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

eh nevermind... it is not even worth the hassle to debate this

reply to post by Varemia


sorry Verm.....just had to jump on this one....just to show you what your saying works both ways....you say better than believing some anonymous internet user......Ummmm...sorry....but are you not just some anonymous internet user also.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by huh2142

 

Hey Labtop, the tail is mostly composite material, so maybe if you look closely enough at the helipad and adjacent area that's covered with thousands of small pieces of debris you'll find it there. You'll need good resolution tho', not the typical "truther" low res photograph taken from a distance to show he lack of debris. Then after you find the thousands of pieces you'll need to glue it all back together again and won't need to continue searching for a piece of tail. Or you could go down the your local pub on a Saturday night to make it easier! I suspect there will be plenty of pieces of tail there if you find the right pub.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon



Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

This one lone person held the tail section in their hands, come on now. Does this mean your idea of what happened might be slightly skewed?

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by huh2142

 

Hey Labtop, the tail is mostly composite material, so maybe if you look closely enough at the helipad and adjacent area that's covered with thousands of small pieces of debris you'll find it there. You'll need good resolution tho', not the typical "truther" low res photograph taken from a distance to show he lack of debris. Then after you find the thousands of pieces you'll need to glue it all back together again and won't need to continue searching for a piece of tail. Or you could go down the your local pub on a Saturday night to make it easier! I suspect there will be plenty of pieces of tail there if you find the right pub.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon



Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

This one lone person held the tail section in their hands, come on now. Does this mean your idea of what happened might be slightly skewed?

On what planet do you reside? In your every day life do you interpret every word you hear or read literally? "I was scared to death". How many times have you heard this expression from someone who's been frightened? How can the person saying this speak if they are dead? "Dead as a door nail". Is or was a door nail ever an animate object? Was it ever once alive?

Now, do you have a clue how large the tail section of a B-767 is? The only number I can find quickly is that it is 52' (FEET) in height. I don't know how that's measured, but wouldn't you guess that it likely weighs hundreds of pounds if not a ton or more. Ask yourself how a normal human could ever get their hands around an object as large as a B-767 tail section let alone lift it.?

Don't you reckon Mr. Kilsheimer actually meant that he held a piece of the tail and either omitted that word or the reporter quoting him inadvertently omitted the word "piece".

If you don't understand what I've just said or what he meant by what he said no one here can help you to understand any more complicated issue at all..

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by huh2142

 

Hey Labtop, the tail is mostly composite material, so maybe if you look closely enough at the helipad and adjacent area that's covered with thousands of small pieces of debris you'll find it there. You'll need good resolution tho', not the typical "truther" low res photograph taken from a distance to show he lack of debris. Then after you find the thousands of pieces you'll need to glue it all back together again and won't need to continue searching for a piece of tail. Or you could go down the your local pub on a Saturday night to make it easier! I suspect there will be plenty of pieces of tail there if you find the right pub.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon



Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

This one lone person held the tail section in their hands, come on now. Does this mean your idea of what happened might be slightly skewed?

On what planet do you reside? In your every day life do you interpret every word you hear or read literally? "I was scared to death". How many times have you heard this expression from someone who's been frightened? How can the person saying this speak if they are dead? "Dead as a door nail". Is or was a door nail ever an animate object? Was it ever once alive?

Now, do you have a clue how large the tail section of a B-767 is? The only number I can find quickly is that it is 52' (FEET) in height. I don't know how that's measured, but wouldn't you guess that it likely weighs hundreds of pounds if not a ton or more. Ask yourself how a normal human could ever get their hands around an object as large as a B-767 tail section let alone lift it.?

Don't you reckon Mr. Kilsheimer actually meant that he held a piece of the tail and either omitted that word or the reporter quoting him inadvertently omitted the word "piece".

If you don't understand what I've just said or what he meant by what he said no one here can help you to understand any more complicated issue at all..

Yea, a structural engineer picked up the supposed "shattered" pieces of the tail for...what purpose? One person implies the tail is shattered into tiny pieces, this guy says he's holding the tail meanwhile he's a structural engineer. Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. ::rolls eyes::

Then after you find the thousands of pieces you'll need to glue it all back together again and won't need to continue searching for a piece of tail.

I hope the structural engineer had a broom and shovel to help scoop up these thousands of pieces, I'd totally suspect him to be the one to do the clean up job.

