AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers. It flew west for about 45 minutes, making a curious detour to the south, before turning around and flying for another 45 minutes East back to Washington.
AA 77 approached the Pentagon it executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent (Flow by Hani Hanjour) over Washington while flying at between 300-500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory so low that it clipped 5 light polls across the street then it smashed into the lower half of the outer wall of the Pentagon.
-pending revision- (quote taken from the other thread and isn't specifically about the pentagon)
Opening Statement of BarkAtTheMoon:
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
My general position is that while the US government, through underestimated or ignored intelligence, complacency, and the legacy of a Cold War era air defense system meant to protect against outside threats, rightfully deserves a share of the blame for allowing 9/11 to happen and the failure to protect its citizens, the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by a group of well-financed, highly motivated Islamic terrorists of mostly Saudi descent by means of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into US landmark buildings. And while every little detail of what happened isn't entirely understood, especially considering the enormous level of destruction in New York, the evidence points to the damage to the buildings in question being entirely due to the impacts of these planes and subsequent fires, and in the case of the surrounding buildings in New York due to the collapse of the trade center towers. Furthermore, there is no definitive evidence that the US government or any other organization was directly involved in the planning, financing (outside of maybe Muslim "charities" and organizations that funnel funds to terrorist groups), or execution of the plot.
Opening Statement of Lumpymunk:
Lumpymunk wrote:
My general position is that evidence exists which so severely and thoroughly contradicts the official story that we have no choice but to reject it as blatant falsehood. The actions taken by the government, I will argue, ranging from confiscations of security videos from nearby businesses, to the release of grainy stills with gaps, to the reluctant and intentionally under funded 9/11 Commission investigation demonstrate intent to cover up something. I will also offer a working speculative hypothesis that more closely fits the physical evidence that exists, pooling together eyewitness testimony, evidence (or lack thereof) at the crash site, and expand on what we can and cannot deduce from this speculation.
_________________ “Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 Posts: 4582 Local time: 9:33 PM Location: Wilmington, DE
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject:
In this opening post, I'm going to deal with the timeframe starting at Dulles and basically ending seconds after the impact. These are my own thoughts on the matter, I haven't seen what I'm about to write on other 9/11 websites, and it would be silly for me to just rehash what's already been written. It'll probably be fairly long, but I'll try to make this a fairly enjoyable read, and not too heavy on boring technical stuff.
Let's begin at Dulles with what should be some indisputable facts. An American Airlines 757, Flight # 77, did in fact take off from Washington Dulles International around 8:20, the morning of September 11, 2001, en route to LAX with 2 pilots, 4 flight attendants, and 53 passengers of which 5 were allegedly Arab terrorists. To fake the flight entirely would've been impossible considering the number of people who would have to be involved. Airline and airport employees(including ticket counter, baggage handlers, tarmac workers, food service trucks, gate workers, flight crew, etc) as well as passengers from that and other flights. At some point in the flight, approximately 30 minutes in, the transponder was turned off and the flight never reached it's destination in Los Angeles. To this point, there can be no disagreement, correct? However, this is when the conspiracy theory begins to unravel.
(Source for some info about the flight written by a pilot) According to the official story, it was at this point that the 5 Arab terrorists hijacked the plane, presumably killing the pilot and copilot, with Hani Hanjour taking over control of the plane. He was the one who turned the transponder off, then proceeded to turn the plane around, and reset the autopilot to take the plane back to DC, using Reagan International as a waypoint. At around 40 miles from the Pentagon and at 7000 feet, he switched off the autopilot and flew VFR the remainder of the way. Once he flew spotted his target (or some other visual landmark reference of which there are many around DC) he made a 330 degree turn, bleeding altitude, and lined up for his final run at the Pentagon. He flew in at low level, clipping light poles (we'll get to that issue a little later), and slammed into the outer wall of the Pentagon.
According to the conspiracy theory, if Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon...where did it go? It completely vanishes off the face of the earth at this point in the conspiracy story. It would've had to be the pilot and copilot who turned off the transponder, and I guess they apparently must've landed the plane at some secret location to be delivered into the hands of the conspirator's execution squad where the pilots, the crew, and every man, woman, and child on that plane had to have been quickly murdered, and the plane could be disassembled and discarded. Otherwise, where are all those people and the plane that are never seen or heard from again? What possible reason could a couple civilian pilots(edit: after further review, this bit can be struck as a fallacy and since it doesn't add anything. I know one was retired military. So is my father, and he or any of the other pilots I've known certainly wouldn't have done something like this when he flew for the airlines.) have for flying all these people to what they could only assume was their certain death, knowing that their continued existence, even if they were in on it, would be completely unacceptable to the people in charge of the conspiracy? These guys had families, wives, and homes. What possible motivation could the powers that be have given them to participate in the conspiracy and face certain death? If the whereabouts of the plane and its occupants can't otherwise be accounted for, the rest of this is pretty much academic, but we'll continue with the flight. Edit to add: Flight 93 faces the same problem.
Aside: Wow, just found some interesting info about Captain Burlingame, his family, the conspiracies, and a pretty brutal and IMO accurate description of Loose Change by his sister here.
Quote:
"The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred...They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world. They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."
So now we have the original plane disappearing to somewhere, and another previously undetected smaller aircraft, missile, bomb, etc. appearing from some unknown source location right at the final few seconds before impact. Where did it originate from? How did it go unnoticed?
Which brings us back to the light poles. Lumpy, you mentioned in the other thread that this was a huge problem for the official story. What you didn't explain was how would this not be an even bigger problem for the missile, bomb, or smaller aircraft story. For starters, these other flying objects would be smaller than the 757, and thereby less likely to be big enough to clip all of the light poles, as well as a fraction of the weight and more likely to be deflected off course or crashed into the ground from hitting them. A cruise missile would've been programmed to fly at an altitude where it wouldn't hit anything, and then dive down at the last minute to hit its target. The angle of attack of a regular fighter/bomber fired missile or bomb would be even higher. Some other type of aircraft for which there's no evidence doesn't change anything and only needlessly complicates the story considering the missing AA 757 and all the debris (I didn't even realize there were this many pictures) that not only points to a 757, but specifically to an American Airlines one.
