NoC impact...

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

NoC impact...; is it possible?
Topic Started: Jul 12 2008, 12:08 PM (1,224 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Jul 12 2008, 12:08 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Hypothetically......of course. Is it possible in relation to the physical destruction on 9/11? No. Any questions or disagreements?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Avenger	Jul 12 2008, 02:12 PM Post #2
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Stinkey Puh How does a lack of consistent damage with a supposed north side crash prove no airplane crashed from the NoC approach? The damage doesn't line up with a north side approach at all. Where are the downed light poles from the northern approach? Or do you think the plane could have flown over the light poles? In order for it to hit low between the first and second floor, the plane's nose would've been pointing downward, which means it would have crashed into the foundation of the building. Stinkey Puh After all, if part of the damage path inside the Pentagon (and possibly outside as well?) was caused by explosives or something to that effect, why would we expect to see a clear north side crash path? Aren't you already assuming explosives were involved? Explosives can't make damage from a plane crash disappear.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jul 12 2008, 02:17 PM Post #3
Posts: 2,002 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	if the plane was really going to impact the building there would be no need to create the mechanical damage path....... i would even ponder the idea that the path was staged and the plane impacted from the north side but the staged damage was to explain the damage inside which needed to be precise but this doesn't explain the silver commercial airliner witnessed by officer roosevelt. the duh-bunkers whole claim is that it is aerodynamically impossible for a plane to cross over the Navy Annex to the NoC. this extreme fringe theory invented by some anonymous trolls that airplanes fall out of the sky if they fly over the navy annex is nonsense which explains the meltdown of mackey's biggest supporter reheat..... speaking of mackey whatever happened to the little nasa troll?
Posts: 2,002 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Avenger	Jul 12 2008, 02:57 PM Post #4
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: i would even ponder the idea that the path was staged and the plane impacted from the north side but the staged damage was to explain the damage inside which needed to be precise but this doesn't explain the silver commercial airliner witnessed by officer roosevelt. Like I said, the plane would've slammed into the foundation.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Headspin	Jul 12 2008, 03:25 PM Post #5
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	has CIT considered the possibilty that a drill such as MASCAL was being run on 911? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL You'll probably recall better than I that emergency workers and firefighters were already on the scene at the pentagon on the morning of 911 - I have this in my memory, so correct me if this information has since been show to be incorrect. This possibility could explain WHY light poles were staged. we know from first hand accounts of RED-EX (TRIPOD III) in May 2001 of building collapses in new york, that the drills are designed to be very realistic.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jul 12 2008, 05:58 PM Post #6
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Headspin Jul 12 2008, 03:25 PM This possibility could explain WHY light poles were staged. we know from first hand accounts of RED-EX (TRIPOD III) in May 2001 of building collapses in new york, that the drills are designed to be very realistic. I don't doubt there were drills but we know for a fact that Lloyd wasn't part of one and that no pole could have hit his cab.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Avenger	Jul 12 2008, 07:46 PM Post #7
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	No, Lloyd's light pole would've definitely been placed after the attack. Which would explain why the road he was on was deserted, with the exception of a few vehicles that were curiously positioned as if to block the view of Lloyd's scene from traffic on the adjacent highway. It just doesn't seem natural for people to position their cars in the middle of the road, pointing AWAY from a huge crash scene at the Pentagon. Even stranger for a driver to just sit in the vehicle still pointing away from the Pentagon, showing no interest in the fact that the Pentagon is on fire with a hole billowing smoke. So, yeah, there's no way that light pole would've been planted beforehand. The situation for the other light poles would've been the exact opposite. A MASCAL exercise could conceivably work as a cover, but, I don't know of any MASCAL exercise on the very day of 9/11. Seems like I remember something CONNECTED to a MASCAL happening on or around 9/11. Something to do with running inventory or something like that. I'm not sure. I'll have to look into it.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	Jul 12 2008, 09:31 PM Post #8