This was Vin Narayanan's own report printed 09/17/2001 in the magazine he worked for as
a reporter, USA Today :

www.usatoday.com...

I left home at 8:15 a.m. on Sept. 11 to begin what is normally a 35-minute commute. But traffic was unusually thick that day. As I inched my way toward Washington, I considered taking an alternate route — one that would not take me past the Pentagon. But for some reason, I decided to drive my usual way in.

At 9 a.m., sports-talk radio began reporting the attacks on World Trade Center. I switched over to the all-news station for more information as traffic continued to crawl.

At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
-snip-
The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away.
-snip-
I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.

Hands shaking, I borrowed a cell phone to call my mom and tell her I was safe.

Then I called into work, to let them know what happened. But not once was I able to take my eyes off the inferno in front of me.
-snip-
Police and emergency workers were on the scene within minutes of the crash. And I climbed back into my car and drove to work.

I have mixed feelings with his words. Which I expect to have been edited by his chief editor, because of the "overhanging" addition to the exit sign. This kind of editing was massive on and after the day of 9/11/2001, as we have seen in many later phone interviews with witnesses, they explicitly mentioned that their words were altered in those news reports. I expect that word to have been also inserted by an editor. Why?

Because he said he was alongside the Pentagon. Which seems to me to mean along the west wall and is 300 meter further north than that overhanging exit sign near the overpass bridge. Within traffic at a standstill.
He looked up "to my left" which he would not have said when really standing under that overhanging exit sign, he then would have needed to look back over his shoulder.
Looking BACK? So why did he saw a jet flying "right at me" , so definitely not at an angle of 60.25°, but "right at me" is what he has seen standing in that photo and looking to his left.
And "over my head", which is impossible when he stood on the right (north going) side of Route 27 while the plane flew according the OS on the far left side of Route 27, while clearing my car by about 25 feet.(7.6 meter)
The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. That's straight out impossible, the tail bottom is much higher than the plane's belly. And the tail portion span is much smaller than the wing span.


Now that's some important info, when he described AA 77 flying "over my head", he clearly describes it crossing Route 27 at the spot I gave you the Riskus photo of, there it can fly over his head, but not near the overhanging exit sign, since he stood at the right side of Route 27 and the plane is supposed to fly SoC, much further left, beside the left side of Route 27, so could have never flown over his head in the most eastern (right) north going lane.
AA 77's its impact target was 110 yards/meters away instead of only 50 yards away.
He consistently under-rates nearly exactly all the distances he mentioned by half, horizontally and vertically at the Pentagon scene. He also thought the plane flew 25 feet over his head, while it must have flown 50 feet over his head to be able to clear those same lamp poles north while flying its NoC path. While the plane supposedly clipped much further south those 5 lamp poles while flying the OS its SoC path.
Btw, the distance from that overhanging sign board to impact is about 330 yards.
He would not make that kind of huge underrating, 50 yards away is too far from 330 yards.
But again two times more than the 50 yards he mentioned.

The lamp poles in the SoC flight path were 42 feet (12.8 meter) high and the first two near the huge traffic sign board hanging over Route 27 near the overpass bridge were clipped at about 5 feet lower than their tops (1.5 meter).
Of course, the same lamp poles were in the way of an AA 77 crossing near that tree in front of the Heli Pad where Steve Riskus took a photograph of Vin's dark-green pick-up.
But these were not clipped, thus a height estimate of at least 50 feet would have been needed as the plane flew there.

Another indication for me are his PRINTED ( edited? ) words about that tail clipping the overhanging exit sign above him. That exit sign is situated to the far right side (eastern) of that huge traffic board, along the Pentagon grounds.
While according to the OS, the plane flew with its right wing tip just passed the far LEFT Annex side of that huge traffic board.
Further, when a plane just passes over that traffic board, its tail can not clip anything on such board, since the 757-200 tail is much higher placed than its belly.

Thus, his estimate of 25 feet was at least half too low. But the most glaring words I am missing when he really would have stood in front of that huge OVERHANGING exit sign, is the first description which someone really standing there would come to mind :
"over my head, and OVER THAT HUGE TRAFFIC sign with MY EXIT sign on its right side.
But his PRINTED words are in fact :
The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me
And those are the words of an editor who was not there. And thus didn't realize that he exposed himself right by these printed words. He just wanted the text more fancy.
Route 27 alone is already much wider than one wing, the right one, of a 757-200.

