PDA

View Full Version : G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon


Pages : 1 [2]

CuriousAsCouldBe
23rd November 2011, 08:31 PM
Curious is obviously ignoring me. He actually loves me, but his manly ego just won't allow him to admit it...

Here is their photo originally posted on the LCF Website.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9344/tribbyc130ploton4.jpg

Now, what's wrong with it? It is an obvious and intentional manipulation designed to deceive the gullible.

The large overhead portion of the photograph is from a different camera position and angle than the smaller inset showing the smoke column and the C-130. The inset was taken at approximately 1:55 of the Tribby video... I do not know the source of the overhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4ja...eature=related

We can see they are from a different viewing positions because the smoke column was never North of the impact point at any time. The winds were northerly and the smoke column drifted South. Also, note the different angles of the oil/fuel tanks. They are different, vividly indicating a different camera position.

This proves that CIT is a fraud and are liars to support their deluded agenda...

An analysis was done of the Tribby Video here several months ago showing that the video verifies the 84th RADES data and totally refutes CIT's version of the ANC grave diggers statements that the C-130 arrived on the scene from the NW and departed to the NW. The C-130 arrived from the SW and departed to the NW just as the pilot said and that the radar returns show....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120994

Curious, you may tell Ranke and Waldo that they are FRAUDS and LIARS. (It might be easier to simply look into a mirror and whisper)

Please. The C-130's flight path was established by the pilot and eyewitnesses to not only the c-130 but also the attack plane over DC skies, east of the Potomac.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/C-130/northandwest.jpg

Lt Col Steve O'brien's account about taking off from Andrews AFB and flying north and west taking them by the south side of the mall is a very important detail. This fits perfectly with the attack plane approaching into downtown DC, near the White House, which for those reading who don't know also proves an inside job as they completely changed the flight path loop to SW of the pentagon and Reagan instead of over DC.

To familiarize everybody...

Official NTSB flight path loop SW of the pentagon and the Reagan National Airport:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...flight_path.jpg (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/691px-Aa77_dc_flight_path.jpg)

DC/White House/EoP(east of potomac) flight path:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...0path/093-1.jpg (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/093-1.jpg)

Contrary to information put out there by an anonymous entity trying to support the official story and flight path of both planes, the C-130's flight path is more in line with Morningside One DP(departing procedure):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/morningsideonedeparture.jpg
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0801/00561MORNINGSIDE.PDF

It says he could "expect radar vectors" on runway 1L/1R after his departure north. It says radar vectors are required within 10 nautical miles from departure.

It makes sense that he received a radar vector to the west after he flew north for 3 to 5 nautical miles.

4 to 5 nautical miles is within 10 nautical miles.

This fits with his description of flying north and west which took them by the south side of the mall. Not the south side of Reagan.

His flight plan was to take him north and west to MN, ending up over PA both of which are north and west either way.

Remember, the RADES data was released right after I started piecing together his account and publishing it publically.

The RADES flight path takes him through the Reagan approach corridor which also doesn't make much sense as noted by Pilot Rob Balsamo.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/C1303DPOV.jpg

P56 DOES ALLOW flight paths on the south side of the mall and certainly does not restrict it.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/C130P56.jpg

In fact, that would take him right towards the end of the departure flight path for Reagan, where planes fly up river and out of the area, banking sometimes west and certainly north I am sure. He would have continued north and west toward MN.

The RADES flight path takes him southwest.

Let's not forget,

-Steve Chaconas did NOT see a C-130 only THE jet approaching from the east side of the Potomac from the NE as it was coming out of it's turn.
http://www.youtube.com/v/I5D2K19Y

-Joe Hurst, Joseph Candelario, Gen Clyde Vaughn, Stuart Artman saw the attack plane in DC skies which only fits with the C-130 DC Mall flight path.

-Ari Fleischer admits there was another flight path that took the plane towards the white house and not well SW of it as the NTSB/RADES data attempts to depict. This only fits with the C-130 DC Mall flight path

Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.

[...]

At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.

"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310721.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml)


-ATC Danielle O'Brien was sure the plane "over-shot" or over missed the White House which only fits with the C-130 DC Mall flight path.

