professional plane spotters.


That's not what you said. You claimed that all eyewitness testimony was discountable because it sometimes conflicts and is sometimes incorrect. You appeared to be using this to discredit the enormous amount of testimony that suggests that a plane hit the building, and place that theory on a level of equivalency with a flyover or perhaps a missile strike. I merely pointed out that that's absurd.


I do take interest in other people's theories which is why I like coming to this forum. But if you're so certain of the events and have no doubt in your mind then...why are you here? To argue? To burst someone's bubble? If you're not interested in a possible conspiracy then why log on to a conspiracy forum multiple times a day?


You have no idea of my opinion and your questions amount to an ad hominem. How do you know I'm not interested in a possible conspiracy?




I'm not throwing it all out. You took the OP's long/detailed thread and completely shot it down because of eyewitness testimony. You're throwing it ALL out.

And again, if you are set on the OS, then why bother joining a conspiracy forum? Sounds like a complete waste of time on your part

edit on 13-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)


I'm saying it's crazy to discount the eyewitnesses, or more precisely to claim that because some were wrong that the overwhelming number of them saying a plane crashed can be safely ignored.

And again, what's my involvement in the forum got to do with anything?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by homervb
 


Actually, this is a forum for discussing the conspiracies and determining their veracity, not for circle-jerks with believers.

The "official story" supporters are just as welcome to enter discourse here as you are, and the opinions of these people are not meant to be ignored simply for having a differing opinion than you.


Well it seems the OSers like to call any theory ludicrous/insane. I'm sorry but that's not having an open mind nor is it welcoming to people who are skeptics.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

That's not what you said. You claimed that all eyewitness testimony was discountable because it sometimes conflicts and is sometimes incorrect. You appeared to be using this to discredit the enormous amount of testimony that suggests that a plane hit the building, and place that theory on a level of equivalency with a flyover or perhaps a missile strike. I merely pointed out that that's absurd.


Um no, I said that OSers take into account and believe all eyewitnesses to the Pentagon/Flight AA 77 but completely discredit anyone who witnessed something different whether it was at the Pentagon or the WTC.


You have no idea of my opinion and your questions amount to an ad hominem. How do you know I'm not interested in a possible conspiracy?


I'm not discrediting any of them. I'm saying you pick and choose who to discredit as long as it works in your favor. And yes, this technique is used on both sides which is why I chose NOT TO use eyewitness testimony on this forum. But the fact that the OP did all this research and it immediately gets shot down because of eyewitness testimony in favor of the OS is just straight BS to me

All the threads I've come across with you in them, you seem to not believe in a conspiracy what so ever.




I'm saying it's crazy to discount the eyewitnesses, or more precisely to claim that because some were wrong that the overwhelming number of them saying a plane crashed can be safely ignored.

And again, what's my involvement in the forum got to do with anything?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb


Um no, I said that OSers take into account and believe all eyewitnesses to the Pentagon/Flight AA 77 but completely discredit anyone who witnessed something different whether it was at the Pentagon or the WTC.


You did say that, but you also said the other thing. Never mind though, let's address this.

Your statement amounts to a strawman, but I'll accept that there is an element of truth in it. However, they have reasonable grounds for doing so because

1 Eyewitnesses get stuff wrong
2 The overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon and both WTC towers

Given those facts, it's unreasonable not to enlist the majority of eyewitnesses into general support for the notion that a plane struck all three buildings. Think back to my earlier analogy. You don't believe the guy who saw the elephant, do you? But equally you shouldn't just chuck away all the evidence because one guy was wrong.



I'm not discrediting any of them. I'm saying you pick and choose who to discredit as long as it works in your favor. And yes, this technique is used on both sides which is why I chose NOT TO use eyewitness testimony on this forum. But the fact that the OP did all this research and it immediately gets shot down because of eyewitness testimony in favor of the OS is just straight BS to me


One obviously picks and chooses, but not because of whom the evidence happens to favour. I try to discern based on what seems reasonable given the majority view, with an allowance for the fact that people get stuff wrong. With that balanced view the witness statements contradict the OP.

Your system - which is to discount all that testimony in a plea for neutrality - is actually the reverse of a neutral position. It suggests there is an equivalence in the eyewitness record for anything to have occurred, and any reasonable person could not claim that.


All the threads I've come across with you in them, you seem to not believe in a conspiracy what so ever.



