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.

 

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Well, i started a thread for you jthomas to present your "independent evidence" proving AA77 hit the pentagon since you have refused to create it yourself when asked to do so numerous times, but it appears to have been removed by the mods.

So, i guess present it here even though i feel it will be off topic.

You claim there is "independent evidence" which proves AA77 hit the pentagon. Present it please. The most "independent" perhaps being audio and video recordings you have done yourself on location or with the "1,000" you claim (aside from MSM and Govt), and perhaps part numbers/maintenance logs to verify positive identification as done by every aircraft accident investigator through history of flight/accidents.


To the rest of the members of this forum, i guess this thread from this point forward will no longer be about topography, obstacles and/or the errors made in our article.

Enjoy.

Feel free to stop by our forums if you would like to read topics categorized appropriately.

Regards,
Rob




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 

Hello, Rob. Allow me to help get things back on topic. As you know my own thoughts on this issue/non-issue are here:
Obstacle? Impossible.

I'm noting at the article linked in the OP you've updated it:
"The calculations below used for the purpose of this article are in error. We are currently reviewing the calculations and will publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations consistent with the premise of this article. We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your understanding."

I think I understand how errors happen over there from time to time. The math does indeed go over my head, but 11.2 Gs seemed way high for a descent of like 1 foot for every 10 forward. So the revisions - if you have any clues you can offer us yet - are they slight or drastic? Is the new number impossible as well, or just unlikely, or even relatively mundane?


regarding that math, is it not true that it is based on a presumption that the plane officially had to pass over or that tower? How again is it we know the plane HAD to be right on that exact line? If we're talking about a 5-foot wide obstacle making stuff impossible here, we'd better not be making false assumptions.

So it seems the antenna was NOT damaged after all. To me this means either the altitude you're looking at - 305 msl + - is accurate, or else the plane passed lower just a little to the side of this tower.
Graphic: tower in the red circle, green path being I think the best fit.

new window
Note: the lines represent fuselage center lines, and the nearest wingtip passes well over 100 feet from the tower either way. 124-foot wingspan = 62 feet from centerline needed to clear the tower at any altitude. The 500 foot scale is off - more like 400 - but the illustration is still 100% relevant.

The eyewitnesses also report a left bank (tilt and turn) from the Navy Annex forward. This swerve around an obstacle would explain where a bank came from in an otherwise straight-ish path, and in fact indicate a lower altitude where the plane would have to swerve to avoid it.

This is all based on my non-expert opinion that flight paths aren't necessarily straight lines but can and do 'wiggle' a bit. So what is up with that Rob? Is this a plausible explanation? Would these flight paths, green or purple, be a problem from a turn and G-force perspective? Is there any way to absolutely rule out that either of these is what actually happened?

And if so, where would that put this thought problem you pose about the impossible/difficult/routine/whatever descent required from some arbitrary point near the 'official' flight path?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex


I am glad to see your apparent willingness to finally address all of the evidence


You claim there is "independent evidence" which proves AA77 hit the pentagon. Present it please.


Nice try, Rob, but as you know shifting the burden of proof for your claims does not work in the real world. So let's get started.

I asked you and Aldo recently, and Ranke one year ago, to tell us what wreckage those who were inside the Pentagon saw and/or recovered in the hours, days, and weeks after the "incident."

What did all those people from numerous different groups report seeing and/or recovering?

If the wreckage was not from AA77, why have you not stated what the wreckage was from?

If the wreckage was not from AA77, do you have an explanation why all those people who actually saw and/or recovered the wreckage have never stated publicly, right in the days after 9/11 until now, that the wreckage was from something other than a 757? What is your explanation for that fact?

In your apparent willingness now to discuss all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon and with AA77, then to have any of your group state that NO 757 hit the Pentagon you must necessarily know what these people who performed rescue, recovery, fire fighting, building shoring up, forensic investigation, sorting of the wreckage, etc. stated they saw, recovered, and analyzed.

You agree, I assume, correct, Rob?

Now, if in fact you haven't done this work in your "investigation," of what happened at The Pentagon, you would agree that your investigation is incomplete since NO investigator or researcher would ever leave out material evidence from his or her investigation.

You would agree, of course, correct, Rob?

So, you you have the ability to state quite readily, here in this thread, what wreckage these people saw and/or recovered from inside the Pentagon, or admit to us that you have not done so.

