Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

[TC329]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.
Your own witness, your own video debunks you. Now you post a turn that is impossible, just like your non turns. Why are you unable to use math and physics to figure this out?

Your Miller video proves your Flt 93 ideas false; why does your lack of knowledge on flying make you immune to reality? http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...y+miller&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...y+miller&hl=en)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122665

You have taken the bait, John Farmer is about to release information to expose your ideas. He is teasing you. http://911files.info/blog/index.php

Why are your conclusions false, bad research or bad analysis?

Friday, September 28, 2001, 4:42:20 AM, mod date of the video. lol, old stuff, impossible paths. Good find, you took the bait again.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Your own witness, your own video debunks you. Now you post a turn that is impossible, just like your non turns. Why are you unable to use math and physics to figure this out?
Why would the FAA release an animation that is physically impossible?

[beachnut]

Why would the FAA release an animation that is physically impossible?
Why can't you, CIT, or p4t expert pilots do math and physics to figure it out? Why can't you do it?

[Tbone]

Your first order of business is to provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.

[gumboot]

Your first order of business is to provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.


Indeed. Just because someone stuck FAA and NORAD logos on it is meaningless. In fact I think the NORAD logo is a bit of a "smoking gun", if you will, because there's no conceivable reason NORAD would be involved in such a video. And finally, the data to produce such a flight path would come from the NTSB not the FAA, and the NTSB's flightpath is markedly different.

So in a word, I call BS.

[parky76]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.

this video is a fake.

[gumboot]

Note who posted it to youtube... ;)

[TC329]

this video is a fake.

you think?


http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/sept09122008cover.pdf

http://aal77.com/faa/faa_foia.php

[TC329]

Note who posted it to youtube... ;)

noted. ;)

[gumboot]

you think?


http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/sept09122008cover.pdf

http://aal77.com/faa/faa_foia.php



It's funny because the actual letter makes no mention of a video - the letter from the FAA cites radar data and audio recordings.

[TC329]

it's funny its almost like you question its authenticity but don't exactly have the cajones to call it a fake.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

it's funny its almost like you question its authenticity but don't exactly have the cajones to call it a fake.


Are you paying any attention to anything at all? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it...

So in a word, I call BS.


Focus, TC329... Focus...

[CHF]

I've never understood this controversy...

So the guv faked a plane crash and then released data that showed their own fake crash didn't happen???

[TC329]

no.

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.

and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans. oh and that generator. and that tree top russell pickering fell in love with too.

[parky76]

Yes. Will someone please explain to us why the govt. would provide a black box with data that would go against their fake flight path?

Is the NWO suicidal or something? Do 9-11 Sheepers have any sense of logic left?

[CHF]

no.

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.

Why are they doing this?

No one cares about CIT.

[LashL]

The stupid... it burns.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.


That's retarded, no matter which way you look at it.

[Caustic Logic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

This was just released, 7 years and 1 day after the attack, September 12th 2008, the government admits the plane was on the north side of the citgo. Strangely, they show it hitting the building still, but of course this is irreconcilable with all physical damage and all other data. The fall out from this will be interesting to say the least.

Well lemme see... the FDR and radar are both silent about this final stretch, and certainly show nothing like that radical banking maneuver. So they didn't get it from there. As you say, the physical evidence is a definite non-fit, so they didn't deduce this from the damage. Anyone who understands how planes fly and maneuver, like Beachnut here, could have told them it was impossible, so they apparently didn't consult much.

BUT it does match, almost to a T, the flight path your buddies made up to fuse some aberrant accounts together, again in impossibility. Therefore, they must have some magical connection to the *truly true truth* that transcends all evidence to the contrary.

Maybe they interviewed witnesses, and ignored those like Morin, Elgas, Hemphill, Riskus, Mcgraw, England, Timmerman, Vignola, Zakhem, Wheelhouse, Wallace, Stephens, Roberts, NEIT 405, etc, who place the plane on the damage path. Maybe they interviewed the same aberrant set CIT got their hands on?

Maybe they didn't know what to do with the final moments and copied the NTSB's erred north path, deducing the swerve in a similar way to what your buddies would later do, to connect error and reality.

It is weird, and quite so. What do YOU think it's based on, TC?

[Caustic Logic]

Indeed. Just because someone stuck FAA and NORAD logos on it is meaningless. In fact I think the NORAD logo is a bit of a "smoking gun", if you will, because there's no conceivable reason NORAD would be involved in such a video. And finally, the data to produce such a flight path would come from the NTSB not the FAA, and the NTSB's flightpath is markedly different.

So in a word, I call BS.

Word. I was going to ask about this. It's just too weird, and that was my first hunch.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's funny because the actual letter makes no mention of a video - the letter from the FAA cites radar data and audio recordings.
there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1%20AWA%20714%20pentagon_more2.mpg

same one thats on youtube (now why TV couldnt just link to that first, or at all, is beyond me)

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

[TheLoneBedouin]

there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1%20AWA%20714%20pentagon_more2.mpg

same one thats on youtube (now why TV couldnt just link to that first, or at all, is beyond me)

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13796)


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?

[Caustic Logic]

Alright, it's all still new I only learn at medium speed, but...

The FAA letter does mention a video - they're alphabetical, Farmer lists the file at his site as 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg, which is there.
http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/sept09122008cover.pdf
Does that mean this IS that very file?

This is kinda deja vu for me, since the NTSB's release letter in fact did not mention it, I suspected forgery, but then later letters did say 'oh and here's a DVD with the animation...' I'm not convinced yet this is truly FAA/NORAD/whatever, but I'm fine with ambiguity, and sorta presume it's legit. The first case turned out that way, so...

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13796)


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?

My guesses for why are above. There are other possibilities as well. I haven't checked that roation issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's right. Did you notice the 330 degree diamond loop? It's all wacked yo. Did you notice the remarkable irony of your question however? They released an animation that shows your flight path almost to a "T". First words you utter describe this as "physically impossible."
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/FAA_wrong_path_1.jpg
Where's the dog, it's time... oh, I can't get the dog to laugh?

[defaultdotxbe]

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13796)


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?
yes, thats the NTSB data, however it is not the NTSB animation

the animation was corrected improperly for true north, and showed a NOC flightpath

[gumboot]

there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1%20AWA%20714%20pentagon_more2.mpg

It's listed on the second page of the PDF that is just a list of included files without an FAA header or anything else in sight. It is not mentioned in the actual FAA letter (page one) nor could anything in the letter refer to the video.

Given past "Truther" behaviour, it would not be beneath them to fake the second page.

We don't know anything about the video - what it was made for, what its purpose is, how it was created, when it was created, or anything else.



as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

The flight paths are totally different. I'm not talking the final line up and impact (although that alone is wrong, showing a hard starboard turn at the last moment) but the prior part of the flightpath - this new video's flightpath just does not reflect anything every provided by any official data.

[bobloblaw]

We don't know anything about the video - what it was made for, what its purpose is, how it was created, when it was created, or anything else.
These are all great points (except we know it was created on or prior to 28/09/2001) and this is where the discussion should be at this point.

It exists, it came directly from the FAA and everyone needs to get over that. Immediately labelling this video as "fake" is the kind of behaviour normally associated with denial shown on the other side of the fence.

As John himself says -

FYI you morons! The video is part of a release which is the subject of a Federal Court Case. That means any fakery on mine or the FAA’s part is perjury and criminally punishable. Now I can’t speak for the FAA, but I certainly am not willing to go to jail just to pull a prank on some looney toons like the CIT children. Further, I just go to extreme lengths and expense to get the information while you guys sit in front of your computers and talk trash. So stop making yourselves look like idiots and simply request a copy of the video for yourselves from the FAA.
http://911files.info/blog/?p=141

[Jonnyclueless]

And how exactly do we know this is the video that came from the FAA?

[defaultdotxbe]

It's listed on the second page of the PDF that is just a list of included files without an FAA header or anything else in sight. It is not mentioned in the actual FAA letter (page one) nor could anything in the letter refer to the video.

Given past "Truther" behaviour, it would not be beneath them to fake the second page.
ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther

the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity

[bobloblaw]

And how exactly do we know this is the video that came from the FAA?
I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Farmer's work.

www.aal77.com
911files.info

[gumboot]

As John himself says -


http://911files.info/blog/?p=141



What he's says does not make logical sense.

[gumboot]

ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther

Have you actually read his court filing?


the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity

I doubt everything when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Specifically, I doubt it is any sort of "official FAA animation". I have offered two key reasons for this:

1) The animation carries both FAA and NORAD graphics, with no explanation for such a thing, despite the fact that neither organisation would have any part in determining AA77s flight path (that being the NTSB's job).

2) The animation flight path varies drastically from the NTSB's official release, not just in the final approach line up but in the turn prior to the line up.

Neither of these two points constitute "personal incredulity". They are facts easily verifiable by watching said video.

[gumboot]

For the record I didn't claim the video was fake (although I suggested that wasn't beyond the realm of reason). I merely don't believe it is any form of "official" FAA flightpath.

[bobloblaw]

What he's says does not make logical sense.
How so?

[gumboot]

How so?


Firstly, the release in question is a result of a FOIA request, not any sort of court action - the court action is still pending at this time which means it has not been before the court yet.

Secondly, perjury is the act of lying under oath or knowingly presenting false evidence in a court of law. The video in question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been presented in any court of law as an authentic piece of evidence. Faking or modifying a FOIA release may indeed constitute an illegal act (I don't know) but it is not, in any size, shape or form, perjury.

[defaultdotxbe]

I doubt everything when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Specifically, I doubt it is any sort of "official FAA animation". I have offered two key reasons for this:

1) The animation carries both FAA and NORAD graphics, with no explanation for such a thing, despite the fact that neither organisation would have any part in determining AA77s flight path (that being the NTSB's job).

2) The animation flight path varies drastically from the NTSB's official release, not just in the final approach line up but in the turn prior to the line up.

Neither of these two points constitute "personal incredulity". They are facts easily verifiable by watching said video.

For the record I didn't claim the video was fake (although I suggested that wasn't beyond the realm of reason). I merely don't believe it is any form of "official" FAA flightpath.
your point 1 above would only make sense if you felt the video was created by a third party and attributed to FAA and/or NORAD (IE fake)

ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity

and as for point 2, the NTSB animation also shows a north of citgo flight path, despite that not being the NTSB's official position, but i dont see anyone claiming the NTSB video is fake, just poorly (and probably hastily) put together, the same can probably be said for this

[gumboot]

your point 1 above would only make sense if you felt the video was created by a third party and attributed to FAA and/or NORAD (IE fake)

Even if it was created by the FAA that doesn't mean it's an official FAA flightpath animation. For all we know it's an FAA animation presenting the CIT's stupid flightpath for some reason. A sort of "look at the stupid crap retards believe" education video.

*shrugs*

Hence why I pointed out we don't know who created, why it was created, or what for.


ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity

How is acknowledging the official duties of government agencies "incredulity"? If someone presents you an FBI letterhead outlining FBI opinion on the proper cultivation of wheat, would you consider it an argument from personal incredulity to point out that the only "official" position on such a matter should come from the Department of Agriculture?


and as for point 2, the NTSB animation also shows a north of citgo flight path, despite that not being the NTSB's official position, but i dont see anyone claiming the NTSB video is fake, just poorly (and probably hastily) put together, the same can probably be said for this

It is not the map alignment of the flight path that I have issue with. It is the actual flight path itself. The NTSB animation's flightpath is an official representation of AA77s flight as based on the FDR. This FAA animation flightpath does not even remotely reflect that flight path.

[gumboot]

I've done a bit more investigating now I have the original video downloaded...

The video bears the logos of NORAD and a company called AGI (http://www.stk.com/) which, according to their website: "provides commercial off-the-shelf software to national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets."

The video is built on air navigation maps, and includes FAA Long Range Radar sites (the big golf ball things). The one in the opening frame is the ARSR-3 at The Plains, VA.

My speculation is that this is a radar-based map for NORAD purposes. This might explain why it was included in a FOIA request relating to radar data. Given the nature of radar, it should therefore not be considered any sort of definitive of official representation of AA77's flightpath, and certainly not as regarded by the FAA.

ETA. It appears to be a radar simulation created using AGI's Satellite Tool Kit (STK) Radar module.

[jsiv]

Whoever made the video, it's stupid and looks more like some sort of technology demonstration (or conspiracy porn) than anything else. Fast-paced, fancy camera effects, etc, while not providing any useful information about the flight.

[johnny karate]

The real question here isn't why the government would release such damning evidence revealing its own insidious plot, but rather what Truthers are going to do with this smoking gun.

So far we have:
1) Make a Youtube video.
2) Gloat on an Internet message board.

Way to go, freedom fighters.

[MarkyX]

I already flagged this video as "misleading text"

[TC329]

Well lemme see... the FDR and radar are both silent about this final stretch, and certainly show nothing like that radical banking maneuver. So they didn't get it from there. As you say, the physical evidence is a definite non-fit, so they didn't deduce this from the damage. Anyone who understands how planes fly and maneuver, like Beachnut here, could have told them it was impossible, so they apparently didn't consult much.


maybe the FAA and NORAD should consult anonymous internet dwelling armchair research authoritives who hide their identity in the future before releasing information contradictory to the official 9/11 fable is your train of thought, adam?

[beachnut]

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13796)


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?
The heading is wrong, the video looks like it was made in september 2001.

Please tell us the g force required to do what no witness saw.

Try using facts, evidence and logic. Return to reality.

[TC329]

ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther

the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity


john farmer is a government op.

the source you doubt is the enemy of cit and all truthers and revolutionaries. you clowns should be embracing him but that would make this video even more authentic, huh?

and just like lloyd and his cab you're gonna have to make this disappear down the memory hole at some point, huh?

NoC = Flyover

[TC329]

even if it was created by the faa that doesn't mean it's an official faa flightpath animation. For all we know it's an faa animation presenting the cit's stupid flightpath for some reason.

i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GlennB]

NoC = Flyover

NoC = Flyover with no witnesses = Cloaking Device = spending so much time watching Sci-Fi movies and playing video games that you believe they represent reality.

[beachnut]

maybe the FAA and NORAD should consult anonymous internet dwelling armchair research authoritives who hide their identity in the future before releasing information contradictory to the official 9/11 fable is your train of thought, adam?
John Farmer, who presented the "faa" video, also has real hard data on the final Multiple RADAR inputs at the end proving the video false, just a graphic of a plane hitting the Pentagon, before the data was in.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
Farmer plotted these RADAR positions and the final FDR point. These points are inline with the real track of 77, 61.2 true. If you want to argue these points you have to bring facts, not failed opinions.

That last DCA radar point kills the speculation. Facts kill the fantasy of 9/11 truth.

[johnny karate]

This thread makes realize how lucky we are that the Internet didn't exist in the early 70's because Nixon would have stayed in power while Woodward and Bernstein were busy pwning debunkers.

[Bobert]

no.

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.

and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans. oh and that generator. and that tree top russell pickering fell in love with too.