That's irrelevant, but also untrue.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Your statement amounts to a strawman, but I'll accept that there is an element of truth in it. However, they have reasonable grounds for doing so because

1 Eyewitnesses get stuff wrong
2 The overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon and both WTC towers

Given those facts, it's unreasonable not to enlist the majority of eyewitnesses into general support for the notion that a plane struck all three buildings. Think back to my earlier analogy. You don't believe the guy who saw the elephant, do you? But equally you shouldn't just chuck away all the evidence because one guy was wrong.


I'm not chucking away all the evidence. What I said was that just like eyewitnesses that said they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, there are eyewitnesses that said the planes that hit the WTC looked like military planes. But any eyewitness testimony of the military planes will be disregarded. I don't care of the content of the testimony, that wasn't my point. My point is people who use eyewitness testimony as their solid evidence only use the testimony that works in their favor.



One obviously picks and chooses, but not because of whom the evidence happens to favour. I try to discern based on what seems reasonable given the majority view, with an allowance for the fact that people get stuff wrong. With that balanced view the witness statements contradict the OP.

Your system - which is to discount all that testimony in a plea for neutrality - is actually the reverse of a neutral position. It suggests there is an equivalence in the eyewitness record for anything to have occurred, and any reasonable person could not claim that.


::face palm:: You really...like REALLY did not understand my point. My point was that from all the posts I have seen on ATS, the OSers will always bring in the eyewitnesses that work in their favor. If a skeptic brings in his testimony it is shot down and stomped on like the black dude in American History X. If people are going to use eyewitness testimony for their defense then they're assuming humans are not flawed and are 1000% sure of what they saw. Yes, you're right, many people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon, I cannot deny that. What kind of aircraft? I have no idea, it was moving at excess speeds that wouldn't allow for you to read the markings on the plane or so I'd assume. Testimony comes from people, people aren't perfect, especially when something happens in a 1/4 of a second right before their eyes. But if you're going to use that and say they definitely saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon, then your defense is flawed. If you're going to say they saw an aircraft hit the building then you've allowed a margin for human error.


That's irrelevant, but also untrue.


I'm not lying here. Literally, I have always seen you discuss in favor of the OS. I'm not saying you ALWAYS do, but from the many of many of threads I've taken a part in, you have yet to show any interest in a possible conspiracy.
edit on 13-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

I'm not chucking away all the evidence. What I said was that just like eyewitnesses that said they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, there are eyewitnesses that said the planes that hit the WTC looked like military planes. But any eyewitness testimony of the military planes will be disregarded. I don't care of the content of the testimony, that wasn't my point. My point is people who use eyewitness testimony as their solid evidence only use the testimony that works in their favor.


And my point is that they do not. They tend to discount minority views, especially those that are reasonable errors within the scope of what probably occurred given the majority witness accounts.

Take my analogy again, and assume that the one guy didn't say an elephant stole the apple, but a baboon. Everybody else said it was a chimpanzee. It's not biased to assume it was a chimp that did it, it's a nuanced and reasonable way to assess the evidence. Similarly the fact that only a few people dissent - and not very widely - from the notion of a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon given what they saw, suggests that it was a passenger plane.




::face palm:: You really...like REALLY did not understand my point. My point was that from all the posts I have seen on ATS, the OSers will always bring in the eyewitnesses that work in their favor. If a skeptic brings in his testimony it is shot down and stomped on like the black dude in American History X. If people are going to use eyewitness testimony for their defense then they're assuming humans are not flawed and are 1000% sure of what they saw. Yes, you're right, many people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon, I cannot deny that. What kind of aircraft? I have no idea, it was moving at excess speeds that wouldn't allow for you to read the markings on the plane or so I'd assume. Testimony comes from people, people aren't perfect, especially when something happens in a 1/4 of a second right before their eyes. But if you're going to use that and say they definitely saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon, then your defense is flawed. If you're going to say they saw an aircraft hit the building then you've allowed a margin for human error.


I understood you perfectly. Nobody is suggesting that eyewitness accounts prove beyond all shadow of doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. But when such an overwhelming number saw a passenger plane and the right type of markings, and only a minority claimed it was a military plane, then it is unreasonable to assume that the balance of probabilities is on the military plane.