O'Brien went to the Pentagon to see what happened for herself, making her ever more certain that the Pentagon was a secondary target, and that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House.

"I've been down to the Pentagon and stood on the hillside and imagined where, according to what I saw on the radar, that flight would have come from," she says. "And I think that they came eastbound and because sun was in their eyes that morning, and because the White House was beyond a grove of trees, I think they couldn't see it. It was too fast. They came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them. You can't miss the Pentagon. It's so telltale by its shape and its size, and they said, 'Look, there it is. Take that. Get that.' They certainly could have had the White House if they had seen it."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=124266&page=3 or
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123822&page=1

-Col Deskins reports the radar for the attack plane terminating over Washington DC which only fits with the C-130 DC Mall flight path...
Poster 22205:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8721198283922671798

IMPORTANT note at 15:20 minutes video time of the above clip: Colonel Deskins, a lady radar person (with air force uniform), from the New York Command Center (of norad) comes on:

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/48901/2001858935616653985_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001858935616653985)

-and she very SPECIFICALLY describes the last maneuver of the plane. whats KEY in her exact quote is this (bolded):

"we caught, on the radar scope, a few blips, maybe 7 or 8 (hands showing the spiral maneuver motion in correspondence with these radar dots), just enough to kinda go around in a half circle and then fade, eh - losing radar contact - RIGHT OVER um, WASHINGTON."


-Colin Scoggins (and Kevin Nesapany) place the/an unidentified plane SE & east of the White House/Potomac which only fits with the C-130 DC Mall flight path...

Scoggins: Just to report, be advised the aircraft is 4-6 miles SE (southeast) of the White House.

Huntress: 6 miles SOUTHEAST of the White House?

Scoggins: Yup

Huntress: He's moving away?

Apparently Colin Scoggins recieved this information based on a VISUAL from FAA HQ in Washington DC!!!

“I was on aTELCON and there were people who were actually looking at their window and saw the plane, they were speaking it verbatim on the phone to the TELCON. So it was a visual encounter, I assume they were in FAA HQ on Independence AVE. I know one persons name who was there and according to a USA article on around 9/20/01 I have an idea who said it on the phone, and he is the same person that I received the Phantom 11 call on.”

“I don't know what office window they were looking from, I've always felt it was FAA HQ […] I am 99 % sure that the statement was made by visual...

Not to mention,


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/SouthSideOfMall.jpg

If you watch the BBC interview with him, he pulls out the map and says...

http://www.youtube.com/v/Q9ag6brfWro
"Well here's a chart of the Washington DC area...

That's Andrews Air Force Base right here...

We departed out of Andrews, climbed to 3000 ft which took us by the south side of the mall."


Narrator: Lt. Col. O'Brien was on a routine flight, but as he flew over Central Washington air traffic control reported an unidentified jet fast approaching on his left hand side.

And again, the narrator said as "Flight AA77 descended in a wide turn over the Capitol and lined up with it's target there was a military C-130...flying above Washington DC".

Clearly the BBC interviewed him and understood what he had explained to them, because they mention central DC several times.

"and as he moved to our 11 o' clock position..."
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/11oclock.jpg


"he started his turn..."
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...1oclockbank.jpg (http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/11oclockbank.jpg)


"and by the time he got to our 12 O'clock position,* right out the front of the aircraft,"
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/12oclock.jpg


"uh he was rolled up into 30-40 degrees of bank which is considerable for a commercial airliner."
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...ockrollbank.jpg (http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/12oclockrollbank.jpg)

Note he said "and as he moved to our 11 o' clock position he started his turn..."

He STARTED his turn as he moved to O'Brien's 11 O'Clock position.

As you can see in the NTSB animation, the plane was ALWAYS IN A "TURN" or the bank that ends up being 30-45 degrees of bank at one point. Again he states the plane was to his LEFT or 11 o'clock when it STARTED it's turn.

http://www.youtube.com/v/aP3EMnCx4yI

Furthermore, when they finally discussed the C-130's role Lt. Col Kenneth states that the decoy jet was heading into Washington at an angle (the 30-45 degree bank)...