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Stinkey Puh Now that's interesting because the evidence CIT has uncovered shows that the damage path had to have been staged. It is not necessary for a 757 (or whatever) to have caused it. So the damage path does not really record, so to speak, the only possible path for an airplane to fly into the Pentagon. Where is the evidence that it is "not physically possible" for a 757 (or whatever) to fly NoC and crash into the Pentagon? Stinkey Puh No it should not because that is not at all what I asked! I asked, where is the evidence that it is not physically possible for a plane flying on the NoC flight path to impact the Pentagon? It's really rather simple. I already know that a plane on the north side path cannot knock down all the poles or cause the interior damage reported by those agencies you mentioned. Avenger So what is your point? Do you know of any evidence of damage from a north side approach? Start another thread about it if you think you do. Because the evidence that I've seen says it's impossible. Stinkey Puh The point is that you have yet to list or show the evidence on which you base your statement that it is "not physically possible [for the airplane to have struck the Pentagon] from north of the CITGO." How about you show the evidence that "says it's impossible"? How does a lack of consistent damage with a supposed north side crash prove no airplane crashed from the NoC approach? After all, if part of the damage path inside the Pentagon (and possibly outside as well?) was caused by explosives or something to that effect, why would we expect to see a clear north side crash path? Aren't you already assuming explosives were involved? Do you have any idea how ridiculous your question is? The evidence that it is "not physically possible" for a 757 (or whatever) to fly NoC and crash into the Pentagon is there is no damage path into and through the Pentagon from a position north of the Cirgo or from over the Navy Annex. It is physically impossible for an aircraft to impact the Pentagon first floor without leaving a damage path along its flight path and an internal damage path along the same angle to wherever it stops. Do you have evidence of such a damage path into the Pentagon? The aircraft either impacted along a northern flight path or flew over. There is zero evidence of an impact into the building from north of the Citgo. The light poles and overhead highway sign along the north of Citgo flight path were not knocked down. Light poles still standing in blue and staged light poles in yellow - Still standing overhead highway sign and shadow next to pole 20 The decoy aircraft flying over the Navy Annex would have necessarily had to dive at a steeper descent angle and would have damaged the foundation. The object seen in the parking lot security videos could not possibly be an aircraft impacting from north of the Citgo. The five light poles and generator trailer could not have been struck. The official flight path and damage pattern through the Pentagon first floor does not allow an impact from north of the Citgo. Your question is nonsense and deliberate trolling.



Stinkey Puh	Jul 12 2008, 10:55 PM Post #9
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	Good points on the foundation and lightpoles, Avenger and Craig. But suppose the plane (not necessarily a 757 at all) could fly over the lightpoles and then drop and level off to impact?
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jul 12 2008, 11:14 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Hypothetically, or in other words, out of context of the evidence, that would mean the plane could damage the building as reported and the light poles/Lloyd's cab were staged. But that is not where any of the witnesses saw the plane. Seriously, Stinkey....what is your point with these semantic circles? Has the evidence convinced you that the plane that most witnesses believe hit the building traveled north of the citgo?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Jul 13 2008, 01:34 AM Post #11
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	So Stinkey, you're proposing that the poles WERE staged, and that the plane which DIDN'T hit the poles had flight characteristsics of a UFO? Doing zig zags in mid flight at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour? Double You Tee Eff Mate? Like seriously! You're actualyl on here to debate REAL issues? You're honestly here to argue these things? With guess work and shit? THAT, and Roosevelt SAW a plane flying over and AWAY from the building as he ran outside!!!! Like, you ignore that fact like the plague because it does nothing to help your argument. You're NOT helping your "side" at all. I'm glad, because it's a fucking joke. I applaud, but this is RETARDED. It's like saying you can do some "math" in your head and tell us all how it really happened!! This is unbelievable. Round and round we go, where we stop, only Reheat, Stinkey, Bret and Tether etc etc only know......pfft.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Stinkey Puh	Jul 15 2008, 08:49 PM Post #12