CaptainObvious posted the list of those at the Pentagon who were there yesterday and I posted excerpts from several of their reports. This list has been available to every "researcher" in the world since 2002. Phone numbers can easily be looked up if you have yet to get their statements:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue,
American Airlines,
American Red Cross,
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services,
Arlington County Fire Department,
Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
Arlington VA Police Department,
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology,
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,
DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff,
DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff,
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue,
DOD Honor Guard,
Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams,
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams,
FBI Hazmat Teams,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1,
Tennessee Task Force 1,
Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2,
FEMA Emergency Response Team,
Fort Myer Fire Department,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit,
Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
U.S. National Guard units,
National Naval Medical Center CCRF,
National Transportation Safety Board,
Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team,
Pentagon Medical Staff,
Rader Army Health Clinic Staff,
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
Virginia Beach Fire Department,
Virginia Department of Emergency Management,
Virginia State Police

Here is some more information:


Collapse Rescue Operations At The Pentagon 9-11 Attack: A Case Study on Urban Search and Rescue Disaster Response
www.ukfssart.org.uk...
"Operations divided the incident into geographic Divisions (e.g. Division A, B, C, D)for the fire attack, EMS, and rescue operations; and into functional Groups (e.g. Fire Attack Group, Medical Group, Search Group, etc). Then came the collapse, which drastically changed the situation.

"The size of the collapse area and the presence of confirmed live victims before the collapse compelled the Pentagon I.C. to divide the incident into Branches in order to manage the growing scale of the disaster and the large number of fire, EMS, and urban search and rescue (US&R) resources that would be required to handle the incident. He established a Fire Attack Branch (to manage all the suppression operations) and a US&R Branch, both of which would function until the last victims were removed and the building secured twelve days later."

www.arlingtonva.us...
"Arlington County After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon

"This After-Action Report (AAR) describes the activities of Arlington County and the supporting jurisdictions, government agencies, and other organizations in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon. This incident produced a Unique paradigm of response considerations and requirements. It was a major fire and rescue operation within the broader context of a terrorist attack. This terrorist attack occurred in Arlington County, VA, but at a U.S. military facility under the direct control Of the Secretary of Defense. The incident response engaged a large number of agencies, organizations, and individuals from all levels of government and the private sector, and it lasted for an extended period."


I'll await your presentation to all of us here of what wreckage was actually seen and/or recovered by all of these people from inside the Pentagon, Rob.

Don't be embarrassed if you have not done the necessary investigation. You can get on the phone to these different groups first thing tomorrow morning.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
then to have any of your group state that NO 757 hit the Pentagon



It appears you are still confused with our claims John. Please quote the above statement from our site at pilotsfor911truth.org....

This link may help you out...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Specifically where we say:


Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit the
Pentagon". We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the
NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory.


As for the wreckage. I'll let Adam post the link for you from Farmers blog based on the book published by the DoD. That wreckage was never positively identified as coming from AA77, N644AA.

You are sorely mistaken if you think the burden of proof is on us and can keep saying it till your face turns red. The burden of proof is on the US Govt to prove their claims. It seems they have done that for you. Great.

Again, we disagree, the lists grow regularly.

pilotsfor911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...

Happy Easter!

Rob

Adam, i'll get to your post another time as i just dropped by here and dont have much time today, or you can email to me.

Regards


typo


[edit on 23-3-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT,

It is CIT that states that a decoy plane flew over the pentagon. They have no theory either as to what happened to flight 77.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

It is not encumbent upon CIT - or anyone else for that matter - to set out a theory as to what they believe happened to Flight 77 if they're claim is that it didn't hit the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Did I say they did?

What they do have to explain is how over 1,000 people witnessed airplane parts .....and some saw bodies strapped to seats.

Thats all I am talkign about on this topic. I already got warned once in this thread.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Did I say they did?

You seemed to me to imply it when you said:


They have no theory either as to what happened to flight 77.

My repsonse to this is simply that they don't need to have one.

ETA

What's more, if anyone makes the claim that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, they don't need to show 'how over 1,000 people witnessed airplane parts .....and some saw bodies strapped to seats' either.

They just have to show that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by coughymachine]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by jthomas
then to have any of your group state that NO 757 hit the Pentagon


It appears you are still confused with our claims John.


