The PentaCon

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Back to Robert Turcios, Why does CIT take his very weak "lift up" comment and turn it into the entire thrust of the "no impact theory" but totally dismiss his testimony that the airplane passed over the corner of the canopy?

Sgt Brooks stated that as the airplane passed over these trees they were blown around by the wake turbulence:

Interesting.
Including this I can correct my version of the flat flight path a little:

1) My sharpes turns (heavy banking 70degree and more) with an 757 at high speed in FS2004:


2) zoom of area so you can get the dimension:


3) the eye withness contradiction (black lines) and possible solution(s):


4) what i see most likely is the orange..

(by still asumeing that most likely the 2 police officers did not tell you the true or had really bad memories where the plane came from and went over)


[edit on 2-3-2007 by g210b]

one last very important technical detail, because if some readers still think your proposed two fast turns were possible at all, I still have to address your last remark :

LaBtop -please refer to my response to John Lear regarding your thoughts about altitude, About air density....The recorded vertical acceleration loads apply to loads passing through imaginary lines running perpendicular to the top of the wings, vertical stabilizers and cabin deck, the resistance to the air, based on airspeed, has nothing to do w/ vertical g loads.

Exactly.
But it has very much to do with the only important issue we were in fact discussing for days already: endurable mechanical stress on the airframe in total and the weakest parts of it, the wings.

If the proposed aerobatic features of the plane in your combined north passage of the Citgo gas station and the last part of the official flightpath, including all downed light poles, were at all possible without failure of the wings in total or parts of them, and/or drifting away by the plane from your proposed first right turn direction, both in the x- and y axis plains (vertical and horizontal axis).

Just a simple question:
Can you imagine the difference in mechanical stress on the wings when a huge airplane drops from very thin air, through increasingly denser air, and imagine the graph depicting solely the wing stress factor increase over the whole gradient between very thin air and ground level air density?
I'm sure you understand that.

And that was the only important point of discussion, can a 757 at near ground level perform such an incredible sharp turn over the span of that short distance, at all, without major damage to its wings.
And then I am willing to include all your now newly proposed coloured possible flight paths.

And then recover to horizontal flight and come out at a point exactly on the proposed official flightpath, where it quite obviously flew nearly exactly horizontal, at a height lower than the top of the downed light poles.
And didn't hit the massive road sign spanning 27, just 2 meter away from pole nr. 1.

No way. There's no manoeuvrability space to do that at all, a 757 would need far more space and distance to perform such an aerobatic act.
And it would drift downward and simultaneously away from the intended arc.



Switching back to far more important subjects :
I will make screen shots from both officers drawing their observed flight paths, and then you will see you are reaching for straws instead of trees.

And yes, I also remember the second shown witness telling he saw the wing top of the plane passing over the canopy, I'll recheck what he said exactly and where he stood, when making that observation, because I think he stood to a much more south position than sergeant Lagasse, or even inside, thus his perspective angle would be much smaller than Lagasse, blocked by the roof of the canopy, and thus, for him, the image of the plane's wing tip would seem to pass over the canopy, while the plane was still flying where Lagasse and colleague both saw it pass through their plain of sight.

And I said it before, if that plane passed so direct over the canopy at the reported heights by all 3 witnesses, you definitely would have seen a huge shadow passing over the north parking space outside the stations canopy in the released Citgo video.
Also at 9:38 a.m. It was a clear, bright day with blue sky and full sunlight.
Just compare the Pentagon west wall corner shadow length in the 2 famous DoD toll boot videos. That was not a long, outstretched shadow as you think, the sun was fairly high already.

I do not see any fast passing huge plane shadow on the ground at all in the 9/11 Citgo video.

g210b, your orange flightpath under your point 3, does not down ONE of the 5 official downed light poles.

Pole nr 1, stood 2 meter left of the big road spanning road sign.
That huge sign board you can see in your picture just before the middle of the "8" formed by the clover blade of roads.
You even see it clear standing in your last bigger picture nr 4.

That's more than hundred meters away from where your orange flightpath is crossing "the Rubicon", interstate 27.

Btw, do you see now how totally impossible the 2 proposed short, sharp turns of darkbluesky are?