WOW dude you are in need of intense therapy.
This is a very bizarre statement
erase lloyd from the history books
After Gary and the incident of attacking a girl in a wheel chair and the kook truther firing off rounds in the streets outside of UCLA who knows what someone would do after reading that kind of remark.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Even if it was created by the FAA that doesn't mean it's an official FAA flightpath animation. For all we know it's an FAA animation presenting the CIT's stupid flightpath for some reason.

i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!


Psst! TC329... That thing you just did right there. That's called quote mining. It's not an admirable, honorable, or even honest thing to do.

Even if it was created by the FAA that doesn't mean it's an official FAA flightpath animation. For all we know it's an FAA animation presenting the CIT's stupid flightpath for some reason. A sort of "look at the stupid crap retards believe" education video.

[TC329]

Psst! TC329... That thing you just did right there. That's called quote mining. It's not an admirable, honorable, or even honest thing to do.


well then it's even worse......

so now the theory you guys have invented is that the faa and norad are fabricating evidence [illegal last time i checked but perhaps your precious bush has rewritten those laws as well] because of two "morons" in california who invented an "impossible flight path" using "unreliable eyewitness accounts from highly credible sources corroborated 13 times over" ...... :jaw-dropp

wow aldo and craig are so "stupid" and there evidence is so "meaningless" that the faa and norad and now faking evidence for them personally because no one is listening or paying attention to them.

someone get me a tin foil hat the "woo" meter is shooting off the ****ing charts in this thread. i always wondered where all the "hardcore conspiracists" gravitated to. now i know, you're all here............

[gumboot]

Actually STK is used for coverage simulation and what have you - say assessing what radar coverage a given flight path will pass through.

It's quite possible (although I'm now just speculating) that the simulation was created purely to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis.

In which case this flightpath would be based on any data whatsoever, other than say eye witness testimony.

Just a thought.

[TC329]

the faa & norad didn't draw this up off eyewitness accounts, did they?

p.s. i think this is about as authentic as the fdr, 5 frames, citgo video, rades data, etc.
just for the record. its a total fabrication. but then again i'm the one who's been telling you guys the government was fabricating this evidence for years. maybe now you'll come around and admit they just invent this ****.......

[gumboot]

the faa & norad didn't draw this up off eyewitness accounts, did they?


It seems quite possible they did. Although neither the FAA nor NORAD "drew this up". AGI's STK software "drew this up". No one has provided any evidence that the FAA had anything to do with the creation of this simulation.

[PhantomWolf]

Since it was done on the 28th, just 17 days after the attacks it was done with hardly any information on the actual flight path. That would certainly account for the errors in it, including hitting the Pentagon in the wrong place.

[Jonnyclueless]

I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Farmer's work.

www.aal77.com
911files.info

I suggest you answer the question.

[Jonnyclueless]

i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone explain to TC what a stundie is? Keeping in mind that this is a guy who calls people government ops.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

i call stundie!!!!!!!!!!!!


Oh, hey... here's something else: just as declaring 9/11 an inside job doesn't automatically oust your imagined evil-does, neither does declaring a quote a Stundie automatically nominate it for the Stundie Awards.

Hint: You have to do something.

[UNLoVedRebel]

So a CT dude links us to a video of AA77 hitting the pentagon as "proof" of AA77 not hitting the pentagon. What happened to the good old days of the truth movement when the USG was firing missiles at its buildings?

[16.5]

the faa & norad didn't draw this up off eyewitness accounts, did they?

p.s. i think this is about as authentic as the fdr, 5 frames, citgo video, rades data, etc.

Gee kind of changed your tune in this thread, hey Dommy?

Anyhow, since you are such a huge CIT fan, maybe you can give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site.

Prove that a plane can do what the CIT says it did. We've only been asking for, what, a year? C'mon Dom, step up to the plate, man. Do it, do it now.

Or just go back to your borderline out of control posts about "hardcore conspiracists."

[TC329]

Can someone explain to TC what a stundie is? Keeping in mind that this is a guy who calls people government ops.

isn't that a stundie?

you don't believe people are capable of acting as agents or operatives for a government therefor they do not exist and it is ridiculous to even think someone might possible be one.

[TC329]

So a CT dude links us to a video of AA77 hitting the pentagon as "proof" of AA77 not hitting the pentagon. What happened to the good old days of the truth movement when the USG was firing missiles at its buildings?


hey 'new blood' - how does the plane hit the light poles from that side of the gas station?

[Turbofan]

The heading is wrong, the video looks like it was made in september 2001.

Please tell us the g force required to do what no witness saw.

Try using facts, evidence and logic. Return to reality.

Hey Beachnut, did you see the new PFT video which corrects Mackey's
4.0G error and incorrect math?

Funny how the NTSB, and PFT support a north approach...now this
strange "FAA" video that suddenly surfaces. Hmmm....

So let's say this FAA animation is accurate and authentic.

THat makes PFT, NTSB and FAA a pretty tight analysis wouldn't you say?

Neither analysis shows AA77 hitting the light poles! Uh oh!

The FAA shows a different bank angle than the damage observed at the
Pentacon.

Oh noes!

What the heck is going on? I mean that sincerely. Why does the FAA
have yet another version of the impact? How does this approach make
any sense with the entrance and exit hole?

I hope to god (or what ever is up there) that this animation is authentic.

[TC329]

Gee kind of changed your tune in this thread, hey Dommy?

Anyhow, since you are such a huge CIT fan, maybe you can give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site.

Prove that a plane can do what the CIT says it did. We've only been asking for, what, a year? C'mon Dom, step up to the plate, man. Do it, do it now.

Or just go back to your borderline out of control posts about "hardcore conspiracists."

didn't the faa just release this via foia showing how a plane came over the navy annex and banked on the NoC and isn't that what this thread is about?

[Dog Town]

Hey Beachnut,

Hey,Captain Bob!
I only gave a retort, cuz I know the "author"!

[Dog Town]

didn't the faa just release this via foia showing how a plane came over the navy annex and banked on the NoC and isn't that what this thread is about?

Sad for you, but you ain't even good at asking questions!

[Jonnyclueless]

isn't that a stundie?

you don't believe people are capable of acting as agents or operatives for a government therefor they do not exist and it is ridiculous to even think someone might possible be one.

I recommend Paxil.

[Caustic Logic]

So let's say this FAA animation is accurate and authentic.

THat makes PFT, NTSB and FAA a pretty tight analysis wouldn't you say?

Neither analysis shows AA77 hitting the light poles! Uh oh!

And yet it did! The maneuver makes no sense from an aeronatical point of view. It can't have happened. NTSB error + similar "FAA" error + PFT lies = a tight analysis? A tight analysis, like all are looking at the same data and reaching the same conclusions or something? For God's sake, you guys can't even grasp the basics, or refuse to. These animators, they're on crack...

What the heck is going on? I mean that sincerely.

Thanks for summing it up like that. What I like about this thread is how everyone seems genuinely a bit stumped, so I feel less alone. Oddly enough, only Farmer himself seems unfazed, like he knows what's going on.

[TC329]

And yet it did!


denial.

[Arus808]

denial.

you're delusional.

[Caustic Logic]

denial.

fake-denial. Opinions are like Aldos. What can you do? :rolleyes:

[TC329]

NTSB error + similar "FAA" error + PFT lies = a tight analysis?

please name the qualified expert who disputes the faa + ntsb + pft.

anonymous unverifiable internet research authoritives are automatically disqualified.

please name real individuals whose credentials can be indepedently confirmed or retract your lie that the ntsb, faa, are both in error and that pft is lying.

[Caustic Logic]

please name the qualified expert who disputes the faa + ntsb + pft.

How could I dispute it?

No, seriously, how could I?

I say this for your benefit, domenick. Please, just slow down. We're all still back here on the plane you left behind, we don't understand your new transdimensional logic. You're gonna have to try to <i>remember</i> to try and make sense in earthspeak.

[TC329]

dearest adam,

whenever your tap dancing shoes finally wear out please feel free to tell us who all the experts are that have determined there are errors in the ntsb & faa releases and that pft are lying.

waiting for what will never come,


domenick

[UNLoVedRebel]

hey 'new blood' - how does the plane hit the light poles from that side of the gas station?

MIT has UA 175 hitting the South Tower at 503 mph. The Royal Aircraft Establishment has it hitting the South Tower at 575 mph. Does this mean that UA 175 didn't hit the South Tower? According to the truthers yes, but in reality no. MIT and the Royal Aircraft Establishment used different parameters to reach their conclusions. There's always some degree of uncertainty when analyzing data. There might be different data that put AA77 on different flight paths into the pentagon, but how does this help your theory (if you even have one)?

[Caustic Logic]

dearest adam,
[...]
waiting for what will never come,


Dude, that's what I meant. "will never come." Nothing will suffice for the goalpost movers. You're not even worth thinking of anything witty to say here. Ta ta.

[TC329]

MIT has UA 175 hitting the South Tower at 503 mph. The Royal Aircraft Establishment has it hitting the South Tower at 575 mph. Does this mean that UA 175 didn't hit the South Tower? According to the truthers yes, but in reality no. MIT and the Royal Aircraft Establishment used different parameters to reach their conclusions. There's always some degree of uncertainty when analyzing data. There might be different data that put AA77 on different flight paths into the pentagon, but how does this help your theory (if you even have one)?


relevance to the pentagon?

none.

thanks for wasting peoples time.

[TC329]

Dude, that's what I meant. "will never come." Nothing will suffice for the goalpost movers. You're not even worth thinking of anything witty to say here. Ta ta.


tell us who all the experts are that have determined there are errors in the ntsb & faa releases and that pft are lying.

[Hokulele]

relevance to the pentagon?

none.

thanks for wasting peoples time.


The point was completely relevant. How do conflicts in data help your theory?

[TC329]

The point was completely relevant. How do conflicts in data help your theory?


so the question is how does the government releasing contradictory evidence to an event [when all evidence would match if it were legitimate] help my theory that the government is withholding evidence and fabricating evidence in relation to the 9/11 attacks?

think about it and i'm sure you'll figure it out on your own. just apply your critical thinking cap.

[Hokulele]

so the question is how does the government releasing contradictory evidence to an event [when all evidence would match if it were legitimate] help my theory that the government is withholding evidence and fabricating evidence in relation to the 9/11 attacks?

think about it and i'm sure you'll figure it out on your own. just apply your critical thinking cap.


Ah, so the government releasing preliminary information, then correcting it at a later point in time, is withholding evidence.



No, that still doesn't make any sense.

[Turbofan]

And yet it did! The maneuver makes no sense from an aeronatical point of view. It can't have happened. NTSB error + similar "FAA" error + PFT lies = a tight analysis? A tight analysis, like all are looking at the same data and reaching the same conclusions or something? For God's sake, you guys can't even grasp the basics, or refuse to. These animators, they're on crack...



Thanks for summing it up like that. What I like about this thread is how everyone seems genuinely a bit stumped, so I feel less alone. Oddly enough, only Farmer himself seems unfazed, like he knows what's going on.

Yeah...only a kid in denial would continue to sweep all of the questionable
events under the "Pentalawn".

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Neither of the animations show the aircraft hitting light poles. All of them
support 'too high to hit poles' and a north approach.

None of the animations support the minimal damage, or damage path within
the Pentagon.

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more. I'd like to find out
some information about the reconstruction, and how they arrive at the
final impact leg...because as you say, it doesn't appear to support the
limits of a commerical jet.

[WildCat]

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more.
Is the FAA in on it or not Turbofan?

[funk de fino]

Did someone ever come up for a name for the law when the first truther bot uses loyalist or bushie in a thread? Like the Godwins law but for govt apologists slurs?

[Dave Rogers]

Did someone ever come up for a name for the law when the first truther bot uses loyalist or bushie in a thread? Like the Godwins law but for govt apologists slurs?

It wouldn't work. A corollary of Godwin's Law states that the first person to compare their opponent to Hitler automatically loses the debate. That implies that there has to have been a significant debate for them to lose.

Dave

[Drudgewire]

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?


Nothing except butterflies. Butterflies scare the living crap out of me. :o

[16.5]

didn't the faa just release this via foia showing how a plane came over the navy annex and banked on the NoC and isn't that what this thread is about?

Uh, no: TC said:

"p.s. i think this is about as authentic as the fdr, 5 frames, citgo video, rades data, etc.
just for the record. its a total fabrication. but then again i'm the one who's been telling you guys the government was fabricating this evidence for years. maybe now you'll come around and admit they just invent this ****......."

Anyhow, DODGE NOTED. Now, Dom:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site.
Prove that a plane can do what the CIT says it did. We've only been asking for, what, a year? C'mon Dom, step up to the plate, man. Do it, do it now."

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah...only a kid in denial would continue to sweep all of the questionable
events under the "Pentalawn".

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Neither of the animations show the aircraft hitting light poles. All of them
support 'too high to hit poles' and a north approach.

None of the animations support the minimal damage, or damage path within
the Pentagon.

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more. I'd like to find out
some information about the reconstruction, and how they arrive at the
final impact leg...because as you say, it doesn't appear to support the
limits of a commerical jet.


And yet the plane DID hit the light poles and the plane did hit the building, and it DID do the damage in the Pentagon. I bet that really bothers you doesn't it? Please share with us the crackpot POV.

[Turbofan]

And yet the plane DID hit the light poles and the plane did hit the building, and it DID do the damage in the Pentagon. I bet that really bothers you doesn't it? Please share with us the crackpot POV.

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim :rolleyes:

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

[JimBenArm]

Let's see.
My government is so cleverly evil that they can pull off the flyover of the Pentagon with another plane, plane fake debris and body parts unnoticed, make people think they saw a non-existent plane, yet is so stupid they can't fake an FDR and an animation to show this?

Yeah, and we're in denial.

It's amazing to me you can't see how STUPID this is!

Well, actually, it isn't. Not any more.

[16.5]

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim :rolleyes:

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

Hey, SP! You seem to also be a HUGE CIT fan. Good on ya, mate! Anyhow:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site.

Prove that a plane can do what the CIT says it did. We've only been asking for, what, a year?"

Thank god you are here, I expect that you will be able to assist the CIT by fixing the third most glaring problem with their Theory!

Thanks in advance.

[UNLoVedRebel]

relevance to the pentagon?

none.

thanks for wasting peoples time.

So AA77 isn't relevant to the pentagon? I know you feel compelled to get the last word, but please, think before posting something so stupid. This is the JREF, not a nufffrespect video.

[Pinch]

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Nope. Nothing fazes me, either.

Unless Captain Kirk pulls out his phaser and THEN I'd be "phased".

Accuracy is crucial to credibility. Using Mr. Big Word in an inapprporiate manner certainly doesn't help anything else you talk about here.

