A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

A reply to: neutronflux

Another misconception by those two, Stutt & Legge.
Read : www.abovetopsecret.com...
and all my further posts on page 28, as I advised earlier on, too. Note especially the measurements in all the pole photos on page 28 and next ones.!
These two researchers have the pole-height wrong and the cut-height of the first pole.

Now look again at my posted photo with the 5 cut poles, and pay special attention to pole 5.
Which was cut about as high from the base as pole one, so also halfway up.

Then look up my photo with the two red text remarks near lamp head 1 and 2, this one :
files.abovetopsecret.com...



NOW, move in your mind the red texted by me, pole 2 its half height (that's where it was cut) to the opposite, very right of that photo, use a ruler. And then another half length of that photo more to the right. Then move its base point about 10 cm out of your screen, to place that imaginary pole now on the other side of Route 25. That's the position of the officially cut pole one.
You can truly do that, since the guide rail in the bottom of that photo is as good as horizontally stretched out there.

Then measure the angle to the lawn level, from halfway up that cut official pole 1 (a tad bit lower than that right red line), towards the officially cut height of pole 5, which seems to be as high as the official cut in pole 1, so also halfway up.
The angle is from that highest positioned, high on that overpass bridge along Route 27, now at the proper position placed substitute for the officially first cut pole, to that last cut pole 5 (subst.1), that stands at South Parking level, with my red text "lamp head 1", which pole its base level is comparable to where the officially cut pole 5 its base was :

files.abovetopsecret.com...


If Stutt & Legge were right, with their 5 feet from the top, cut pole 1 remark, the plane would have nose-dived straight in the first few meters of that lawn stretch, because the dive-angle would have been even higher.
Cut pole one was 40 feet high at the lamp head and was cut between 14 feet min. and 23 feet max., see my photos, so about half up.

This is about the right angle, my drawn in red kinked flight path line, if you alter it up or downwards, it misses the light poles or dives into the lawn. Now imagine to have to pull up a B757-200 like that, half full with jet fuel, at 825 kmh in dense air, to get it level to that green grassy lawn :



It seems that many (ex)military posters here do NOT want to realize, that a B757-200 plane flying at 825 kmh in that dense air, is completely different in many aspects from a plane coming in at landing speed.
Its wings will be flexed up to the maximum possible. And thus the plane's fuselage bottom will hang in between those flexed up wingtips, 3 or more meters lower than at landing speeds.
Especially at the moment when it HAS to pull up from that shallow dive maneuver, at 825 kmh.
ONLY both wingtips could have cut light poles.!

Why it has to pull up.? BECAUSE your officially released videos from two security boot cameras SHOW A PERFECTLY LEVEL to the lawn, smoke cloud, trailing behind that right wing's jet engine. So that B757-200 has to have been pulled out of that shallow dive, at that crazy high speed of 825 kmh. Which seems impossible at those conditions in that hillside landscape.
That smoke trail has been explained away by OS-trustees, as sucked in lamp parts into that engine, which cut fuel and oil lines inside.
I explain it as the work of a somewhat too eager to please his masters, DFDR and video falsification artist.

When you however instead believe the reports of your 25 fellow US citizen and NoC flight path eyewitnesses, instead of that thus phony DFDR and those thus also phony "wing-cut" lamp poles, I would not have to spend so much time to get it through, that it all was a huge false flag operation.

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Vs the 100 plus eyewitness that give a different account?

The 25 probably whould not be confused by lack of landmarks and items of depth reference while looking into the sky?

Again who faked the flight recorder data and why?

Care to defend your strongly exaggerated 100 witnesses.?
The CIT team in their first year (2006) when they were not yet influenced by the Rob Balsamo theory of a fly-over, have thoroughly wrecked any defender of that same theory of the "hundreds of other witnesses to a straight flight path".
Funny to try to resurrect that very long discussion, 11 years later, be my guest.

CIT found 13 NoC witnesses in 2006, I found later on another 12 extra. All well documented, all over this place and at Pilots for Truth its CIT Forum.
You're grabbing at straws with your "looking into the sky" remark.
We are at this very moment discussing how damn low that plane flew in the last 5 seconds, in which time slot all those NoC witnesses had all the time of the world to compare the plane's flight path to ALL the in abundance at hand situated landmarks and items of depth reference you ask for.
They did not look into the sky, but stared at a plane in a very low orbit, skimming the ground, against the background of the Navy Annex and the apartment buildings in Crystal City to the south and the Pentagon's west wall facade.
Want any more landmarks and items of depth reference than that.?