[edit on 2/3/07 by LaBTop]

Get a statement of mr Middleton, the gardener at Arlington National Cemetery and perhaps also through him of his coworker.
So we have even more convincing eyewitness statements.
They are already there in very short form as I posted them, but we must have a much deeper interview with these two, to convince still struggling patriots.
They even don't want to accept the official radar trackings.
What else do they need to see the light? I have no clue anymore.

If anybody is interested, post proposed questions to these 2 gentlemen in this thread, so Jack doesn't forget to ask all relevant questions, from both sides of the discussion fence.

That will eradicate most of the unwillingness to accept the true nature of the 9/11 events, and then we hopefully can start discussing why such an elaborate cover up was effected on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

What were they really up to, what was the real goal of the Pentagon attack.

Were it factions of the US military struggling for ultimate power over the whole pack of wolfs, or was it erasing of all traces of enormous treason, getting uncovered by the Office of Naval Intelligence, or trillions lost over years not accounted for, or was it purely a warning to the military that they were not the rulers in their own backyard.

Originally posted by LaBTop
g210b, your orange flightpath under your point 3, does not down ONE of the 5 official downed light poles.

I know this. And that's ok. I never believed in the official story anyway.
Not from the moment were I saw the north tower collapesing on tv.
However you need a water proof smokeing gun if you want to run against the official. And to be honest Jack's witness do not deliver it with the contradictions within themself like I see. You have to figure out which of them adn others not in jacks report told the true and which not. I guess there are more wrong planted eyewhitness then truths.
My flight path is to bring the flight physics and the eyewhitnesses under one hut whereas I don't know if I cut the faulty meat away at the end or the good!

Btw, do you see now how totally impossible the 2 proposed short, sharp turns of darkbluesky are?

I never keept them as possible. I always refered to jacks flight path.
(do you confuse me with someone else??)

To be honest it is a surprise to me that it is even still discutated. It's not even if the plane can handle the stress or not, it's banking speed is too slow.
John's answers were very on the point. The banking speed problem he mentioned right at start. this alone is sufficient enough. But he gave you more true aguments why it is not possible. All you need is to read it carefully to not overread what he really said.

If you check some post backs you see that I even started doubting if Jack's S flight path is a possible one because it requires extrem bankings at hight speed for an 757 and that was not observed. My conclusion was probabily flyable but contradict the eyewhitness.

If the aircraft was not noticable banking the flight path at high speed must be close to stright.
edit to add: A little One side banking is still thinkable but an S damges all.
I really doubt Jack's S and thats why I asked of the beginning.





[edit on 2-3-2007 by g210b]

Thanks to darkbluesky's picture, we can clearly see now that Lagasse definitely could see the impact point at the Pentagon west wall.



Officer Brooks probably could not see the exact point of impact, but do not forget, the road leading south east up to the overpass in front of him, was much lower on 9/11, so he could have had a clear view at the impact point too on 9/11.
So their remarks of the plane impacting the wall have more weight gained.

BUT, if the plane impacted following their drawn flight paths, which were nearly identical, where is the damage pattern inside Pentagon's E, D and C wedges ? And the head on impact imprint on the wall ?
You can see a very different impact pattern from 2 drawings posted by Jack, please go back to find them in this thread. One is an overview of the area around the Pentagon with an inserted small damage pattern to the right, this one shows 3 head on column impacts patterns and a diagonal one, inside. The other is the Perdue university simulation which shows only a diagonal impact pattern inside.



But you better find the FEMA damage pattern, that one is much more detailed, and a few very unbelievable totally damaged columns in strange places in the back of C-ring can be seen there, including two 90° to the wall impact patterns, and again the diagonal pattern.


Robert Turcios stood in front of the east side wall of the station, and could not have heard the sound of the incoming plane (Doppler effect!)until it already passed his view sight when he turned his head to the left to see it. And for him, at that point, much further and in a line in front of the canopy, it would have looked as if the plane wings would have passed over the canopy. I even doubt that he could have ever seen the plane ABOVE the canopy at all in that position. See this photo with his position as Citgo witness in it :



And again, if it passed over the corner of the canopy, where is the huge shadow in the Citgo video? Because if you believe the position of the "official" plane when it struck pole nr 1, then the plane must have nearly struck the roof of the canopy, it must have flown only a few meters above it !!!
And that's why Turcios remark is a VERY soft proof of the plane's exact position in his memory.