[beachnut]

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim :rolleyes:

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

“animation” is the key! Funny, you take a graphic to show Pentagon impact possibly produced in September 2001 as confirmation of your fantasy terrorist apologist lie. You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the dumbest idea on 9/11, besides nut case beam weapons. Farmer obtained this latest animation to tease you and your CIT/p4t terrorist apologist. It is funny, Farmer even warns it is a tease because he has found more evidence to present in his quest to close what he sees as loose ends.

You now want an animation, but you fail to see there is no RADAR data, or FDR data for the last 4 to 8 seconds.

The biggest red flag! You don’t know the path in the animation is impossible based on 77’s final speed. This is proof you have no clue on flight dynamics or physics. Good job being a terrorist apologist saying Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, disrespectful of the terrible end for those souls on board, and in the Pentagon killed by the people, the terrorist you apologize for due to your lack of evidence and knowledge on 9/11 and all topics needed for understanding. Good job.

[Bobert]

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?
.

No 'loyalist" here.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh yes, there is lots of evidence supporting this claim :rolleyes:

NTSB and FAA don't even agree with you. Your government can't
even produce an animation that supports your theory.

THIS belongs in the joke section.

Yes the NTSB and FAA DO agree with me. You're just trying to pretend that animations are the official declarations of what happened according to the NTSB and FAA.

Please, show us a document with the FAA and NTSB claiming that the plane was not responsible for hitting the light poles. Go right ahead there cowboy. Kinda funny coming form someone who only goes by animations.

[Turbofan]

“animation” is the key! Funny, you take a graphic to show Pentagon impact possibly produced in September 2001 as confirmation of your fantasy terrorist apologist lie. You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the dumbest idea on 9/11, besides nut case beam weapons. Farmer obtained this latest animation to tease you and your CIT/p4t terrorist apologist. It is funny, Farmer even warns it is a tease because he has found more evidence to present in his quest to close what he sees as loose ends.

You now want an animation, but you fail to see there is no RADAR data, or FDR data for the last 4 to 8 seconds.

The biggest red flag! You don’t know the path in the animation is impossible based on 77’s final speed. This is proof you have no clue on flight dynamics or physics. Good job being a terrorist apologist saying Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, disrespectful of the terrible end for those souls on board, and in the Pentagon killed by the people, the terrorist you apologize for due to your lack of evidence and knowledge on 9/11 and all topics needed for understanding. Good job.

Animations are based on flight data. Too bad you can't grasp that concept.

None of the government supplied animations agree with the OCT. None of them
show an aircraft hitting light poles.

Good job.

[beachnut]

Hey Beachnut, did you see the new PFT video which corrects Mackey's 4.0G error and incorrect math? Sorry, p4t have messed up again. Darn, just when you thought someone might go get a PhD in something to help them break the biggest story, but still are math challenged at 11.2 Gs after 7 years. If Balsamo did not waste time worrying about how to be a better terrorist apologist, he could have had a PhD in math; then he could fix his errors.

Funny how the NTSB, and PFT support a north approach...now this strange "FAA" video that suddenly surfaces. Hmmm....
FDR and RADAR show a direct impact through the lamppost to the Pentagon on a true track of 61.2 degrees. Why are you unable to read the FDR and RADAR data?

So let's say this FAA animation is accurate and authentic. Why are you unable to do physics? Get help, the G force alone proves the flight path impossible. Why do symbolic animations have you making up lies?

THat makes PFT, NTSB and FAA a pretty tight analysis wouldn't you say? No it makes your failed ideas proof you have no clue on flight dynamics. You need to present more EPROM diagrams so I can laugh at your lack of focus. Are you working hard at messing up this stuff?

Neither analysis shows AA77 hitting the light poles! Uh oh! That is due to the fact, there is no data to build the "FAA" animation with any resolution, and the NTSB shows the end of data, and an image on a working copy presenting the data from 77. Why do you fail to grasp reality; you failed to understand the image in the NTSB animation is not orientated to anything? Stop being a terrorist apologist and stop repeating the lie, 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The FAA shows a different bank angle than the damage observed at the Pentacon. Yes, the witnesses all saw no major bank angle. And the witnesses all saw high speed. We have RADAR showing high speed. We have the FDR showing high speed. Low bank, high speed, the turn on the FAA impossible like your ideas, and the turns on the NTSB animation are exactly what 77 did. Too bad you can't understand, working copy. With some physics you would see the animation is just symbolic of 77 hitting the Pentagon. Need some help on this one.

Oh noes! Yep, you fail to understand the animations and what they were for.

What the heck is going on? I mean that sincerely. Why does the FAA have yet another version of the impact? How does this approach make any sense with the entrance and exit hole? Another version; it was made in 2001! It is an animation showing a plane hitting the Pentagon. Gee, a plane did hit the Pentagon. But we know the plane was tracking 61.2 degrees true; the heading was 70 magnetic, you get the difference due to variation and drift (as in wind). All the data checks, only p4t, you, and CIT are unable to connect the dots. I like how you take symbolism and try to warp reality. You are not even as rational as the kids I teach in 1st grade, when you keep insisting Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

I hope to god (or what ever is up there) that this animation is authentic. Why do terrorist apologist, those who deny the terrorist did 9/11, as in your case you say Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, hope their failed opinions will be supported by things they fail to understand?

[beachnut]

Hey Beachnut, did you see the new PFT video which corrects Mackey's 4.0G error and incorrect math? Sorry, p4t have messed up again. Darn, just when you thought someone might go get a PhD in something to help them break the biggest story, but still are math challenged at 11.2 Gs after 7 years. If Balsoma did not waste time worring about how to be a better terrorist apologist he could have had a PhD in math by now.

Funny how the NTSB, and PFT support a north approach...now this strange "FAA" video that suddenly surfaces. Hmmm....
Funny, the FDR and RADAR show a direct impact through the lamppost to the Pentagon on a true track of 61.2 degrees. Why are you unable to read the FDR and RADAR data?

So let's say this FAA animation is accurate and authentic. Why are you unable to do physics? Get help, the G force alone proves the flight path impossible. Why do sybolic animations have you making up lies?

THat makes PFT, NTSB and FAA a pretty tight analysis wouldn't you say? No it makes your failed ideas proof you have no clue on flight dynamics. You need to present more EPROM diagrams so I can laugh at your lack of focus.

Neither analysis shows AA77 hitting the light poles! Uh oh! That is due to the fact, there is no data to build the "FAA" animation with any resolution, and the NTSB shows the end of data, and an image on a working copy presenting the data from 77. Sorry, you fail to grasp reality, you failed to understand the image in the NTSB animation is not orientated to anything. You lost again, try reading and understanding instead of acting like being a terrorist apologist means all you have to is say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The FAA shows a different bank angle than the damage observed at the Pentacon. Yes, the witnesses all saw no major bank angle. And the witnesses all saw high speed. We have RADAR showing high speed. We have the FDR showing high speed. Low bank, high speed, the turn on the FAA imposssible like your ideas, and the turns on the NTSB animation are exactly what 77 did. Too bad you can't understand, working copy.

Oh noes! Yep, you fail to understand the animations and what they were for.

What the heck is going on? I mean that sincerely. Why does the FAA have yet another version of the impact? How does this approach make any sense with the entrance and exit hole? Another version; it was made in 2001! It is an animation showing a plane hitting the Pentagon. Gee, a plane did hit the Pentagon. But we know the plane was tracking 61.2 degrees true; the heading was 70 magnetic, you get the difference due to variation and drift (as in wind). All the data checks, only p4t, you, and CIT are unable to connect the dots. I like how you take smbolism and try to warp reality. You are not even as rational as the kids I teach in 1st grade, when you keep insisting Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The NTSB animation and the FAA animations expect the audience to understand what the animations are good for. There is no doubt p4t, CIT, and you do not understand.
NTSB animation is used to study flight dynamic, giving the viewer a picture of what the plane was doing. Not anything to do with ground interactions. The proof of this is the data in the FDR can only show Fight 77’s position within 2000 feet, any direction. Thus the p4t, CIT, and your inability to understand a simple point are noted. Does the perfect alignment of the takeoff mystify p4t, CIT, and you? Next time use the data from the FDR and see the NTSB had to move the image under the animation! You really need help, but refuse to use it.

The “FAA” animation shows an aircraft impacting the Pentagon. This is all it was used for. You can check RADAR data and FDR data to see the path is symbolic of one thing; Fight 77 impacting the Pentagon. This you do not understand due to ignorance in many areas related to skills needed to understand 9/11.

[Crazytimes]

I would like an explanation from the nuts. If no plane hit the light poles, how did they rip out of the ground ? How did no one notice them being ripped out of the ground by anything other than a plane ? What about the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane ? Liars ?

Again....try connecting the dots. Your theories make no sense.

Where is the plane ?
Where are the people on board ?

How crazy do you have to be to claim the government planted pieces of an airplane around the Pentagon ?

[Turbofan]

Hey Beachnut, you should get a copy of the latest presentation. The 11.2 g
has been updated.

The video also puts your calcs to shame, along with the single dimension
arithmetic used by Myriad.

I can't wait for you to see it. I'm placing bets on the excuses already.

[16.5]

Hey Beachnut, you should get a copy of the latest presentation. The 11.2 g
has been updated.

The video also puts your calcs to shame, along with the single dimension
arithmetic used by Myriad.

I can't wait for you to see it. I'm placing bets on the excuses already.

Uh, why don't you link to it?

[Drudgewire]

I can't wait for you to see it. I'm placing bets on the excuses already.


What are the odds on "it's wrong?" Cuz I want some action. :cool:

[Miragememories]

It's sad watching another thread reduced to a mock-a-thon

Anyway, "grow up, get over it, the animation is legit and y'all
know it."

It was animation produced by a professional flight simulator,
designed to read flight recorder data.

It's logical to assume the FAA performed their duty and validated the flight data fed to the simulator.

Producing simulator-animations is a simple procedure.

Professional simulators are designed to be as detailed and accurate
as possible, making them a useful tool in aircraft near miss and after crash investigations.

Based on the evidence presented, I think there is little reason to
question the authenticity of the simulation's creator.

MM

[Caustic Logic]

It may just be authentic! Wow! I don't know how to gaugue the likeliness of that. Let's just say probably legit.

Why does that mean it's accurate? Based on flight data? That's an impossible maneuver! What plane flew this path and recorded this data? What data do you think they used, MM? FDR, radar, what? Be honest now - does the logic of this mystery-mongering really go anywhere?

[gumboot]

It was animation produced by a professional flight simulator,
designed to read flight recorder data.

No it isn't. It was produced by STK which is a situational analysis software, in this case apparently analysing Radar function. Nothing to do with the FDR, and the NTSB's FDR-based animation has already been released.


It's logical to assume the FAA performed their duty and validated the flight data fed to the simulator.

The FAA appear to have had nothing to do with this animation. Given the USAF spokesperson's comments on Farmer's website, I would say at a guess that this radar analysis simulation was included in the radar data the USAF gave to the FAA.

[TC329]

Uh, no: TC said:

"p.s. i think this is about as authentic as the fdr, 5 frames, citgo video, rades data, etc.
just for the record. its a total fabrication. but then again i'm the one who's been telling you guys the government was fabricating this evidence for years. maybe now you'll come around and admit they just invent this ****......."

Anyhow, DODGE NOTED. Now, Dom:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site.
Prove that a plane can do what the CIT says it did. We've only been asking for, what, a year? C'mon Dom, step up to the plate, man. Do it, do it now."


i'm going to tell you one last time :

i just presented you that with this thread. now lets see how you duh-bunk it.

[beachnut]

i'm going to tell you one last time :

i just presented you that with this thread. now lets see how you duh-bunk it.

Still no flight path! Just impossible high g wings fall off lies.

Miller debunks your every thought on 93, the CIT witnesses prove 77 hit the Pentagon. When will you give up making up lies about 9/11?

The animation here is just used to show a plane hitting the Pentagon. It is correct a plane hit the pentagon, but the flight path is impossible like your flight paths, which you don't even have cause they are impossible each time you post them, then you retract them because they were made up by people who can't use physics to figure out anything.

Anything new?

[Jonnyclueless]

Animations are based on flight data. Too bad you can't grasp that concept.

None of the government supplied animations agree with the OCT. None of them
show an aircraft hitting light poles.

Good job.

So the animations are based on the flight data. That means that they perfectly agree with the data on the flight recorder? If you were to line up the FDR with the animations, the plane would match the flight data exactly? And this would be true for both animations despite them being different from each other?

In other words these 3 things are all in perfect exact agreement?

the first working animation
This new animation with the FAA logo
And the FDR data

And perhaps we could get a definition of OCT (not what words the letters stand for). Perhaps a link to this "OCT" so we can compare the differences.

[beachnut]

Yeah...only a kid in denial would continue to sweep all of the questionable
events under the "Pentalawn".

Nothing phases you loyalists huh?

Neither of the animations show the aircraft hitting light poles. All of them
support 'too high to hit poles' and a north approach.

None of the animations support the minimal damage, or damage path within
the Pentagon.

I'll have to dig into this FAA release a little more. I'd like to find out
some information about the reconstruction, and how they arrive at the
final impact leg...because as you say, it doesn't appear to support the
limits of a commerical jet.

Is nothing you make up, lacking in evidence, to produce lies from thin air, is too fantastic to and disrespectful to stop you from being an apologist for the terrorist?

Why do you lack the knowledge to see the flight path is wrong on the animation used to symbolize an aircraft impact at the Pentagon?

Is this another truther like thing...?

[TC329]

I would like an explanation from the nuts. If no plane hit the light poles, how did they rip out of the ground ?

at least 4 of them could have been done without being noticed in the middle of the night before.


How did no one notice them being ripped out of the ground by anything other than a plane ?

no one noticed them getting ripped out of the ground thats what you're missing. cit can't find one person to say they saw that and that list includes father mcgraw, mike walter, & joel sucherman.


What about the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane ? Liars ?

only the ones who claim to have actually watched it enter the building. most likely they're not lying though because they don't know what they are saying isn't true. so technically not liars.


Where is the plane ?


not in the pentagon on 9/11


Where are the people on board ?

so are you joining our demands for a new investigation into the attacks?

How crazy do you have to be to claim the government planted pieces of an airplane around the Pentagon ?

how crazy do you have to be to send thousands of people off to die for a cause you know you fabricated like saddam's ties to al qaeda and massive wmd arsenal?

[jaydeehess]

no.

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact.
.

They faked a crash , then faked evidence to indicate that the original operation was indeed faked, all in order to prove to the masses that it was not faked.

That's all I needed to get to in this thread to reaffirm that TC requires the services of a health professional.

[TC329]

Why does that mean it's accurate? Based on flight data? That's an impossible maneuver!

ok adam since you declared this maneuver is impossible within a relative short time after the release of this video please show us the math done on this video which proves this plane cannot do the manuever it is depicted doing in it or admit that you once again are lying.


What plane flew this path and recorded this data?

be careful, you sound like one of us!

[jaydeehess]

at least 4 of them could have been done without being noticed in the middle of the night before.

How did no one notice them on the ground between sunrise and impact?




no one noticed them getting ripped out of the ground thats what you're missing. cit can't find one person to say they saw that and that list includes father mcgraw, mike walter, & joel sucherman.