If you know who faked that DFDR, give it to me in a PM. Then I will hand that info over to the right people.

originally posted by: LaBTop
Its wings will be flexed up to the maximum possible. And thus the plane's fuselage bottom will hang in between those flexed up wingtips, 3 or more meters lower than at landing speeds.

No. The wings bending up depends on the total weight of the airplane. Not the air density or airplane speed. The bending depends also on how many G the airplane pull up, not if it is done at cruse level or sea level.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: Pilgrum

I think you are reaching too far.
Remember, this was HEAVILY redacted by the Judicial department of the military, AND rewritten by the Top Brass, we may expect they know the proper use of military commands.

Its bull crap, is what it is. The product of your or someone else's imaginative mind - and someone who has been watching too many movies. Terminology is all wrong, nothing like that would be released in this manner, the "fog of war" ruled at that time, none of what you posted makes any sense whatsoever.

But I'm always up for some good fiction! Could you post the rest of that "transcript" of the PEOC? Thanks!

originally posted by: rayjoh

originally posted by: LaBTop
Its wings will be flexed up to the maximum possible. And thus the plane's fuselage bottom will hang in between those flexed up wingtips, 3 or more meters lower than at landing speeds.

No. The wings bending up depends on the total weight of the airplane. Not the air density or airplane speed. The bending depends also on how many G the airplane pull up, not if it is done at cruse level or sea level.

LOL.

This is one of the more laughable claims that I've ever read, that denser air will cause the wings to flex up,

Just a little casual thinking, and one realizes that if the wings are flexed up, then they are providing a ton of lift.

Denser air will cause more drag on the wings/plane, but it doesn't matter if the plane is at 400kts at 1000' or 30,000', the wings will be loaded the same in level flight.

a reply to: LaBTop

One of the problems with Pilots For Truth was that personalities were allowed to rise above facts. Cimino admits that he does not mince words, that he is a curmudgeon, and that he does not suffer fools. All that made him a target of sorts at PFT, and that's too bad. Balsamo did the right thing, but let personalities become dominant over facts.

Cimino's work is spot on--the FDR was a complete hoax. PFT knew that much to be true, but the personalities stirred the pot too much.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218


Pale5218,
First : After every State sponsored false flag operation, there will operate an aftermath collateral damage control unit, busy for many years with neutralizing the unavoidable small and bigger loose ends.

Second : Luckily we have Dennis Cimino, a professional DFDR decoder, who told us not to trust that "recovered" DFDR from Flight AAL77, because it was clearly written to, when placed in a bench setting, to be read out. It's STRICTLY forbidden to write to an accident DFDR.
ANY write-operation on a recovered DFDR is a clear proof of tampering with evidence.

LabTop I believe false flags have been orchestrated in the history of the US and within other countries. Whether it is a state sponsored or not the perpetrators will always try and cover the tracks. There is no debate from me on this point.

Two things about Dennis Cimino and the DFDR,
1) I don't know who he is but I am listening to him now here www.youtube.com...
I'll listen to his presentation.

2) I don't know much about the DFDR components and as much as I have been reading the 911 threads, I cant say that I have heard anything significant out of it so it's not compelling. I have to see what his points are.

a reply to: LaBTop

I don't know what to tell you?

You write lots of fluff. Post links to YouTube with no written reason. Cite very few if any published works. Take heavily from other persons posts based only on innuendo, and use conjecture to fill in the gaps.

Still waiting on pics of all five light poles you said were cut cleanly.

www.911truth.org...
Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane.

Did you ever say who, how, and why the flight recorder data was phonied in your rants? Wondering why you used the word phony over manipulated or fabricated?

Any who? Here are two articles from people of the truth movement that shows the flight recorder data was not phony and coincides with what a majority of eyewitness attest to what happened at the pentagon.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
www.journalof911studies.com...

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
John D. Wyndham (PhD) Moderator.
www.911truth.org...

The continuous radar data matching the FDR data indicates that assertions of tampering, as well as suggestions that a plane swap took place, are mistaken.