He mentioned also that he HOPPED out and later CLIMBED back inTO his car, which is something that you say when you get UP into your high, dark-green PICK-UP. When you GET back DOWN into, or JUMP back DOWN into your normal build car, then you mean a low car, which you can look over its roof. The photo has been made several minutes after impact, and Vin sat back already in his car, waiting to get moving. We know that just after Ruskin stopped photographing the scene, the traffic jam was gone and cars were moving again.

You do understand the grave repercussions when Vin Narayanan is the person in that dark green pick-up?

Any one really interested to ask him that himself can get every means to ask him from me.


Exponent and Homervb, it seems right that you two both should ask him first in what car he was sitting in that 9/11 traffic jam.
I would really like that exponent and homervb ask him these questions.
They both exhibit the intention to take a neutral stance towards the 9/11 issues.
Just as I, they try all the time to stay neutral, and sometimes fail.


So, PM me and you can get the answer nearly instantly.

EDIT : to add that I am away for about 7 hrs from now on. When I'm back I'll check my PM's immediately.

This is like going over every battle of World War II in extreme detail in the hopes of convincing someone that the nazis actually won. The plane hit the building. People saw the plane hit the building. People saw the plane in the building. The remains of the last known passengers were found in the building.

Yet you think trying to attach new or different meaning to the words "alongside the Pentagon" is somehow going to convince anyone that the plane didn't hit the building.

Originally posted by hooper
This is like going over every battle of World War II in extreme detail in the hopes of convincing someone that the nazis actually won. The plane hit the building. People saw the plane hit the building. People saw the plane in the building. The remains of the last known passengers were found in the building.

Yet you think trying to attach new or different meaning to the words "alongside the Pentagon" is somehow going to convince anyone that the plane didn't hit the building.

I think you misunderstand. His theory is that the aircraft DID hit the Pentagon, but it came from a different direction than the "OS" tells. Why this is important or why the "ebil gubmint" would go to incredibly complicated and elaborate lengths to fake the evidence to "cover up" this different path to the building he hasn't answered yet.

What is truly astounding is that he's spending all of this time with nauseous details , but he can't prove that the aircraft got in the position he says it was and he's found numerous errors in his work. In addition, he's using low res photos mostly shot with a telephoto lens to determine precise angles and precise locations of objects to do this work.

If that's not enough to confuse you further, he is using SOLELY witness testimony to justify this approach (none of whom agree on the details) as ultimate proof all of this conglomerated mess proves his point. It's a different twist to the CIT garbage, but infinitely more elaborate.

It's the equivalent to a home invasion in which the perp shot a homeowner. The investigation proved that the invader shot and killed the homeowner with a gunshot and the invader admitted it. However, Labtop thinks the perp was standing in front of the dining room window instead of the living room window that the police investigation determined based on the bullet wound path and a couple of objects it struck on it's path. This different theory of where the shooter was standing is based on some neighborhood witnesses who saw a shadow in a window and heard the gunshot. Labtop's objective is to prove the witnesses were correct in identifying the proper window the perp was standing in front of when he fired the shot. I kid you not, unbelievable as it may be, this is the crux of his argument.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by hooper
This is like going over every battle of World War II in extreme detail in the hopes of convincing someone that the nazis actually won. The plane hit the building. People saw the plane hit the building. People saw the plane in the building. The remains of the last known passengers were found in the building.

Yet you think trying to attach new or different meaning to the words "alongside the Pentagon" is somehow going to convince anyone that the plane didn't hit the building.

I think you misunderstand. His theory is that the aircraft DID hit the Pentagon, but it came from a different direction than the "OS" tells. Why this is important or why the "ebil gubmint" would go to incredibly complicated and elaborate lengths to fake the evidence to "cover up" this different path to the building he hasn't answered yet.

What is truly astounding is that he's spending all of this time with nauseous details , but he can't prove that the aircraft got in the position he says it was and he's found numerous errors in his work. In addition, he's using low res photos mostly shot with a telephoto lens to determine precise angles and precise locations of objects to do this work.

If that's not enough to confuse you further, he is using SOLELY witness testimony to justify this approach (none of whom agree on the details) as ultimate proof all of this conglomerated mess proves his point. It's a different twist to the CIT garbage, but infinitely more elaborate.