And for a good photograph depicting all features of the situation just before 9/11 (see the renovation shacks in front of the west wall),



and also a clear view of the 5 later downed light poles, and the A.N.Cemetery fence stretching in a north east heading between the oval parking place and the four houses with the dark blue roofs build in a diagonal line, at the left bottom of the above photo.



All in all, we are left with some puzzles to solve.
If Jack is right and the plane overflew the Pentagon, then it is a quite simple solution:
ALL damage patterns were caused by eather incoming +Mach 3 rockets combined with inner explosions, or by detonations of pre planted nature. But where is flight 11 gone? And yes, if it is such an immense "official" conspiracy, then they will have taken care of that problem too. And all others....

If the two officers and a lot of other witnesses were right, then we have a huge problem :
Where is the WIDE, HEAD ON damage pattern inside E, D and C-rings? And the outer wall head on damage pattern?
And how and why did they down the light poles in that pattern?
And how did they imprint the wall impact pattern shown in the pre-collapse photo's of corporal Ingersoll and a few others.

If the latter is true, one possible scenario comes to mind, time after time :
2 or 3 very fast bunker buster rockets were aimed at the Pentagon, to impact at the exact moment flight 11 got shot to smithereens just in front of the impacting busters, by another high explosive rocket, or a detonation in the plane itself, which is far easier to plan btw.
The eyewitnesses would have seen nothing of the incoming busters and eventual plane aimed rocket, since they flew so very fast, that only the huge plane and its explosion would stay on their retina.
And with the help of some clever "debriefing" that would forever stay in their memory : a huge plane impacted the wall, period.

PS : for g210b : I was switching from personal to plural with my "you", so I addressed in this new sentence the readers again.
I very well understood the intention of your posts.


[edit on 2/3/07 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by LaBTop
one last very important technical detail, because if some readers still think your proposed two fast turns were possible at all, I still have to address your last remark :

LaBtop -please refer to my response to John Lear regarding your thoughts about altitude, About air density....The recorded vertical acceleration loads apply to loads passing through imaginary lines running perpendicular to the top of the wings, vertical stabilizers and cabin deck, the resistance to the air, based on airspeed, has nothing to do w/ vertical g loads.

Exactly.
But it has very much to do with the only important issue we were in fact discussing for days already: endurable mechanical stress on the airframe in total and the weakest parts of it, the wings.

If the proposed aerobatic features of the plane in your combined north passage of the Citgo gas station and the last part of the official flightpath, including all downed light poles, were at all possible without failure of the wings in total or parts of them, and/or drifting away by the plane from your proposed first right turn direction, both in the x- and y axis plains (vertical and horizontal axis).

I've presented all the data and evidence necessary to show a comercial airliner could perform the left banking turn from Citgo, over the light poles, and into the building at 350 kts. Turn rate, turn radius at 75 degree bank, and G load. If you choose not to accept or believe it, that's OK with me.

Just a simple question:
Can you imagine the difference in mechanical stress on the wings when a huge airplane drops from very thin air, through increasingly denser air, and imagine the graph depicting solely the wing stress factor increase over the whole gradient between very thin air and ground level air density?
I'm sure you understand that.

And that was the only important point of discussion, can a 757 at near ground level perform such an incredible sharp turn over the span of that short distance, at all, without major damage to its wings.
And then I am willing to include all your now newly proposed coloured possible flight paths.

consider these.
first a radar return plot of an airliner departing JFK from an accident report:



And then recover to horizontal flight and come out at a point exactly on the proposed official flightpath, where it quite obviously flew nearly exactly horizontal, at a height lower than the top of the downed light poles.
And didn't hit the massive road sign spanning 27, just 2 meter away from pole nr. 1.

No way. There's no manoeuvrability space to do that at all, a 757 would need far more space and distance to perform such an aerobatic act.
And it would drift downward and simultaneously away from the intended arc.



Switching back to far more important subjects :
I will make screen shots from both officers drawing their observed flight paths, and then you will see you are reaching for straws instead of trees.

And yes, I also remember the second shown witness telling he saw the wing top of the plane passing over the canopy, I'll recheck what he said exactly and where he stood, when making that observation, because I think he stood to a much more south position than sergeant Lagasse, or even inside, thus his perspective angle would be much smaller than Lagasse, blocked by the roof of the canopy, and thus, for him, the image of the plane's wing tip would seem to pass over the canopy, while the plane was still flying where Lagasse and colleague both saw it pass through their plain of sight.