Accidentally quoted myself

originally posted by: LaBTop

It seems poster neutronflux is still seriously lagging behind in reading comprehension, since he seems not to have noticed that in the first few posts by me in this thread, I explained that I am a firm proponent of the B757-200 impact at the west wall of the Pentagon.

On to more serious subjects :
At 3:00 / 5:11 on in the last part 6, you hear Mineta tell the story about the plane 50 miles out etcetera.
Now, after you have read my excerpts from the military telephone conference :

PEOC: We've got confirmation of an airplane 60 miles out. We think it is Flight United 93. Apparently, we're hearing weapons freeze right now. Do you know what the status of the Atlantic City assets are right now? (Then some asking around about jet fighters)
PEOC: DDO, this is PEOC. The Vice President has just confirmed fighters are cleared to engage the aircraft.
--Page 169 : inbound if we can verify that it is, in fact, the hijacked aircraft. Can you confirm with FAA? DDO: This is the DDO. I'm checking with the FAA at this time.
(They want NAOC airborne, and some AWACS over Louisiana, then this : )
-- g 10:03 to 10:06 DDO: FAA report of aircraft down in Pennsylvania.

I think it is quite obvious and logical by now, to get rid of all the confusion about what orders VP Cheney had given regarding AAL77 :
WEAPONS FREEZE..!

It's not on AAL77. There was no communication passed by NEADS or FAA about a flight 60 miles out. UAL93 never made it that close and AAL77 was not picked up again until just south of IAD and by the time this information reached the DCA controllers at the same time it was called into the White House, it was more like 15-20 miles out.

Let me say this about the conversations in the transcript, the PEOC seemed to be confused of aircraft inbound to DC. They were under the assumption that AAL11 was still airborne headed toward DC because of a false assertion by the controller in ZBW.

I'm not disputing the Weapons Freeze statement, I am however stating that there was no aircraft that fit the distances that were called out. There was no aircraft identified at 60 miles, 50 miles, 30 miles, possible 25 miles but this was not passed until the time it was being identified by DCA controllers as well as NEADS which was just prior to the 330 degree turn.

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218


Pale5218,
First : After every State sponsored false flag operation, there will operate an aftermath collateral damage control unit, busy for many years with neutralizing the unavoidable small and bigger loose ends.

Second : Luckily we have Dennis Cimino, a professional DFDR decoder, who told us not to trust that "recovered" DFDR from Flight AAL77, because it was clearly written to, when placed in a bench setting, to be read out. It's STRICTLY forbidden to write to an accident DFDR.
ANY write-operation on a recovered DFDR is a clear proof of tampering with evidence.

Two things about Dennis Cimino and the DFDR,
1) I don't know who he is but I am listening to him now here www.youtube.com...
I'll listen to his presentation.how compelling

I'm going to have a hard time believing him after listening to this presentation.

a reply to: pale5218

Thank you for linking to the Cimino presentation. I saw it years ago and found it compelling.

How can the FDR data possibly be authentic when it's not even assigned an airframe? It cannot.

a reply to: neutronflux

They both rely on Cimino's idea that they data fields containing the airframe identity was zeroed out means the FDR is fake. And, it does not matter how many times it is pointed out the Cimino screwed up, they will never accept it.

a reply to: Salander

From 'The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted' released April 2016:

 Aircraft fleet and individual ID were found within the data file by Warren Stutt. It has been decoded as aircraft 35, fleet 1, but cannot be further interpreted without access to American Airlines records. Stutt concluded that Dennis Cimino, Honegger’s source, was wrong to expect to find aircraft ID and fleet ID in the text header of the AA 77 FDR file. Other FDR files from different aircraft from various sources, for that make and model of FDR, do not have those ID fields in their text headers either

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218


Pale5218,
First : After every State sponsored false flag operation, there will operate an aftermath collateral damage control unit, busy for many years with neutralizing the unavoidable small and bigger loose ends.

Second : Luckily we have Dennis Cimino, a professional DFDR decoder, who told us not to trust that "recovered" DFDR from Flight AAL77, because it was clearly written to, when placed in a bench setting, to be read out. It's STRICTLY forbidden to write to an accident DFDR.
ANY write-operation on a recovered DFDR is a clear proof of tampering with evidence.