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	"Craig" Hypothetically, or in other words, out of context of the evidence, that would mean the plane could damage the building as reported and the light poles/Lloyd's cab were staged. But that is not where any of the witnesses saw the plane What do you mean that's not where the witnesses saw the plane? Don't they all describe a North of the Citgo approach and impact with the Pentagon? Quote: Seriously, Stinkey....what is your point with these semantic circles? I'm not sure what you mean here. Sure, my earlier issue with Avenger's comment about the impossibility to have a plane fly NoC and impact the Pentagon doesn't seem very worthwhile. But really, it seems you (CIT or anyone else) can't just use NoC testimony as proof the plane didn't impact: the evidence of the non-damaged foundation, the seemingly never-riveted piece of plane debris, and other pictures from the Pentagon cast doubt on the impact story all by themselves. This -- and I'm sure other -- evidence stands against the OGCT regardless of the plane's approach. Call it a "semantic circle" if you like, but to just use anything to deny an impact -- even when all (afaik) the witnesses who where in a position to tell say that's what happened --doesn't seem the best approach. Quote: Has the evidence convinced you that the plane that most witnesses believe hit the building traveled north of the citgo? Did you actually wonder the answer to this question, Craig, or did you just want me to post it here, as well? Yes; if there was a plane involved, the evidence I've seen pretty solidly indicates that it flew North of the Citgo. On to Bitterman's fine post. "Bitterman" So Stinkey, you're proposing that the poles WERE staged, and that the plane which DIDN'T hit the poles had flight characteristsics of a UFO? No, where did the UFO part come in? Quote: Doing zig zags in mid flight at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour? Who says it would have to zig zag to get over the poles, level off, and hit the Pentagon? Quote: Double You Tee Eff Mate? Quote: Like seriously! You're actualyl on here to debate REAL issues? Maybe. Quote: You're honestly here to argue these things? With guess work and shit? Who are they? Quote: THAT, and Roosevelt SAW a plane flying over and AWAY from the building as he ran outside!!!! And over which parking lot did he say it was flying? Quote: Like, you ignore that fact like the plague because it does nothing to help your argument. Really? Since when do you know what my "argument" is? Quote: You're NOT helping your "side" at all. Do we see another assumption here? Who's "side" am I on? Quote: I'm glad, because it's a fucking joke. I applaud, but this is RETARDED. Ah, always a good tactic to refute an "opponent's" position. . . Quote: It's like saying you can do some "math" in your head and tell us all how it really happened!! Imagine that! Here's a hint (though perhaps it's offtopic, somewhat): it's unfortunately beginning to look like CIT has double standards, so to speak, when discussing the evidence (certain witnesses remain suspect, while others are believed as valid); also, it seems the more witnesses are contacted that confirm the plane flew NoC and impacted -- in addition to the previous accounts of impact -- the less it seems possible to trick all of them that it impacted if it really flew over the building. You know, how could Stephen McGraw be tricked? Or what about Joel Sucherman? They both clearly state they saw the plane impact, don't they? And they appear to have been in a better position to see if a plane impacted than, for example, Lagasse, or other NoC witnesses.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Avenger	Jul 15 2008, 09:14 PM Post #13
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Call it a "semantic circle" if you like, but to just use anything to deny an impact -- even when all (afaik) the witnesses who where in a position to tell say that's what happened --doesn't seem the best approach. Excuse me? You really think that's what's happening here? Use anything to DENY impact? The light poles and damage line up with a south of CITGO approach. Seems to me that it's you who will use anything to make it seem possible. Like this argument. Quote: Who says it would have to zig zag to get over the poles, level off, and hit the Pentagon? Maybe a biplane could pull that off, but a passenger plane?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Avenger	Jul 15 2008, 09:28 PM Post #14
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	I mean, if you're going to slam a real plane into the Pentagon, then why would you bother planting light poles? And on a completely different trajectory?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Jul 16 2008, 12:01 AM Post #15
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Who's side are you on Stinkey?