And I said it before, if that plane passed so direct over the canopy at the reported heights by all 3 witnesses, you definitely would have seen a huge shadow passing over the north parking space outside the stations canopy in the released Citgo video.
Also at 9:38 a.m. It was a clear, bright day with blue sky and full sunlight.
Just compare the Pentagon west wall corner shadow length in the 2 famous DoD toll boot videos. That was not a long, outstretched shadow as you think, the sun was fairly high already.

I do not see any fast passing huge plane shadow on the ground at all in the 9/11 Citgo video.

[edit on 3/2/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by LaBTop
one last very important technical detail, because if some readers still think your proposed two fast turns were possible at all, I still have to address your last remark :

LaBtop -please refer to my response to John Lear regarding your thoughts about altitude, About air density....The recorded vertical acceleration loads apply to loads passing through imaginary lines running perpendicular to the top of the wings, vertical stabilizers and cabin deck, the resistance to the air, based on airspeed, has nothing to do w/ vertical g loads.

Exactly.
But it has very much to do with the only important issue we were in fact discussing for days already: endurable mechanical stress on the airframe in total and the weakest parts of it, the wings.

If the proposed aerobatic features of the plane in your combined north passage of the Citgo gas station and the last part of the official flightpath, including all downed light poles, were at all possible without failure of the wings in total or parts of them, and/or drifting away by the plane from your proposed first right turn direction, both in the x- and y axis plains (vertical and horizontal axis).

I've presented all the data and evidence necessary to show a comercial airliner could perform the left banking turn from Citgo, over the light poles, and into the building at 350 kts. Turn rate, turn radius at 75 degree bank, and G load. If you choose not to accept or believe it, that's OK with me.

Just a simple question:
Can you imagine the difference in mechanical stress on the wings when a huge airplane drops from very thin air, through increasingly denser air, and imagine the graph depicting solely the wing stress factor increase over the whole gradient between very thin air and ground level air density?
I'm sure you understand that.

And that was the only important point of discussion, can a 757 at near ground level perform such an incredible sharp turn over the span of that short distance, at all, without major damage to its wings.
And then I am willing to include all your now newly proposed coloured possible flight paths.

consider these.
first a radar return plot of an airliner departing JFK from an accident report:



And then recover to horizontal flight and come out at a point exactly on the proposed official flightpath, where it quite obviously flew nearly exactly horizontal, at a height lower than the top of the downed light poles.
And didn't hit the massive road sign spanning 27, just 2 meter away from pole nr. 1.

No way. There's no manoeuvrability space to do that at all, a 757 would need far more space and distance to perform such an aerobatic act.
And it would drift downward and simultaneously away from the intended arc.



Switching back to far more important subjects :
I will make screen shots from both officers drawing their observed flight paths, and then you will see you are reaching for straws instead of trees.

And yes, I also remember the second shown witness telling he saw the wing top of the plane passing over the canopy, I'll recheck what he said exactly and where he stood, when making that observation, because I think he stood to a much more south position than sergeant Lagasse, or even inside, thus his perspective angle would be much smaller than Lagasse, blocked by the roof of the canopy, and thus, for him, the image of the plane's wing tip would seem to pass over the canopy, while the plane was still flying where Lagasse and colleague both saw it pass through their plain of sight.

And I said it before, if that plane passed so direct over the canopy at the reported heights by all 3 witnesses, you definitely would have seen a huge shadow passing over the north parking space outside the stations canopy in the released Citgo video.
Also at 9:38 a.m. It was a clear, bright day with blue sky and full sunlight.
Just compare the Pentagon west wall corner shadow length in the 2 famous DoD toll boot videos. That was not a long, outstretched shadow as you think, the sun was fairly high already.

I do not see any fast passing huge plane shadow on the ground at all in the 9/11 Citgo video.

sorry about the double incongruous posts, somethings up with my connection...I'll try again later.

Originally posted by LaBTop
one last very important technical detail, because if some readers still think your proposed two fast turns were possible at all, I still have to address your last remark :

LaBtop -please refer to my response to John Lear regarding your thoughts about altitude, About air density....The recorded vertical acceleration loads apply to loads passing through imaginary lines running perpendicular to the top of the wings, vertical stabilizers and cabin deck, the resistance to the air, based on airspeed, has nothing to do w/ vertical g loads.

Exactly.
But it has very much to do with the only important issue we were in fact discussing for days already: endurable mechanical stress on the airframe in total and the weakest parts of it, the wings.