Lloyd saw one crash onto his car.


only the ones who claim to have actually watched it enter the building. most likely they're not lying though because they don't know what they are saying isn't true. so technically not liars.

How does one get fooled into thinking they saw it enter the building?



not in the pentagon on 9/11

He asked where it was, not where it wasn't.



so are you joining our demands for a new investigation into the attacks?

Only if you can show that the occupants were not those discovered in the Pentagon. It would help if you could venture a theory as to where they are now.

how crazy do you have to be to send thousands of people off to die for a cause you know you fabricated like saddam's ties to al qaeda and massive wmd arsenal?

What has that got to do with the question you were asked?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How did no one notice them on the ground between sunrise and impact?


Also, there are people paid to notice when lights along the highway apparently aren't working (or completely missing, for that matter). It only becomes more obvious at night.

[beachnut]

at least 4 of them could have been done without being noticed in the middle of the night before.




no one noticed them getting ripped out of the ground thats what you're missing. cit can't find one person to say they saw that and that list includes father mcgraw, mike walter, & joel sucherman.




only the ones who claim to have actually watched it enter the building. most likely they're not lying though because they don't know what they are saying isn't true. so technically not liars.





not in the pentagon on 9/11




so are you joining our demands for a new investigation into the attacks?



how crazy do you have to be to send thousands of people off to die for a cause you know you fabricated like saddam's ties to al qaeda and massive wmd arsenal?
Oh, you lie because bush lied. Cool, you and bush are liars! Wow. What next? I knew your bad analysis had a reason, it is pure politics. You are them! Just like bush! How did you do it?

CIT/p3t/your logic is lie, because they lied?

Do you understand why the animation is not a correct depiction of what Flight 77 really did?

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm sure they trucked in all the body and plane parts when none of the 1000s of people who were there looking at the destruction and mess were looking. I'm sure they had someone to yell "Look it's a superman" and point to the sky. Then they planted all the plane and bodies, which they had to get there between the time the flight took off and the impact er "explosions". Then of course I am sure all the ATCs would have to be in on it too, right Cheap Shot?

[Jonnyclueless]

But Beach, They are lying for "truth". There's apparently a difference I hear. Not to be confused with NWO government op lying.

[TheGrunion]

at least 4 of them could have been done without being noticed in the middle of the night before.

Its absolutely impossible to pull this off without the public at large (and VDOT) noticing. There's still a good amount of traffic on this road overnight. VDOT's Northern Virginia Smart Traffic Center has cameras running on this stretch of road. These cameras are monitored overnight. I believe they would have taken exception to someone destroying their poles.

The amount of people that would have realized something is wrong overnight pales in comparison to the amount that would have noticed the destroyed poles after the sunrise.

Do you have any idea how many vehicles drive on this road in the early AM? Do you have any idea how many joggers used (and still use) the sidewalk along this stretch of Route 27? Do you have any idea how many pedestrians use this sidewalk to access the Pentagon from the North Parking Lot every morning. Do you have any idea how many people access the the Pentagon South Parking Lot via Route 27 so that they can use the Pentagon Metro Station in the early morning? Are you going to hand wave these questions away?

How do they swap out the light poles? Do you know what equipment is needed? Do you know how many lanes of traffic they need to close to remove the light poles? Do you know how they would obtain the permits from VDOT in order to close down the lanes necessary to deal with the poles? Do you know how one verifies what lane closures were approved by VDOT for a given day? Are you going to hand wave these questions away?

Do you have the answers to any of my questions?

I've yet to see a truther put forth a remotely plausible scenario to support your quoted claim. Most realize that they don't have a clue about what they are talking about and don't even try.

Are you up to the challenge?

[gumboot]

No one seems to have registered my posts so I'll try again...

This video carries the logos of NORAD and a private company called AGI which makes simulation software called STK (Satellite Toolkit) designed to simulate real world interaction of varies assets. This particular example appears to be a radar simulation.

In other words this video has nothing to do with AA77s FDR or the FAA.

The USAF spokesperson explained in response to one of Farmer's FOIA requests that all the radar data the USAF had in relation to 9/11 traffic had been handed over to the FAA, and that Farmer should approach the FAA for such data. I am of the opinion that this animation is an analysis of Long Range Radar coverage during AA77s flight, initiated by NORAD in response to their inability to locate any aircraft on radar during 9/11. The animation appears to have been created using AGI's software which makes sense as DOD is one of their major customers.

The USAF appear to have handed this animation to the FAA along with all of their other radar data.

Thus when the FAA received the FOIA requesting asking for "all information relating to radar" the animation from NORAD was included.

Consider the following scenario:

A boy gives a girl a rough picture of her pet horse.

A truther comes to the boy and demands all information they have about the horse.

The boy explains that he gave his picture of the horse to the girl.

The truther approaches the girl and demands all information they have about the horse.

The girl gives the truther a bunch of stuff including ownership papers, medical records, some measurements of the horse (by the vet), and the boy's rough sketch of the horse.

The idiot truther gleefully picks out the rough sketch of the horse, declares it the girl's "official" picture of the horse, and ignores the photograph the girl gave us a year ago.

[TheLoneBedouin]

How did no one notice them on the ground between sunrise and impact?

Why would you notice an odd lightpole missing if it was daytime, when they wouldn't be used?



Lloyd saw one crash onto his car.
Lie. Lloyd claims he saw the heavy part of the light pole javelin through his windsheild- a physically impossible feat.



How does one get fooled into thinking they saw it enter the building?

Priming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)) from WTC attacks and subsequent media brainwashing.



He asked where it was, not where it wasn't.

Stupid question. That's what we're trying to find out.



Only if you can show that the occupants were not those discovered in the Pentagon. It would help if you could venture a theory as to where they are now.

"Occupants" were not discovered at the Pentagon. Body parts, on the other hand, were allegedly found, but the chain of custody is questionable.


What has that got to do with the question you were asked?
A loaded question doesn't deserve an answer.

[gumboot]

Why would you notice an odd lightpole missing if it was daytime, when they wouldn't be used?

Well the fact that it is lying across the middle of the road you're driving on might get your attention.


Lie. Lloyd claims he saw the heavy part of the light pole javelin through his windsheild- a physically impossible feat.

There is nothing remotely impossible about what Mr England described.


Priming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)) from WTC attacks and subsequent media brainwashing.

Because everyone cruising along in rush hour traffic that morning had seen UA175 crash live on TV 30 minutes earlier...:rolleyes:


"Occupants" were not discovered at the Pentagon. Body parts, on the other hand, were allegedly found, but the chain of custody is questionable.

The only people who question the chain of custody are moronic conspiracy theorists.

[Tweeter]

I would like an explanation from the nuts. If no plane hit the light poles, how did they rip out of the ground ? How did no one notice them being ripped out of the ground by anything other than a plane ? What about the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane ? Liars ?

Again....try connecting the dots. Your theories make no sense.

Where is the plane ?
Where are the people on board ?

How crazy do you have to be to claim the government planted pieces of an airplane around the Pentagon ?

Hundre3ds of witnesses and plane parts all over the lawn yet the first report was "there has been an explosion at the pentagon". What you people need to realize is most of the evidence of a plane being there has just recently surfaced. It took atleast 3 or more years to do any debunking at all. Look at most of the debunker join dates
2007. Everything was classified up until 3 years ago.

[AJM8125]

I would like an explanation from the nuts. If no plane hit the light poles, how did they rip out of the ground ? How did no one notice them being ripped out of the ground by anything other than a plane ? What about the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane ? Liars ?

Again....try connecting the dots. Your theories make no sense.

Where is the plane ?
Where are the people on board ?

How crazy do you have to be to claim the government planted pieces of an airplane around the Pentagon ?

This crazy. Any questions?

Hundre3ds of witnesses and plane parts all over the lawn yet the first report was "there has been an explosion at the pentagon". What you people need to realize is most of the evidence of a plane being there has just recently surfaced. It took atleast 3 or more years to do any debunking at all. Look at most of the debunker join dates
2007. Everything was classified up until 3 years ago.

[Jontg]

:what:
Is the woo implying what I think it's implying?

[TC329]

How did no one notice them on the ground between sunrise and impact?

well in the 3.5 hours of possible sunlight before the attack i don't imagine there were too many people driving around looking for lightpoles that were laying down out of sight anyways......


Lloyd saw one crash onto his car.

yeah thats all we have now is lloyd. none of the witnesses named in the media actually witnessed it and now we know the plane was on the NoC.


How does one get fooled into thinking they saw it enter the building?

how are illusions performed? point of view, perception, distraction......





He asked where it was, not where it wasn't.

well i can only say where it wasn't.


Only if you can show that the occupants were not those discovered in the Pentagon. It would help if you could venture a theory as to where they are now.

im sure they're dead.



What has that got to do with the question you were asked?


too tough to answer?

[beachnut]

Why would you notice an odd lightpole missing if it was daytime, when they wouldn't be used?


Lie. Lloyd claims he saw the heavy part of the light pole javelin through his windsheild- a physically impossible feat.


Priming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)) from WTC attacks and subsequent media brainwashing.


Stupid question. That's what we're trying to find out.


"Occupants" were not discovered at the Pentagon. Body parts, on the other hand, were allegedly found, but the chain of custody is questionable.

A loaded question doesn't deserve an answer.
Do you even try to figure out 9/11. The VDOT guys are just up the hill, they can walk to see the their lamppost are on the ground. Funny stuff, you need to read first and even then... This means no one planted broken lamppost, you are trying to apologize for the terrorist again.

Have you heard of Breakaway lamppost, they were invented to save your life? Guess not. So here, see what you fail to comprehend.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77CrashTestBreakaway.jpg


Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
So seeing 77 hit was what? You are not very good at being a terrorist apologist! Why?

You are the one who has the fantasy ideas on 9/11. Already a proven fact. List one of your ideas that is true. Right the list is zero.

The DNA is backed up by witnesses who were there to ensure timely notification of next of kin! Why do you disgrace the memory of the dead by making up fantasy ideas and being an apologist for terrorist?

You have nothing of value for 9/11; nothing... Talking about ..

well in the 3.5 hours of possible sunlight before the attack i don't imagine there were too many people driving around looking for lightpoles that were laying down out of sight anyways......
Ah, but the witnesses saw 77 knock them down! Funny how easy you are debunked as you post! Funny; Miller did it and you forgot to listen to your own interview. That is funny.

Yes, now TC says all those who disagree are liars

[TC329]

Well the fact that it is lying across the middle of the road you're driving on might get your attention.

challenge : show 1 light pole across a road that isn't near a cab.

[gumboot]

challenge : show 1 light pole across a road that isn't near a cab.

:dl:

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so now if a light pole is not in the middle of a street it goes unnoticed? The grounds keepers who were out there moving the lawn probably thought nothing of the matalic crunching sound and sparks as they ran over the light poles they didn't notice despite their huge size.

This over course overlooking the fact that they made this plan that had to be timed down to the very millisecond and to the inch, yet they also knocked down light poles in the wrong location.

And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously?

[Jonnyclueless]

Hundre3ds of witnesses and plane parts all over the lawn yet the first report was "there has been an explosion at the pentagon". What you people need to realize is most of the evidence of a plane being there has just recently surfaced. It took atleast 3 or more years to do any debunking at all. Look at most of the debunker join dates
2007. Everything was classified up until 3 years ago.

being as the first report was from someone inside the building and at the other end, that makes perfect sense. If the guy in the other side of the building had reported a plane crash, then you might have a red flag. But an explosion is exactly what someone inside the building and on the opposite side would hear, do you not agree?

Or perhaps you could tell us what a plane hitting the other side of a building would sound like to a person in his location. Should it have sounded more like a balloon with the air rushing out?

[TC329]

:dl:

thats a stupid little dog.

try again gumboot.

[PhantomWolf]

being as the first report was from someone inside the building and at the other end, that makes perfect sense. If the guy in the other side of the building had reported a plane crash, then you might have a red flag. But an explosion is exactly what someone inside the building and on the opposite side would hear, do you not agree?

Or perhaps you could tell us what a plane hitting the other side of a building would sound like to a person in his location. Should it have sounded more like a balloon with the air rushing out?

I think with all likelihood the first person to report it was a reporter for MSNBC who was stationed at the Pentagon and was on live at the time. He said something along the lines of "I don't want to alarm anyone but there has been what sounded like a huge explosion here. The whole building shook but I don't know what is going on."

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, that was the first report. But as always the crackpots try to imply an explosion is a bomb for those stupid enough to think that bombs are the only possible causes of explosions.

[Travis]

Hundre3ds of witnesses and plane parts all over the lawn yet the first report was "there has been an explosion at the pentagon". What you people need to realize is most of the evidence of a plane being there has just recently surfaced. It took atleast 3 or more years to do any debunking at all. Look at most of the debunker join dates
2007. Everything was classified up until 3 years ago.

The very first responders not only noted the smell of jet fuel but saw unmistakable plane parts, like landing gear, mere minutes after the explosion when thousands of Pentagon workers were still scrambling about. Unless these part planters were invisible, and as fast as a superhero, there is no way it could be done.

There are many anecdotes in the book Firefight all about this.

[PhantomWolf]

The very first responders not only noted the smell of jet fuel but saw unmistakable plane parts, like landing gear, mere minutes after the explosion when thousands of Pentagon workers were still scrambling about. Unless these part planters were invisible, and as fast as a superhero, there is no way it could be done.

There are many anecdotes in the book Firefight all about this.

Many of the survivors were covered in Jet fuel, some were even treated for jet fuel inhalation. It was quite interesting watching Attack on the Pentagon the other night and watching firefighter after firefighter, and even a number of the Pentagon staff describing having to pull away and climb over aircraft parts.

[Travis]

Many of the survivors were covered in Jet fuel, some were even treated for jet fuel inhalation. It was quite interesting watching Attack on the Pentagon the other night and watching firefighter after firefighter, and even a number of the Pentagon staff describing having to pull away and climb over aircraft parts.

Yep, I guess they were all in on it.

[Caustic Logic]

The grounds keepers who were out there moving the lawn

So they planted the poles AND moved the lawn? You wacky JREFfers...

ok adam since you declared this maneuver is impossible within a relative short time after the release of this video please show us the math done on this video which proves this plane cannot do the manuever it is depicted doing in it or admit that you once again are lying.

You're right, I lied, just like I always do. I did not do the math on it and AFAIK no one else has yet either. Therefore it's totally a possible path, quite ordinary, and probably real, except this animation is also bogus, and dubious and true and whatever you said. You totally win, what a day for the Terrier!

[PhantomWolf]

So they planted the poles AND moved the lawn? You wacky JREFfers...

Well of course they had to move it, I mean they couldn't have it getting messed up when the plane hit it could they....