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington"at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman.

Another account documenting a DC/East of Potomac flight path...

I was in FOB-8 (FDA) about 3 blocks from the Capitol, watching CNN on my PC because I had been told by a colleague across the hall that a plane had hit the WTC. (Our Center runs CNN off a Netshow encoder 24/7 so we can get news on the network.) I watched the second plane hit the WTC and shortly after that my wife called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse. (The Whitehouse is in the same direction as the Pentagon from our location at the foot of Capitol Hill.) There were then many rumors spreading in the hallway that car bombs had gone off on the Hill and near the State Dept, supposedly smoke was showing there as well. We now know that the car bomb rumors were false.

My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)

About that time, I suspected that there might be other hijacked aircraft targeting other buildings in the area (remember, we thought there might have been car bombs going off too at this point) so I walked across the hall to the lab of the colleague who initially told me the WTC had been hit by an aircraft. Looking out of the north facing 4th floor window, I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol. As it turned over NE DC, roughly Union Station I guess, and banked east, the sun hit the pale colored paint and I could see that it was an Air Force E-4 and not a commercial 747. It was going so slow, it appeared to hang in the air over the Hubert Humphrey (HHS) building (across the street from FOB-8). For a moment it crossed my mind that such an aircraft carries much more fuel and could do considerably more damage than the aircraft that had hit the WTC (at this time it was being reported that those aircraft were commuter planes, we didn't know for sure they were 767's, though the outline sure looked like it to me when I saw the second one disappear into the building on CNN). Us chemists were already thinking of fuel loads and explosive equivalents, combustion temperature, melting point of steel, etc. when we watched the first tower collapse. (I'm hazy in my recall of the exact time we watched this relative to the Pentagon crash.)
http://forums.techguy.org/archive/index.php/t-72752.htm

This "757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the mall", that "circled downtown DC" can only fit with the C-130 DC Mall flight path in order the allow their interaction to make sense.

Let's not forget the confirmation from the ANC witnesses!


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/c-130approachgif1.gif

They prove how the C-130 came from the northwest and not the south as shown in the fraudulent 84 RADES data.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/c-130comparison.jpg

CuriousAsCouldBe
23rd November 2011, 08:33 PM
I love it when twoofers whine! :D:D:D:D:

I love when duhbunkers look stupid :)

LSSBB
23rd November 2011, 08:57 PM
I love when duhbunkers look stupid :)

No love for you here tonight, then. I do see however you have managed to put a witness at two locations at the same time, misidentify the elevation of the plane, mistake where a finger is pointing with where the arm is pointing, get wrong whether or not someone is claiming a tower got hit, and not acknowledge or address criticism about how many G-forces your flight path would incur, and that's just for starters. And you are ready to accuse the government of intentional murder based on all this?

Reheat
23rd November 2011, 09:05 PM
All of your verbose garbage and cut and paste is simply wasted bandwidth. That crap has been proven to be total garbage that you and pffft simply just made up to support your delusion.

The radar doesn't support it and the audio tapes don't support it. It has been proven conclusively wrong, again and again. The C-130 pilot doesn't support it either. Your refusal/inability to understand what he said is no excuse at this point and is indicative of your inability to properly assimilate information given to you. You have no talent except a glib tongue and a propensity to propagate pure unadulterated BS.

The manipulated photo that I have proven a fraudulent lie is all I need at the present time. That alone proves that CIT is a cult of pathological liars even rejected by others in the truth cult. The fact that you didn't even address my proof of fraudulent deception, but spammed the Forum with this old refuted garbage is sufficient evidence of that.

BTW, stupid is as stupid does. CIT is vivid evidence of that over and over again and again...

Because of the proven fraudulent behavior and proven lying CIT are nothing but putrid lying SLIME.

beachnut
23rd November 2011, 09:41 PM
I love when duhbunkers look stupid :)
The C-130 had to fly a standard departure. Lt Col O flew it exactly like it is defined, you posted a moronic lie by CIT because they are morons and can't figure out flying.

You post lies, and you don't know they are lies.