As to the point of them even being able to affect a 757 at high speed, ripping the wings off even, I did a little research on common street light poles. According to USS Manufacturing, a company that manufactures similar light poles, these type of poles consist of a light fixture weighing 75 pounds, and an aluminum pole somewhere between 100-200 pounds depending on the height with maybe the top 1/4 to 1/2 of that actually haven been struck by the plane. So this is at best around the weight of an average to somewhat overweight man. Maybe the weight in thin aluminum poles worth the same as 5 average men could take down a 757 weighing nearly 250,000 pounds traveling at 500+ mph, but I'm betting on the plane. Even if the plane was heavily damaged, there was maybe a second left before impact, and with an awful lot of momentum pointing directly at the Pentagon wall, there just wasn't much time or space for the plane to change its path much at all, and the inertia of any debris broken off would likely have caused it to continue into the crash area.
A quick aviation note here about wing strength and the forces involved with flight to clear this matter up: Each of the two Rolls-Royce engines produces about 40,000 pounds of forward thrust. They also produce a downward force due to weight from gravity, which unfortunately I couldn't find, but is at least 20,000 pounds each. This is countered by the upward force from lift which is enough to get a quarter of a million pounds of airplane into the sky. Airplane wings are made to be quite sturdy and to withstand large forces common in flight. Again, I'm betting on the plane to win it's confrontation with the poles unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
Finally, we come to the money shot, the impact video from the Pentagon security camera. Most of the complaints I've seen about it are about the flash of the aircraft in the frame before impact. I'm not even going to address that here because I don't think it's important. I agree completely that it's too blurry, too fast, too hard to see, and doesn't definitively prove anything. I'm more concerned with the images after impact of the explosion.
All of these are here and the video should be easily found through google.
These images definitively prove that a bomb, missile, or any other high explosive device could not possibly have been what hit the Pentagon and that a small plane was highly unlikely to have hit it. A standard explosive ordinance just does not make a giant billowing fireball like that. Plain and simple. Only in Hollywood does an explosive create a fireball like that. Why? Because special effects crews set up large containers of gasoline with their mortars specifically to make big fireballs because it looks more spectacular on screen. Google a few videos of an explosive being set off. Watch the Mythbusters when they blew up the cement truck (awesome explosion BTW). Even the bombsite video from Desert Storm or when al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq with 2 500lb bombs will work. They all consist of a bright, spherical flash of white, but no big fireball. Compare the Pentagon video to the WTC impact video, and the similarities are obvious. Only a fuel based explosion will create a fire like that. Even if the missiles or bombs used some sort of napalm-like ordinance instead to produce the fire, they wouldn't have been able to penetrate so far into the Pentagon, reaching all the way to C ring, and done so much physical damage. Napalm was intended for destroying infantry and natural cover, aka trees & brush, not to destroy a hardened target. The huge size of the fireball and the extent of the damage strongly suggest a fairly large aircraft with a very large supply of fuel. The fireball easily clears more than twice the height of the Pentagon, a 5 stories high building.
I could probably go more into some of the more common arguments, about the debris and other government actions, but they've been done to death and can be found on dozens of websites already. I feel this is a simple, succinct story of Flight 77, and the reasons why conspiracy accounts of that flight are clearly wrong. I look forward to your reply, Lumpy. _________________ "The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 Posts: 2095 Local time: 8:33 PM
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject:
This is going to be a Two Part post over the course of the week. (Respond whenever you like of course, just understand this is what is on the way and some questions you raise for part 1-2 might be answered in part 3.)
Part 1 will be a response to your initial post.
Part 2 will be where I present my main points of contention.
Quote:
Let's begin at Dulles with what should be some indisputable facts. An American Airlines 757, Flight # 77, did in fact take off from Washington Dulles International around 8:20, the morning of September 11, 2001, en route to LAX with 2 pilots, 4 flight attendants, and 53 passengers of which 5 were allegedly Arab terrorists. At some point in the flight, approximately 30 minutes in, the transponder was turned off and the flight never reached its destination in Los Angeles. To this point, there can be no disagreement, correct?
Actually a lot of this can be disagreed with, but we’ll get to the specifics later on…
Try not to assume a lot of this, it is begging the question, but since I agree with some of it I don’t really care.
Quote:
To fake the flight entirely would've been impossible considering the number of people who would have to be involved. Airline and airport employees (including ticket counter, baggage handlers, tarmac workers, food service trucks, gate workers, flight crew, etc..) as well as passengers from that and other flights.
I don’t think you can consider them ‘involved’ necessarily. If an illusion is properly pulled off those that witness it are not ‘involved’ in the actually pulling off of the illusion. The focus, the fault, the blame etc… would belong on the illusionist, not the audience. You couldn’t consider the audience as part of the conspiracy. The reason I think this is important to understand is that you’re using this to decrease the likelihood the CT story is plausible. The flawed reasoning rests in considering every potential witness a necessary conspirator, when you have no reason to. Ticket counters, baggage handlers, tarmac workers, food service trucks, gate workers, flight crew etc… board passengers every day, are you telling me that these people would have had reason to be significantly alarmed for some special reason? For all of the people you mentioned to be ‘involved’ they would have needed some kind of foreknowledge of the event, but audience members witnessing an illusion aren’t informed that what they are witnessing is an illusion. All of these people are audience members (…maybe, if I grant you that they actually witnessed passengers belonging to the same jet that hit the pentagon board the that specific plane).
“…concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that If many believe so, it is so.”
Quote:
According to the official story, it was at this point that the 5 Arab terrorists hijacked the plane, presumably killing the pilot and copilot, with Hani Hanjour taking over control of the plane. He was the one who turned the transponder off, then proceeded to turn the plane around, and reset the autopilot to take the plane back to DC, using Reagan International as a waypoint. At around 40 miles from the Pentagon and at 7000 feet, he switched off the autopilot and flew VFR the remainder of the way. Once he flew spotted his target (or some other visual landmark reference of which there are many around DC) he made a 330 degree turn, bleeding altitude, and lined up for his final run at the Pentagon. He flew in at low level, clipping light poles (we'll get to that issue a little later), and slammed into the outer wall of the Pentagon.
How did you come up with 330 degrees?
All of my research has been consistent with 270 degrees.
I’m interested in what Source material you’re using to get that number. There has been a significant amount of investigation done about the flight data recorder information released to the public in 2006, and that information is crucial for my case.
Quote:
According to the conspiracy theory, if Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon...where did it go? It completely vanishes off the face of the earth at this point in the conspiracy story. It would've had to be the pilot and copilot who turned off the transponder, and I guess they apparently must've landed the plane at some secret location to be delivered into the hands of the conspirator's execution squad where the pilots, the crew, and every man, woman, and child on that plane had to have been quickly murdered, and the plane could be disassembled and discarded. Otherwise, where are all those people and the plane that are never seen or heard from again?
