Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

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!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach?; a step back from the details...
Topic Started: Jun 14 2010, 12:04 PM (6,792 Views)
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
I copied this Op that achimspok posted at P4T for posterity:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20147

I only copied achimspok's original post is because its good information that deserves its own thread. The rest on P4T is just the same snakes posting their fluff and Rob Balsamo chiming in with some nonsense threatening to ban achimspok for opening up their Pandora's box of lies and deception!


(Both myself and achimspok have been banned from posting at P4T by Rob Balsamo)

----------------------

achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach? A step back from the details...

First, two reasons for posting this:
Firstly, I read the Albert Hemphill telephone call conversation threads and was a little shocked about the harsh words and the way to turn the meanings of the words in any useful way.
Secondly, I read the 757 "Remote Control And Flight Crew Lockout Technology Available" thread - a very interesting thread!

Imo both together makes not very much sense. Therefore it seems to be useful to step back from the details and to have a little more distant look at all these things.

THE PENTAGON STRIKE

1) There are 5 light poles. The damage looks pretty much like a mechanical damage. It looks like hit down with a gigantic baseball bat. No soot, no shrapnels nor any sign of tiny explosions. It is what it is. The former straight poles are bowed diagonally to the street and sheared off. It would be possible to get the exact angle of the force from the square at the bottom of the pole to compare it with the alleged trajectory.

Posted Image

2) We know the lamp head height was 40ft and we can estimate the elevation of the damage. That leads to a path for the "whatsoever". Imho it must have been some plane due to the wingspan. Any missile theory cannot explain that path through the damage or we need a missile as big as a plane or two missiles. So the possibility for that is pretty small because there would be a hundred better possibilities to shoot a plan into pieces or just to shoot a hole into the building.

Posted Image

3) Still there is no serious contradiction regarding the photographs of airplane debris and a Boeing 757. Several websites deal with that topic. I wrote something here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=377

4) The witness Albert Hemphill said something about 3 to 5 seconds. Is it evident for a slower speed? The distance between Navy Annex and the impact hole is about 840 meters.
v= 840m/3s = 280m/s = 626mph
v= 840m/5s = 168m/s = 375mph

So it's time to have a second look at the flight path. Let's start with the "right shoulder" flight path.

Posted Image

This is the the view from the top floor of the Navy Annex. The camera position is visible in the above image.

Posted Image

Right shoulder? Yes. Clearing the bridge? Yes. Over the CGS? Yes, it looks like. Nevertheless the plane flew south of it.

That's how it should looks like from a 2m elevated surveillance camera with a 25mm lens. Imagine trees and buildings in the background.
Imo, the plane that is about to hit the right point looks a lot higher. The engines are still above the lawn but...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
...the biggest problem is still...

Posted Image

Nevertheless, a flight path above the Navy Annex would require a banking to turn the plane into the final path through the lamp poles.
Total time 3-5 seconds.
Speed 370-620mph.
In other words, the plane is leveling at high speed just some feet above ground. At the same time it must turn about 7° in 1.5-2.5 seconds and a total of 12° in 3-5 seconds.

Posted Image

From the WTC flights we know that the wings flexing upwards. However, even a small banking angle is inconsistent with the damage to the light poles e.g. the starboard wing would miss pole 1 to hit pole 3 in the right elevation while all light poles on the left would be hit at a lower elevation.

THE PLANE DIDN'T BANK while clearing the bridge!

What's about a straight flightpath?

Posted Image

Posted Image

The major problem remains. The plane has to fly close to the ground into the "valley of death" while leveling to not hit the ground.

Albert Hemphill would have seen something like this:

Posted Image

...same for CGS and bridge. Right shoulder? Yes. Any higher altitude at that point in time would looks more like "over" the right shoulder.

The surveillance camera would see the very same. No difference.

Without banking the wings hit almost exactly the estimated elevations along the path through the light poles.

Posted Image

That's how it looks like from the north side of the Citgo Gas Station.

Posted Image

Would you say it banked right or would you say it banked left?
Would you say it came over the Navy Annex? More left? More right? In the middle?
You should see the GIF in about the real speed. Try to count about 4 seconds for the flight from the corner of the Navy Annex to the impact. If it works then ask yourself how many separate puffs or bangs you might hear or see from the light poles? Is "one flash" a good description of what he probably saw? What would you say?

