Where are the skid-marks on the lawn from where the engines must've impacted? Here's the transcript from the Dept. of Defense - it doesn't come any better than that: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building" 'this building' he is referring to is The Pentagon. https://web.archive.org/web/2015071...transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845 Though that seems to be a different interview to the vid I saw which is now difficult to find - surprise surprise. That looks nothing like the thick and dense 'smoke' in that pic.
OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways: - The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2). The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1) - All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. See description above. Light pole height is ~ 80 feet above sea level for tallest pole. (USGS Ground Elevation ~ 40 + Pole Height 40, Virginia Dept of Transportation) - The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. Rate of Descent is in excess of 4,600 fpm (3). Aircraft height at 09:37:44 is ~473' above sea level. Pentagon Height is 110' above sea level. 473 - 110 = 363. 363 fps x 60 = 21,780 fpm descent required for last second to hit top of pentagon. 21,780 fpm descent rate for one second. This represents a 24.928 degree descent angle. 363/781 (distance based on 781 fps speed as reported by NTSB) = atan θ = .464788 θ = 24.928 24.928 degree descent angle is in direct conflict with the level approach as seen in the DoD "5 frames video" (4). Further, the aircraft would require a level approach considering the foundation doesn't show any signs of damage (5). - The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. Animation stops at 09:37:44. NTSB calculates impact time at 09:37:45. Many CSV file parameters terminate at 09:37:45. - If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. 4,600 fpm descent = 76.7 fps. Altitude at 09:37:44 as reported and plotted by NTSB when adjusted to local pressure indicates ~473(3). Impact time as reported by NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. 473 - 76.7 = 396. Top of pentagon height is 33 (ground elevation) + 77 (height of pentagon) = 110. 396 - 110 = 286.3 feet too high above the pentagon. Margin for error given as 186.3 feet due to altitude not present at time calculated by the NTSB for impact. [...] The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon. https://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77/
They didn't impact the lawn, nice straw man! Well, if it doesn't come any better than that, they used an American Airlines plane filled American citizens! You choose to believe one statement over the other? I withdraw the statement that it was deliberately altered, it was still misheard or he misspoke. Logic and English language dictate that when someone says they used something AS, the next statement is AS WHAT.
You're joking right? I mean, never in our history, has a government organization got something hopelessly wrong have they! Nope. Let's put this into context shall we? YOU claim no plane. This requires considerable work. They need to arrange a missile for starters. Someone/ a team / a ship to fire on American citizens. They need to plant all the dozens of witnesses who saw an AA plane, a passenger plane. Make sure no witnesses say it was a missile! The missile must be very powerful to punch through all those walls! They need to dispose of and mangle all the people on board. Nice job that! Then they need to VERY quickly sprinkle body parts around the crash zone and DNA for later analysis. They need to mangle and burn the actual plane. Then they need to VERY quickly sprinkle these around too, all around the lawn, with staff and other people everywhere! They need to arrange an incident with a taxi on the highway. They need to mangle a generator out-building. They need to knock over and bend some lamp posts! They need to totally fool or coerce Air Traffic Control with the actual flight path the plane takes. MEH! They need to manufacture the cell phone conversations. They need to manufacture the entire background record of the hijackers. That's just bullet points, all those can be expanded to create quite a large individual task. Now, on top of this they had to manufacture a fake flight path for the plane. This included altitudes, descent rates, turns etc. Basically, what YOU are suggesting is that the team to fake, the "fake flight path" actually screwed up and nobody noticed. To suggest that is an absurd claim, amongst this whole sorry multiple-scenario hogwash, is the understatement of the century. Now explain all those things and do it properly please, because a previous answer to similar, did so much flippant arm-waving they nearly took off.
The 9/11 Commission Report was as phony as a $3 bill. It was designed to be a coverup. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/
Nope, nothing to cover up. A plane got hijacked and they flew it into the Pentagon. It's about a thousand times simpler than the big MUST complete list posted just above. Hanlon's Razor. But if you want to think all those government employees are supermen/women who never make any errors....knock yourself out creating a conspiracy around it.
what liar movement? skip past the preface this time and show me what is incorrect about Coste’s analysis …
OK Bob … our conversations are over if you want to dismiss evidence that doesn’t conform to your beliefs .. Having said that, over the years I have posted numerous questions about the official account … you chose to obfuscate and ignore them … When are you going to be willing to see both sides is the events of 9/11?
My point was validated quite quickly, there is no point in any discussion with the usual suspects for the reason(s) I posted. I never dismiss valid (non-fabricated) evidence for any reason. But of course you are free to do as you wish, that goes without saying. If you posted "numerous questions" "over the years" about the official account, I don't remember a single one. Please refresh my memory, what I do distinctly remember is a shitload of "troofer" and "conspiracy theory" BS. I don't ignore anything in this section of the forum. I may not respond (as with Beta's nonsense) but that doesn't mean I ignore. There is no "both sides" of the events of 9/11. There is only one side of the events of 9/11, what actually took place (i.e. the truth, what you show you despise).
keep up the fight Bobby … I doubt reality will ever kick in with you and that’s just sad … you do you and I will do me … all the best to you and yours…
Impossible considering that pic you posted shows whatever that is on a level approach and that if such a Boeing was placed on the ground in flight-profile, i.e. with the landing gear stowed, its nose would be nine feet off the ground. ???