Have you flown departure procedures?

Do you see the RADAR path???

beachnut
23rd November 2011, 09:52 PM
Please. The C-130's flight path was established by the pilot and eyewitnesses to not only the c-130 but also the attack plane over DC skies, east of the Potomac.

Let's not forget the confirmation from the ANC witnesses!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/c-130approachgif1.gif

They prove how the C-130 came from the northwest and not the south as shown in the fraudulent 84 RADES data.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/c-130comparison.jpg No, it proves you can't support your claims, the claims you plagarized from CIT. You can't check the facts, you only have junk from CIT. Why do you post lies from Aldo? Because you don't know better.

about taking off from Andrews AFB and flying north and west taking them by the south side of the mall is a very important detail. This fits perfectly with the attack plane approaching into downtown DC, near the White House, which for those reading who don't know also proves an inside job as they completely changed the flight path loop to SW of the pentagon and Reagan instead of over DC.

You are SPAMMING us with http://s3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t116.htm lies and moronic claims by Aldo Marquis, a moron on flight issues.
Do you have any original thoughts on 911? no, you repeat lies from idiots.

The Platypus
23rd November 2011, 11:29 PM
I love when duhbunkers look stupid :)


How is it everyone else looks stupid when your the one getting things wrong, lying, trying to play tricks, and using immature taunts like "duhbunkers" because people "debunk" your nonsense... You think that makes you look intelligent??? :rolleyes:

You seem to be confused as to what the word stupid means. People who fall for such ridiculous lies told by conmen on the internet, like you have, those people look stupid. People who do not fall for some internet cult nut trying to lie to them, those people do not look stupid. It's not that hard.

beachnut
24th November 2011, 03:34 AM
Please. The C-130's flight path was established by the pilot and eyewitnesses to not only the c-130 but also the attack plane over DC skies, east of the Potomac.



Let's not forget the confirmation from the ANC witnesses!


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/c-130approachgif1.gif (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/c-130approachgif1.gif)

They prove how the C-130 came from the northwest and not the south as shown in the fraudulent 84 RADES data.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/c-130comparison.jpg (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/c-130comparison.jpg)
... you ignore RADAR data and logic, and SPAM with cut and paste from CIT. Why is the RADAR data not used by CIT? The C-130 RADAR data is available. And the witnesses verify the RADAR data you don't use, but you have no clue what time they saw the C-130, and it was not coming, it was circling, the circle was canceled and left. You failed again. The ANC witnesses are pointing to the same place the C-130 was on RADAR. You debunked CIT. Good job. You are one of the few true duhbunkers; most of 911 truth are self-debunkers.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4984580

Gofer 06 was issued a clearance for Camps Spring One Departure. They took off to the north, and turned west. Magnetic west.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1112/00561CAMPSPRINGS.PDF

It matches the RADES data, and other RADAR data from other RADAR sites backs up the RADES data. If you study the data, all the data, the stuff CIT researched proves the C-130 flew the Camps Spring One Departure. CIT morons are not pilots, they have no clue why the crew of the C-130 enjoyed a view of the Mall while flying the Camps Spring One Departure, but then CIT have no clue the Mall is more than 2 MILES long, and pilots and aircrew are not blind and they can see a 2 mile wide landmark from 4 miles. You see, we fly at 20 to 30,000 feet, and that is 4 miles up, so being stuck at 3000 feet hard altitude is a sightseeing experience, stuck a half mile high, the Mall from 4 miles looks like it is right next to you. But then you never flew the Camps Spring One Departure, so you have no clue Balsamo and CIT are morons making up lies, showing you a flight path that is not west, and you fall for it. The fact you fell for lies from CIT, means you don't have a clue what magnetic vs true means. Your ignorance of flight procedures makes you an easy mark for the moronic lies of CIT and Balsamo's 11.2g of made up physics.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/departureAndrews.jpg




This is the departure ... It matches the RADES data. Gofer 06 had to fly it, the flight path you posted from CIT is a lie, made up by idiots who don't fly and endorsed by one of the only pilots in the world who says he can't hit the Pentagon or the WTC towers in the safety of a simulator.