(I would say: WOW HANI! HEY FRIENDS, THAT'S A f*** TERRIBLE CESSNA PILOT!)

Look at the tiny yellow cab above! A poor old black man is sitting in that car. It's all he has. He do it for living.
One second of PURE HELL! ...noise, flash, hot wind, some aluminum stick nearly impales him. The building next to him is exploding. ONE SECOND! Go and ask him where he was exactly and if he saw an American Airlines!

Where is the plane? Is it a big plane or a small plane? Is it over the Navy Annex or in front of it and right to the CGS? Banks it left or right?
For all these questions we have to distinguish between professionals and the "normal" witness. The answers could be the 100% opposite.

Posted Image

That's the view from the tower of the heliport and that...

Posted Image

...is the actual position of the plane.

Posted Image

Right, it's a big plane.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Is there any problem about that plane? Yes. And it looks like that:

Posted Image

But first let's have a look at the following witness drawing!

Posted Image
The little cross is the point of view.

Obviously Darius Prather tells us that the plane hit where the hole is. And obviously he saw the plane somewhere over the Navy Annex. So if the altitude of the plane was a little more than roof hight then the plane MUST have been on the south side of the Navy Annex. Keep in mind that one of the arguments for the impossibility of any "over or north of the NA" approach is that the plane had to bank extremely. According to Rob any turn of more than 5° can be excluded at that speed and for that distance. So what is the "Prather Banana"?

I would say the plane became bigger and bigger until it was scarry BIG and headed for the impact hole. That's "perception".

In other words that flight path is the description/perception of the "official flight path" seen through the eyes of a scared man.

Given the fact that the painted path is impossible for the plane without extreme banking and given the fact that it hit where it hit, we know - thanks CIT - that obviously the official path is the right path and that some BIG plane hit where it should.

The very same pattern is visible in almost ALL the painted paths I found.

CIT should immediately have noticed it because the argumentation for the north path is based (ONLY) on the "physical impossible" south path according to the NTSB data.

The NTSB data describe a path straight through/above the VDOT antenna mast. I don't know how exact these radar data can be (and may be these data were polished for the public without noticing the mast in the way) but ...

Posted Image

...a turn of about 7.5° is enough to miss the VDOT antenna north of it. The straight path through the damage (light poles, generator, wall) would be south of the VDOT mast.

Given the "felt" banana of distant north witnesses and the probably amplified impression of witnesses close to the path, I would place the flightpath in the south of the VDOT mast.

Nevertheless, let's have a look at the "north of VDOT" flight path in contrast to the CIT argumentation for a "proven North of Citgo path".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
It's been said that Edward Paik was in the best position. Was he?

Posted Image

"Looks like my shop here."

Notice the VDOT mast on the right. The Navy Annex is invisible from that position. It's on the left behind the shop.

Posted Image

"Loud noise that's why I running out..."
Given the speed and low altitude the entire flyby might have lasted for about 3 seconds.
Where was he? How fast can he run?

Let's look what he is describing?

Posted Image
Posted Image

It looks like south of Columbia pike. That's what he initially describes.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
A little later Ed describes the wings over there and the body of the plane over his shop.
Well, that's Ed's banana. Otherwise he initially describes the path of the starboard wing tip.
Nevertheless, it's impossible that the plane was really that low to get the body over the shop and the wings in the shown direction.

Posted Image

Probably he saw something like this (but in 2 seconds) and ran out to see if the Navy Annex was hit. But it wasn't.

That's what he say what happened. And of course, in front of the bright sky the wings should look like dark gray.

Given the perceptional banana, is it possible that he saw the plane south of the VDOT mast?
If so then the plane could fly through the lamp poles without any banking straight into the hole.
IF ... and only IF ... "what-ever-piloting-that-BIG-BIG-plane" can manage the leveling.


Quote:
 
Quote: John Bursill

"I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction."


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Robert Turcios is another CIT "north of Citgo" witness.

Posted Image

"I ran out here to see what's going on."
How fast can he run? He had about 3-4 seconds from the noise to the hit.
May be he heard the noise coming from "between the trees"???