It is equally unreasonable to pretend that the evidence is so equivocal that you must reject all of it. Which is what you're trying to do. "Oh, some guy said it was a baboon, so I guess we don't know..."



I'm not lying here. Literally, I have always seen you discuss in favor of the OS. I'm not saying you ALWAYS do, but from the many of many of threads I've taken a part in, you have yet to show any interest in a possible conspiracy.
edit on 13-6-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)


It depends what you mean by OS - I don't really understand the term as it seems to be used exclusively in conspiracy contexts and to mean different things - and it depends what you mean by conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This is all really pretty simple. You have witnesses that all agree the suspect was wearing a blue shirt. Then someone comes along and asks some of the witnesses how many buttons were on the shirt. Some say 10 and some say 11. That doesn't mean the color of the suspect's shirt is now in question.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This is really annoyingly dishonest, steering this thread in the direction of a no-planer or fly over contributing thread. And group bashing of a honest skeptic.
And worse, act as if the opening posts doesn't made very clear that I am an impact contributor.

Homervb, I have starred the one post above by you that I completely agree with. Your other posts are also very much appreciated for their honest explanations. But starring posts will cost too much precious time, since there are so many excellent posts at this forum. When they have found a method to cache our stars and insert them without constantly renewing our page screen, then I will flood those good threads with stars.

If it looks like a wide scale psychological-operation, and acts like it all the time, then it is a .......... Fill in the blank as fits your style.

I made it very clear that I am strongly convinced that a big passenger plane's nose cone impacted at column 14 of the Pentagon west wall, at the second floor slab height, 15 feet high.

But it came from a totally different angle than the OS, the Official Story, wants us to believe.
It obviously came from a possible wide range of NoC flight paths, covering all the witnesses already found by the CIT team, but also the ones I am going to present you in my next posts.

I am going to post extensive evidence for that different than the OS its SoC flight path, namely a NoC flight path.

So sharpen your seemingly blunt knives, and give me some room to post.

First this :

DIGNITY.
Some of it is for Reheat.
The rest is for everybody interested.

I do not type my wall of texts for those that already have a very good grasp of the day of 9/11. I type all of that to explain to the freshly arrived, new members here, what they ought to know, IN MY OPINION. Posting as many honestly gathered details as can be.


That is why two JREFers here, were able to convince me that Roosevelt Roberts was not a witness of a fly-over. Which conviction did cost me a whole rugby stadium full of online support and precious assistance of people I really thought were same souls, even soulmates....
So be it, since honest research ALLWAYS prevails.
They probably lack the periodically contemplation on the facts and the resulting self-critique which forces you to clean yourself from false sources and their influences.


Realize that this is just the same as you should do : explain the members and silent readers why you are convinced that the SoC-theory is the rightfully officially endorsed theory.
YOUR OPINION. Based on YOUR expertise.
And do not hide important parts of it anymore, just to tease us.
It gives you a false sense of superiority as can be extracted from your above words.
More and more voters realize that the phrase "this is a case of National Security" is a false digotomy, it's good for the few wealthy and powerful, but very bad for the bulk of the masses.
Transition to open governments have to be made, or we all will die gruesome deaths.

The rightfully will prevail, in the end, be it you and your soulmates, or be it me and my kind.
Which there are only a few left of, sadly enough.
The ones that try to get a balanced grip on true historical facts, and are not afraid to change their mind when confronted with good evidence that they were wrong about any detail of their research.
Luckily a few still exist, like homervb.

That is REAL freedom of speech, minds and opinions.
As it is still allowed at these forums. A rare breed in the world wide web, these days.
Glad I made the right choice so many years ago, for this forum, when my old forums were eradicated from the web.
Too many other 9/11 forums are ugly biased......And not honestly representing the truth.

edit on 13/6/12 by LaBTop because: Forgot a /color.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I am still firmly convinced that my Banking-and-NoC-flying-plus-Impact theory has a much greater probability to be the true explanation of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 than the straight-in-and-SoC-flying theory.