If the proposed aerobatic features of the plane in your combined north passage of the Citgo gas station and the last part of the official flightpath, including all downed light poles, were at all possible without failure of the wings in total or parts of them, and/or drifting away by the plane from your proposed first right turn direction, both in the x- and y axis plains (vertical and horizontal axis).

LaBtop- Thanks for your responses, I've presented all the data and evidence necessary to show a comercial airliner could perform the left banking turn from Citgo, over the light poles, and into the building at 350 kts. Turn rate, turn radius at 75 degree bank, and G load. If you choose not to accept or believe it, that's OK with me.

Just a simple question:
Can you imagine the difference in mechanical stress on the wings when a huge airplane drops from very thin air, through increasingly denser air, and imagine the graph depicting solely the wing stress factor increase over the whole gradient between very thin air and ground level air density?
I'm sure you understand that.

Please review the 727 FDR data again it correlates all data to the same time reference. It shows the altitude, airspeed, G load all simultaneously. You can see the vertical G load at each momoent of decent and at teh increasing airspeed. You can see the max vertical g on the airframe (which is the same as the vertical g on the wings) occurs at 5-6 thousand feet while teh plane is pulling out...its flying...at 5,000 ft....with the wings still attached...at 5 g. Please look again.

And that was the only important point of discussion, can a 757 at near ground level perform such an incredible sharp turn over the span of that short distance, at all, without major damage to its wings.
And then I am willing to include all your now newly proposed coloured possible flight paths.

Then consider these frames:

the departure path of a 747 and A 300 from JFK based on radar returns (part of an accident report)



now the same turn overlayed on Google earth



and finally teh same turn overlayed on a pentagon view at roughly the same altitude:



I think this shows my proposed flight path is feasible.






[edit on 3/2/2007 by darkbluesky]

reconsider your overlaid flight paths distances.

And also give links to articles or pages where you take your drawings etc from, so we can check the original format. This is a posting rule at ATS.

Please do that now. Or say you took them from a photobucket account and don't know the original source link. Which I doubt, but we will see.

Or don't show pictures so small that the accompanied text is nearly impossible to read, but fit them in ATS pages at the max allowed format of w x h = 680 x 680 pixels (but not > 200 Kb).

You took those distances from your white page 14.
See the text under the X.axis.
It's depicted in NM.
That's NAUTICAL MILES.
Nautical Mile :
1 international nautical mile = 1.852 km = 1.1508 miles = 6076.1155 feet. The international nautical mile is also known as the international air mile.
creme96.nrl.navy.mil...

I took a look at the black dotted line on that above page 14 and measured the distance on the X-axis (east) for the sharpest arc turn.



I give you all possible slack and took the distance (east) from the black dot at 1.3 NM to the dot at 2.2 NM.
(You realize I hope, that in fact we must take the distance from horizontal flight to, back to horizontal flight, which is 1.0 NM to 2.2 NM = 1.2 NM)

That's a straight line distance of 0.9 NM, or 1.035 mile, or 1.667 KM.
By far not the looped arc diameter you proposed from the canopy to pole nr. 1.
That's maximum a few hundred meters, not more than a mile.
Which will give an impossible tight arc'ed loop flight path.
You do the math, if you still have doubts.


Also have a look again at g210b's first post on this page 14, above.
He said : "" 1) My sharpest turns (heavy banking 70 degree and more) with a 757 at high speed in FS2004 "".
FS2004 means Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.
Now look at the sharpest arc he could manage to fly at high speed (which speed he doesn't say, please provide additionally, g210b).
I mean the "loop" he draw touching Reagan International and the Pentagon with a diameter of one inch :



That one inch depicts several miles -diameter- of that loop.

The few hundred meter distance from the canopy of the Citgo station to pole nr 1, taken as the diameter of your proposed part of a loop is then also the diameter of a virtual loop you take in consideration.
Impossible.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Also have a look again at g210b's first post on this page 14, above.
He said : "" 1) My sharpest turns (heavy banking 70 degree and more) with a 757 at high speed in FS2004 "".
FS2004 means Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.
Now look at the sharpest arc he could manage to fly at high speed (which speed he doesn't say, please provide additionally, g210b).

About 350knts up till 450knts (IAS) in that range. It variated and I flew close to the ground.
The sharpest 90 degree turn you see right in the north of the pentagon was flown with about 250knts ias and 90! degree banking.