For the Conspiracy Theory it’s not important to have all of the answers. I don’t need to have a workable theory to ask questions and poke holes in the official story. CT’s freely admit that it doesn’t make sense (Especially the official story, but our own propositions aren’t entirely consistent either), that’s why we keep asking questions. Insofar as arguing for an execution squad, that’s not my position, so I won’t bother. I’m also not going to argue against it, because I think out government is just fucked up enough to do something like that.
Quote:
If the whereabouts of the plane and its occupants can't otherwise be accounted for, the rest of this is pretty much academic, but we'll continue with the flight.
Argument ad Ignorantiam
“Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.”
Quote:
So now we have the original plane disappearing to somewhere, and another previously undetected smaller aircraft, missile, bomb, etc. appearing from some unknown source location right at the final few seconds before impact. Where did it originate? How did it go unnoticed?
Multiple Reports of a second smaller aircraft and a helicopter have been well known for a long time.
Kelly Knowles Vin Narayanan Steve O’Brien
Just for a few. So you can’t really call them undetected.
Quote:
Which brings us back to the light poles. Lumpy, you mentioned in the other thread that this was a huge problem for the official story. What you didn't explain was how would this not be an even bigger problem for the missile, bomb, or smaller aircraft story. For starters, these other flying objects would be smaller than the 757, and thereby less likely to be big enough to clip all of the light poles, as well as a fraction of the weight and more likely to be deflected off course or crashed into the ground from hitting them.
Given the supposed trajectory of the plane the light polls were not wide enough apart to exclude a smaller aircraft.
Quote:
A cruise missile would've been programmed to fly at an altitude where it wouldn't hit anything, and then dive down at the last minute to hit its target. The angle of attack of a regular fighter/bomber fired missile or bomb would be even higher. Some other type of aircraft for which there's no evidence doesn't change anything and only needlessly complicates the story considering the missing AA 757 and all the debris (I didn't even realize there were this many pictures) that not only points to a 757, but specifically to an American Airlines one.
Right, I think these are thoroughly convincing pictures. The only contention is that none of them are definitively prove that it was flight 77, but I think the DNA testing is conclusive in this respect. So just to be clear, while some of this COULD be argued, I don’t think arguing against a the Flight 77, 757 impact is a tenable position.
Quote:
As to the point of them even being able to affect a 757 at high speed, ripping the wings off even, I did a little research on common street light poles. According to USS Manufacturing, a company that manufactures similar light poles, these type of poles consist of a light fixture weighing 75 pounds, and an aluminum pole somewhere between 100-200 pounds depending on the height with maybe the top 1/4 to 1/2 of that actually haven been struck by the plane. So this is at best around the weight of an average to somewhat overweight man. Maybe the weight in thin aluminum poles worth the same as 5 average men could take down a 757 weighing nearly 250,000 pounds traveling at 500+ mph, but I'm betting on the plane. Even if the plane was heavily damaged, there was maybe a second left before impact, and with an awful lot of momentum pointing directly at the Pentagon wall, there just wasn't much time or space for the plane to change its path much at all, and the inertia of any debris broken off would likely have caused it to continue into the crash area.
A quick aviation note here about wing strength and the forces involved with flight to clear this matter up: Each of the two Rolls-Royce engines produces about 40,000 pounds of forward thrust. They also produce a downward force due to weight from gravity, which unfortunately I couldn't find, but is at least 20,000 pounds each. This is countered by the upward force from lift which is enough to get a quarter of a million pounds of airplane into the sky. Airplane wings are made to be quite sturdy and to withstand large forces common in flight. Again, I'm betting on the plane to win its confrontation with the poles unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
Quite to the contrary, I agree with you in that the wings of a 757 are quite stout, but I think the lightweight of the aluminum supports that idea they could have been knocked down by a much smaller aircraft. This is a related issue, but you could contrast the wing damage at the pentagon with the wing damage at the WTC loosely and relative to the other. In the WTC pics you can clearly see even the tips of the wings cutting cleanly through the steel framed exterior, yet you see windows that aren’t blown out at the Pentagon.
Quote:
Finally, we come to the money shot, the impact video from the Pentagon security camera. Most of the complaints I've seen about it are about the flash of the aircraft in the frame before impact. I'm not even going to address that here because I don't think it's important. I agree completely that it's too blurry, too fast, too hard to see, and doesn't definitively prove anything.
It’s good that we can agree on some things. A lot of CT’s you can’t.
Quote:
A standard explosive ordinance just does not make a giant billowing fireball like that. Plain and simple. Only in Hollywood does an explosive create a fireball like that. Why? Because special effects crews set up large containers of gasoline with their mortars specifically to make big fireballs because it looks more spectacular on screen.
The device involved is not necessarily the only component responsible for producing the effect, I agree… but does this disprove anything? What this argument assumes is that I think a bomb/missile/small plane would be the sole source of the explosion. What this argument fails to prove is whether or not the only plausible source of damage in the pentagon was an impact. What this argument evades is the flight recorder data released in 2006 showing he elevation of the 757.
Quote:
Google a few videos of an explosive being set off. Watch the Mythbusters when they blew up the cement truck (awesome explosion BTW). Even the bombsite video from Desert Storm or when al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq with 2 500lb bombs will work. They all consist of a bright, spherical flash of white, but no big fireball. Compare the Pentagon video to the WTC impact video, and the similarities are obvious. Only a fuel-based explosion will create a fire like that.
An explosion isn’t necessary for a fireball like that; all you would need is a match… a catalyst like an impact. This doesn’t necessarily mean the explosion was “fuel-based” but there was fuel involved. The thing that bothers me the most about the notion that fuel could have done the damage it did, as far in as it did is how quickly it burns. The fuel tanks are, generally speaking, in the wing sections above the engines in a 757. The face of the building was sufficiently strong to withstand the initial impact of the wings and it was only that main hole where entry occurred. Aside from the controversy about the size of the hole, it initially did not contain entry damage for the wings, and thus no entry for the fuel. The majority of it should have burned in that initial explosion on the outside and spillage would have been contained within the outermost ring, but internally there is significant fire damage throughout all 3 rings. So think about it, how strong are the wings? Strong enough to clip light polls, strong enough to cut through steel at the WTC, but the pentagon is sufficiently strong on that face of the building to result in intact windows and yet so deep within the pentagon we have large amounts of fire damage, blown out columns etc… Seems like a contradiction, either the pentagon’s face was strong enough to stop the wings or not…
Quote:
Even if the missiles or bombs used some sort of napalm-like ordinance instead to produce the fire, they wouldn't have been able to penetrate so far into the Pentagon, reaching all the way to C ring, and done so much physical damage.