[TC329]

You're right,

i know

I lied,

i know

just like I always do.

i know

I did not do the math on it

i know

and AFAIK no one else has yet either.

i know

Therefore it's totally a possible path,

i know

quite ordinary,

i know

and probably real,

i know

except this animation is also bogus,

who is the source?

and dubious

why?

and true

right?

and whatever you said.

i said it shows a noc flightpath and contradicts the official account. do you disagree?

You totally win,

i know

what a day for the Terrier!

really? childish insult?

i could go there....or i could just laugh to myself to insure my account don't get banned since i got a warning about a post i made over 6 months ago yesterday.......

[gumboot]

Well of course they had to move it, I mean they couldn't have it getting messed up when the plane hit it could they....


Hey quit it with that mocking tone! :mad: Do you have any idea how much a good lawn costs these days!?!:D

[TC329]

no one claims anyone 'moved the lawn' except johnnyclueless who is notorious for inventing claims and attributing them to legitimate claims.

got that pic of a light pole yet?

[dtugg]

I don't even get what they are trying to prove. Even if the flight paths were off a little bit, somehow flight 77 didn't fly into the Pentagon? Even though a bunch of people saw it, including a pilot who described it as an American Airlines 757 to CNN that day? Even though remains found at the site were positively IDd to people know to be aboard? Even though wreckage found was consistent with an American Airlines 757? Even though the FDR was recovered? Please.

And you wonder why people think you are crazy.

[TC329]

I don't even get what they are trying to prove. Even if the flight paths were off a little bit, somehow flight 77 didn't fly into the Pentagon?


correct.

the only way the damage could be caused by flight 77 would be for it to be on the south of the citgo and never ever over the navy annex.

[dtugg]

So everybody that says they saw it happen are NWO shills?

[beachnut]

...
the only way the damage could be caused by flight 77 would be for it to be on the south of the citgo and never ever over the navy annex.
Where it was seen. CIT's own witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

Look up Boger, Sean. He watched 77 hit the Pentagon. You are self debunking.

Got a single possible NoC path yet?

[celestrin]

IMO, this video once again shows that PffT and CIT, or at least their treefort staff, can't think for themselves, unless you serve it to them in video format. And when you do, it's so easy to manipulate them, as they will gobble up anything that even remotely supports their cosy fantasies. Still, contrary to their truth themesong, they will NOT seek the actual truth about the presentation, but go straight to internet forums to pwn people, arrogantly thinking that it actually supports their fantasies.

TC and Turbo, RADES data has been available for months and it shows the exact same North of Cthulhu poperties as this animation. Why didn't you complain then? Uhm, strike that - why didn't you declare pwnership then? A member of such expert research teams surely knows that the last radar return in RADES data puts the plane north of Navy Annex and north of the gas station. This yellow brownish line shows the last two RADES returns associated with AAL77 (as per original data by John Farmer's FOIA requests). Looks familiar?
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3826/rades01lc4.th.jpg (http://img67.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rades01lc4.jpg)

Why is it such a wonder that an animation, which most likely uses the same data, would also show the plane further north? The "squarish" appearance of the turn manuever also suggests that the data, which was used in the animation, wasn't continous. RADES data itself was only collected every 12 seconds (IIRC - it has been a while). That's still too fine for the animation, but what if one takes the RADES data 1 minute apart? Here's what one gets, if one takes every fifth radar return. The squarish white line shows the result. (The yellow/green stuff if AAL77's flight path from the FDR, the smaller, more zig-zaggy line is one of the flight paths from the RADES data.)
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2614/radeswl8.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=radeswl8.jpg)

That doesn't align rigth, except for the final trajectory. But, what if the software allows arbitrary input of turning points? Something like this?
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8493/rades02lp2.th.jpg (http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rades02lp2.jpg)

In any case, the straight final approach towards the Navy Annex suggests, that no other radar return was used during the last stage of animation. As such, the animated plane passes just to the east of the Bailey's Crossing highrise complex and flies towards the last RADES return point, which just happens to be north of the gas station. And now we have treefort minions pwning us with their well researched truth. Oh noes, what shall we do now?

Hint: TC, the radius of the last turn in the animation is about 1km. That's about a 45° bank at 200KTS. That's about 75° bank at 400KTS. The animation plane eventually crashes into the Pantagon, so it doesn't have to exceed stall speed, while your flyover fantasy plane has to. You have your partially infallible witnesses speaking of high speed planes, but where are your 70° bank witnesses?

BTW, TC, what happened with the El Kournayti and Reyes part of the CIT flight path? Even this animation doesn't support it. What gives? Did the FAA/NORAD get it wrong or did your bosses?

[Caustic Logic]

Da! Celestrin, you may have it! Roughly plotted radar points fused with improvised maneuvers. There IS that data point north, as well as one well to the south, in the 84 Rades data. I understand these are both aberrant points - non-returned request pings or something? Perhaps the last actual data point, before it dropped below, was simply fused to the NoC question mark with that swerve.

If so, sloppy job, IMO. :thumbs down:

Not that it matters except to people it provokes a spooky deja vu in... at the end of the day it's just a cartoon after all.

[peteweaver]

TC, can I just suggest something, get MS Flight simulator, practice at it, then try flying the same route that the hijackers took. I think you'll find its quite possible.

MS Flight sim is approved by cessna boeing learjet etc.
Though I've been told by a licenced pilot, its not as easy as flying a real airliner.

[TC329]

So everybody that says they saw it happen are NWO shills?

no.

[twinstead]

Of course they weren't shills. They were simply fooled by some mystical NWO slight-of-hand.

By the way, being able to cavalierly hand wave away any witness who contradicts ones theory by saying they were simply fooled into thinking they saw what they say they saw is BRILLIANT! Not only does one get to totally ignore them, but one doesn't get the unpleasant "so, do you think THEY are in on it?" questions.

Just add water, instant debate winner!

[DC]

TC, can I just suggest something, get MS Flight simulator, practice at it, then try flying the same route that the hijackers took. I think you'll find its quite possible.

MS Flight sim is approved by cessna boeing learjet etc.
Though I've been told by a licenced pilot, its not as easy as flying a real airliner.

dont forget to set the game to hard/simulation, not the arcade mode what is standard.......

[TheGrunion]

Its absolutely impossible to pull this off without the public at large (and VDOT) noticing. There's still a good amount of traffic on this road overnight. VDOT's Northern Virginia Smart Traffic Center has cameras running on this stretch of road. These cameras are monitored overnight. I believe they would have taken exception to someone destroying their poles.

The amount of people that would have realized something is wrong overnight pales in comparison to the amount that would have noticed the destroyed poles after the sunrise.

Do you have any idea how many vehicles drive on this road in the early AM? Do you have any idea how many joggers used (and still use) the sidewalk along this stretch of Route 27? Do you have any idea how many pedestrians use this sidewalk to access the Pentagon from the North Parking Lot every morning. Do you have any idea how many people access the the Pentagon South Parking Lot via Route 27 so that they can use the Pentagon Metro Station in the early morning? Are you going to hand wave these questions away?

How do they swap out the light poles? Do you know what equipment is needed? Do you know how many lanes of traffic they need to close to remove the light poles? Do you know how they would obtain the permits from VDOT in order to close down the lanes necessary to deal with the poles? Do you know how one verifies what lane closures were approved by VDOT for a given day? Are you going to hand wave these questions away?

Do you have the answers to any of my questions?

I've yet to see a truther put forth a remotely plausible scenario to support your quoted claim. Most realize that they don't have a clue about what they are talking about and don't even try.

Are you up to the challenge?

TC329, did you miss this post? I'm surprised that you failed to respond to it. I can't believe that a classy guy like yourself would make a statement like

at least 4 of them could have been done without being noticed in the middle of the night before.

and not be prepared to defend it.

[Crazytimes]

at least 4 of them could have been done without being noticed in the middle of the night before.




no one noticed them getting ripped out of the ground thats what you're missing. cit can't find one person to say they saw that and that list includes father mcgraw, mike walter, & joel sucherman.




only the ones who claim to have actually watched it enter the building. most likely they're not lying though because they don't know what they are saying isn't true. so technically not liars.





not in the pentagon on 9/11




so are you joining our demands for a new investigation into the attacks?



how crazy do you have to be to send thousands of people off to die for a cause you know you fabricated like saddam's ties to al qaeda and massive wmd arsenal?

Good job dodging and avoiding actually answering my questions. Also, good job making up BS about the light poles. You mean to tell me people drove down that road and missed seeing it ?

I can't post pictures yet but I am sure someone can post the huge light pole that was in the street.

[bje]

no one claims anyone 'moved the lawn' except johnnyclueless who is notorious for inventing claims and attributing them to legitimate claims.

got that pic of a light pole yet?

TC, got those eyewitnesses to a flyover yet? What's taking you all so long?

[Crazytimes]

The very first responders not only noted the smell of jet fuel but saw unmistakable plane parts, like landing gear, mere minutes after the explosion when thousands of Pentagon workers were still scrambling about. Unless these part planters were invisible, and as fast as a superhero, there is no way it could be done.

There are many anecdotes in the book Firefight all about this.

They were planted there. You want proof....ohh, I don't have any.

Signed - Crazy

[Mr.Herbert]

no one claims anyone 'moved the lawn' except johnnyclueless who is notorious for inventing claims and attributing them to legitimate claims.

got that pic of a light pole yet?

I can't see a cab in this picture. (shucks it's not in the road)


http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/pent12.jpg

[Crazytimes]

Last post so I can post pictures....

[Crazytimes]

Fake ?

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image035.jpg

Fake ?

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image036.jpg

Fake ?

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pole1a.jpg

Fake ? Oh....damn cab

http://donsplace.us/pentagate/pole1-2.jpg

[twinstead]

It appears the NWO late-night evidence planting team was pretty busy the night of the 10th ;)

[DC]

has anyone a link to Englands interview on 9/11?
the one he told the media, that he and someone removed the lightpole from his car, and AFTER that they saw the impact?

[Bobert]

since i got a warning about a post i made over 6 months ago yesterday.......
:D

[Bobert]

correct.

the only way the damage could be caused by flight 77 would be for it to be on the south of the citgo and never ever over the navy annex.

Well you have added the "never ever" clause.
I think I was 10 the last time I ever told someone, "never ever".
You win!
9-11 was an inside job!

[Turbofan]

Have you heard of Breakaway lamppost, they were invented to save your life? Guess not. So here, see what you fail to comprehend. [/FONT][/COLOR]


Nice analogy. LMAO!

I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them
at 500 MPH 40 feet up? :rolleyes:

Too bad nothing supports the OGCT flight path. AA77 didn't hit the poles.
Nothing in the data shows impacts of light poles either. Yawwwwn...

Why must you keep repeating the same lies to get attention? We've covered
this in a few threads already.

[Crazytimes]

Nice analogy. LMAO!

I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them
at 500 MPH 40 feet up? :rolleyes:

Too bad nothing supports the OGCT flight path. AA77 didn't hit the poles.
Nothing in the data shows impacts of light poles either. Yawwwwn...

Why must you keep repeating the same lies to get attention? We've covered
this in a few threads already.

Then what hit the poles ? How did they end up broken and on the ground ?

[TheGrunion]

Nice analogy. LMAO!

I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them
at 500 MPH 40 feet up? :rolleyes:

No, they are designed to break when a compact car hits them at 30 MPH (or less) just above the base.

If you had the slightest understanding of physics, you would understand that the forces (vector and moment) that the plane exerts on the breakaway section of the pole are massively greater than the design forces which would cause the pole to fail (breakaway).

[Calcas]

Then what hit the poles ? How did they end up broken and on the ground ?

I believe the loony bin explanation is that they were cut down the night before and planted. Since it was done by the MIB, of course there were no witnesses nor did anyone see them laying around that morning. Go figure!

[16.5]

i'm going to tell you one last time :

i just presented you that with this thread. now lets see how you duh-bunk it.

Hi, thanks for telling me "one last time," Dom.

Anyway, here is your task:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

I bolded something, just for you. I think it is important, wouldn't you agree?

Ah, but you claim that you "presented that" in this thread. That is a curious claim, Dom, one I did not expect you to make. You see, you may have forgotten your OP, which states:

"Strangely, they show it hitting the building ...."

I however did not.

So Dom, I am simply going to have to insist on your answer:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

[Gamolon]

This is mind boggling. I can see why PFT won't divulge a theory as to what they think actually happened and/or how the plan was carried out. It's because they can't. They come to the same realization that the conclusions drawn from their supposed evidence doesn't add up to any plausible outcome. Can someone from the truther side of things please explain how the secret meetings might have gone when planning this attack on the Pentagon?

Let's look, for example, at the actual flight path. PFT claims it was NOC. The official story says otherwise. How in the world did this screw up happen? How could the plane fly NOC and then they release FDR information that shows otherwise?

They would have to had created the fake FDR information ahead of time in order to plant the evidence right?. What a chance to take! I can hear the planning meeting now...