Two things about Dennis Cimino and the DFDR,
1) I don't know who he is but I am listening to him now here www.youtube.com...
I'll listen to his presentation.how compelling

I'm going to have a hard time believing him after listening to this presentation.

A second listen to this presentation:

I listened to this again and I can’t accept his analysis or his point. I’m willing to review information an try to keep an open mind but after listening to the presentation again, my initial take was re-inforced about his credibility as an expert.

20:00 - there is and was no area called a “radar hole” and if there were radar deficiencies, this was not something that was so unique that it played a role in there plan. There are areas of radar coverage that are not 100% reliability to primary radar, this is throughout the entire US. The most important reason for the transponder or secondary radar is to enhance better tracking, mainly because of these coverage areas.
These areas are worse at lower altitudes and conversely, the coverage is better as the altitudes increase but this doesn’t mean it resolves the coverage problem, there are still problems at higher altitudes.

26:54 - Transponder code change sector to sector, there is reason to change code but this is much less frequent. Aircraft stay on same codes throughout a flight.

28:00 He mentions that they hijackers made a 180 degree turn and it was completed in a standard rate of turn. His contention is the hijackers had no reason to use the standard rate of turn but if the course reversal was entered into the active autopilot, this is how it would occur. At 32:43 he discusses how the FDR analysis showed these hijack pilots never touched the rudder pedals so they couldn’t have had feet. It’s part of his support that this FDR was fabricated. I’m not a pilot but again, this could be done using autopilot, no need for feet. I’ll leave this to a pilot to confirm but this is not surprising at all.

28:40 The aircraft is in WV and comes back up on radar again- incorrect

28:50 ATC assigned AAL77 to that target, at 29:21 he re-iterates this target was assigned AAL77 -incorrect

29:54 He states this everybody declares this flight was AAL77 – incorrect

He adds that a controller (O’brien) was watching this on her screen, somewhat disingenuous, she did observe it but it wasn’t as if she was sitting there tracking it.

30:12 He adds that it’s now on radar so they can track the speed, Obrien considers this a fighter type aircraft because of the speed. It wasn’t tagged; there was no speed readout until the DCA controller tagged it with “LOOK”. In all fairness, looking at the primary target and update on radar, a controller can get a general idea of the speed.

30:42 An ATC considers it a military because of its maneuverability. There was no speed readout, there was no turn to indicate this was maneuverable, she might have considered it a fighter because of the estimate on speed, just some embellishment in his story by stating it this way.

30:55 He mentions the PEOC conversation with Norm Mineta and he also states the second in command of the FAA but he doesn’t have the name correct, maybe a minor point but this is still incorrect.

31:30 The aircraft is barreling into Class B airspace, his contention is this flight approaching Class B airspace should cause alarm to controllers. This is an incorrect assumption also because there is no altitude readout; this target could have been well above the Class B airspace. This would be a normal and routine observation, a primary target, especially with that estimated speed would be considered a high altitude flight.

32:12 The controller in Boston is coordinating with the military fighters to have them go take a look at the very least. “They have been watching it now for quite a long time”. This is absolutely incorrect

He has embellished on number of points to bolster his story but more important, he stated a number of inaccuracies that were not just misspeaking; they were flat out incorrect facts.
I have to take this presentation from him and assess that his credibility is questionable. From what I hear him discuss about the flight activity, I can’t accept his DFDR analysis without support from somewhere else.

a reply to: Pilgrum

I read the work by Stutt and Legge when they first published it. They would have their readers believe that NTSB, other branches of the federal government, and the pentagon are sources of truth and honesty. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was their analysis that had the plane operating at Vmo + 90 knots or so, an absurd claim. One of them died last year. RIP, but their work showed the government deception to be credible. LOL.

For me, even though he is not perfect and only human, Cimino is much closer to the truth, and clearly much more qualified to judge FDR information than either Stutt or Legge.

a reply to: Salander

It operated above Vmo? How does that equate to the pentagon was not stuck by a large jet?

a reply to: neutronflux

You do not fully appreciate the finer points of brain surgery, and neither do I.

You do not fully appreciate the finer points of aviation, but I do.

a reply to: Salander

Going to answer the question how Vmo discredits the pentagon being hit by a large jet.

a reply to: neutronflux

(He thinks that as soon as you hit Vmo, the airplane falls apart)