I don’t think Napalm was involved, but your own argument applies to gasoline as well, outlined above. “wouldn't have been able to penetrate so far into the Pentagon” _________________ “Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 Posts: 2095 Local time: 8:33 PM
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject:
Part 2
My first post is going to be about a single issue, the trajectory and elevation of what is being referred to as AA77. To address the “North vs. South” debate being waged right now about the orientation of the plane in relation to the Citgo Gas Station across from the Pentagon. Could there have possibly been 2 planes, 2 impacts??
Point 1: Flight Path Contradictions
According to the Official story the path of the jetliner is displayed below according to the ASCE report.
Notice several “core columns” on the right hand side of the highlighted trajectory deep into C ring. A drastic shift in momentum like that sufficient to clean out those columns needs explanation. Notice that if you kept the entry point consistent, yet shift the angle of impact all of those columns in C ring can be accounted for.
The significance of resolving this contradiction increases when you consider the 5 polls that were knocked down could not have possibly been knocked down if those who claim to have seen the plane on the north side of the Citgo Station are correct… at least not by the same plane.
Eyewitnesses near or at the Citgo Gas Station as well as the Flight Data Recorder released to the public in July of 2006 agree with one another and contradict the official story.
For reference sake, here is a map of the road layout so that we know what we’re talking about when we say things like “Columbia Pike” and “Washington Blvd.” This will also familiarize anyone reading with the position of the Citgo Gas Station relative to the Pentagon. It’s important to note that “Washington Blvd.” Runs through both trajectories, so when witnesses claim to have seen the plane fly over Washington Blvd. This does not automatically mean they were on the south end of Citgo/Washington Blvd. Columbia Pike however never crosses near the southern theory where the light poles are.
Eye Witness Accounts
Witnesses in between the two possible flight paths have the easiest and most distinguishable viewpoint. It just so happens that the Citgo Gas Station rests directly in between the two flight paths in question. It’s much easier to distinguish left from right (north from south) than it is to gauge distances, i.e., close to Citgo but just South, on Top of Citgo, or North of Citgo… the farther you are from the most precise vantage point the more likely your interpretation of the events is going to be off. The only eyewitnesses in the position to definitively say whether or not the plane was north of the Citgo gas station are those at the gas station or just north on Columbia Pike.
Eyewitness statements from civilian and government officials at the Citgo Gas Station claim that the plane they saw fly past was on their left, (North of the Citgo Gas Station) facing the pentagon. The entire PentaCon video goes into these first hand accounts by interviewing these people for a first person credible source.
Penny Elgas wrote:
For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error." "Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was 'Oh My God, this must be World War III!' "In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers."
The key points of reference in her quote are as follows.
1) Stand Still Traffic on Columbia Pike (refer to map).
2) Close enough to the plane to see the underside of both wings. (Meaning that it was not very close to the ground – certainly higher than 40 feet (height of the polls). Had the plane been low flying along the southerly path low enough to clip those polls the woman would have not been able to see the underside of both wings.)
3) Beside Citgo, not on top of Citgo (i.e., closer, not farther away)
4) Banked slightly toward the Helipad (refer to map.)
In an Interview with U.S. Pentagon Police Department Officer SGT William Lagasse, he absolutely states with 100% certainty where the plane flew. If you watch the movie the man draws on a map, a line depicting where the plane few. He was at the Citgo Gas station.
SGT William Lagasse wrote:
Craig Ranke: Now how sure are you that the plane was to the north, coming from the north side of the Navy Annex--you're saying it was pretty much between the Navy Annex and Arlington cemetery. How certain are you of that?
Sgt. Lagasse: 100 percent, I'd bet my life on it. ...
Craig Ranke: Is there anything you told me that you think you might have just deduced?
Sgt. Lagasse: No, I mean, like I said the things that aren't up for grabs; the plane was there; went into the building.
Craig Ranke: The plane was far to the North side of the station. Did not pass over the station.
Sgt. Lagasse: Yeah, it's not like there was the shadow of a wingtip going over here. It was far enough out that I could see it because the one thing that made me realize what kind of plane it was; was being able to see both engines, you know, so it wasn't obscured at all. ...
William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
SGT Chadwick Brooks, another U.S. Pentagon Police Department Officer, also appears in the PentaCon film confirming the same flight path, other first hand eyewitness accounts in the same video put the plane in the same spot.
It's free to watch if you've got the time, you ought to.
For the sake of brevity I'll cut it off there, but if you need more eye witness accounts I can produce them, and so can the Researchers Edition of the film. I think these accounts are particularly credible because the interview is done on film at length so that no context dropping or misquotation is possible.
There are also a lot of first hand account witnesses that claim to have seen the jet actually clipping the light polls. I don’t believe these people are lying, but I don’t believe the people at the Citgo Gas Station are lying either. Could they both be telling the truth? Both planes cannot be AA77 at the same time. Could some other type of plane been involved south of Citgo which clipped those polls?
While the advocates of the PentaCon would like to propose that the plane flew over, that is not my position. I’m not ruling out that possibility, but as in Part 1 of my previous post, I believe the pictures of debris are convincing enough along with these eye witness testimonies for us to admit that yes a 757 did crash into the pentagon.
“AA77” Flight Data Recorder.
A film independent of these testimonies, focused on the analysis of the Flight Data Recorder provided to the public in response to a freedom of information act in July 2006. The raw data given to the public on the NTSB site can be found below.
[url="http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm"]here.[/url]
A presentation on that Raw Data was recently given by Calum Douglas. He is an engineering student at Oxford Brookes University and member of pilotsfor911truth.org.
One of the tell tale signs that quickly give it away are the two instances of altitude measurement coming together and telling us conclusively that the plane never flew below an altitude of 273 feet.
P3: There is an inconsistency between the path of damage, and these eyewitness accounts combined with the FDR Information. This more northerly flight path is inconsistent with the swath of destruction inside the Pentagon, which runs from the southwest to northeast, as reported in the Pentagon Building Damage Report.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
Since they can't both be right, further explanations are needed. The official report completely bases the angle of approach on the damage done to the light polls, regardless of the swath of damage on the interior of the pentagon. I think this is an unwarranted assumption that needs more support.