You copied CIT lies and said this...
The RADES flight path takes him through the Reagan approach corridor which also doesn't make much sense as noted by Pilot Rob Balsamo. Wrong! The hard altitude of 3000 feet is the key, it is a departure to keep planes apart. If you check the approach corridor (aka the approach procedures) they dovetail to form a safe departure in case the Camps Spring One Departure aircraft lose radio. Balsamo is nuts, not much of a pilot, he is selling lies on DVD, lies which you plagiarize and SPAM, by lifting verbatim from CIT, cut and paste plagiarism.

You Plagiarized your post and failed to give the source. Do you do anything other than plagiarize lies? Any original thinking?

You don't know aircraft fly using magnetic heading and courses.

You are gullible repeating lies debunked on 911, and 4 years ago.

Here we are, on the Camps Spring One Departure, the same path Verifed by RADAR data (reality based evidence) with a great view of the Mall, the Mall is over 2 miles LONG!@
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/MallCessna.jpg
Did you try to do any research before picking the idiot version of 911? Did you try to look up what departure Gofer 06 flew? Did you do anything besides plagiarize your ideas? You were debunked here over 4 years ago. When did you decide 911 was an inside job? Why is your logic flawed; your first few attempts on this subject used material which debunks your position, but you attempted and failed to use it to support your delusional inside job claims. The Mall is one of those landmarks so BIG you can see it easy from 4 miles to 20 miles away. Have you ever flown? The Mall is longer than Stone Mountain. How could you miss the Mall. In Addition, if the C-130 was on the CIT flight path, the Mall would be below the C-130, not visable. Darn.

Things you don't know:
The C-130 was issued the Camps Spring One Departure, the crew can tell you - it is fact you don't use, because you like the lies of CIT and moron math master Balsamo.
The Camps Spring One Departure goes west, the path CIT shows is not 270 degrees magnetic, thus, it is not west. You were fooled, and you posted nonsense without reference.
You have no idea what Washington DC is.

The OP video is full of nonsense. Balsamo fails to get the FDR information correct, and then lies. Flight 77 impacted in a dive, pulling 1.946 g at impact. You don't do FDR, you have to say it was faked. This means you call the NTSB liars. You call the FAA liars. You call the military liars. This is the best you can do. You have no evidence to get your Pulitzer Prize for breaking the biggest story in history, if your fantasy was real. Your lack of knowledge make you an easy mark for the fraud of Balsamo and his crack team of investigators, CIT. If you could support your plagiarized claims, you would have Pulitzer. Did you apply for the Pulitzer? Why not, you freely steal ideas from the CIT morons, why not beat them to the Prize? Are you too lazy to do the package? Good luck.

W.D.Clinger
24th November 2011, 05:39 AM
This makes the low and level impact into the first floor extra IMPOSSIBLE!!!



Flight 77 hit the Pentagon in a dive, not level.
beachnut is right. Hanjour's approach did not quite achieve level flight (http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Software/).

Now that we have the last few seconds of data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), it's fairly easy to reconstruct the last few seconds of Flight 77's approach to the Pentagon. For those who are interested in the truth of what happened, the following web page graphs both altitude and acceleration for the final moments:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Software/

Reheat
24th November 2011, 06:30 AM
This little diversion proves something we all have known for quite some time. No matter how much evidence or in what form it is or it's source, the dedicated toofers will hand wave it away to continue their delusion.

At least 3 Radars show the path of the C-130 from Andrews to and away from the Pentagon. The audio tapes, certified by the controllers involved, also prove the path. The Tribby video shows the path both approaching and departing the Pentagon area. Yet, we have deluded idiots from CIT still trying to sell made up crap from several years ago. They know these sources exist and know that the sources are both Government and non-Government, yet they still hand wave them away in favor of their deluded nonsense.

Therefore, there is little question that any further evidence no matter the source would be treated the same way. They yap about no video from the Pentagon and demand a new investigation, however, this example vividly shows that it doesn't matter in the least. If it doesn't support their crapola it is fake or manipulated and does not disprove their version of the inside job dogma.