One of the reasons is my recent discovery, that the generator trailer's roof gouge angle indicates the real attack path angle of Flight AA 77, namely about a 60° angle.
The flap guide rail that sticks out from under that right wing must have made that gouge, and these rails are situated in a perfect parallel position to the plane's fuselage, if not, there would be far too much drag resistance on the wing.
Thus, that guide rail followed a flight path identical to the path the fuselage of Flight AA 77 followed, and the gouge it made in the trailer's roof thus indicates the real flight path of AA 77 just before impact. In other words, the real attack angle being somewhere between 52° and 60°.
Which is definitely not the ASCE Report's angle of attack of 42° (a line from the C-Ring's "exit hole" to the entrance hole at column 14 of the west wall's facade) :





This is another, better and less depth-distorted picture of the generator trailer's roof gouge :
External full URL link :
files.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
This is a belly-view of a Boeing 757-200, which perfectly shows the positions of each flap guide rail under the wings.
The three ones directly left and right of the huge, high jet engine on the right wing can't have made that gouge, it must have been the other one or the end of the wing tip slat.
If anyone has another idea what part of the wing could have made that roof gouge, be my guest.





These are all photos from www.airliners.net, they have some of the worlds best high definition photos of typical passenger aircraft on their site.

This is the best photo I could find that shows the underside of a Boeing 757-232 banking hard right, in a nearly clean configuration. It shows clearly where the guard-rails housings are positioned under that right wing.
Knowing the wing dimensions, we can calculate the distances from wing tip to first guard-rail, and the rest. And from the guard-rails to the side of the jet engine.
This was a new Delta Airlines colors painted plane. Nearly all other photos show also the underside of a 757, but with more or less of the slats, flaps or wheels out.






Photo of the belly and underside of the wings of a Boeing 757-223 with slats and flaps out and wheels out :




One Photo of the belly and underside of the wings of a Boeing 757-223 with slats and flaps out but wheels in :





And one photo of a Boeing 757.230 with slats and flaps out but wheels in :





This is a Boeing 757-230 with all flaps, slats full out and wheels out :





This is a photo of the right wing of a Boeing 757-203 with flaps full out :





This one is from a 757-2Q8 aircraft, with all flaps and slats out, front and wing wheel doors open, but no wheels out :





The only flap-guide rail housings on the right wing of Flight AA 77 which sharp bottom could have made that gouge in the roof of the generator trailer would be one of the two outmost ones.
The third one is behind the jet engine, and can't have made the gouge, since the engine would have obliterated the whole generator trailer first at impact on its side panel instead.

And remember that all the witnesses described a clean configuration for AA 77.
No flaps, slats or wheels out.
Thus, as Frank Probst told the interviewer from the ASCE report, the wing tip itself could eventually also have made that gouge, or even the sharp outer edge of the right wing its slat that you see extended in the Mexicana-photo above this one.
Another possibility would be the outer edge of the right wing's aileron, if this one was set down, for a last moments right wing-up maneuvre. And the right wing-imprint on the west wall was under an angle of 8°. So, a slight right wing-up configuration.

For informational purposes, the cockpit of a Boeing 757-256 :







edit on 13/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Source: 911review.org...








Original Navy photo :




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












Here below I used the same ASCE report's figure 3.2 and drew my own wingtip and nose-cone lines in it, and the two jet engines as blue dots. Those blue lines by me depict a plane coming in at about a 60° angle.

The right wing tip's guide-rail, nr 3 on my two blue lines, which is its furthest out flap guide rail ("winglet" called here by me, to keep its description short) would then make that gouge in the roof of the generator housing build on top of that trailer's undercarriage.
With an angle to its roof of about 60° with its longest side, that stood parallel to the fence, that stood parallel to the west wall's facade bottom line.
The white lines depict another angle of attack, the white dots in them depict both the jet engines.




Below is another drawing from the ASCE report, the plane is flying too low, the left jet engine is plowing under the soil, the left wing is too low to fit the second floor its outer bottom line damage seen in the Riskus and Ingersoll photos, and other pictures taken within an hour after impact.
The nose-cone should have hit at column 14 and at the second floor slab. Not 1.5 meter below it.
The upper-fuselage plane-body part must have flown into that two windows wide hole above the drawn by the ASCE artist plane-body, so, the whole plane must have flown at least 2 meter higher than drawn below :



The horizontal 8° wing imprint at the right of the fuselage impact point :




911review.org...
files.abovetopsecret.com...