Where was he?

Posted Image

He says he saw the plane approaching between the trees.

Posted Image

...these trees.

Posted Image

So he was at the south east corner of the Citgo gas station and saw the plane coming from the NORTH.

Posted Image

Posted Image

In other words, because of the 5 meters wide VDOT mast is standing exactly in the way of the NTSB data a 90° turned flight path is "scientifically" more reliable?

Imo Robert Turcios didn't see any plane at all. He heard the noise and the boom and ran up the grass bank to see the smoke.
"I could not probably see when it hit the pentagon..."
May be he told his manager that he saw the plane (however it effected the payroll). What should he tell his manager 9 years later?
...but that's just my impression.

Craig Ranke was on the scene? He saw the grass wall, saw the trees in the north?
He knew that an approach from behind Prather is extremely unlikely.

Posted Image

Later Robert Turcios painted that flight path when confronted with an aerial view of the scene.

Posted Image

He also saw that an approach between the trees isn't very believable even if it describes his impression best.
According to his own painting of his position !!! he woudn't see the plane coming from the painted direction at all because his entire view was blocked by the roof of the gas station.

(Nevertheless, an animation makes us believe that Robert Turcios talks the whole time about some "north of the Navy Annex" approach.
That's not the case! It should be said that the video gives no help for the viewer to understand where the witness is and where the trees are. )

Posted Image

Eyewitnesses of Flight 77 Debunk Government's Story 2/5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNZNmQPUgs&feature=related


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Here are two rough animations of the (imo) reasonable flight paths.

The red cubes on the right side showing the elevations of the
1) Navy Annex
2) light pole 1
3) Pentagon
taken from the P4T website.

These elevations differ from the Google Earth elevations but in comparison to photographs the P4T elevations are the correct ones.

The NORTH of VDOT path:

Posted Image

The SOUTH of VDOT path:

Posted Image

Questions:

* Do we have any hard evidence to definitely exclude a flight path near the VDOT tower? If so then is it a reason to prefer a north of Citgo path and flyby? If not then...

* Is one of these paths near the VDOT mast a believable result of coincidences and the decisions of an untrained and unexperienced "pilot"?

* Is there any reason not to choose the middle of the highway to prevent a collision with either the VDOT mast or the Navy Annex and to fly directly into the corner or south side of the Pentagon?

Posted Image

Posted Image

* Is either a special skill or special equipment necessary to succeed near the VDOT mast and along the path to the final impact hole?

* Is there any advantage to fake an attack by flying over the building and away?







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Storm is Coming

shure
Jun 14 2010, 12:09 PM


Posted Image



Jeff

The tail did appear to shift to the right of the planes body before impact

I thought it was wind shear!

A witness at Citco (or was it Hemphill) called it ground affects!

It may have been the plane hitting the first light pole for all I know

What I saw was almost exactly what I see in this Gif Pic but the camera was DIRECTLY below the plane!

The plane did not come into the frame from the left as seen in the Gif but that is pretty accurate from my perspective
Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jun 14 2010, 03:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Maybe you saw a traffic camera feed!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KP50

Jeff,

It looks like gibberish to me. As you are posting it as good information, you must have read it and therefore understand it - could you write a summary post please?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
In summary it shows how Craig misrepresented the witness testimony and deceived you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KP50

shure
Jun 15 2010, 08:16 AM
In summary it shows how Craig misrepresented the witness testimony and deceived you.
How does it show it Jeff? Explain it to me please as it makes no sense to me at all. If you are promoting it, you must understand it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Storm is Coming

shure
Jun 14 2010, 04:16 PM
Maybe you saw a traffic camera feed!
It could not have been a traffic cam feed!

As I stated earlier (and in at least one of your calls to me), the video started out pointing straight up as the plane passed overhead, then followed it down into the Pentagon

:-/
Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jun 15 2010, 10:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

shure
Jun 15 2010, 08:16 AM
In summary it shows how Craig misrepresented the witness testimony and deceived you.
That sums it up beautifully!


:D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Thanks Debs, I thought so too!

If KP50 can't understand something as simple as this, its easy to see how he could be fooled by the likes of Criag Ranke's Pentagon flyover deceptions!



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply