Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

What I really find ironic is how with the WTC, made of a steel mesh, when the planes hit those and created a plane shaped hole, the truthers jump up and down talking about how it must have been fake because the plane's wings "couldn't" have gone straight through. Then, when you show them a building made of reinforced masonry getting hit, those same types of truthers come over and say that the plane "should" have gone straight through and made a plane shaped hole.

I don't get it!

Check this site out. It has one nice big picture of the Empire State Building crash, and you can clearly see that whole plane did not make a plane shaped hole (though part did). Keep in mind that the Empire State Building used a limestone exterior and concrete. The Pentagon uses reinforced masonry.

www.evesmag.com...

reply to post by 911files


There are a lot of ways to do research and there a lot of things you can bring up about the overall 9/11 event. This thread is about the Pentagon, the lack of a large enough hole in the wall, and the comparison of a very well done, precise video to actual evidence and pictures.

Did I need to be on the scene, taking my own pictures, in order to use pictures published on the interwebz? No I didn't need to be there live, and I wasn't. I would like to hear from some of the people who were there live on the scene, I'd love to know how they can explain some of the enormous anomolies in the evidence.

I am a researcher and Psychologist. I can tell you all about denial, misrepresentation, how expectation can alter perception, and how eyewitnesses often get facts entirely wrong. This thread is not about those things, it's about an intact wall - can you explain why there's an intact wall where allegedly a giant airplane crashed?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I am a researcher and Psychologist. I can tell you all about denial, misrepresentation, how expectation can alter perception, and how eyewitnesses often get facts entirely wrong. This thread is not about those things, it's about an intact wall - can you explain why there's an intact wall where allegedly a giant airplane crashed?

Then heal thyself .... this should help.
Arlington Couny Police Dispatch Audio

Dispatcher - Kyra Pullian

Delta 352 - Corporal Barry Foust, located at the intersection of Walter Reed Drive and Columbia Pike

Motor 11 - Officer Alan Stone

Motor 14 - Officer Richard Cox, located at the intersection of S. Wayne Street and Columbia Pike.

These are real people. I took the time to go to Arlington County EMS and PD myself to talk to many of them. Since I took the time, they made me a copy of this audio.

reply to post by Varemia

What I really find ironic is how with the WTC, made of a steel mesh, when the planes hit those and created a plane shaped hole, the truthers jump up and down talking about how it must have been fake because the plane's wings "couldn't" have gone straight through. Then, when you show them a building made of reinforced masonry getting hit, those same types of truthers come over and say that the plane "should" have gone straight through and made a plane shaped hole.
I don't get it!

I think you are confusing the issue..
What truthers say is if the wings/tail did go through then where's the hole ?
If the wings/tail didn't go through then where's the debris ?
Not to mention the fires from all the fuel in the wings...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by hooper

 

c'mon Hoop, you remember... it's the animation where the wings fold back on entry then unfold once inside to knock out all the support columns. It's an amazing piece of work that the OSers can use because they can use it as "proof" for some things, but call it "only an animation" if someone challenges it - with the Purdue piece you guys can have your cake and eat it too!

Great! Prove its wrong - I would first suggest you watch it. There's no "unfolding". Sorry, try again.

reply to post by backinblack


There was shredded debris all over the place. Just because someone doesn't want to believe it's real doesn't make it disappear. You can't just go "it was planted" and then move on saying "where's the debris?" That's really contradictory.

(I know you didn't say that this post, and if you don't believe that the debris was planted, then I again refer you to the pictures of plane debris all over the place. This post is also directed at people who do claim the debris was planted. It does them no good and has no evidence)

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Varemia

 

What I really find ironic is how with the WTC, made of a steel mesh, when the planes hit those and created a plane shaped hole, the truthers jump up and down talking about how it must have been fake because the plane's wings "couldn't" have gone straight through. Then, when you show them a building made of reinforced masonry getting hit, those same types of truthers come over and say that the plane "should" have gone straight through and made a plane shaped hole.
I don't get it!

I think you are confusing the issue..
What truthers say is if the wings/tail did go through then where's the hole ?
If the wings/tail didn't go through then where's the debris ?
Not to mention the fires from all the fuel in the wings...

Bull hockey! I am a truther and I don't say that ... only the kids on internet forums say that. Are you saying Legge and Stutt are not truthers? They certainly don't say that. Are you calling my associate Mark Gaffney a government operative, cause he certainly don't say that? Are you talking about CIT? Who are you talking about? It that what these truthers are saying?
911 Blogger

reply to post by Varemia

There was shredded debris all over the place. Just because someone doesn't want to believe it's real doesn't make it disappear. You can't just go "it was planted" and then move on saying "where's the debris?" That's really contradictory.

I saw little debris from a 124' wide aircraft..

With no foreknowledge, I highly doubt anyone would look at the pics of the Pentagon and say it was an airliner that hit..

reply to post by 911files


Legge and Stutt made that silly paper claiming accuracy that was impossible..
I don't hold them as anything...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Legge and Stutt made that silly paper claiming accuracy that was impossible..
I don't hold them as anything...

And who the heck are you to make such a ridiculous claim? I can find your peer-reviewed paper where? The presumption that you somehow know better than degreed professional programmer and a guy with a Ph. D. I've never heard such arrogance (except from kids posting on internet forums).

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Varemia

 

There was shredded debris all over the place. Just because someone doesn't want to believe it's real doesn't make it disappear. You can't just go "it was planted" and then move on saying "where's the debris?" That's really contradictory.

I saw little debris from a 124' wide aircraft..

With no foreknowledge, I highly doubt anyone would look at the pics of the Pentagon and say it was an airliner that hit..

Well, I am not a structural or aeronautical engineer (my training is just in mechanical engineering with a degree in mathematics). But sure looks like the outline of a 757 to me. The damage is exactly what I would expect, especially with angular momentum gained from impact with that generator (would tip right wing up). But darn, my opinion just really ain't much in that area because I am NOT a structural or aeronautical engineer.

reply to post by 911files

And who the heck are you to make such a ridiculous claim? I can find your peer-reviewed paper where? The presumption that you somehow know better than degreed professional programmer and a guy with a Ph. D. I've never heard such arrogance (except from kids posting on internet forums).

Whatever you say mate..
But show me the sources, radar etc, that gave them the accuracy they required to fit their preset agenda..
Heck, no one seems to argue that the INS was 3000' out at the departure gate.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

And who the heck are you to make such a ridiculous claim? I can find your peer-reviewed paper where? The presumption that you somehow know better than degreed professional programmer and a guy with a Ph. D. I've never heard such arrogance (except from kids posting on internet forums).

Whatever you say mate..
But show me the sources, radar etc, that gave them the accuracy they required to fit their preset agenda..
Heck, no one seems to argue that the INS was 3000' out at the departure gate.

Hey, ask them. All I know is that their math is correct and my study of ARSR and 4 ASR sites data certainly agrees with their results.

reply to post by 911files

Hey, ask them. All I know is that their math is correct and my study of ARSR and 4 ASR sites data certainly agrees with their results.

It's well known that the data may be off by thousands of feet..
No one denies that..
So how did these guys use that data to supposedly confirm an exact flight path accurate to within less than a hundred feet??
They had to do that to take into account the light poles..

BTW, their paper fully agrees they started with a set outcome and worked backwards..
What kind of researcher does that??
They even state they had to make certain assumptions to fit that outcome..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Hey, ask them. All I know is that their math is correct and my study of ARSR and 4 ASR sites data certainly agrees with their results.

It's well known that the data may be off by thousands of feet..
No one denies that..
So how did these guys use that data to supposedly confirm an exact flight path accurate to within less than a hundred feet??
They had to do that to take into account the light poles..

BTW, their paper fully agrees they started with a set outcome and worked backwards..
What kind of researcher does that??
They even state they had to make certain assumptions to fit that outcome..

Yes, it can be off 'thousands of feet' on the ground. Airborne it makes corrections based on DME estimates from VOR's. If you plot the coordinates against actual ASR (the more accurate version of the radar data) you can watch that happen shortly after take-off. Any offset that may be present in the final seconds of flight can be calculated from the previous minutes of ASR data. Very simple mathematical process.

reply to post by 911files


Even pilots on here say it can be off by miles while inflight..
Radar updates are also not that accurate..
As many said, they don't need to be considering flight paths are 8 miles wide..
(Might be wrong on the 8, but it's wide )

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Even pilots on here say it can be off by miles while inflight..
Radar updates are also not that accurate..
As many said, they don't need to be considering flight paths are 8 miles wide..
(Might be wrong on the 8, but it's wide )

Yeah, the radar is so off. That is how I used in 2007 to mathematically predict that 6 +/- 2 seconds of data was missing from the read-out. And that was the ARSR data. The ASR data actually refined the results because it is more accurate. I can give you the results of my work, where is yours to back up your claims?

ETA: And yes, mine has been peer reviewed by actual professional engineers, flight data recorder, air traffic control and radar experts. I name some of them in the paper, so make sure yours does to.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Even pilots on here say it can be off by miles while inflight..
Radar updates are also not that accurate..
As many said, they don't need to be considering flight paths are 8 miles wide..
(Might be wrong on the 8, but it's wide )

If Dr. Legg's and Warren Stutt's path is so far wrong why does it agree nearly exactly with the path plotted by P4T? you know that bunch of noncompopes that say they can't hit a building. The route was fine until Legg and Stutt decoded those last 4 seconds and showed the aircraft was at 4' on the radar altimeter. Then the pffft cult decided the altitude was too high. No one with a clue, has ever argued about the accuracy of the path except you and CIT. Good company you keep there.....

reply to post by Reheat

The route was fine until Legg and Stutt decoded those last 4 seconds and showed the aircraft was at 4' on the radar altimeter. Then the pffft cult decided the altitude was too high. No one with a clue, has ever argued about the accuracy of the path except you and CIT. Good company you keep there.....

No problems mate..
Now just show me the radar system that updated the FDR data to that accuracy...
We know the plane had no GPS to do it without outside input...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

The route was fine until Legg and Stutt decoded those last 4 seconds and showed the aircraft was at 4' on the radar altimeter. Then the pffft cult decided the altitude was too high. No one with a clue, has ever argued about the accuracy of the path except you and CIT. Good company you keep there.....

No problems mate..
Now just show me the radar system that updated the FDR data to that accuracy...
We know the plane had no GPS to do it without outside input...

Just what I thought. You have not had time to read my paper and I doubt if you would understand it if you did. Read the darn paper and show me you can actually understand radar and data first and then maybe I'll waste a little time on that topic. Otherwise you are just talking trash.