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


SPreston	Jul 16 2008, 06:50 AM Post #16
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Avenger I mean, if you're going to slam a real plane into the Pentagon, then why would you bother planting light poles? And on a completely different trajectory? Bitterman Who's side are you on Stinkey? Yeah Stinkey, did you get recruited by the Bush Regime for damage control? If not, try using a little common sense for a change. It is really not difficult at all. Even the Bush Regime shills and government loyalists could use a dose of simple common sense and logic. Alternate damage pattern if official 535 mph 100 ton aircraft impacted alleged official impact hole on flight path in line with Citgo gas station. (Of course an aircraft could not have reached that position on the lawn from NOC without knocking down other light poles and a large overhead highway sign and damaging the foundation, and there is no other impact damage pattern anywhere on the Pentagon facade) How would alleged voice & data recorders officially found near alleged official aircraft Exit Hole ("Punch Out" Hole) move about 150 feet north of the NOC trajectory? Why would they fake the official aircraft Exit Hole in the wrong spot? Original image taken from official Department of Defense Pentagon 911 book. (click diagram) Alleged official position of official 535 mph 100 ton aircraft just before sliding under 2nd story floor slab into the 1st floor area. Port engine officially inches off lawn. Just not possible from flight path over Navy Annex and from north of the Citgo. (click image) Edited by SPreston, Jul 16 2008, 07:01 AM.



Stinkey Puh	Jul 16 2008, 07:24 PM Post #17
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	"Avenger" Excuse me? You really think that's what's happening here? Use anything to DENY impact? The light poles and damage line up with a south of CITGO approach. Seems to me that it's you who will use anything to make it seem possible. Like this argument. I'm not trying to make it seem possible for the plane to fly NoC and knock down the lightpoles that we know were down. Quote: Quote: Who says it would have to zig zag to get over the poles, level off, and hit the Pentagon? Maybe a biplane could pull that off, but a passenger plane? Remember, we don't really know the type of plane or it's capabilities. And why couldn't a 757 (or whatever) do it? "Bitterman" Who's side are you on Stinkey? I'm not sure I'm on anyone's side.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Avenger	Jul 16 2008, 09:19 PM Post #18
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Remember, we don't really know the type of plane or it's capabilities. And why couldn't a 757 (or whatever) do it? I thought it was obvious. It's too big. Generally, the bigger the plane, the harder it is to maneuver. Also, a bigger plane means less room to maneuver. The overall length of a 757 (155 feet) is a little longer than half the length of a football field. Even a 707 is 128 feet long. There's just not enough room for it to drop down and level off a mere six feet off the ground. It would have to be flying pretty slow if it could. In which case, ground effect would come into play. Also the plane would have a hard time fully entering the building at a slow speed. Besides, what do you think created that exit hole that lines up so well with the downed light poles?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


JFK	Jul 16 2008, 10:00 PM Post #19
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Stinky, I have banned your sock puppet. Try that again and you will also be gone.
Posts: 4,212 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Stinkey Puh	Jul 16 2008, 10:10 PM Post #20
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	"Avenger" I thought it was obvious. It's too big. Generally, the bigger the plane, the harder it is to maneuver. Also, a bigger plane means less room to maneuver. The overall length of a 757 (155 feet) is a little longer than half the length of a football field. Even a 707 is 128 feet long. There's just not enough room for it to drop down and level off a mere six feet off the ground. It would have to be flying pretty slow if it could. In which case, ground effect would come into play. Also the plane would have a hard time fully entering the building at a slow speed. Maybe so. But maybe it is possible. And like Craig, I believe, has said, we don't know what type of plane it was or what capabilities it could have had due to modifications or something. Quote: Besides, what do you think created that exit hole that lines up so well with the downed light poles? Who really knows? Didn't Russell propose a rapid wall breaching device? Or maybe it was the same "thing" that caused the old "flap track" phenomenon!
