Creative Speculation
Related: About this forumAmerican 77 flight path dilemma (Pentagon attack)
The official report tells us American flight 77 struck down the light poles.
But a look at the flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB tells us something else entirely.
As seen here, the plane is coming in too high of an angle to strike the light poles. The altimeter shows 180 ft. It's also hundreds of feet too far to the left of the poles.
...apparently making the official flight path a physical impossibility.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Houston, we have a big problem here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
antitsa
(116 posts)thereby destroying the official story which says "the plane" flew South of the Citgo.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Houston, we have a problem.
antitsa
(116 posts)
zappaman
(20,612 posts)but first, what is the official Pentagon story?
when you can tell us what that is, then you can tell us the "pure bunkum" part!
I'll wait...
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)zappaman
(20,612 posts)I didn't know that.
Are there any links I can read?
zappaman
(20,612 posts)are you proposing that no plane hit the pentagon?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)only thing we can be sure of at this point is the official flight path is not possible.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)Really?
I guess you are a "no-planer" then.
Didn't know any were still around.
If a plane didn't hit the pentagon...
-Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked
-Generator damage by engine impact: faked
-Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked
-Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked
-Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked
-Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked
-All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw
-tree branches and leaves shorn off at the overpass by flight 77's engine and seen strewn about the highway amongst the downed lamp posts: faked
-the missing foot peg and impact scar on the VDOT camera pole: faked
-The genset trailer damage pushed TOWARD the direction of the pentagon face: faked
All that was faked, eh?
Maybe you should read up on FDRs and black boxes.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/misinformation-flight-77-flight-path.html
Oh, and can you provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)but that's not what I said.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)here's a simple yes or no question.
did a plane hit the pentagon?
here is your chance to answer in your own words.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)apparently some aircraft of some kind did hit the Pentagon because the flight data recorder was recovered.
but what kind of aircraft is the question.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)Maybe to you.
However, here on planet earth, we know what type of aircraft hit the pentagon.
I will give you credit for your incredibly inventive and evasive answer since it is making me laugh.
"here on planet earth, we know what type of aircraft hit the pentagon."
Speak for yourself, will you?
zappaman
(20,612 posts)here on planet earth.
You don't. And you can't prove you do.
zappaman
(20,612 posts).
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)but the genius/ninjas behind it would just 'whoopsie, fucked up' and programmed the wrong flight path for all that work they did to break the light posts and such on the way in.
Such doltish geniuses that arranged this 'event', eh? Tens of thousands of pounds of explosives to bring down the towers, wired in without anyone noticing, but oh look, it falls symmetrically therefore it's a conspiracy, when if these mad geniuses could have wired it to blow, they could have brought it down like a tree fall if they wanted to, thereby eliminating the appearance of impropriety.
Impressive how incredibly stupid these supposed genius mad overlords are.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Have you ever considered that?
Hypothetically, maybe WTC7 was supposed to fall straight down in a perfect controlled demolition when it was hidden by the dust from the collapse of WTC1. But hypothetically maybe somebody sabotaged the detonators so they didn't go off on schedule.
Hypothetically, maybe flight 77 was controlled by computer, and somebody sabotaged the programming so that it would fly north of the Citgo and leave the hypothetically faked lamp poles lying on the ground even though the plane didn't hit them. (I don't see how the lamp poles could have been faked, but that's a separate issue.)
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They only give us a short look at the crash. The Pentagon should have a lot of camera's that should have recorded the crash. Why don't they show it? What are they afraid of? Do you know passenger plane engines are 9 feet tall. And the picture at the Pentagon shows an engine that is at or below knee length. And again they ID'd everyone but yet, they never reconstructed ANY of the planes. I used to be a believer in the planes, but since I have NEVER seen ONE picture of a SEAT in the debris, I have questions. Again, DNA survives, but plane debris vaporized. And since I saw this video it also makes me question if planes were used. Watch till the 43 second mark. Close out the small window on the right, and click your mouse to play, pause real fast. Is that still a plane to you? I know this sounds overboard, but that doesn't look like a plane to me.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)Says who?