P4: A lot of other eyewitness accounts don’t make sense.
David Battle wrote:
An office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
Assuming for a second the official story is correct, “coming down head first” makes absolutely no sense because of the distance the plane had to have traveled under 40 feet elevation. The light polls that were supposedly clipped are 40 feet tall. If you look back up at the map given earlier of the highlighted polls that were knocked down and look at the distance away from the pentagon they are, for this man to have witnessed “coming down head first” standing right outside the pentagon makes no sense. What he should have seen was a plane flying extremely level, not coming down because it had already descended. “Head First” isn’t even descriptive, of course planes fly headfirst… the head is in the front of the plane… planes don’t have a reverse for flying.
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.
Omar Campo wrote:
"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."
Where exactly was Omar? “Across the road mowing the lawn…
Which road? You could easily place him on a patch of grass that could collaborate either flight path.
Joe Harrington wrote:
... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.
Unlike Lagasse, who saw blinds down on the jet…
James Cissell wrote:
I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.
"The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."
He also told PrisonPlanet, "Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle." Which further collaborates the Northerly approach demonstrated in the FDR. So what you have here is a complete inversion of evidence.
He is not the only eyewitness to complain about being misrepresented by the media, but we can go into eyewitness testimony in another post.
I want to convey that there IS strong evidence that collaborates which places the flight path of the plane NO WHERE NEAR the light polls. _________________ “Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 Posts: 4582 Local time: 9:33 PM Location: Wilmington, DE
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:17 am Post subject:
I apologize for the delay in this. Between the holidays, and taking over the loss forecast at work, I just haven't had time to put together a long post like this. It seems everyone's lost interest in this debate, but here we go.
lumpymunk wrote:
I don’t think you can consider them ‘involved’ necessarily. If an illusion is properly pulled off those that witness it are not ‘involved’ in the actually pulling off of the illusion. The focus, the fault, the blame etc… would belong on the illusionist, not the audience. You couldn’t consider the audience as part of the conspiracy. The reason I think this is important to understand is that you’re using this to decrease the likelihood the CT story is plausible. The flawed reasoning rests in considering every potential witness a necessary conspirator, when you have no reason to. Ticket counters, baggage handlers, tarmac workers, food service trucks, gate workers, flight crew etc… board passengers every day, are you telling me that these people would have had reason to be significantly alarmed for some special reason? For all of the people you mentioned to be ‘involved’ they would have needed some kind of foreknowledge of the event, but audience members witnessing an illusion aren’t informed that what they are witnessing is an illusion. All of these people are audience members (…maybe, if I grant you that they actually witnessed passengers belonging to the same jet that hit the pentagon board the that specific plane).
Well, I haven't seen any conspiracy sites suggest the entire flights were faked, certainly not with any supporting evidence, so I wasn't aware that was a position I should be arguing against. If you really want to go there, be my guest, but I will require some extraordinary evidence to even entertain a claim like that. We're not talking about a Criss Angel show or anything, we're talking about real people boarding a real plane at a crowded, major international airport.
Commercial air travel is a very structured, organized system with lots of interworking parts and lots of people involved in getting each flight prepped and flown to the next destination. Maybe it's hypothetically possible to fake one or more of arguably the four most famous and studied commercial flights in US history, without a single person from the airport, airline, or air traffic control staffs or other passengers at the airport noticing or coming forward about it, but I think Occam's Razor wins out here. The odds have got to be so unlikely as to not be worth considering without any valid evidence to suggest otherwise.
“…concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that If many believe so, it is so.”
No. This is Occam's Razor. I'm not saying it's true because people believe it, I'm saying that because of the large amount of people that would either have to be duped or in on it, and the fact that there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, that the most reasonable conclusion is the flight did exist, took off as scheduled, and was tracked by air traffic control as described in the many accounts of 9/11.
Quote:
How did you come up with 330 degrees?
All of my research has been consistent with 270 degrees.
I’m interested in what Source material you’re using to get that number. There has been a significant amount of investigation done about the flight data recorder information released to the public in 2006, and that information is crucial for my case.
I don't remember where I originally got it when I wrote this post, but amongst other places the NTSB analysis of the very flight data recorder information mentioned in your second post (we'll come back to this later), the 9/11 Commission Report, and several other sites like 911 Myths said 330.
Quote:
For the Conspiracy Theory it’s not important to have all of the answers. I don’t need to have a workable theory to ask questions and poke holes in the official story. CT’s freely admit that it doesn’t make sense (Especially the official story, but our own propositions aren’t entirely consistent either), that’s why we keep asking questions. Insofar as arguing for an execution squad, that’s not my position, so I won’t bother. I’m also not going to argue against it, because I think out government is just fucked up enough to do something like that.
Well, isn't that convenient. The conspiracy theory doesn't have any answers, though, just vague, often unsupported, speculation. This really makes debating the subject sort of pointless. You must understand how frustrating it is to debate a topic when your opponent doesn't really have a position other than you don't like my position.
Quote:
Quote:
If the whereabouts of the plane and its occupants can't otherwise be accounted for, the rest of this is pretty much academic, but we'll continue with the flight.
Argument ad Ignorantiam
“Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.”
There has to be an explanation for where the plane went after the transponder was turned off if it didn't fly back to DC and hit the Pentagon, though. I've yet to see any conspiracy site even attempt to deal with where all the planes went if they weren't what hit the targets. It doesn't even really need to be the planes' final location, but there should at least be some tracking information or an explanation why there isn't any. Considering the "official story" has civilian air traffic controllers, as well as pilots of other planes, tracking the four hijacked planes on and off the whole flight until impact, there needs to be an explanation for the whereabouts of the planes after the transponders were turned off if the flight paths to the targets were not what really happened. Otherwise, it's just vague speculation for the sake of speculation with no supporting evidence.
Quote:
Quote:
So now we have the original plane disappearing to somewhere, and another previously undetected smaller aircraft, missile, bomb, etc. appearing from some unknown source location right at the final few seconds before impact.
Where did it originate? How did it go unnoticed?
Multiple Reports of a second smaller aircraft and a helicopter have been well known for a long time.
Kelly Knowles Vin Narayanan Steve O’Brien
Just for a few. So you can’t really call them undetected.