I am not absolutly sure if the flightdynamic of that model is build realistic enough by the designers. I usually don't fly project opensky models.
So take this as an more or less well approach of the flight radius. It should lead into the right direction but can't be more than an indication. It would require a verification in real.


The model I used was:
---
POSKY 757-200 American
PROJECT OPENSKY BOEING 757-200 V1 for FS2004 only

This aircraft is made by Project OpenSky

Model Designers : Lee Rosario, Albert Bouwman, C. Vincent Cho, Hiroshi Igami
Flight Dynamics Designer : Warren C. Daniel
(file: B757-200-RR-RB211-535E4B.air 23.10.2003)

For contact and information visit our webpage:-
www.projectopensky.com...
---

went to the FAQ's :

Q) The roll rate feels slow, is this correct?

A) Based on what I have personally felt in 6-axis simulators,
yes, the roll rate is accurate.

Keep in mind, what you do not see in videos:

- the true Boeing yoke, pedals, and rudders have engineered resistance
in the controls

- the harder you crank over the yoke, for example, the harder the
progressive resistance

- after you put in an input, there is a slight delay as the
control surface (in this case, the aileron) pushes the
aircraft over to 1 side

- to stop the motion and neutralize out, you must put in
opposite movement into the yoke, again, with resistance,
and with delay.

So what you see, is not what you *feel*. The old videos
with Tex Johnson shows a 707 barrel rolling in a demonstration flight
at about 15 secs wing-level to wing-level. I put this into
737EZ FDE, although you will never barrel-roll a commercial airliner,
and at only 15 secs a roll, you can make 4 complete barrel rolls
a minute. In a 737... So much for realism...

An F-18 hornet has a 36,000 lb max fuel weight wet.

737-800 weighs 140,000 lb full wet.

767-300ER weighs 420,000 lb full wet.

More than 4 barrel rolls per minute is easy to achieve with an F-18.
Not so for a heavy 767. FDE should reflect this.

So speaking of realism, the feeling of mass, inertia and delay are not
accurately captured from a video. You must *feel* this, which makes the true movement more than a mere 15 secs.

Please read your FAQ section of the Ops Manual for more information.

What darkbluesky is proposing, is a half barrel roll at 350 knots in essence.
But in a far too small time frame to be able to perform it, and a far too small space, especially when we introduce the horizontal entrance and exit of that half roll.

As an example, let's look at the (minimum, in real world more) 15 seconds needed for a complete full barrel roll by a 707.
(Which is totally unrealistic, see the writers ..so much for realism... remark)

But, for darkbluesky's and others sake, just devide that data by 2, to arrive at a half barrel roll.
That means it takes 7.5 seconds for a 707 commercial airliner to perform that aerobatic stunt in this flight simulator program.

So, forget it, it took about maximum ONE second for sergeant Lagasse to follow the plane by eye from the fence to the impact point.

Are we done now with this subject? Can we move on to the far more grave implications of Jack's interview?

To be sure everyone understands the distances involved, I repost here g210b's Google vision of the Pentagon area, with the 500 meter and 0.5 mile scales inserted at the left bottom :



As you can clearly see, it's at the most, about 220 meters from the Citco NAVEX canopy to light pole nr 1, where the plane in darkbluesky's proposal has to be near horizontal again.
And at the Citco station, it had to be near horizontal too, see all witness statements about what they saw as the plane configuration in the air.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[edit on 3/3/07 by LaBTop]

You are doing great work LaBTop.


Sorry I haven't been able to participate more.

Feel free to start new threads about any of this stuff.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I'd like to ask Jack, and anyone else, to repsond to a few statements and a couple of questions.

Why should we accept anything Sgt. Legasse says since he was totally wrong regarding which light poles were damaged? approx (+58:00 in the video)

But then again, If you want to make him a credible witness, why not accept his firm and clear statement made at +49:02 when asked by the interviewer "Did you see the plane pick up at all?" His answer..."No...no." And make no mistake, you could tell by his tone he meant it did not pick up, not that he didnt see it pick up.

I aslo wonder why Robert Turcios flight path is dismissed? He stated with no reservation that the plane passed over the corner of the canopy and the two adjacent trees. Shown here in yellow:

Robert's testimony is not even close to being dismissed. Your questions are fair but your assesmet of Robert's flight path is incorrect.