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Bitterman	Jul 16 2008, 10:11 PM Post #21
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Stinkey Puh Jul 12 2008, 10:55 PM Good points on the foundation and lightpoles, Avenger and Craig. But suppose the plane (not necessarily a 757 at all) could fly over the lightpoles and then drop and level off to impact? Where did the UFO thing come from? Right here Stinkey, READ YOUR OWN FUCKING COMMENT. You're saying the plane or A SOMETHING could fly low and MISS the poles and yet still impact the building INCORRECTLY from where all the witnesses of the plane put it's flight path!?!? You you the UFO thing there!! the plane could not do what you say it could have done. Even if you're NOT saying that, you have not said ANYTHING that helps find out what actually happened. In fact you've condemned every bit of critical testimony to what actually happened that day!!! You're important to this conversation how!?!?!? How or why are we taking your comments seriously?? You're deneying facts in your face WHY!?!?!?! BULLSHIT. All bullshit. All fucking ignarance OR outright bullshit to push an agenda you have no say over. Fucking ludicrous. Fucking lame, lame excuse for a human. Well done on your "ignorance". Sickening.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Stinkey Puh	Jul 16 2008, 10:19 PM Post #22
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	"JFK" Stinky, I have banned your sock puppet. Try that again and you will also be gone Since you posted it here, I'll respond. I had no sock puppet.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Bitterman	Jul 16 2008, 10:19 PM Post #23
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Stinkey Puh Jul 16 2008, 10:10 PM "Avenger" I thought it was obvious. It's too big. Generally, the bigger the plane, the harder it is to maneuver. Also, a bigger plane means less room to maneuver. The overall length of a 757 (155 feet) is a little longer than half the length of a football field. Even a 707 is 128 feet long. There's just not enough room for it to drop down and level off a mere six feet off the ground. It would have to be flying pretty slow if it could. In which case, ground effect would come into play. Also the plane would have a hard time fully entering the building at a slow speed. Maybe so. But maybe it is possible. And like Craig, I believe, has said, we don't know what type of plane it was or what capabilities it could have had due to modifications or something. Quote: Besides, what do you think created that exit hole that lines up so well with the downed light poles? Who really knows? Didn't Russell propose a rapid wall breaching device? Or maybe it was the same "thing" that caused the old "flap track" phenomenon! Maybe so, why the hell are you here? Maybe this, maybe that....what the fuck is the point of YOU. Why are you here to BS this crap??? You should be relegated to the skeptics section, seriously! Maybe, blah, blah....... Twoofer or not?? Wanna do something good? Go live your life as you see fit and just screw off. If you've convinced, that things are fine and CIT is crap, and all these BS witnesses are "mistaken" then move on!! Get the fuck out of here becauyse you do NOTHING!!! You're not even debating the issue!! You're just coming up with your BEST GUESS. The best your IMAGINATION can come up with. Frankly, if I may call you that, it's not worth listening to you spew your shite just to hear your best idea on what happened..... Maybe this and maybe that........ Oh!!! Well maybe it could have!!! I never though of that, well time to go home!!! Pack it in guys!!! CIT is all wrong!! It "could" have done that!!! Fuck sakes (for next time) means = you're a horrendous bunch of BS and I can't stand to listen to you. You do nothing here and your fucking OPINION and best guess does nothing but bog us down in shite to debate time and time again, which I'm sure is your goal. You know, despite all of that it's still comfotting to know that CIT has done all the legwork, and shown you guys as fucking morons to think anything that what is in front of your eyes. It shows people who actually care what is really going on and that you can't do much be delay and delay. What else you got?!?!! EDITED for fucking spelling Edited by Bitterman, Jul 16 2008, 10:20 PM.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Bitterman	Jul 16 2008, 10:21 PM Post #24
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Stick around stinkey puh, I'm not done humiliating you with CIT's work.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Avenger	Jul 16 2008, 10:29 PM Post #25
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Maybe so. But maybe it is possible. Believe whatever you want. Not enough room. Quote: And like Craig, I believe, has said, we don't know what type of plane it was or what capabilities it could have had due to modifications or something. Well, what kind of modifications do you think would make this possible? What kind of modification can negate ground effect? What modification would allow it to fully enter the building? Quote: Who really knows? Didn't Russell propose a rapid wall breaching device? Or maybe it was the same "thing" that caused the old "flap track" phenomenon Does the "flap track" phenomenon line up north or south of the CITGO? Does this wall breaching device line up north or south of the CITGO? Why would you need a wall breaching kit if a plane really hit the Pentagon? Why would you need planted light poles that line up with a completely different trajectory?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2