Not at all. Craig Ranke and Aldo are members of your group. I asked you for your disclaimer of their claims and none has been forthcoming from you. And, of course, the topic is your group's admission, and gross investigative failure, that you will only examine evidence from the mainstream media and the "government."


Specifically where we say:

Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit thePentagon".


And members of your group do. Nonetheless, whether you personally, or others, have taken a position or not, it is immaterial to my point concerning the necessity for you to examine ALL of the evidence, which is the subject matter at hand.


As for the wreckage. I'll let Adam post the link for you from Farmers blog based on the book published by the DoD. That wreckage was never positively identified as coming from AA77, N644AA.


But, by your own admission above - finally - you have not examined all of the evidence, specifically, and importantly, the statements from those listed above of WHAT wreckage was recovered from inside the Pentagon by those I've listed above.

Why have you not interviewed these numerous witnesses and presented the evidence of what wreckage they recovered, Rob? How long can you avoid your responsibility to do that?


You are sorely mistaken if you think the burden of proof is on us and can keep saying it till your face turns red. The burden of proof is on the US Govt to prove their claims.


The government has no burden of proof. It is neither a suspect nor charged with any crime. We have numerous forensic investigations, including that of The American Society of Civil Engineers that's report on the Pentagon and the crash of AA77 into remains unrefuted.


The American Society of Civil Engineers, a professional organization representing more than 123,000 civil engineers, celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2002. When the twelve Founders gathered at the Croton Aqueduct on November 5, 1852, and agreed to incorporate the American Society of Civil Engineers and Architects, one can only wonder if they dreamed the profound significance and long-lasting impact ASCE would have on the overall development of society. They laid a foundation for what proves to be one of the most prominent engineering societies in the world.
www.asce.org...


When should we expect you to live up to your obligations to deal with ALL of the evidence about AA77 and the Pentagon that you finally acknowledged you never even bothered to investigate?

And when will you issue a disclaimer concerning your two prominent members, Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, who claim that NO 757 hit the Pentagon.

Looking forward to your detailed presentation of statements from those previously listed who removed the wreckage from the Pentagon and they saw and/or removed.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

It is not encumbent upon CIT - or anyone else for that matter - to set out a theory as to what they believe happened to Flight 77 if they're claim is that it didn't hit the Pentagon.


That dodge didn't work when Gerard Holmgren tried it in 2002!

ANY theory or claim that states that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon must include what actually happened to it, with evidence to support the claim. You don't get to avoid evidence. Sorry.

Continued attempts to shift the burden of proof will never work. They never have.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT,

It is CIT that states that a decoy plane flew over the pentagon. They have no theory either as to what happened to flight 77.



Yes, I am aware of that. Since they are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and discuss it openly on Rob's forum, I have asked Rob twice for his disclaimer that he and Pilots members do not agree with Aldo and Craig.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
ANY theory or claim that states that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon must include what actually happened to it, with evidence to support the claim.

You're flat wrong.

If anyone argues that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it is up to them to demonstrate Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. If they can demonstrate this, then they have no obligation whatsoever to set out what did happen to the plane.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Coughy....

If evidence refutes a no plane theory ie: flyover or missile. The person that pushes his or her theory should address the evidence that is presented to them.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

CO

This is a straightforward point of logic. If CIT - or anyone else - is able to demonstrate conclusively that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then arguments about what did happen to the plane and where all the evidence supporting an impact came from are secondary.

Now, I'm not saying anyone has demonstrated this - indeed, if you've ever followed my exchanges with Craig, you'll know I'm not a supporter of the flyover theory (though I remain open).

However, this thread is about the (possibly flawed) theory that any aircraft that flew over the VDOT tower couldn't have impacted the Pentagon building in a manner consistent with the physical evidence. It should continue to focus on this theory. It should not become yet another call to answer questions about what did happen to the plane if this theory turns out to be correct.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
ANY theory or claim that states that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon must include what actually happened to it, with evidence to support the claim.

You're flat wrong.

If anyone argues that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it is up to them to demonstrate Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. If they can demonstrate this, then they have no obligation whatsoever to set out what did happen to the plane.


Sorry, I am flat right and you are not reading what I wrote. If anyone can demonstrate that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then they could only have done so with verifiable evidence.

If anyone, as I stated, proposes a "theory" or makes a "claim" that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then they are required to present the evidence of what happened to it.