I realize most here know this already, but it seems appropriate to point it out again, now while a good example is fresh in our minds.

sylvan8798
24th November 2011, 07:11 AM
It defies human comprehension that it has required this much time, effort, and detail to prove that a commercial airliner actually crashed into the Pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses, not to mention the first responders and all the others who had to clean up the mess, identify the bodies, account for their missing airplane and its passengers, and analyze the structural failures. And the families of the dead, who in CIdiocy don't actually exist.

CIT ranks up there with "Dr Judy" in the "We've got a stupid theory, prove us wrong" department.

16.5
24th November 2011, 07:38 AM
In that mess of hotlinking and assorted nonsense did CIT's newest and bestest buddy link to CIT's raw video that they promised they would release two years ago?

triforcharity
24th November 2011, 08:31 AM
In that mess of hotlinking and assorted nonsense did CIT's newest and bestest buddy link to CIT's raw video that they promised they would release two years ago?

Nope. Not once. Maybe he can help us find it..........

carlitos
24th November 2011, 09:22 AM
Curious, you may tell Ranke and Waldo that they are FRAUDS and LIARS. (It might be easier to simply look into a mirror and whisper)

I love when duhbunkers look stupid :)


Hmm, you know who else used to say that a lot?

I swear you guys are the most juvenile group of pseudo-skeptics on the net.

Just as I said your only defense against this document is "it's fake!"

Which is the exact same thing you say "twoofers" always do.

Duhbunkers!

There is nothing more to debate on this issue. I already explained my involvement. I simply know the source of the document so I believe it to be real and you have not proven it to be fake.

That's it. Nothing more to discuss.

Good luck duhbunking it.

I really don't care either way.

Carry on. Welcome to 2007, by the way.

jaydeehess
24th November 2011, 09:47 AM
Please. The C-130's flight path was established by the pilot and eyewitnesses to not only the c-130 but also the attack plane over DC skies, east of the Potomac.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/C-130/northandwest.jpg




Hmm, the RADES data shows the C-130 flying north and west just as O'Brien said.
It also shows the C-130 flying to the southwest of the Mall.

It also follows the published departure path shown by Beachnut.

That the RADES data does not show the plane close enough to the Mall for your own pet interpretation of O'Brien's account means SQUAT!
From 2500 feet the Mall would be one of the most easily recognizable landmarks out the window.

AJM8125
24th November 2011, 10:42 AM
You can't bring yourself to verbalize it can you? You can admit and agree that the NoC proves flyover because a NoC plane cant cause the damage seen as Pat Curley says, but you can't bring yourself to say and logically agree that that also means "inside job". Why?

I didn't admit and agree to anything. I'm saying NoC is a steaming pile. Your reasoning is flawed.

Pretty much? So not all the way? So part of you believes them?

Ah, a nit picker. I'll make it clear for you and retract "pretty much" and replace it with "Absolutely". No part of me believes they're correct. Better?

Which witnesses? You have videotaped interviews with witnesses on or next to the Citgo property specifically describing the south side path through the light poles?

The witnesses that CIT glosses over then ignores. Can't have them mucking up the delusion, can they.

So you believe in evidence that was produced and in existence after those people all saw the plane on the north side, IOW after those people witnessed a state sponsored false flag crime. You trust in evidence produced by the very people behind the crime essentially.

Bizarre. How's that hook, line and sinker taste?

George152
24th November 2011, 11:33 AM
It also shows the final alt as 699ft ASL.



Wrong!
The aircraft hit the Pentagon.
The Pentagon is 110 feet above sea level..
So what you're trying to claim is the 'Black box' they retrieved from the Pentagon crash site proves that the aircraft didn't impact the Pentagon ?

twinstead
24th November 2011, 11:45 AM
Wrong!
The aircraft hit the Pentagon.
The Pentagon is 110 feet above sea level..
So what you're trying to claim is the 'Black box' they retrieved from the Pentagon crash site proves that the aircraft didn't impact the Pentagon ?