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Why would there be cameras around the Pentagon? It's just the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. No surveillance cameras needed in the site.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)ocpagu
(1,954 posts).
William Seger
(11,031 posts)In the first place, you assume that all the surveillance cameras were being recorded, when in fact most were monitored in real-time, not recorded. As you point out, this was not a 7-11 store: Security at the Pentagon depends of armed guards actively monitoring what's happening now, not on reviewing video tape after something happens.
Second, the cameras on the roof were pointing down to observe the parking lot, grounds, and entrances, not to watch the skies over the Navy Annex for incoming planes, so even if every camera was being recorded, the fact that only two cameras saw the impact is not really surprising.
(Edit to add): Third, we'd know that Flight 77 crashed into even if there were no videos at all, and even if there weren't hundreds of people who actually saw it happen. We'd know that because that's where is was found. Duh. Trying to refute the evidence for that by raising questions about the videos is beyond silly, especially since we know from Flight 175 that no number of videos will ever convince "no-planers."
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)It makes a lot of sense that the cameras are not used for recording, but only real time monitoring, in places such as the Pentagon... also, a quite exotic argument about the position of cameras. Useless, of course, considering the lack of footage. And, as I said already, I saw no airplane found on the site. I just saw some tiny little debris that the government, media and their parrots keep telling that is evidence of an airplane crash. Only that.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It almost sounds like you know.
Prog_gun_owner
(54 posts)
Callmecrazy
(3,066 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)we wont know that until the NTSB provides the rest of the flight recorder data.
for some unexplained reason, the NTSB decided not to release the part of the FDR where the plane supposedly impacts with the Pentagon. which is why the animation is abruptly cut off. do they have something to hide?
zappaman
(20,612 posts)the government faked a plane hitting the pentagon and then released a video showing that they faked a plane hitting the pentagon.
Is that how you see it?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)perhaps a whistleblower in the NTSB decided to release it.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)and I'm sure you have some sort of evidence where that video on youtube came from, right?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)if you bother to look.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)
Again, this video has been covered before.
Do you know what year this is?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=125586
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)all the witnesses are lying about where they saw Flight 77 fly over them?
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)There are eyewitnesses on both sides of the issue. I'm not sure one has to infer that any of them is lying. But the physical evidence seems to support a southern route.
At least, that's how it seemed to me last time I thought about this, several years ago. Clearly the animation doesn't make much of a case, on its own.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)all the witnesses are lying about where they saw Flight 77 fly over them?
are the ones who saw it hit the pentagon lying too?
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Crash_Evidence
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)I don't dispute that something hit the Pentagon.
the flightpath of the object is what's in question here.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)... there is no question about the flight path: It was over the bridge, as the damage path clearly shows.
If you want to buy the "north of the Citgo" bullshit, then you also need to buy the "fly-over" and fake crash bullshit, since that's the whole point of it.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the aircraft is too high in the air to contact the poles.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)As far as I can tell from your posts, you still seem to be relying on the animation, which makes no sense. Not only does the animation demonstrably not agree with the FDR data on which it is purported to be based, but I'd be pretty startled if it had accurate 3-D rendering of the light poles. How can you purport to know that "the aircraft is too high in the air to contact the poles"?
You're up against considerable eyewitness evidence, not to mention the physical evidence of the poles being downed; I haven't seen you offer an alternative explanation for any of this.
Hmm, I wonder what David Chandler and Jon Cole think about this?
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole
It would be hypocritical of me to quote David Chandler as an authority on anything, but it's interesting to think about.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)> we wont know that until the NTSB provides the rest of the flight recorder data.
> for some unexplained reason, the NTSB decided not to release the part of the FDR where the plane supposedly impacts with the Pentagon. which is why the animation is abruptly cut off. do they have something to hide?
Where did you get that bullshit? I can't believe that even Cap'n Bob is dumb enough to make a claim like that.