Never said that, only that there was no Flight 77 as the OCT claims. All that wouldn't be difficult for a specialized black-ops team. And: ‘Huge MISSILE hit the Pentagon on September 11’ Army General’s EXPLOSIVE claim resurfaces Retired Major General Albert N. Stubblebine became the biggest name to disagree with the official version of events a few years ago... In an interview, the ex-top military brass, 86, said he carefully examined the partly-destroyed Pentagon in the aftermath of the attack and changed his mind about what happened. He said: “I was so ingrained in my belief system that I could not believe – literally could not believe – that anybody but an Arab terrorist could do something like that. “And then one day I saw a picture – it was a photograph of the Pentagon and the hole in the Pentagon. “And I looked at it again and I said, ‘something’s wrong, something’s wrong with this picture’.” He claimed that the more he studied it, he realised something didn’t quite add up in his head. Major General Stubblebine said that after investigation – including measuring the impact site with the size of the jet – it couldn’t have been a plane that hit. Instead, he concluded it was a missile that smashed in the landmark, citing “evidence” that the remnants of a turbine from a rocket were left in the impact zone. He said in the same interview that images that allegedly back up his incredible claims were swiftly removed from the internet and replaced with doctored pictures. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/september-11-attacks-missile-hit-16967650
Nope an engine destroyed the top of that small building. Clearly it was a few feet off the lawn. But if you want to insist, those idiot "Black Ops Teams" need a stern talking to for failing to quickly dig some score marks. You didn't get that? Your quote said "Here's the transcript from the Dept. of Defense - it doesn't come any better than that: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building"" If you want to believe Rumsfeld saying AND a missile he also said using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens - doesn't come any better than that! Why do you ignore my statement? Doesn't it make more logical sense that he misspoke or it was misquoted? Logic - using something AS A is what you would say.
You want to split hairs on this!? You just quoted Stubby saying there was no plane! Utter hogwash! At least the other poster bothered to wave their arms more effectively. This is a complete waste of time if you can't even answer significant problems properly. I suggest you've been watching too many Hollywood movies. And Stubblebine? He actually did an experiment where he tried to walk through a wall. Analysis Of Eyewitness Stmts on 9/11 AA F77 Crash into Pentagon, by Penny Schoner, 12/03-2/04 (ratical.org)
I seen that, it was a clip of a missile, it went in almost perpendicular to the outside wall and the visible damage corroborates it. I think it lasted 3 days tops before it vanished in the great censor void. Thats why the rebar is bent outward.
Those evil government people huh. But seriously, people saw a plane and there's a great big list of things if they didn't just crash the nice easy to crash plane. It's all so very, very ridiculous to use a missile, when you've got a big fat plane.
No plane as in no Boeing Flight 77. There was a plane, I believe, or a drone more likely, which acted as a decoy and flew over low at the same time as the 'missile' was fired. Look at that pic again. How far above the ground is that white 'exhaust smoke'? A few feet, that's all. To think that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77 who couldn't even handle a light plane like the Cessna, could maneuver a Boeing 757 so delicately and expertly that the engines did not touch the lawn, is absurd. That shows the lengths some will go to to accept the OCT. How many conspiracies were kept quiet for a considerable period of time? Quite a few: Iran-Contra, Operation Gladio, for starters. Where does that article mention Stubblebine? A search on his name gave no results.
I refer you to the big list you waved away with magic "black-ops did it". A few feet works for me. A few feet away from the lawn. He didn't maneuver it - he pointed it and crashed it. No, the reverse is true. EVERY person reading this thread can crash a plane. That wasn't the hogwash bit, the numbers involved and the ridiculous lengths they needed to go to. You seriously think a "black-ops" team mangles and burns hundreds of American's bodies to sprinkle around the crash scene!? Who said it did? It mentions all the people who saw the damn plane. Stubby is irrelevant, military people go senile too you know.
I suppose you're one of those people who think that the conspiracy would be too big to keep quiet; the argument is that it is impossible that so many people could have kept quiet for so long. Someone would have talked or made a mistake, so that the conspiracy would have been discovered. Correct? Works for you - IOW, that's what you want to believe. He did maneuver it. Otherwise the engines would've scraped the lawn, at the very least. Besides, Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC) states: 'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S.' Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have 'descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall.' 'For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible,' said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.' '[Flight 77] could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous.' https://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport Hundreds? Where did you get that from? 64 aboard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77 How do you know he was senile when he said that about the missile?
Got any physical evidence, paper trails, money trails, electronic, emails etc.? Anything? Any deathbed confessions, lawyer releases? You think this insane number of people did this vast conspiracy without any of that? HOW MANY PEOPLE - the whole 911 deal? Your "black ops" team to do that small and needless list is actually ridiculous unless you are suggesting that ATC were coerced and bought to pretend about a plane, that they managed to drop plane parts and mangled body parts with nobody seeing! People were out of the building and looking out very quickly after it occurred. Well that's what the image shows, that's what recreations FROM the image shows. If you want to make up crap about lawn scrapes to support this crazy no-plane claim then knock yourself out. Bizarre circular logic. He pointed it at the Pentagon and I think he screwed up hitting the side - he came down too low. Uhuh. Trawling this crap out again! 911 Pilots opinion — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin' The planes can CLIMB at that speed! Should say 100s of American's body parts (I edited it and was going to change it but forgot). But what the hell! You gonna split hairs on how many dead bodies to burn and mangle, chop up and sprinkle around the crash scene!? Circular logic.