The above imprint on the west wall drawn by someone at 911review.org is not in its precise position, however, it is under about the right attack angle of somewhere between 052° to 060°.
The above one its nose-cone is drawn about a meter too high on the wall, and its wings are too straight.
The left wing tip must be lowered about one meter/yard compared to the right wing, and the right wing tip must be lowered about half a meter/yard (50 cm). In that right position, the whole imprint then leans to the left, under an angle of about 8° right-wing up. The nose-cone will then correctly hit the second floor slab at column 14, and the right jet engine's nacelle bottom will just clear the spools on its way, and the left jet engine's nacelle bottom will just scrape that white concrete rim around the low, square, white cement vent-structure, and take a "bite" out of its southern rim.
And of course the landing gear was retracted, thus should be invisible in their above drawing.





It's still unknown where that huge tail-piece went.
I expect it broke off, caused by the immense and near instant deceleration forces, and was hurled over the roof, and ended up in the center court, or on or through part of that roof.
Or even at the opposite side of the Pentagon, the Potomac waterfront side.
Note that the tail starts sticking up at about 34 meters backwards from the nose cone. And sticks about 10 meters above the top of the fuselage.
That tail, when logically instantly breaking off at the moment of impact of the nose cone with its longitudinal fuselage beams just behind it, thus would follow an upward arc of at least 30 meters wide, and will have cleared the whole facade. Note that the plane impacted under a vertical-plain attack angle vector of about 8°, just as its horizontal-plain attack angle vector of about 8°, too.
That tail is connected to the fuselage with two or three fat break-away bolts. If they were not like that, the chance would occur that during a head-on collision on the runway, both tails of both planes would cut like a knife through that fuselage, and kill nearly all passengers.
Btw, the jet engines are also hung up with two or three fat break-away bolts, thus causing the engines to break-off downwards when colliding with something heavy, and tumble away from under the wings, so they can't break away the wings or the tail rudder and tail elevators, and then render the plane totally unworthy to fly any further, it would fall as a brick if those structures were damaged in-flight. With one broken off engine, the plane can still have a chance to land safely.

Note also, that such a huge debris part as a 757 tail, has never been photographed AND published by the DoD at the Pentagon. That should make you wonder, why.
I'll tell you why. The spot where that tail has landed, will be a dead-give away for the angle of horizontal impact.

And I do not believe for one moment that that tail ended up inside that building behind the impact point. And if anybody believes so, I would really like to hear his/her reason for such a belief.

When that plane would have impacted under the official 42° horizontal angle of attack, that tail would have ended up on the north part of the roofs, or even in front of the Mall Entrance, on the ground there, somewhere there.
Because one thing is dead sure, that broken-away tail, did not impact above that fuselage hole at column 14 above the second floor slab. Or any higher on that same wall.

Note that the piece of concrete and re-bar dangling down in the center of that fuselage hole, originates from that strip above those two former windows, now obliterated. It is thus not a remnant of a column ! It's a cover-piece of concrete just barely hanging down from a few pieces of left-over re-bar.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I have another image from Geoff Metcalf for you below, so to see taken halfway into the next morning (no heavy cranes or bulldozer or other machinery-tracks bitten out of the lawn yet, no sand bed placed etc., only rubber mud-tires yet to see), which gives the more mathematically inclined under you, a perfect hold-fast to draw the imprint of the attacking plane's fuselage and its wings on that west wall.
Since I gave you already in the opening pages of this thread all dimensions in feet and meters of a Boeing 757-200, like AA 77 was, it would be quite simple to construct a perfect imprint on the following facade (just draw over the military truck).
In the ASCE report you can find the exact dimensions of that facade and the dimensions of the windows and the gaps in between them. That gives you all the necessary comparisons.
You can just keep adding windows and spaces to the right of the still standing building portion, right into the collapsed area. Then you will end up at the center in between those two obliterated windows on the second floor. The impact point of the nose-cone.
The imprint of the right wing deep in the bottom part of those two second floor columns (above the back-axles of that truck) which is clear to see, can be used to align the right wing in its 8° upward position.

Wing tip to wing tip span : 124 feet 10 inch (38 meters)
That's 19 meters from the fuselage center beam to both sides.
Tail height above jet engine bottom span : 41 feet 6 inch (12.7 meter)
You will be surprised how far those wings in reality reached out.....DO IT YOURSELF, do not trust others to do your research for you.
If you're not very clever with Paint, just print the above photo, then draw the plane with pencil over it in its right dimensions, you know them by comparing the ASCE Pentagon Performance report's dimensions of that building, look it up, then scan it again onto your HD, and copy it to your Personal ATS Upload, then post it here in this thread.
I am curious, how many of you will really can bring themselves to really do such a thing, after a long 10 years sitting on your bums while lazily consuming what other brains offer you.
Do it yourself, it's so much more rewarding in the long run. Show me you haven't been beaten yet by that sick consumer society you still have to live in.
Learn to be happy with what you really need and what you already got, and a whole new world will open up for you.