Here is the flight path that he drew:


But if you remember later in the interview he explained how this is where the tip of the right wing was so the entire plane was north of the station. (while making the point that it's "IMPOSSIBLE" for the plane to have been on the south side)

I don't think that it's strange that he would bring the plane closer to the building then it really was because he was on the south side of the building and it has been common for the witnesses to exaggerate how close to them this huge jet airliner at near treetop level really was.

Plus if you also remember Lagasse conceded it's possible the plane was closer.

In regards to your notion that he should be dismissed because he didn't remember the location of the poles.....that is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

1. His POV of the plane was MUCH better than his POV of the poles.
2. The significance of the plane is astronomical as to the significance of the location of the poles.

He didn't see the poles get hit (because they weren't) so why should he remember anything about them at all?

He saw them after the fact or maybe even online like all of us.

Bottom line, we understand that eyewitness accounts are fallible and we understand that none of them are remembering 100% accurately.

But the fact remains is that ALL of their accounts of the most significant detail, where the plane was, are irreconcilable with ALL of the phyiscal damage.

This is huge.

I read in here somewhere that somebody was suggesting that it's still "possible" for the plane to have hit the building with the eyewitness north of the station flight path.

Although that may be true hypothetically it is not true in reality because the damage to the building is completely inconsistent with this.

And of course the light poles.

For some reason people are giving us flack for hypothesizing about the flyover.

Bottom line we had to. There is no other option unless someone is willing to accept JohnLear's hologram theory or suggest they had some sort of high tech weaponry in the plane that caused it to disintegrate.


Don't forget this:

"I saw it lift... pick up a little...go up a little bit headed towards the Pentagon"

will do, since your video interview has increased my adrenaline levels a few more notches up.
Btw, does that mean that not all members can start threads in this forum, and I am privileged only?

Hope so not, I like open discussions, that's why f.ex. I will now post this incredible video with 2 very tight half barrel rolls in it, the second one however cost the life of 4 fine men :

A B-52H plane crash.
The aircraft banked past 90 degrees, stalled, clipped a power line with the left wing and crashed. There were no survivors out of a crew of four field grade officers.
24th June 1994 at Fairchild Air Force Base.

Here are a few of the latest Comments & Responses on this video :

1. You're so wrong. Hitting the power lines didn't bring the aircraft down. Before he hit the power lines the left wing was totally and completely stalled and all hope was lost. He wasn't attempting to land either, he was showing the plane off for a crowd. He actually lost control after the first left hand turn, he had throttled down the engines to try and pull a very tight left. The left wing stalls approximately 4 seconds after initiating the first left.

2. you're all wrong! he was SUPPOSED to be doing this manoeuvre that low - it's a 60-degree turn around a point @ 250' above the ground. He was just too slow for the amount of bank he had on the second turn, and his left wing (being at a higher angle-of-attack in the turn) completely stalled and that caused him to roll past 90 degrees and crash. ANY CFI will tell you that this was an "accelerated stall."

3. You're all wrong. Colonel Holland had a reputation as a hot-dogger and his recklessness was reported and he was disciplined for it. The man who reported him was co-pilot that day. It was investigated as a murder-suicide.

4. Either way you gotta be crazy to attempt that manoeuvre, or failing that suicidal.

I must say, this pilot nearly completed an unbelievable stunt.

As you can see at the 00:36 and 01:02/01:15 min point, he had full flaps on!
He thought that would help him to pull such a tight turn at near landing speed. Much more lift from the extra, extended wing surface.

Here are the VERY big differences with the proposed darkbluesky flightpath :

1. This is a military plane with a much stronger airframe construction, able to fly at war time conditions.

2. Speed is near landing speed, definitely not 350 knots and surely not 450 knots.

3. He had full flaps out, all the time, flight 77 definitely not, it was "clean", sighted by ALL witnesses.

4. He had much more power, 8 gas turbine motors against 2 for flight 77.

5. Never ever did he manage to return to horizontal, even at that low speed.
He drifted away and down, like I predicted before.

Well, to top it off, here is the same astonishing sort of crash but now with a model of a B-52, what a incredible coincidence :



Perhaps darkbluesky ever saw this stunt being pulled at an air show, like Farnborough or Paris Air Show, by a fighter jet, and thought it complied also to a far faster airspeed and a much bigger commercial airliner.
If so, then I finally understand where he went wrong.