Yea, and the scuttlebutt up here in NWO Towers is that the guy responsible for planting that black box was fired. What kind of idiot would plant a black box that showed the plane not hitting the Pentagon? No evil cabal needs incompetent employees like that!

tsig
24th November 2011, 11:53 AM
Please. The C-130's flight path was established by the pilot and eyewitnesses to not only the c-130 but also the attack plane over DC skies, east of the Potomac.



Let's not forget the confirmation from the ANC witnesses!


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/c-130approachgif1.gif

They prove how the C-130 came from the northwest and not the south as shown in the fraudulent 84 RADES data.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/c-130comparison.jpg

They're pointing South.

cantonear1968
24th November 2011, 04:59 PM
So does everyone agree with this statement?

We all agree that the north side flight path proves an "inside job" right?

You ladies and gents basically believe all those witnesses are wrong about the north side of the citgo flight path?

You demand just one witness to a flyover but you won't accept 14+ witnesses at different and opposing vantage points, including the pentagon area itself, that place the plane on the north side of the gas station?

I actually like how you are trying to put the onus on Pat McCurley without proving your own case.

Do you have any witnesses who describe seeing a flyover?
Do you have any proof the light poles were planted the night before?
Do you have any proof that the witnesses who describe seeing a plane hit the Pentagon didn't actually see a plane hit the Pentagon and only "deduced" they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

I've asked these questions 3 times now and you keep avoiding them.

Robrob
24th November 2011, 07:14 PM
So what's the CT de jour here anyway? The (very recognizable) C-130 flying at altitude was mistaken for the (very recognizable) airliner flying at near AGL? That the C-130 flew down and knocked over the light poles? That the C-130 at altitude distracted all those witnesses from seeing the real cruise missile? That Flight 77 was diverted and all those on board mulched so a cruise missile could be fired on the Pentagon?
:confused:

jaydeehess
24th November 2011, 08:16 PM
That is one of the most laughable things yet. They have witnesses saying they saw a 757 and CIT/PFT claim 'ohhh what they saw was a C-130, not a 757'.

757 is what, about 50% longer and 60% smaller diameter fuselage with wing under fuselage compared to the C-130's wing over fuselage. The 757's tail extends straight back from the fuselage whereas the C-130's fuselage ends in an upward slope to its enormous tail(to allow for the rear cargo door under the tail section). These are two aircraft that could hardly be any more different unless one was a helicopter.

Robrob
24th November 2011, 11:01 PM
That is one of the most laughable things yet. They have witnesses saying they saw a 757 and CIT/PFT claim 'ohhh what they saw was a C-130, not a 757'.

757 is what, about 50% longer and 60% smaller diameter fuselage with wing under fuselage compared to the C-130's wing over fuselage. The 757's tail extends straight back from the fuselage whereas the C-130's fuselage ends in an upward slope to its enormous tail(to allow for the rear cargo door under the tail section). These are two aircraft that could hardly be any more different unless one was a helicopter.

That and C-130 are prop planes as well being aircraft gray - vs. a 757 jet painted white! :D
http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/C-130-Hercules-35.jpg
http://www.airplane-photo.com/image/airplane/MXP-Euro-Mediterranean-Airlines-Boeing-757-2Q8-0002.jpg

Oystein
24th November 2011, 11:45 PM
That and C-130 are prop planes as well being aircraft gray - vs. a 757 jet painted white!...

Painted silver, actually ;)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg

TjW
25th November 2011, 07:22 AM
And of course, the airliner is a swept wing where the Hercules is unswept.

So claiming a jet powered, slim fuselaged airplane with a swept high aspect ratio wing in polished aluminum and bright colors is a propeller driven, bulky fuselaged airplane with a straight, low aspect ratio wing painted a dull color is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I mean, an airplane's an airplane, am I right? What's the odds anyone in a city with both a nearby Air Force base and a facility like the Pentagon would ever be able to tell the difference?

DGM
25th November 2011, 07:39 AM
And of course, the airliner is a swept wing where the Hercules is unswept.



<truther> Duh-bunkers, thinking how clean a wing is will make a difference. LOL </truther>


:D

triforcharity
25th November 2011, 09:06 AM
<truther> Duh-bunkers, thinking how clean a wing is will make a difference. LOL </truther>


:D

Ok, now that's ******* funny!!