-Agent 1 finishes reading the top secret documents that Agent 2 just delivered and is ready to discuss them-

Agent 1: "Ok. So we want to simulate a plane crashing into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Yeah. That's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "The document uses the word "simulate". That's means that we AREN'T actually going to crash a plane into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Right. No plane."
Agent 1: "Well, what are we going to use?"
Agent 2: "A missile."
Agent 1: "A missile?"
Agent 2: "That's what I said."
Agent 1: "Ok. It also says that we want to do this in the morning. Are you aware that it's LIGHT outside in the morning?"
Agent 2: "Yeah? SO what. It's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "What if people see the missile?"
Agent 2: "That's what the diversion is for."
Agent 1: "What diversion?"
Agent 2: "We actually fly a plane towards the Pentagon."
Agent 1: "I thought the document said to simulate a plane crash?"
Agent 2: "Right. We won't fly the plane INTO the Pentagon, but over it."
Agent 1: "In the morning?"
Agent 2: "Yup."
Agent 1: "In broad daylight?"
Agent 2: "Yup."
Agent 1: "What if someone sees the flyover?"
Agent 2: "They won't."
Agent 1: "They won't? How so?"
Agent 2: "We'll have an explosion at the face of the Pentagon that will pull everyone's attention to it and make it look like the plane hit the Pentagon. They'll totally miss the flyover."
Agent 1: *rolls eyes* "Ok, whatever. So we're simulating a plane crash right? What about bodies and such?
Agent 2: *rubs hands together* "You'll love this! We actually fly the folks on the flight in question to a remote location and kill them. Then we burn them up and bring what's left BACK to the Pentagon lawn and sprinkle them all over."
Agent 1: "Sprinkle? When do we do this?"
Agent 2: "A few minutes after the explosion but BEFORE the fire fighters, police, and first responders get there."
Agent 1: "How long does that give us to sprinkle?"
Agent 2: "A few minutes. You gotta work fast."
Agent 1: "Ok, fine. What about the FDR information for the simulated plane that crashes into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "It's already been created and will be planted at the scene. Brilliant huh?"
Agent 1: "WHAT!? Are you kidding me!? How can be sure that the visible flight path will match what the plane actually does on the day of the attacks?"
Agent 2: "We can't. We'll just have to be close. Nobody will figure it out." *pulls out map* "Here's what we created in the fake recorder. We fly south of this Citgo station. We will also plant some light poles on the ground and claim the plane hit them on the way to the Pentagon."
Agent 1: "What.... WHY!?"
Agent 2: "To make the crash more believable."
Agent 1: "Ok... When do we plant those? We can't do it in the morning as it'll be rush hour. People will notice."
Agent 2: "Right. That's why we plant them the night before. In the dark."
Agent 1: "Wait. You plant LIGHT POLES at night so nobody will see, but you plan a flyover, a fake crash, the sprinkling of bodies, the planting of the FDR, AND a missile strike during the day!? What the...."
Agent 2: "SHOOSH! Don't question the boss please. Just do as you're told."
Agent 1: "Ummmm... Ok."
Agent 2: " During the confusion and since EVERYONE will be looking at the Pentagon in flames, we will move the light poles to their designated areas."
Agent 1: *sigh* "Why don't we just actually FLY a plane into the Pentagon?
Agent 2: "And ruin all the hard work and planning we've done? NEVER! You will follow the plan as designed. Got it?"
Agent 1: *sigh*

-The morning of the attacks, Agent 1 and 2 are heard talking over their headsets, right after the explosion-

Agent 1: "We have a BIG problem!!!!"
Agent 2: "What is it!?"
Agent 1: "The plane flew north of the Citgo!!! We're screwed!!! What do you want Agent 3 to do with the FDR we faked!?"
Agent 2: "Plant it anyways! Hurry!!"
Agent 1: "WHAT?!!?!?!"
Agent 2: "Do as you're told. NOW!!!"
Agent 1: "Ok. What about the light poles we staged the night before!?"
Agent 2: "Lay them out like we planned."
Agent 1: "But it doesn't match the flight path! Why don't we just leave them there and say that the DOT left them there from a previous project?"
Agent 2: "Nope, too late. Plant them as planned."
Agent 1: "Fine! What about Lloyd? We already smashed his windshield with a hammer!"
Agent 2: "Continue as planned. He will still use the story we rehearsed with him about the light pole spearing his windshield."
Agent 1: "Ok. You're the boss. I hope nobody notices the mistakes!"
Agent 2: " They won't. Nobody is THAT smart. Don't worry about it. Get going!"

*Agent 1 overhears the following from Agent 2's headset*

PFT: "Hi guys! What's going on here?
Agent 2: "Oh crap...."

So please. Explain to me why the government (or whomever you think did this) would release information that totally discredits their story? Why didn't they just fly an actual plane into the Pentagon and be done with it? No faked FDR, no illusion to distract onlookers from a flyover, no planted light poles, no planted bodies, no planted shills, no possibility of mismatched flight paths, and no need to fake FDR data.

How friggin' stupid.

[Jonnyclueless]

no one claims anyone 'moved the lawn' except johnnyclueless who is notorious for inventing claims and attributing them to legitimate claims.

got that pic of a light pole yet?

So now you're accusing the guys who were out there working of lying during their interviews? You know, the ones that were out on the lawn and had to run for cover so as not to get hit by the plane that they saw coming rigt at them?

Gosh, me being accused of making stuff up by the biggest liar in the 9/11 cult movement. How cute!

[Turbofan]

No, they are designed to break when a compact car hits them at 30 MPH (or less) just above the base.

If you had the slightest understanding of physics, you would understand that the forces (vector and moment) that the plane exerts on the breakaway section of the pole are massively greater than the design forces which would cause the pole to fail (breakaway).

If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.

A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.

Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case? :rolleyes:

See ya in skewl.

[Dave Rogers]

If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.

A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.

Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case? :rolleyes:

See ya in skewl.

Grunion, this isn't worth pursuing, because Turbofan's playing the usual truther game. He's implicitly claiming that something other should have happened than the light poles breaking off when the plane hit them, but refusing to make an explicit claim as to what should have happened. He's then going to point out that you don't have convincing proof that the light poles should have broken off, and suggest that this supports his vague assertion that they therefore shouldn't have broken off. It's a version of the fallacy of denying the antecedent, and it's a classic dishonest debating technique.

Turbofan, either state how the light poles should have behaved when hit by a plane, with evidence; admit that you don't know how they should have behaved, and that therefore you have no position here; or forget about having any credibility.

Dave

[Turbofan]

LMAO!

When you show me a picture of a plane hitting that particular light pole instead of a car,
then we'll talk...or maybe we wont. :rolleyes:

Keep up the great spinning and attempts to satisfy your dreams with cars
hitting light poles at 30 MPH!

[16.5]

LMAO!

or maybe we wont. :rolleyes:

Keep up the great spinning

Say PFT'er, with all your "incredully" (Hi Craig!!), maybe you missed my request:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

I made it big and bold for you and Cap'n Bob!

[TheGrunion]

If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.

A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.

Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case? :rolleyes:

See ya in skewl.

It is not flawed. Heck, its not even an analogy.

Do you know what a breakaway pole is? Do you know that its base is designed to fail when struck by a small car at moderate to slow speeds? Do you know that this is done because people stand a much better chance of surviving the impact without significant injuries if the pole gives away, rather than remains rigid?

Of course an impact to the top of the pole from a large plane at 500 MPH is much different than the impact of a small car at its base!

Why do you not understand basic physics? This is the really easy stuff, much easier than the flight path physics that you don't understand.

It should be easy for a bright guy like you to verify that the poles had breakaway bases and are designed to fail at the base (specifically, the bolts which anchor the base to the foundation fail). Do you agree that this is the case?

Do you know what a force is? Do you know how to calculate a force? Do you agree that the force of impact (Vectoral force) caused by the plane was much greater than the force of impact from a small car driving 30 MPH?

Do you know what a moment of force is? Do you know how to calculate it? Do you agree that the moment of force (torsional force) caused by the plane was much greater than the force of impact from a small car driving 30 MPH?

The base bolts are going to fail (shear) once they experience a force stronger than they can resist. They are specifically engineered to do so. We know they can't resist a slow moving small car. Why do you think that they will hold up to a fast moving large plane?

This isn't an analogy. It is applied physics at about the simplest level possible. If you can get this right you really shouldn't be wasting your time with flight paths.

[Jonnyclueless]

Turbo is right. a car at 30 mph is one thing, but to expect a huge jumbo jet flying at 500mph to knock down a light pole? Well that's just absurd. The plane obviously would have bounced off the pole and landed in the other direction. It's huge plane, not a car. Come on people, let's think this through next time. Thanks Turbo, I don't know how you manage to walk about with that huge brain.

[Bobert]

I believe the loony bin explanation is that they were cut down the night before and planted. Since it was done by the MIB, of course there were no witnesses nor did anyone see them laying around that morning. Go figure!

It is interesting to say the least that the CIT/PFT simply brush it off like
"sure it could have been done under the cover of night".
I don't know the traffic flow around the Pentagon BUT I would imagine that the Pentagon has plenty of people who are on site at the Pentagon around the clock.
The WHOLE AREA that those light poles covered must have been VERY WELL LIT!
There are plenty of windows on the Pentagon from which PEOPLE COULD SEE OUT!
Yet not one report of strange goings on?
NOT ONE PERSON reports seeing people with torches "cutting down" the light poles?
AND WE HAVENT EVEN addressed the cars on the freeway passing by!
I would think that SEVERAL LIGHT POLES ALL OVER THE GROUND might attract major attention!
On a daily basis motorists are used to seeing that area well lit and now all of a sudden that area is completely dark yet NOT A SINGLE person mentions this?
When I am driving down the freeway a single light pole that has fallen down gets my attention.
Most people ARE TRAINED when you learn to drive to KEEP YOUR EYES MOVING!
Also how long would it have taken to down all these poles?
A few hours minimum?
Once these are removed don't they have sensors that go off notifying personnel of this?
Is the VDOT now involved in covering up mass murder?
So very sad to what the CIT/PFT have done to Lloyd the cabbie.

[Bobert]

Turbo is right. a car at 30 mph is one thing, but to expect a huge jumbo jet flying at 500mph to knock down a light pole? Well that's just absurd. The plane obviously would have bounced off the pole and landed in the other direction. It's huge plane, not a car. Come on people, let's think this through next time. Thanks Turbo, I don't know how you manage to walk about with that huge brain.

Ya but This is the friggin Pentagon!
You don't think that they have specially developed light poles that break away when a car hits it but STOPS A PLANE DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS?
This is the US Military we are talking about!
If you don't see that they have advanced technology such as this then you are obviously a government loyalist!
;)

[Drs_Res]

A funny thing happened today.

I was driving home on the 5 freeway today, and I saw a light pole lying by the side of the freeway.

That was about 10:45 am local time.

I would find it hard to believe that no one on the highway near the pentagon would have noticed downed light poles. It's just so out of place, you can't help but notice it.

[Turbofan]

Say PFT'er, with all your "incredully" (Hi Craig!!), maybe you missed my request:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

I made it big and bold for you and Cap'n Bob!


Gee thanks for making it nice and big! If you want that info, go to PFT and
ask them via PM, or start a thread.

[Bobert]

A funny thing happened today.

I was driving home on the 5 freeway today, and I saw a light pole lying by the side of the freeway.

That was about 10:45 am local time.

I would find it hard to believe that no one on the highway near the pentagon would have noticed downed light poles. It's just so out of place, you can't help but notice it.

Socal is where I am at.
Hello from another 5 fwy commuter!
I think that most people would notice down light poles.
In the fantasy world of the PFT however....

[Bobert]

Gee thanks for making it nice and big! If you want that info, go to PFT and
ask them via PM, or start a thread.
Interesting that you cherry pick the items you will discuss.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ya but This is the friggin Pentagon!
You don't think that they have specially developed light poles that break away when a car hits it but STOPS A PLANE DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS?
This is the US Military we are talking about!
If you don't see that they have advanced technology such as this then you are obviously a government loyalist!
;)

Dear lord I forgot about the Hash-A-Boom light poles. I now retract my statement.

[Jonnyclueless]

But say, let's pretend that light poles were laid out the night before (Hey! stop laughing!). I'm trying to imagine the conversation that went on. "Come on guys, we have a multi-billlion dollar cover up that could expose the biggest criminal network in the history of man. Gosh I sure hope no one notices these light poles laying around in the morning and blows the whole caper. Everyone cross your fingers. If you're already crossing your fingers in hopes that no one happens to be watching or filming the fly-over, then use another set of fingers please".

[16.5]

Gee thanks for making it nice and big! If you want that info, go to PFT and
ask them via PM, or start a thread.

Uh, really? Why can't you post it here, where anyone who wants to read the answer can read it without registering?

Heck, you are here, carrying PFT’s and CIT’s water when it suits you, but when you get asked a simple question, you ask me to jump through hoops, go to some other member only forum that no one else can see, and tell me to ask there.

C’mon, Turbo, you can do better than that. Lets see that path and those calculations! Hell, you are a Pft’er, nobody would think any less of you if you went over there and asked, and came back with an answer.

The WORLD is waiting!

[X]

If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.

A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.

Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case? :rolleyes:

See ya in skewl.


Something much heavier than a car hit the lightpole at a far greater speed, and you want calculations to show that it will still break?
It also hit higher on the pole, crating a moment force as well as the shear forces a car would exert.

Very well.

Plane mass: 100 tonnes = 100,000 kg

Plane speed (conservative): 500 mph

Plane-pole impact height (approximate) = 45 feet

Pole height (representative): 55 feet source (http://www.transpo.com/pole-safe1.htm)

Pole mass (representative): 450 kg source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling ultimate tensile strength (representative): 221.5 kN source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling yielding strength (representative): 192 kN source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling ulimate restrained shear strength (representative): 24.5 kN source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling diameter (representative): 1 inche source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Conversions:
Plane-pole impact (y) = 13.72 m
Pole height (h) = 16.76 m
Plane speed (vp = 223.52 m/s
Coupling diameter (d) = 0.025 m


Since the plane impact high on the pole, the predominant force will be a moment.

For the pole to break, this moment force must cause more than 221.5 kN of force on the shear pins.

Note that there are typically 4 shear pins per pole. At most, the plane only needs to break 2 at a time.

These pins therefore provide a resistance force of 443 kN, at the base of the pole.

To break the pole, the plane must provide a certain minimum force at its impact point. Now things get fun.

I will assume the dimension ebtween the centre plane of the lightpole and the plane of the couplings is 0.10 m. Feel free to measure a local lightpole and re-do the work, if you wish.

This means the couplings provide a moment of 44.3 kN*m to resist breaking.

At a height of 13.72 m, the airplane need exert only 44.3/13.72 = 73 N of force to break the any two pins.

The plane masses 100,000 kg.

The acceleration caused by this exertion on such a mass is a = F/m = 73/100,000 = 0.00073 m/s2.

Even if we double the moment by asusming all four pins must break simultaneosly, it still only requires a deceleration of 0.00146 m/s. Hardly noticible.

And at a speed of 223.5 m/s, the plane will only be impacting the lightpoles for a tiny fraction of a second.

The higher speed and higher mass of the plane result in far more force than a car an generate.
And cars have no problem taking out light standards.

I saw a minivan take one out, travelling at about 50 kph. It not only broke the couplings (as designed), but sent the pole flying 30 feet into the air.

[TC329]

Say PFT'er, with all your "incredully" (Hi Craig!!), maybe you missed my request:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

I made it big and bold for you and Cap'n Bob!


watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?

[applecorped]

watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?

Watch the video? That's all you got? :jaw-dropp

Please don't breed.

[chillzero]

Be more civil everyone, and stop with the big fonts, please.

[nicepants]

]watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?

So just a computer animation? No calculations to validate that the shown flight path was even possible?

ETA: I'm still waiting on the calculations to validate the "pull-up" maneuver shown in your first video. My calculations show that the maneuver in your video takes place at less than 1/2 of realtime speed, making the pull up quite violent, and beyond the realm of maneuvering capability of any aircraft (commercial or military) that I'm aware of.

[Jonnyclueless]

So if I presented a video that showed the plane come to a landing on the roof of the Pentagon, does that some how magically change the events of that day? Is this how reality works?

[beachnut]

watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?
No TC, you can't shout your failed terrorist apologist ideas into reality. Your lies don't work. But in this case you are defending an animation hitting the Pentagon. Ironic, since you support the "77 did not hit delusion".

Are you able to stop and realize you now debunk yourself by supporting an animation you have no clue where the data points come from. Farmer is calling you a moron for falling for the bait he released to expose your failed ideas. Now failed logic.


TC now supports a plane hitting the Pentagon, he is using this video as proof. What a flip flop.

[16.5]

watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?

Dom, please don't get yourself suspended! I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough, you and I.

Yes, I see a video that shows the plane coming over the Navy annex, and I see it go "onto the noc" and I see it hit the Pentagon. I see all of those things!!

Now I am asking (please, please please!) you to show us the flight path, and the calculations that include the CIT's arrest of the descent and the plane pulling up and over the Pentagon!