The entire FDR file was released, but it was in a proprietary format. For a couple of years, Cap'n Bob and one of his cohorts who had access to software that could decode the raw data deliberately hide the fact that there were incomplete data blocks at the end of the raw data that the NTSB had not included in the published spreadsheet version. Those incomplete blocks show that the spreadsheet data, which was used to make the animation, ended at least 6 seconds before impact, not less than 2 seconds as Cap'n Bob insisted. During those same years, rational people contended that incomplete data was the most probable explanation for why the spreadsheet data ended with the plane still too high to hit the bridge, and Cap'n absolutely insisted that that just wasn't possible. Finally, a bright programmer was able to reverse-engineer the data encoding and discovered those incomplete blocks, and Cap'n Bob's fortunes as a conspiracy huckster have been in sharp decline every since.
Anyone who still takes Cap'n Bob seriously hasn't been paying attention.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)according to this programmer who you say reverse-engineered them?
Does it show how this large commercial aircraft is able to go from 180 feet to dropping down to ground level and leveling out within the blink of an eye? That seems quite a spectacular feat. Another 9/11 first?
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Six seconds is not a "blink of an eye." The data in those blocks isn't usable, but the mere fact that they are there means that there is no mystery in the FDR data: The descent rate in the good data extrapolated for six seconds hits the building.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the bad blocks could have been of the FDR continuing to record after impact.
if the blocks are unusable you don't know that. you are merely assuming.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Continued to record after the impact that you deny happened?
I see you haven't really given much thought to the, um, subtleties of proving AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon using an FDR that was found in the Pentagon.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"Tests on the bullet recovered from the dead man's body indicate he was not shot."
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)notice in the video beginning at :40.
by the end of the animation at :58 notice how the plane has flown over ALL FIVE of the light poles without striking them. these light poles should have been knocked down, but the FDR clearly shows the aircraft flying well above them and to their left. why do the light poles remain intact?
the official story cannot be possible.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Come back when you have.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)in the thread you link to.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)There's no excuse for recycling this bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x125586
Edit to add synopsis: The flight data recorder absolutely shows the plane's path over the bridge where the light poles were down. The Pentagon graphic was added in the animation, but someone apparently rotated it the wrong way in attempting to adjust magnetic north to true north.
Bonus: Pilot for "truth" Cap'n Bob Balsamo (johndoeX) gets caught trying to foist a bogus graphic off on us in post #49. Anyone who still takes Balsamo seriously hasn't been paying attention. I
(Edit again: Sorry, I didn't notice that zappaman had already posted a link to that thread.)
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)if you don't want to talk about it, you are free to leave the thread.
zappaman
(20,612 posts)like I did, that this has been covered before.
He also pointed out, as I did, that it is not 2006.
The real question is why are you posting this crap that was shown to be bullshit 5-6 years ago.
I suggest you revisit the conversation from 2006.
Hope that helps!
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)not mine.
no one is forcing you. if you're so uncomfortable discussing the topic at hand, you are free to leave anytime.
William Seger
(11,031 posts)Not all opinions are created equal.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Only.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)All this north of Citgo, controlled demolition babble has only one purpose - to keep people from discussing pertinent things, like, for instance, the curious actions of Richard Blee surrounding 9/11.
It's crazy to see that people still inhabit the limited hangouts established in 2002 (presumably by the very people who so blatantly failed us on that day..)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)It's the PENTAGON, yet the closest camera is blocks away?!
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)shows nothing that resembles a Boeing 757.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It makes Pentagon-hostile activists spin their wheels endlessly speculating about what did or didn't hit the Pentagon and it establishes the principle--as Messrs. Chandler and Cole tell us it's a publiclty-accepted principle--that Pentagon business is none of our business and we have no right to see those videos.
Prog_gun_owner
(54 posts)long before the pentagon///\\\???
sgsmith
(398 posts)Pulling a distance on google earth, it's roughly 800 feet from the center of the interchange where the damaged light poles were, to the front of the Pentagon. Plus the fact that most light poles break away at the bottom, I really doubt that that any damage to the wing was significant.