I'm talking about whatever else that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon in addition to or instead of Flight 77, not the other planes in the area. The second aircraft, as confirmed in numerous sources, was a C-130 directed by controllers to follow Flight 77 because of the hijacking. The first and third link above only has a sample without registering. Could you post the full articles? The second one mentions the plane in passing, and also confirms the official story, that an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon flying low enough to clip poles on the highway. I've seen mentions of a white jet circling above and the helicopter, which IIRC was on the other side of the Pentagon when 77 hit, that were anything but conclusive as to their position or actions. Regardless, are there any witnesses or evidence that either of these aircraft, or any other aircraft, actually hit the Pentagon or fired a missile into it, or had anything to do whatsoever with the attack on the Pentagon other than just happening to be in the vicinity and sent to observe the hijacking and impact? If not, they're just red herrings.
Quote:
Given the supposed trajectory of the plane the light polls were not wide enough apart to exclude a smaller aircraft.
I'll give you the benefit of doubt on this, although I'm not convinced that's true. Even if it's possible, it doesn't mean a small plane actually did it, of course. Do you know of a source that has the measurements of the light pole locations, heights, distances apart, etc?
Quote:
Right, I think these are thoroughly convincing pictures. The only contention is that none of them are definitively prove that it was flight 77, but I think the DNA testing is conclusive in this respect. So just to be clear, while some of this COULD be argued, I don’t think arguing against a the Flight 77, 757 impact is a tenable position.
Am I missing something or did you just effectively concede my entire position and make the entirety of our conversations about the Pentagon up until this moment a moot point? Why have you been arguing against it all this time then? If you agree that 77 hit the Pentagon, I really don't know what you have left to argue. I'm at a loss in figuring out your continued movitation for arguing conspiracy other than you just want to believe the government was involved in light of this.
lumpymunk wrote:
Insofar as arguing for an execution squad, that’s not my position, so I won’t bother. I’m also not going to argue against it, because I think out government is just fucked up enough to do something like that.
So what exactly is your position now? From what I can figure, you're basically suggesting the hijacking went down exactly as advertised, but someone in the government set up explosive/flammable material in the building beforehand to cause more damage. Is that about right?
Quote:
Quite to the contrary, I agree with you in that the wings of a 757 are quite stout, but I think the lightweight of the aluminum supports that idea they could have been knocked down by a much smaller aircraft.
How so?
So what if they could have been knocked down by another aircraft, is there any evidence that they were?
Quote:
This is a related issue, but you could contrast the wing damage at the pentagon with the wing damage at the WTC loosely and relative to the other. In the WTC pics you can clearly see even the tips of the wings cutting cleanly through the steel framed exterior, yet you see windows that aren’t blown out at the Pentagon.
The Pentagon had blast resistant windows. I thought that was common knowledge. There was an interview with the EVP of the company that installed them in the PM artcle. The WTC and the Pentagon are designed very differently and made of different materials, so it's difficult to compare damage done to the towers with the damage at the Pentagon.
Quote:
Quote:
A standard explosive ordinance just does not make a giant billowing fireball like that. Plain and simple. Only in Hollywood does an explosive create a fireball like that. Why? Because special effects crews set up large containers of gasoline with their mortars specifically to make big fireballs because it looks more spectacular on screen.
The device involved is not necessarily the only component responsible for producing the effect, I agree… but does this disprove anything? What this argument assumes is that I think a bomb/missile/small plane would be the sole source of the explosion. What this argument fails to prove is whether or not the only plausible source of damage in the pentagon was an impact. What this argument evades is the flight recorder data released in 2006 showing he elevation of the 757.
Ok, what else was involved? Are you suggesting someone set up barrels of gasoline or other explosive devices in the Pentagon to make the explosion bigger? AFAIK there's even less reason to suggest this than there is for the WTC. I'll get to the flight recorder data in your next post where you go into details, but if you agree that 77 hit the building, what's one elevation datapoint on an Excel sheet someone claims to have gotten from NTSB even matter, especially considering the damage path in the building coincides with the accepted path including the lightposts? Maybe the datapoint was wrong, maybe their interpretation of it was wrong, maybe the path of the plane was a little different than people think. Regardless, you agree that it still hit the building. All you're doing is basically nitpicking the fog of war.
Quote:
An explosion isn’t necessary for a fireball like that; all you would need is a match… a catalyst like an impact.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the explosion was “fuel-based” but there was fuel involved.
So you are suggesting someone set up barrels of fuel in the Pentagon. Do you have any evidence for that or any reason to think there needs to be more than Flight 77 causing the damage or even likely to be so?
Quote:
The thing that bothers me the most about the notion that fuel could have done the damage it did, as far in as it did is how quickly it burns.
Just like in the WTC, the Pentagon is more or less an office building with similar types of combustible materials. Not to mention the damage of impact. From the pictures I've seen, most of the fire damage seems to be much worse in the outer ring or two, which would seem logical based on the plane crash.
Quote:
The fuel tanks are, generally speaking, in the wing sections above the engines in a 757. The face of the building was sufficiently strong to withstand the initial impact of the wings and it was only that main hole where entry occurred. Aside from the controversy about the size of the hole, it initially did not contain entry damage for the wings, and thus no entry for the fuel. The majority of it should have burned in that initial explosion on the outside and spillage would have been contained within the outermost ring, but internally there is significant fire damage throughout all 3 rings. So think about it, how strong are the wings? Strong enough to clip light polls, strong enough to cut through steel at the WTC, but the pentagon is sufficiently strong on that face of the building to result in intact windows and yet so deep within the pentagon we have large amounts of fire damage, blown out columns etc… Seems like a contradiction, either the pentagon’s face was strong enough to stop the wings or not…
Not true. From Boeing, page 1 on this pdf shows that the center fuel tank on a 757 holds more fuel than the wing tanks combined.
Quote:
I don’t think Napalm was involved, but your own argument applies to gasoline as well, outlined above. “wouldn't have been able to penetrate so far into the Pentagon”
See above about the fuel tanks. The center tank is in line with the strongest parts of the plane, and the fuel could easily have followed the tumbling front landing gear that was found in C ring.
I'll stop here and address the rest in a seperate post. I was going to combine the two, but this is taking too long as it is. I'll need to do some more research for the rest. _________________ "The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 Posts: 2095 Local time: 8:33 PM
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject:
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
I apologize for the delay in this. Between the holidays, and taking over the loss forecast at work, I just haven't had time to put together a long post like this. It seems everyone's lost interest in this debate, but here we go.