Use the animation if you want, just show us where the animation stops being accurate, and tell me how the plane did the up and over the Pentagon move!

Your Op says: "Strangely, they show it hitting the building still." So, please show us when the animation got "strange."

[UNLoVedRebel]

Not a NoC/SoC question, but who found the black boxes? Was is Kilsheimer at the C Ring, or Burkhammer at the E Ring? Was it Burkhammer who found them, but Kilsheimer found a big chunk of one? PM and ASCE says it was Kilsheimer, other sources say Burkhammer. Anyone with the answer, let me know.

[Dave Rogers]

Turbofan, either state how the light poles should have behaved when hit by a plane, with evidence; admit that you don't know how they should have behaved, and that therefore you have no position here; or forget about having any credibility.

Dave

LMAO!

When you show me a picture of a plane hitting that particular light pole instead of a car,
then we'll talk...or maybe we wont. :rolleyes:

Keep up the great spinning and attempts to satisfy your dreams with cars
hitting light poles at 30 MPH!

That would be option 3, then. Are you trying to suggest that the light poles were knocked down by cars?

Dave

[Pinch]

This is mind boggling.... I can hear the planning meeting now...

-Agent 1 finishes reading the top secret documents that Agent 2 just delivered and is ready to discuss them-

Agent 1: "Ok. So we want to simulate a plane crashing into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Yeah. That's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "The document uses the word "simulate". That's means that we...

THIS was priceless! Beautiful!

[DC]

terrorist apologist .....

hey you warcriminal apologist.

[Grizzly Bear]

That would be option 3, then. Are you trying to suggest that the light poles were knocked down by cars?

Dave

I'm waiting for one of them to start claiming that the poles were "pre-damaged" and planted in real-time. ;)

[Turbofan]

I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.

[Evilgiraffe]

Does the FDR data somehow make all of the actual physical evidence irrelevant?

Seriously, why are you arguing about FDR anomalies when the overwhelming evidence shows that AA77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon?

[16.5]

I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.

Huh, I know what it is like to wait, Turbofan. I've been waiting for several days for you and TC and the other Truthers to stop dodging my request:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

Hey, you said that you talk to Cap'n Bob, the IP Hunter, all the time. Go ahead and ask him and come back with his answer.

Or are you just a one-way lackey?

Eta: I just clicked on the link in Turbo's sig. He didn't post the whole thread, of course. I noticed that way back in May I was asking for PFFT's/CIT's flight path and calculations. WAAITING IS THE HAAAARRDDEST PART! C'mon, make with the math.

[Turbofan]

Huh, I know what it is like to wait, Turbofan. I've been waiting for several days for you and TC and the other Truthers to stop dodging my request:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

Hey, you said that you talk to Cap'n Bob, the IP Hunter, all the time. Go ahead and ask him and come back with his answer.

Or are you just a one-way lackey?

Eta: I just clicked on the link in Turbo's sig. He didn't post the whole thread, of course. I noticed that way back in May I was asking for PFFT's/CIT's flight path and calculations. WAAITING IS THE HAAAARRDDEST PART! C'mon, make with the math.


News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it. It explains all you need
to know.

EvilG: Your opinion says the evidence is sufficient. My witnesses, photos
and FDR data say otherwise. Have a nice day.

[Turbofan]

;4043351']Something much heavier than a car hit the lightpole at a far greater speed, and you want calculations to show that it will still break?
It also hit higher on the pole, crating a moment force as well as the shear forces a car would exert.

Very well.

Plane mass: 100 tonnes = 100,000 kg

Plane speed (conservative): 500 mph

Plane-pole impact height (approximate) = 45 feet

Pole height (representative): 55 feet source (http://www.transpo.com/pole-safe1.htm)

Pole mass (representative): 450 kg source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling ultimate tensile strength (representative): 221.5 kN source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling yielding strength (representative): 192 kN source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling ulimate restrained shear strength (representative): 24.5 kN source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Pole coupling diameter (representative): 1 inche source (http://www.transpo.com/4100.htm)

Conversions:
Plane-pole impact (y) = 13.72 m
Pole height (h) = 16.76 m
Plane speed (vp = 223.52 m/s
Coupling diameter (d) = 0.025 m


Since the plane impact high on the pole, the predominant force will be a moment.

For the pole to break, this moment force must cause more than 221.5 kN of force on the shear pins.

Note that there are typically 4 shear pins per pole. At most, the plane only needs to break 2 at a time.

These pins therefore provide a resistance force of 443 kN, at the base of the pole.

To break the pole, the plane must provide a certain minimum force at its impact point. Now things get fun.

I will assume the dimension ebtween the centre plane of the lightpole and the plane of the couplings is 0.10 m. Feel free to measure a local lightpole and re-do the work, if you wish.

This means the couplings provide a moment of 44.3 kN*m to resist breaking.

At a height of 13.72 m, the airplane need exert only 44.3/13.72 = 73 N of force to break the any two pins.

The plane masses 100,000 kg.

The acceleration caused by this exertion on such a mass is a = F/m = 73/100,000 = 0.00073 m/s2.

Even if we double the moment by asusming all four pins must break simultaneosly, it still only requires a deceleration of 0.00146 m/s. Hardly noticible.

And at a speed of 223.5 m/s, the plane will only be impacting the lightpoles for a tiny fraction of a second.

The higher speed and higher mass of the plane result in far more force than a car an generate.
And cars have no problem taking out light standards.

I saw a minivan take one out, travelling at about 50 kph. It not only broke the couplings (as designed), but sent the pole flying 30 feet into the air.


That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing
sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.

[Grizzly Bear]

That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing
sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.
So then... how were the light poles planted turbofan? You keep telling us that the damage is inconsistent and the proximity to the base is off. What did the conspirators do? Drive out in the middle of traffic and "plant" the light poles while the plane did a flyover? I guess you believe they must have planned this as they went? :jaw-dropp

[16.5]

News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it. It explains all you need
to know.

WOW! SPAM with side of Chicken, hey, TurboFan?

I did not ASK for a video, and I sure as hell am not going to BUY a freaking video, let alone one made by incompetents such as PFT/CIT.

Your task is simple: "give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

Don't dodge the question, don't tell me to go give my IP to Cap'n Bob, don't point me to a "video."

You are here, the question is plain, and you and Cap'n Bob and CIT and Dom have refused to answer it.

Stop dodging and provide the calculations.

ETA: The anonymous PFT 'experts', refuse to answer the growing list of physical impossibilities in their asinine theories. Proof positive in this very thread!

[Jonnyclueless]

I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.

What is the OGCT flight path? Where do we look it up to compare?

[Jonnyclueless]

News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it. It explains all you need
to know.

EvilG: Your opinion says the evidence is sufficient. My witnesses, photos
and FDR data say otherwise. Have a nice day.

Either you have the information or you don't. This is a discussion forum, not a banner ad for you to sell your cute little DVDs. But maybe you can let us know when you guys sell over 20 copies so we can throw a party.

BTW, are you referring to your witnesses who saw the plane hit the building? Got it.

[Jonnyclueless]

That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing
sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.

How about you provide your calculations to your claim that the wing slices through the poles.

I'd like to see you present this claim in court too, that would be pretty funny. So we have a plane that people saw fly into the pentagon, and even have footage of it striking the pentagon.But ou'd like to contest that with the claim that the plane should have just sliced the tops of the break-away light poles instead. I can see the laughter now.

[Gamolon]

I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.

Really? I've been waiting for one of you conspiracy theorists to provide me with logical reasoning as to why some of the claims you make pertaining to planted evidence were allowed to happen by the planners of these attacks. Why were so many things left to chance?

Let me get this straight.

The government plans one of the greatest crimes in history, which is to murder thousands of people in order to lead us into war. Included in this masterful and carefully laid out plan, knowing full well that if they are found out they will face dire consequences, they decide to fake FDR data BEFORE the actual flight takes place. In doing this, they are hoping beyond all hope, that the plane will match PERFECTLY the faked FDR data they have previously created. I mean, what do they have to worry about?

I'm not an expert with FDR data nor am I a pilot. Can someone list the items the government would have to get right, leaving things to chance, in order to pull this off?

The timestamps that are being referred to in the FDR data? What if something delayed the flight by 10 minutes? Maybe whomever was flying the plane didn't change course until 10 minutes later than planned? Wouldn't that put the plane 10 minutes further out from the Pentagon than what the timestamps show in the FDR data? Wouldn't stuff like this concern the planners of this event?

This is one point that I never understood with you guys and your conspiracy theory. The total disregard for that fact that some intelligence would have to have been present in the planning in this catastrophic and life changing event. The fact that you assume that they faked the FDR data and hoped that the plane matched it is just ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense.

Instead of using an actual plane with people on it, let's do this stuff instead:

1. Use a plane with passengers, but fly it OVER the Pentagon, killing the passeners later, only to transport the bodies/body parts/DNA back to the Pentagon in order to plant them.
2. We'll do it in broad daylight, hoping and praying that everyone's attention is diverted away from the LARGE PLANE flying OVER the Pentagon to the explosion we create at the point where the plane WOULD have crashed.
3. We'll plant damaged light poles in the simulated flight path knowing full well that the plane may not follow that exact flight path portrayed in the faked FDR data. (Do you even realize the margin of error that they would have had to take into account when creating the faked FDR data in order to make it believable?)
4. Damaged light poles. We will make marks and cut light poles at the PRECISE point we ESTIMATE the height the plane to be when it SUPPOSEDLY will hit them.
5. We will cut a tree to make it look like it was damaged by the plane hoping that said plane will come in at the right height and location.

These are just a few things.

The fact that you guys believe this is how things were planned for that day is beyond rational thinking. The amount of evidence that the supposed planners would have to have left to chance is just insane for an event of this magnitude. You guys need your collective heads examined.

Let me ask a question. When do you think the light poles were planted? Before or after the "simulated" plane crash into the Pentagon? Why do I ask? Because either scenario is equally ridiculous:

Planted before: As I stated above, the precision concerning which light poles to lay out and where the wings were supposed to hit them where left to chance. A BIG chance that the plane would fly precisely over those light poles
Planted after: This is even MORE crazy. The plane DIDN'T follow the projected flight path (according to you guys) that was created in the fake FDR, but we'll still plant them as planned anyways hoping nobody notices.

*shakes head*

Again. Why not just crash a friggin' plane into the Pentagon filled with passengers and let IT create it's own damage pattern and FDR data and be done with it?

[nicepants]

News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it.

hahaha. No one here is going to give money to Captain Bob. Just present your evidence and stop trying to sucker people into paying for it.

That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up.

I would like to see the math which supports this claim. (Just post it here, I'm not buying your silly DVD) [pun intended]

[Jonnyclueless]

BTW guys I also have documents and evidence that proves conclusively who really shot JFK. Just send $19.95 and you can have a copy.

[Turbofan]

hahaha. No one here is going to give money to Captain Bob. Just present your evidence and stop trying to sucker people into paying for it.



I would like to see the math which supports this claim. (Just post it here, I'm not buying your silly DVD) [pun intended]

You don't have to pay for it. Just wait until its uploaded then.

If you want, try calling your local MP because PFT will be sending copies out.

Maybe call up your local MSM. PFT will be sending copies there as well.

Alternatively, try L3...because yup, you guessed it...they're getting a copy.

See the trend here?

- JREF member

- Get off butt

- Do something

- Receive an answer

[X]

That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.


Light pole hit by small, light, slow object (car). Light pole breaks.
Light pole hit by big, heavy, fast object (plane). Light pole ???.

You have the math in my earlier post. You decide the outcome. It's not difficult...

I gave you the math. Technically, I did your work for you. You are the one claiming that the plane could not knock down a light post. You sidestep and dance away from my calculations, showing that a light post offers an insignificant to a plane. Instead, you demand minutae. And if I provide it, you will find something else to nitpick on. You will neve rbe satisifed until you get an answer agreeing with your preconcieve notions. This is evidenced by the posting history of you and pretty much any truther (and all PfT-affiliates) who have come through here.
Somebody says something that agrees with your pet conspiracy theory, and you all jump on it without examining it critically at all.
Someone shows evidence that completely destroys your fantasies, and you can't be satisifed until every single microscopic irrelevant-but-loosely-related detail is explained in a manner that you find acceptable.
Try using the same level of skepticism on your own claims, and your won evidences.

It is your burden of proof to show the plane could not knock down a light post. You want the calculations for the impact, you do them.

Frankly, I don't care if you like my post or not.
It's there for everyone to see.
And most people are going to look at it and realize that a plane can take down a light pole.
Actually, most people probably didn't need the math worked out to know that. The two lines at the beginning of this reply would suffice.
But then, most people don't have an agenda.


You want the math, you do it. It's your burden of proof to show that the plane could not result in that damage to the light poles.

[16.5]

See the trend here?

- JREF member

- Get off butt

- Do something

- Receive an answer

Well, we know one thing that does not work: asking the spammer who is here pimping the PFFT clown's latest YouTube video for the evidence.

So, you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a spammer. Kudos.

[Turbofan]

I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.

I asked to see a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole.

In other words, I don't believe AA77 hit the pole. Understand?

When magical walls at the Pentagon allow for engines and wings to
pass through without significant damage, it really makes for a poor
OGCT.

[Crazytimes]

I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.

I asked to see a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole.

In other words, I don't believe AA77 hit the pole. Understand?

When magical walls at the Pentagon allow for engines and wings to
pass through without significant damage, it really makes for a poor
OGCT.

And yet you havent said what DID knock down the light poles.

[Turbofan]

That's what a new investigation is for.

[Crazytimes]

That's what a new investigation is for.

Dodge.

[GlennB]

I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.



You're lying. You said -


I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them at 500 MPH 40 feet up? :rolleyes:

[Turbofan]

No, I'm not.

Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!

You guys kill me. :D

P.S. It's not a dodge. Why is my opinion so important? Is that going to
solve your mystery? If we had a full investigation, I wouldn't have to guess
what happened.

History's worst 'attack' and nobody wants to investigate? I love your
government. They can't even prove Bin Laden was behind 9/11! :rolleyes:

Keep bending over guys...you must like it.

[16.5]

various words barely staying within the forum rules but amounting to nothing but more hot air

Yawn. Hey Turbo, at this point rather than put you on ignore, I'll just keep posting this until you realize what a fool you look like:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT/PFT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

[Tbone]

Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!

You think the poles were designed for aircraft impact, just not this specific kind? That's rather contradictory.

In any case, show me a post that says the poles were explicitly designed for "that type of aircraft impact," or any aircraft impact at all? Try not to confuse this with posts stating that the forces involving an aircraft impact on the light poles would simply exceed the base's capabilities.

[Crazytimes]

No, I'm not.

Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!

You guys kill me. :D

P.S. It's not a dodge. Why is my opinion so important? Is that going to
solve your mystery? If we had a full investigation, I wouldn't have to guess
what happened.