It sounds like this thread is really bothering you today. Just click the little "x" on the tab/window and you will no longer have to question labtops analysis

Originally posted by homervb
It sounds like this thread is really bothering you today. Just click the little "x" on the tab/window and you will no longer have to question labtops analysis

It's not a matter of "questioning" labtop's analysis. It's a matter of what difference does labtop's analysis make? By now it's no longer for debate that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, so what Labtop hopes to gain by proving the precise attack vector of the plane that hit the Pentagon was on the left side of some bush vs. the right side of some bush is largely pointless to me.

Does he suspect that taxi driver claiming the lamp post was knocked over by the plane is lying and he really ran into it with his taxi when he was distracted by the plane flying by? Whoa, that totally proves conspiracy...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Does he suspect that taxi driver claiming the lamp post was knocked over by the plane is lying and he really ran into it with his taxi when he was distracted by the plane flying by? Whoa, that totally proves conspiracy...

Uh oh, GOD has come to drop a huge deuce onto another damn fool conspiracy thread. Sorry bro, no sinister secret agents have been mentioned yet, you can turn the broken-record player off that resides in your mind.

And whether or not the cab driver is telling the truth, his story is very suspect no matter what side of the fence you're on. You'd just rather not question it and live without doubt, which is fine by me, but don't insinuate that people are ignorant/insane for questioning something that has it's anomalies.

::sigh:: Another instance of another person who spends all their free time arguing with people they claim to lack logical thinking.

reply to post by homervb


Would you feel better if everones story matched identically? That by itself would raise my eyebrows.
I wonder if there were a van of nuns there on that day? They would cinch it.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by homervb

 

Would you feel better if everones story matched identically? That by itself would raise my eyebrows.
I wonder if there were a van of nuns there on that day? They would cinch it.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about anomalies within the cab drivers story lol forget to read all of what I wrote? I'm not going to take the time to point all of the anomalies out either because it's been done before and I yet have heard a legit OS explanation of how it could have occurred the way it England described it.. But then again, it's easier to live without doubt so why even get into that debate with someone who feels they know exactly what happened on 9/11?

reply to post by Reheat


You're probably right about the whole analysis (I used that word much hesitation) but I think what we may be looking at is a multi-stage attack. First, get someone to doubt the path as described in the "OS" and then when you got them to that stage hit'em with the old "well if they're lying about that then maybe they're lying about____" And that second stage is going to be some nonsense about the crash being staged.

Originally posted by homervb

Uh oh, GOD has come to drop a huge deuce onto another damn fool conspiracy thread. Sorry bro, no sinister secret agents have been mentioned yet, you can turn the broken-record player off that resides in your mind.

And whether or not the cab driver is telling the truth, his story is very suspect no matter what side of the fence you're on. You'd just rather not question it and live without doubt, which is fine by me, but don't insinuate that people are ignorant/insane for questioning something that has it's anomalies.

I never said people were insane for questioning anomalies. I am saying they're being intellectually lazy for questioning anomalies without having a point they're trying to make by questioning the anomalies. It's already been shown that the plane was seen by scores of eyewitnesses and that it left behind wreckage (including the black box) that shows it was a plane. Other than setting some insignificant details straight, what point is there to "prove" the taxi driver was lying and that he actually hit the pole with his car rather than the other way around? It certainly doesn't further the conspiracy theorists' claims and it certainly doesn't disprove the 9/11 commission's record, does it?

Consider just what you hope to gain by proving the plane flew a few yards to the left of some bush vs to the right of some bush for a few minutes before responding.

reply to post by hooper


Oh yes. I'm familiar with the game they play.. Very much so...

I don't know enough about the anomalies of telephoto camera shots to debate in detail with him on that subject matter. That and his misinterpretation of what was said.is nothing more that the CIT tactic of twisting words toward their conspiratorial view. That's why he's posting those walls of text now that are so convincing to HIM. I'll stick with flying issues and shove it all down his throat when he gets back to that... He's ignoring it now because he has no solution...

reply to post by Reheat


Allyn E. Kilsheimer this is the same person whose company holds the contract for rebuilding the Pentagon....Man Alive....what would anyone expect this person to say...ummm if we say something that could be deemed as controversial...do you think they might loose a very lucrative contract....Not saying he is lying...but he sure as hell has a motive to be biased.
Once again A conflict of interest.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Reheat

 

Not saying he is lying...but he sure as hell has a motive to be biased..

So do you, "truther".

Click here to learn more about this warning.