No biggie, it was expected.
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
Well, I haven't seen any conspiracy sites suggest the entire flights were faked, certainly not with any supporting evidence, so I wasn't aware that was a position I should be arguing against.
I didn’t suggest it was a complete illusion in the sense that no planes actually existed.
I’m suggesting this was a supplemental illusion, not a complete illusion. Maybe ways for the government to test their new ‘renovations’ without looking like idiots bombing themselves.
Quote:
No. This is Occam's Razor.
Occam’s Razor can only apply if you presuppose unnecessary complexity, which is what I addressed. If you can make your theory look “simpler” then Occams Razor would apply and NOT if you just assume that mine is more complex. Your evidence of complexity is an assumption to be sure, and an unsupportable numbers game. X amount of people Must have been involved and since X amount is a higher number than the Hijackers in my theory, Occam’s Razor slices your theory away. Assume less.
Quote:
I'm not saying it's true because people believe it, I'm saying that because of the large amount of people that would either have to be duped or in on it, and the fact that there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, that the most reasonable conclusion is the flight did exist, took off as scheduled, and was tracked by air traffic control as described in the many accounts of 9/11.
I’m not arguing the existence of the plane; I’m arguing how knowledgeable the participants were. Your argumentum ad populum is based on how knowledgeable “they must have been” when in fact the passengers, air flight attendants etc… didn’t need to know anything. Air Traffic Control lost it when it U-turned and headed East.
Quote:
Well, isn't that convenient. The conspiracy theory doesn't have any answers, though, just vague, often unsupported, speculation.
Which is not unlike the official story.
Quote:
You must understand how frustrating it is to debate a topic when your opponent doesn't really have a position other than you don't like my position.
I do have a position though, and I’ve been explaining to you how the facts don’t line up. Since the facts don’t line up, you should be asking questions instead of sucking the government’s testicles.
Quote:
There has to be an explanation for where the plane went after the transponder was turned off if it didn't fly back to DC and hit the Pentagon, though.
How would one go about magically attaining that information (assuming one believes it flew over the pentagon)?
Quote:
Considering the "official story" has civilian air traffic controllers, as well as pilots of other planes, tracking the four hijacked planes on and off the whole flight until impact, there needs to be an explanation for the whereabouts of the planes after the transponders were turned off if the flight paths to the targets were not what really happened.
Emphasis should be placed on, “and off” because in fact there were times when tracking 77 wasn’t possible.
Quote:
Otherwise, it's just vague speculation for the sake of speculation with no supporting evidence.
I suppose that’s better than pretending to know things you can’t know.
Claim certainty even though the evidence doesn’t fit vs. Speculate and ask questions.
You tell me which position sounds less extravagant and more tenable…
Quote:
Regardless, are there any witnesses or evidence that either of these aircraft, or any other aircraft, actually hit the Pentagon or fired a missile into it, or had anything to do whatsoever with the attack on the Pentagon other than just happening to be in the vicinity and sent to observe the hijacking and impact? If not, they're just red herrings.
Not that I’ve been able to find… that doesn’t make them red herrings though because they directly relate. You have eye witness accounts that support both trajectories… the weaker eye witness accounts support a light pole trajectory… the stronger eye witness accounts support a more northerly trajectory… Incoherent old taxi drivers vs. police officers.
Quote:
I'll give you the benefit of doubt on this, although I'm not convinced that's true. Even if it's possible, it doesn't mean a small plane actually did it, of course. Do you know of a source that has the measurements of the light pole locations, heights, distances apart, etc?
I know the height of the polls is approximately 40 feet. I haven’t been able to find any of the other specs, just analyzing the pictures myself and looking at the overhead views. The assumption is claiming to know that only a large plane could have caused the damage, and I’ve found nothing to definitively support that… so I don’t simply assume it’s true. The possibility remains open that such was not the case.
Quote:
Am I missing something or did you just effectively concede my entire position and make the entirety of our conversations about the Pentagon up until this moment a moot point?
No, you are just having a hard time letting go of the presuppositions you walked into this thread with. Give it some time and I’m sure you’ll cope.
Quote:
Why have you been arguing against it all this time then?
I haven’t, your presuppositions conditioned your consciousness to interpret what I was saying in that manner. Like the bit about the illusion, and instances where I talk about positions that could be argued but that I wasn’t going to be bothered with.
Quote:
If you agree that 77 hit the Pentagon, I really don't know what you have left to argue.
Whether or not it was the only thing that hit the Pentagon.
Whether or not the Pilot himself flew the plane into the Pentagon.
Quote:
I'm at a loss in figuring out your continued motivation for arguing conspiracy other than you just want to believe the government was involved in light of this.
We still have no evidence of the actual highjacking. The Flight Data Recorder images show absolutely no disturbances during the event, just all of a sudden the transceiver is turned off and he continues like nothing happened. No evidence of any kind of struggle or instrumentation being hit during a struggle, nothing. The possibility that the pilot himself flew the plane into the building has not been ruled out. Again, you’ll make an argument about what his motivation might have been for doing so, and again I’ll point out how fucked in the head military personnel are. It’s at best an unknown that you are claiming certainty about. The very notion that the hijacking happened you are taking for granted and assuming it is true. (Imagine if the pilot came over the intercom after take-off and told everyone about the WTC plane hits earlier in the day, and that they would be making a U-turn and landing. Would it have occurred to anyone what was going on? Is it plausible that the passengers could not have even sensed the impending danger until a few moments before the pilot slammed into the Pentagon?)
8:46:40 - Flight 11 Crashes.
8:50 - Hijacking begins on Flight 77. (supposedly)
9:03 - Bruce Barrett gave the order for "ATC Zero."
9:37:46 - Flight 77 Crashes.
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
So what exactly is your position now? From what I can figure, you're basically suggesting the hijacking went down exactly as advertised, but someone in the government set up explosive/flammable material in the building beforehand to cause more damage. Is that about right?
Possibly, but that wouldn’t explain the two conflicting flight paths.
Quote:
Quote:
Quite to the contrary, I agree with you in that the wings of a 757 are quite stout, but I think the lightweight of the aluminum supports that idea they could have been knocked down by a much smaller aircraft.
How so?
Smaller Planes have weaker lighter wings, but because the aluminum in the polls is so lightweight there is no reason to suppose a weaker wing couldn’t have clipped them.