History's worst 'attack' and nobody wants to investigate? I love your
government. They can't even prove Bin Laden was behind 9/11! :rolleyes:

Keep bending over guys...you must like it.

You are saying that no plane hit those light poles. I am asking what you think did hit the light poles. Your opinion is important because it helps show yet another truther who cannot connect the dots on their theories.

So just give me your opinion on how the light poles got like that.

If you think it was a plant and was done to make it look like a plane went through there, just say it.

[nicepants]

I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.

I asked to see a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole.

In other words, I don't believe AA77 hit the pole. Understand?

If someone were to provide to you a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole, what would that prove, exactly, that hasn't been proven already with the previously-posted math. In other words...if you currently believe that a plane could knock down a light pole, there is no need to provide such a photo. (if one exists)

That's what a new investigation is for.

It's been 7 years since 9/11...how many more DVDs do you have to sell before you start your "new investigation"?

[Jonnyclueless]

So using Turbos logic we can conclude:

Unless a picture is provided of a plane hitting a light pole, a plane is not capable of knocking down a light pole.

Anything that is not designed to be hit by a plane, is indestructible by a plane. This goes right alone with his logic of how FDRs work.

[Turbofan]

Right Clueless...just keep on twisting my words. Yup, I believe a plane
can't knock over a light post :rolleyes:

A massive commercial airliner can't knock over a tiny light pole.
Oh..u..got..me...that's exactly what I believe LMAO!

Sometimes I really do wonder how old you are, and how well you understand
the English language.

Hey 16.5 IQ, I don't believe that flight path is accurate. There's nothing in
the flight data that shows a dip below tress, or anything you are claiming.

I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use
the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.

Sweet dreams everyone. I can't wait to read the next spin on my posts.

[uruk]

I don't know if anybody remembers, but this NTSB video looks similar to the animation PfT did when they got the FDR info. The plane's path in the PfT video looks just about the same as the NTSB video. I even got the two videos confused together over at Loose Change.

The guys at frustrating Fraud discovered that PfT made the mistake of not aligning the map correctly.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/08/ntsb-animation-internal-geography-part.html
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/05/ntsb-animation-is-flat-wrong.html

It would seem that whoever did the animation at NTSB made the same mistake.

[Caustic Logic]

I don't know if anybody remembers, but this NTSB video looks similar to the animation PfT did when they got the FDR info. The plane's path in the PfT video looks just about the same as the NTSB video. I even got the two videos confused together over at Loose Change.

The guys at frustrating Fraud discovered that PfT made the mistake of not aligning the map correctly.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/08/ntsb-animation-internal-geography-part.html
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/05/ntsb-animation-is-flat-wrong.html

It would seem that whoever did the animation at NTSB made the same mistake.

Haha! Those guys are me. Bobert got mixed up too at ATS, citing my old stuff. The error there is the *apparent* approach is all NTSB. PffT error was in pretending not to realize this and calling "north plot data" real. This case is different - it's got a swerve from north to south path, which cannot be explained the same way. The right maneuver over a wrongly rotated map is one thing, a whole nonexistent maneuver that's been shown improbable after CIT proposed about the same thing, that's a diff story. Check Celestrin's post a ways back for the best explanation yet.

[16.5]

Hey 16.5 IQ (I cannot tell you how many times Truthers have said this, sigh), I don't believe that flight path is accurate. There's nothing in
the flight data that shows a dip below tress, or anything you are claiming.

I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use
the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.

Interesting choice of words! The witness accounts! You might be wondering where I got that bit about the plane dipping below the tree line (and you are the first Truther to mention it and only after posting it so many times that I lost count).

Well, you see, I got that from a CIT witness: Terry Morin's testimony that he saw the plane almost totally disappear below the trees, trees that were downslope from the Annex into that famous Pentagon bowl that Pft and Cit keep mentioning.

So after hand waving my question away so many times, you appear to have finally read it! Awesome! In fact everything in that question is based on CIT's witnesses and CIT's description of the flight path.

Now do the math to prove a plane could do what they say it did, and you have solved 911!

You are SO close!*

*

[uruk]

Haha! Those guys are me. Bobert got mixed up too at ATS, citing my old stuff. The error there is the *apparent* approach is all NTSB. PffT error was in pretending not to realize this and calling "north plot data" real. This case is different - it's got a swerve from north to south path, which cannot be explained the same way. The right maneuver over a wrongly rotated map is one thing, a whole nonexistent maneuver that's been shown improbable after CIT proposed about the same thing, that's a diff story. Check Celestrin's post a ways back for the best explanation yet.

My apologies for refering to you in the plural. You did great work with the PfT video.

I figgured since the FDR dropped the data a second before the impact, whoever made the animation took "artistic license" with the path.

[X]

Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!


You are rapidly descending into the realm of being worthy of nothing other than laughter.



Right Clueless...just keep on twisting my words. Yup, I believe a plane
can't knock over a light post :rolleyes:

A massive commercial airliner can't knock over a tiny light pole.
Oh..u..got..me...that's exactly what I believe LMAO!


Oh! So we agree that a plane can knock over a light post!
What about the post above, then?



I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.


Why don't you try considering the evidence without bias, and see where it leads?

I frankly don't give a hoot which side of Citgo the plane went. I follow the evidence, which leads me to conclude a South of Citgo flightpath into the Pentagon.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So using Turbos logic we can conclude:

Unless a picture is provided of a plane hitting a light pole, a plane is not capable of knocking down a light pole.


No, no... He's clearly adopted the Internet meme of "pics or it didn't happen" as his standard of evidence.

Uhh... except when it comes to the whole North-of-CITGO thing, of course. Who needs pics of that?

[Turbofan]

Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce
their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto
the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Grunion, this isn't worth pursuing, because Turbofan's playing the usual truther game. He's implicitly claiming that something other should have happened than the light poles breaking off when the plane hit them, but refusing to make an explicit claim as to what should have happened. He's then going to point out that you don't have convincing proof that the light poles should have broken off, and suggest that this supports his vague assertion that they therefore shouldn't have broken off. It's a version of the fallacy of denying the antecedent, and it's a classic dishonest debating technique.

Turbofan, either state how the light poles should have behaved when hit by a plane, with evidence; admit that you don't know how they should have behaved, and that therefore you have no position here; or forget about having any credibility.

Dave

Ok, so the poles break away at the base upon impact.

How, pray tell, would the poles behave after impact? What is the vertical position of the base in relation to the top of the pole as it moves horizontally through space?
More specifically, if the initial position of the base in relation to the top of the pole is -40' (the height of the pole), and the final position is 0 (when the pole is lying on the ground horizontally with both base and top at equal vertical positions in relation to each other), could you complete this graph?

| 40
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------0
|
|
|
| -40
__________________________________________________ _______________
Time between impact and rest

Note: The Y axis is the position of the base relative to the top. The top of the graph (40) represents a complete 180 degree flip of the pole. In this case, the base would be (positive) 40 feet above the top. In the initial position, the base is 40 feet below the top (represented by -40). 0 represents the final (horizontal) position of the pole. The X axis is the time between impact and final horizontal rest of the pole.

[beachnut]

Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce
their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto
the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.
Turbofan where is 77 when the RADAR altimeter reads 273 feet.
Never will.

Flight 77 is still 6 seconds away from the Pentagon when the data stops. This is something Turbofan and p4t are not able to do; possibly due to bad math and physics on their part.



The FDR shows 77 over 2000 feet off the runway at takeoff with FDR data. The NTSB place the image under the animation of the plane. Turbofan can not comprehend this, neither can p4t! Sad

See, the runway has a heading, and the FDR has a heading that is easy to match up. The FDR shows 77 over 6 seconds away from the Pentagon. Turbofan, give it up, you can’t tell me or anyone where 77 is on the last data point stored in the FDR!


Added insult at the end, a terrorist apologist Balsamo taught trait. You learn well. The lies come from you; you are the one with the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon. With no evidence.

Turbofan! The runway image was independent of the Pentagon image! Are you having problems understanding the NTSB WORKING COPY? How can you be so ignorant on how an NTSB animation is made with all those expert pilots who make you spew the lie, 77 did not hit the Pentagon? Notice there are no images on the entire animation except take off, and landing.

This is like your 64 w/s error...

[applecorped]

Ok, so the poles break away at the base upon impact.

How, pray tell, would the poles behave after impact? What is the vertical position of the base in relation to the top of the pole as it moves horizontally through space?
More specifically, if the initial position of the base in relation to the top of the pole is -40' (the height of the pole), and the final position is 0 (when the pole is lying on the ground horizontally with both base and top at equal vertical positions in relation to each other), could you complete this graph?

| 40
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------0
|
|
|
| -40
__________________________________________________ _______________
Time between impact and rest

Note: The Y axis is the position of the base relative to the top. The top of the graph (40) represents a complete 180 degree flip of the pole. In this case, the base would be (positive) 40 feet above the top. In the initial position, the base is 40 feet below the top (represented by -40). 0 represents the final (horizontal) position of the pole. The X axis is the time between impact and final horizontal rest of the pole.


To men who pretend to be real

I ask you to listen
Your shallow heart and endless greed
No longer have any effect on me
And thank you
For setting me free to soar
And thank you
For making me realize that I am worth so much more
So I will leave you with your guilt as company
And hopefully one day you’ll think of me
And you’ll wonder what you could have been for the rest of your life
While my happiness will shine

Based on a poem by:
D.P.Fields

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe call up your local MSM. PFT will be sending copies there as well.

I assume you will be sending a free copy to KSM's lawyer as well?

[funk de fino]

Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

Exactly which parameters would show the strikes? The only ones which might are if the poles damaged the engine. this may show some variances in the engine data. If the data does not show this but if we know the white smoke in the video is created by a damaged engine then this is even more proof that there is data missing from the FDR.

Nothing else would have been picked up by the FDR. So, is the video and smoke fake? Or the FDR?

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

I do not debate freaks who threaten people and steal and publish their identities. Balsamo is deranged.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.

You should know the answer to this, if you do not then you should not be posting about such matters.

[funk de fino]

How, pray tell, would the poles behave after impact?

Impossible to tell. Chaos theory. Rest of your post is irrelevant garbage.

[Jonnyclueless]

Right Clueless...just keep on twisting my words. Yup, I believe a plane
can't knock over a light post :rolleyes:

A massive commercial airliner can't knock over a tiny light pole.
Oh..u..got..me...that's exactly what I believe LMAO!

Sometimes I really do wonder how old you are, and how well you understand
the English language.

Hey 16.5 IQ, I don't believe that flight path is accurate. There's nothing in
the flight data that shows a dip below tress, or anything you are claiming.

I told you how to acquire the math if you really want it. I'd rather use
the FDR data, and witness accounts that verify the north approach.

Sweet dreams everyone. I can't wait to read the next spin on my posts.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that we're simply mimicing you and thus all your personal attacks are pretty much just on your own behavior. But go ahead and keep dodging all the problems with your claims. Perhaps they used the Pole downer 2000 machine.

And when you say you'd rather use witness testimony (the most unreliable form of evidence, not used by real investigators unless absolutely nesc), you mean use just the parts of the eyewitness testimony that helps your crackpot theories and discarding the eyewitness testimony that disproves your crackpot theories.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Impossible to tell. Chaos theory. Rest of your post is irrelevant garbage.
Pure idiocy. We better stop giving classical mechanics problems in Physics textbooks since chaos theory makes them unanswerable.:rolleyes:
This simple problem can be explained adequetely by classical mechanics.

[funk de fino]

Pure idiocy. We better stop giving classical mechanics problems in Physics textbooks since chaos theory makes them unanswerable.:rolleyes:
This simple problem can be explained adequetely by classical mechanics.

Yes indeed, your post was pure idiocy. The plane hits the poles. Poles break and fly off rather rapidly. The poles land on the ground.

We cannot calculate where they would land or exactly how they would react.

[TheGrunion]

Pure idiocy. We better stop giving classical mechanics problems in Physics textbooks since chaos theory makes them unanswerable.:rolleyes:
This simple problem can be explained adequetely by classical mechanics.


Really? Go ahead and explain it then bright guy.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes indeed, your post was pure idiocy. The plane hits the poles. Poles break and fly off rather rapidly. The poles land on the ground.

We cannot calculate where they would land or exactly how they would react.

Well you could, but only if you knew exactly where they were hit, how hard they were hit, what the exact breaking strain on the bolts was, and in exactly what direction the impact was on the pole (note here that the angle of the wing means that the impact direction is not neccessarily the ame as the plane direction). Of course not knowing all those things.....

[R.Mackey]

Pure idiocy. We better stop giving classical mechanics problems in Physics textbooks since chaos theory makes them unanswerable.:rolleyes:
This simple problem can be explained adequetely by classical mechanics.

It could, but only if you could describe the conditions at contact with much more precision. Depending on exactly what part of the aircraft hit the poles, at what angle, at what speed, etc., you will get radically different results.

To a limited degree, the behavior will be more or less the same -- the pole will rotate when hit, and probably acquire horizontal momentum as well, probably flipping end over end a few times like a caber. Exactly how it flips depends on exactly how much moment it takes to break the base, how much flexure is in the pole itself, whether it contacts the ground and at what angle, what surface the ends hit and how they behave, and so on and so on.

However, since we cannot specify the initial conditions with any accuracy at all, we cannot possibly estimate its final disposition with any usable accuracy. This is, indeed, deterministic chaos in action. Your branding of this as "idiocy" is, therefore, ironic.

As I've noted here numerous times, one cannot predict what number will come up on a thrown die. If we could, Las Vegas and Monte Carlo would be out of business overnight. The light pole impacts are vastly more complicated than even this intractable example.

[beachnut]

Pure idiocy. We better stop giving classical mechanics problems in Physics textbooks since chaos theory makes them unanswerable.:rolleyes:
This simple problem can be explained adequetely by classical mechanics.
The path to impact requires 83 degrees of bank, and 8.2 Gs. Impossible to do.

Plus no one saw 77 do this, they all saw 77 fly straight into the Pentagon, no major bank! BTW, 83 degrees of bank is major bank!

No clue from 9/11 truth; why?

[PhantomWolf]

why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.

Are you still ignoring the fact that the FDR data stopped a good 6 seconds before impact with the Pentagon, when it was over 1/2 mile away and before it hit any lamp poles?

[TheLoneBedouin]

We cannot calculate where they would land
That's not what I asked.
or exactly how they would react.
I didn't ask exactly how they would react. I asked for what would happen in quite general terms- certain phenomena are impossible, therefore, there is an objective answer to my problem.

[TheGrunion]

That's not what I asked.

I didn't ask exactly how they would react. I asked for what would happen in quite general terms- certain phenomena are impossible, therefore, there is an objective answer to my problem.

Really? Go ahead and explain it then. It will be much quicker than having all of us guess how you will get your physics wrong.

[PhantomWolf]

Really? Go ahead and explain it then. It will be much quicker than having all of us guess how you will get your physics wrong.

Well he is right in some ways, afterall the poles wouldn't remain stationary as the plane wings were ripped off. That would be impossible.