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

Would that left wing tip part have sliced through those still standing two burned trees at the left, when that plane would have impacted under 42° as the ASCE report wants us to believe?

Compare such an attack angle to my proposed angle of attack of between 52° and 60°, and which I already fortified with examples of wing tip damage to the generator trailer in its path.
And the witness accounts by Frank Probst and Don Mason.
If you really want to outdo yourself, you can easily determine the real angle of attack by AA 77, by measuring the angle of the gouge on the generator trailer cabin roof, while keeping in mind that the roof was situated perfectly parallel to the Pentagon's west wall, as can be seen in aerial photos shot just a few days before 9/11, courtesy of the US Navy.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Now, this is also an interesting JREF discussion, from way back in 2006 about heading, track and more :


The heading was indeed 070 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 070 (exactly). We can probably infer that the reading was 070.0 given that precision of the data in that column (and keeping in mind that it appears to change in increments of 0.3 to 0.4).

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.


My following words are important :

NOTE that the yellow word "true" above means True North, and that the Pentagon west wall is not lined up true north! And that generator trailer stood parallel to the west wall, before it got gouged.
Other wise you could think that their 59.8° equals my 60° angled gouge. It does not.!
My 60° is to the west wall, their 59.8 is to true north.


This man talked about a heading of 070°, which must be the magnetic heading.
He also talks about a true heading of 059.8, which must be the true north heading, from which we can conclude that the deviation factor between magnetic heading and true heading at the Pentagon must be 010.2°.
He also talks about a magnetic track angle of 071.4 and a true north track angle of 061.2°.
That's also a deviation factor between the magnetic track angle and the true north track angle of 010.2° at the Pentagon.

AND WAIT A MOMENT, people can't say so easily, that that was the FINAL heading registered in that FDR, because it for sure was NOT.

The last FULL registered FDR-frame (all measuring data present) they are taking that 070° from, was registered in the fifth second before impact, thus a whopping 4 next seconds still remained to be travelled before impact.
That 070° got registered in the last FULLY written one second long frame, full of data, in that FDR.
And the track-angle (true north) value of 061.2 was recorded 1 sec earlier, in the sixth second frame of 1 second duration, before impact.
A one second frame of that FDR had hundreds of data values written in it, describing values from a myriad of data collecting instruments inside the airplane.

Later, Warren Stutt said he decoded those 4 extra seconds/frames he found at the end of that FDR, which were however more and more garbled-up, loosing integrity per every passing second of those last 4 seconds of damaged FDR data-frames.
He said he took the still readable data from those extra 4 seconds/frames. So, all those 4 seconds were not complete, like the last FULL one second long frame that was full with all recorded data.

And in the last packed with data, FULLY-READABLE ONE of those AA 77 its FDR-frames, in fact the last frame with data used by the NTSB analysts, at 5 seconds before impact, the position of that plane was, according to that NTSB offered animation, somewhere at the NORTH side of the Sheraton Hotel.

If it however in reality flew south of the Sheraton Hotel, if we believe all interviewed witnesses, it had still time enough to perform a slight evasive North of CITGO maneuvre in the next 4 seconds up till impact, thus indeed leading over the southern ends of the Navy Annex its then 8 buildings roofs (nowadays 7 roofs), as reported by Terry Morin.


edit on 13/6/12 by LaBTop because: Posted first text for another thread.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by homervb
 

All of the "truther" version are ludicrous inventions of fantasy support by a few outlier witness that generally exist for any important event that involves traumatic events...


Then what is your purpose of being on this forum?


The point of people like Reheat being on this forum is to provide subject matter expertise. I know that LapTops North of Citgo scenario is flawed since the overwhelming and abundant evidence proves a South of Citgo flight path. However, I do not have the technical knowledge necessary to understand where LabTop goes wrong. Subject Matter Experts like Reheat provide the knowledge necessary to understand the flaws in LapTops analysis.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join