Quote:
So what if they could have been knocked down by another aircraft, is there any evidence that they were?
You shouldn’t assume that your position is correct by default.
There is as much evidence that a 757 hit the light polls as there is that another kind of plane hit them… it’s a nice round figure… Zero. The reason I say zero is because of the conflicting eyewitness accounts and the swath of damage outlined already… combined with the actual Flight Data Recorder info released in 06.
Quote:
Quote:
This is a related issue, but you could contrast the wing damage at the pentagon with the wing damage at the WTC loosely and relative to the other. In the WTC pics you can clearly see even the tips of the wings cutting cleanly through the steel framed exterior, yet you see windows that aren’t blown out at the Pentagon.
The Pentagon had blast resistant windows. I thought that was common knowledge. There was an interview with the EVP of the company that installed them in the PM artcle. The WTC and the Pentagon are designed very differently and made of different materials, so it's difficult to compare damage done to the towers with the damage at the Pentagon.
I’m aware that it was blast resistant glass, in the other thread we spoke about the coincidence that the plane hit that specific face of the building… seeing as how it was the only face to receive the “renovations.” I’m making a comparison of strength between structural grade steel and blast resistant glass. If I had to blindly choose which substance I thought was stronger… I would choose the steel.
Structural grade steel beams vs. blast resistant glass…
We’re not talking about structure; we’re not talking about design… we’re talking about materials. Design and structure really only matter when we’re talking about collapses… but we’re not… we’re talking about the ability to withstand the impact of a 757. The tip of the wing can cut straight through structural grade steel (WTC)… but can’t do much of anything to blast resistant glass… how does that fit?
Quote:
Ok, what else was involved? Are you suggesting someone set up barrels of gasoline or other explosive devices in the Pentagon to make the explosion bigger? AFAIK there's even less reason to suggest this than there is for the WTC.
You should read the accounts of the military personnel in the building. To just assume that only Jet Fuel was involved is what is unsupported.
Quote:
I'll get to the flight recorder data in your next post where you go into details, but if you agree that 77 hit the building, what's one elevation datapoint on an Excel sheet someone claims to have gotten from NTSB even matter, especially considering the damage path in the building coincides with the accepted path including the lightposts?
Don’t be ridiculous; the elevation point exists in a stream of data points. For this data point to be wrong the entire file would have to be incorrect. As is demonstrated in the documentary, if you artificially lower the data point to fit the impact zone, you place the plane underground as it takes off from the airport. If you spin the plane to fit the southerly trajectory, you place the plane nowhere near the runway as it takes off… and it should also be mentioned that the light polls are only 40 feet high meaning in addition to spinning the trajectory you would also have to lower it much sooner to fit that flight path which leaves this possibility open to the same ‘underground’ criticism. Also the slope of descent would have had to be near zero for the plane to have clipped the polls and hit the pentagon hundreds of yards away… but it’s not even close in the FDR data. The damage path does NOT coincide with the position of the light polls, which is a lie. I showed you that last post. There are too many polls that were entirely wiped out that were not in the direct path of the southerly light poll trajectory.
Quote:
Maybe the datapoint was wrong, maybe their interpretation of it was wrong, maybe the path of the plane was a little different than people think. Regardless, you agree that it still hit the building. All you're doing is basically nitpicking the fog of war.
Who’s speculating now? Isn’t that convenient…
I’ll help out with some possibilities you missed…
Maybe we were given a false data recorder file in response to our repeatedly submitted FOIA? Maybe we were given the correct data recorder file by mistake? You should investigate the research that’s been done on the FDR before you just brush it aside.
[quote]
Quote:
An explosion isn’t necessary for a fireball like that; all you would need is a match… a catalyst like an impact.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the explosion was “fuel-based” but there was fuel involved.
So you are suggesting someone set up barrels of fuel in the Pentagon. Do you have any evidence for that or any reason to think there needs to be more than Flight 77 causing the damage or even likely to be so?
[quote]
I think the fuel inside the planes tanks definitely produced the smoke plume, but it definitely did not create the shock wave, or the silvery-white glow, or the smell of cordite, or the collapse of the building. Dunno if those explosives were on the plane, or in the building, but my speculation is that they were definitely testing their new “renovations” with a strong test, as opposed to a weak jet fuel test. The existence of those things isn’t disputable though, and it’s also indisputable that Jet Fuel cannot create those characteristics.
Quote:
Not true. From Boeing, page 1 on this pdf shows that the center fuel tank on a 757 holds more fuel than the wing tanks combined.
Conceded, but what I will not concede is that this fuel magically made it to C ring without igniting. How does a combustible fly through a fireball without igniting?
There is a discrepancy here, and I think it’s quite damning.
There are actually two big holes in C ring. The Dotted Yellow line represents the official story flight path and the Solid Yellow line represents the northerly trajectory as revealed through the flight data recorder analysis. Compare the two holes circled in purple. Notice the building above both holes.
The hole made by the northerly theory has a huge portion of blackened building above it.
The hole made by the southerly theory has only a hole and very little or no blackened building.
The hole made by the northerly theory is bigger than the hole made by the southerly theory.
Hole from northerly theory.
Hole from southerly theory.
Now reconsider the position of these columns off to the right of the flight path, which are unaccounted for in the official trajectory.
There are at least 6 completely missing columns that weren’t even in the direct path of the plane in C ring. What if we consider these columns in light of a more northerly flight path… they fit perfectly and are in the direct path of the plane… collaborating the stories of the officers at the Citgo gas station and collaborating the data found in the Flight data recorder.
There’s another discrepancy though, notice D ring in the picture. There is no black smoke on the face of the section. I freely admit that what I’m about to say is speculation, but doesn’t it look more like something penetrated D ring and detonated in C ring? Fuel certainly wouldn’t have made it that far, and if it did make it to C, it would have made it to D as well meaning we ought to have more intense fires in D than in C, which means we ought to have some black smoke on the face of that section and we have none.
You see, the official ‘theory’ doesn’t fit the facts… if the function of a theory is to provide a coherent framework to understand a given phenomena the official story fails in that respect on all accounts here.
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Am I missing something or did you just effectively concede my entire position and make the entirety of our conversations about the Pentagon up until this moment a moot point? Why have you been arguing against it all this time then? If you agree that 77 hit the Pentagon, I really don't know what you have left to argue. I'm at a loss in figuring out your continued movitation for arguing conspiracy other than you just want to believe the government was involved in light of this.