R.Mackey
25th November 2011, 10:54 AM
Painted silver, actually ;)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg

Still wrong. AA jets are polished aluminum, not painted. ;) There's some debate about how they're going to handle the largely-composite Boeing 787.

Not that it matters. Just posting for general interest.

DGM
25th November 2011, 10:59 AM
Still wrong. AA jets are polished aluminum, not painted. ;) There's some debate about how they're going to handle the largely-composite Boeing 787.

Not that it matters. Just posting for general interest.
I thought the (main) fuselage skin was still aluminum (the bulk of the "polished" parts).

Again.........not that this matters.

;)

carlitos
25th November 2011, 11:05 AM
A friend of mine got to see some of the 787, up close and personal. He was invited to repeatedly strike the thinnest part of the hull as hard as he could with a hammer. Apparently the polymer is a quantum leap in hull strength vs. the old aluminium skin.

Robrob
25th November 2011, 01:52 PM
Painted silver, actually ;)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg

And looks sooooooo much like

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/sva002yellow.jpg

leftysergeant
25th November 2011, 02:50 PM
<truther> Duh-bunkers, thinking how clean a wing is will make a difference. LOL </truther>

Actually, at extreme supersonic speeds, it does, but i do not have time or the patience to explain it to people with a less-than-snail's-pace brains like the twoofers.

Mr. Skinny
25th November 2011, 03:20 PM
Actually, at extreme supersonic speeds, it does, but i do not have time or the patience to explain it to people with a less-than-snail's-pace brains like the twoofers.
OK Mr. Smartypants - what's an "extreme" supersonic speed? :p

Robrob
25th November 2011, 03:41 PM
OK Mr. Smartypants - what's an "extreme" supersonic speed? :p

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eRFM_IZi7z0/TUgxJRrcoVI/AAAAAAAAAEo/CA8e-8UA44Y/s1600/ludicrous-speed.jpg

beachnut
25th November 2011, 04:12 PM
Please. http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/morningsideonedeparture.jpg


You failed to get the right Departure Procedure. Why did you fail? Why do you plagiarize your posts without reference?

CIT and Balsamo can't get anything right on 911.

jaydeehess
25th November 2011, 04:39 PM
That and C-130 are prop planes as well being aircraft gray - vs. a 757 jet painted white! :D
http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/C-130-Hercules-35.jpg
http://www.airplane-photo.com/image/airplane/MXP-Euro-Mediterranean-Airlines-Boeing-757-2Q8-0002.jpg

I was giving the twoof the benefit of the fact that twirling props are difficult to see.

jaydeehess
25th November 2011, 04:46 PM
Still wrong. AA jets are polished aluminum, not painted. ;) There's some debate about how they're going to handle the largely-composite Boeing 787.

Not that it matters. Just posting for general interest.


This?
http://www.rustoleum.ca/cbgimages/products/ps_trem_rp_aluminum.jpg

jaydeehess
25th November 2011, 04:48 PM
OK Mr. Smartypants - what's an "extreme" supersonic speed? :p

Mach 10+
Of course if you attempted to fling the objects known as a C-130 or a 757 around at that velocity they would become a 'meteorite'. :D

triforcharity
25th November 2011, 05:46 PM
How do YOU know? Have you ever tried? Maybe that is what a meteorite actually is, a 767 flung at Mach 10. Prove me wrong........:D

Robrob
25th November 2011, 06:23 PM
I found a previously undisclosed picture of the C-130 as it carried off the truthers...

http://media.theonion.com/images/articles/article/645/onion_news1569_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg

jaydeehess
25th November 2011, 07:57 PM
Mach 10+
Of course if you attempted to fling the objects known as a C-130 or a 757 around at that velocity they would become a 'meteorite'. :D

How do YOU know? Have you ever tried? Maybe that is what a meteorite actually is, a 767 flung at Mach 10. Prove me wrong........:D

Very good truther logic there tri. I'd answer your query except I can't even decide whether or not you agreed with me.:D