It's really very simple. As always, theories and claims require verifiable evidence. Those making the claim cannot have their cake and eat it too and pretend that they are exempt from providing evidence.

Sorry.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It's really very simple. As always, theories and claims require verifiable evidence. Those making the claim cannot have their cake and eat it too and pretend that they are exempt from providing evidence.

You're stating a theory that flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Please supply the forensic evidence that shows this plane hit the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


That's true except it's not really even a theory, it's an hypothesis. Until they can prove that the flight path claimed was possible, and that the damage done could have been created by a 757, then it is an hypotheses right?

Neither of those points can be proved possible, let alone probable.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I'm with Coughymachine on this one. Sorry JT, you're entitled to your opinion that this is the only way, but others think different. As far as I'm concerned plane/no plane impact and where the hypothetical plane that didn't hit DID wind up are two separate issues. Related yes but separate.

Just for illustration, pretend they had illustrated all these beyond contention:
- a preoponderance of eyewitnesses clearly placing the plane on the wrong line for impact
- The Citgo video showed the plane flying over the Pentagon from the eyewitness direction.
- there was no plane debris at the scene at all.
- there was no building damage at all except where some diversionary fireworks left smoke stains.

Now hypothetically would you look at all this and still say "well where's the plane then? If you can't locate it then it must have crashed there - somehow"? This is not how it is of course, but how can you not see this concept? They SAY this and that's proven, you shoot back with this straw man argument, it makes them look good like all they have for opponents are aggressive, constantly off-topic broken-record hecklers.

I mean, I understand your point that they're ignoring accounts of people who recovered the debris, and lots of 'em. That's neat, a good point, and kinda boring by now.

And FYI, Craig and Aldo are CIT, not Pilots for Truth. They don't know a bank from a turn, and are just a "brother organization" with PFT. Different policies. The Pilots are too careful and responsible to go around saying the plane didn't hit. They have some very careful analysis to iron out, very very heavy thinking, calculations... All they ever say is that they've illustrated the gov't story impossible/etc. based on gov't data - the govt' story here as drawn up by Aldo was supposed to be impossible now - so they just expertly demonstrate how basically it couldn't or wouldn't have hit, and how there's also not a big enough hole or enough wreckage, and it's all impossible, and let others SAY what that all means. Get your facts straight, man.



[edit on 24-3-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


As for the wreckage. I'll let Adam post the link for you from Farmers blog based on the book published by the DoD. That wreckage was never positively identified as coming from AA77, N644AA.

Not even sure if that's up still. Lemme check. Not exactly but the picture's up here. If that's the one with numbers on the grass... new window
Yeah, I think that's been IDd as from a power supply or something from an AA 757. Oh! So maybe it was a DIFFERENT 757 that exploded at the Pentagon, good point since we don't know its from N644AA. And hey, what if that wreckage WAS identified from that plane? Remember, it's all probably planted (not YOUR theory of course). So why not blow up N644AA in advance and plant the exact right debris and ID it?

Whoa.... stumper, huh?


You are sorely mistaken if you think the burden of proof is on us and can keep saying it till your face turns red. The burden of proof is on the US Govt to prove their claims. It seems they have done that for you. Great.

Again, we disagree, the lists grow regularly.


Like with JT, you're entitled to your opinion of who must do what. I have to ask this... they must provide evidence or what? YOU keep saying it's a lie? Neat. Nice opinion. Kind of boring by now.


Adam, i'll get to your post another time as i just dropped by here and dont have much time today, or you can email to me.


Lookin' forward to your response. Cheers and happy late Easter.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
If anyone, as I stated, proposes a "theory" or makes a "claim" that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then they are required to present the evidence of what happened to it.

This is simply wrong, and no amount of apologising will change that.

If anyone demonstrates conclusively that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then they do not need to show what happened to Flight 77.

You appear to be under the impression that in order to prove an alleged 'fact' wrong, you must set out a complete theory to replace it. This is rubbish. If an alleged 'fact' is shown to be false, no alternative theory is needed. Once the fact is proven wrong, that is, of itself, enough.

For now, right here in this thread, you should be examining the specific claims made, not setting up a wide-ranging strawman counter-argument in the event that the claims hold up.

Edit to remove off-topic content.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by coughymachine]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join