And he will understand why his theory is not fitting.
ALL witnesses would have never forgot about the sight of a Boeing 757 pulling a stunt like in the above first video.
No one ever hinted at such event.

[edit on 3/3/07 by LaBTop]

again I emphasize on the position of Robert Turcios.

I see he draw a little circle on top of the southeast side of the canopy.
So, I assume that was his position, UNDER the south side canopy.
Then it is totally impossible for him to have seen the airplane fly over the north east canopy corner.
And also impossible to see the tree in the back, darkbluesky marked with one of his two yellow arrows, and said that Robert reported to have seen the plane flying over these TWO trees.
See his posted drawings in the photo :



I can imagine that he saw it fly over the front tree, but never over the back tree.
So, that canopy crossing proposal of darkbluesky is not valid based on Roberts statement about the 2 trees and his position at the time of actual fly by for him.

I think Robert has seen the plane fly by VERY low to the left, IN FRONT of him.


Next subject, Jack. :
Based on a few things I know, I am convinced that my scenario for the last half mile of the now actual flightpath is more feasible than your pass over theory.
We start with now assuming the whole Pentagon story was a military setup, by one or more rival factions of the US Army, operating against another patriotic faction, left over as the sole one with a conscience.
ONI, Office of Naval Intelligence. (I posted in more detail about it years ago.)

1. The radar tracking report does end at the wall, only higher. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2. The US army has a secret weapon, the Reconosciuto thermobaric bomb.
Exploded in the plane, it will instantly smash it to little pieces, accompanied by a blueish flash, followed by an orange fireball. See DoD toll boot video.
3. The US air force has laser guided missiles, equipped with DU warheads, which can be aimed and clocked to fly at a specific time straight through a small window. The plasma particle stream of them will vapourize all columns in their path.
4. The 3 head on FEMA column damage patterns I talked about, start at 3 Pentagon west wall windows.
5. The diagonal column damage pattern needed to be set off by internal explosions to be sure that all of the ONI computer databases, and the accounting unit databases were destroyed.
ONI because they were the last obstacle for the perpetrators of 9/11, and the accounting offices because they came to near to the sources of the black operation funds, with a value of 7 TRILLION dollars.
6. The famous Exit Hole was in fact an entry hole for the special unit entering the still burning offices to finish off eventual survivors of ONI and the accounting offices, but mainly to be sure all ONI and Accounting databases were destroyed or taken with them. They did that during the false alarm for a second incoming plane, when all rescue personnel was ordered out and back to the overpasses.
7. Remember the many witness statements about a second explosion? That was the "Exit Hole" blow in, with detonation cords.
Never asked yourself why that damn hole had such a peculiar near perfect round shape?
8. The special unit retreated after placing incendiary explosions which let the building burn for days, destroying all evidence left.
9. The few witness statements about a cordite smell were triggered by the diagonal explosion sets.
10. The generator trailer damage was done by an implosion, set off in the trailer. It was needed to start the diesel tank of it burning, giving off most of the huge black smoke column we saw.
11. When the firefighters "accidentally" put that starting fire out, the fire was lit again during the pull out of all rescue personnel.

And so I can go on and on.
Let's see if this triggers some more interest from outside.
Watch the shills enter. Make my ******* day.

Jack, how was your reception at the 9/11 conference from sunday.???

I have read quite a lot about this attack, here on A.T.S. and elsewhere. There is so much B.S. out there that I truly don't know what to believe. In one account I read there were no bodies or debris from the 757 airliner. In other stories they show pictures of debris, and state that D.N.A. testing identified most of the passenger's bodies. I read the entrance hole in the wall is too small. I read it's just right. I have read about C4 on lamp posts, bodies and debis planted, remote controlled aircraft, different or additional aircraft, missle attacks, holograph attacks, explosives planted in the Pentagon. All the varying accounts tell me is that no one is sure how it happened. I do know that military operations usually are filled with errors and that conducting a coordinated military strike like many I've seen proposed would involve way too many personnel. How can anyone be certain that this attack even hit the intended target area of the Pentagon? How do we even know that the Pentagon wasn't a secondary target? I am troubled that many scenarios put forth fail to account for the presence of radiation and anthrax found in the Pentagon for days after the attack.
I know that missles and some aircraft can account for radiation, but none
explain anthrax. I suppose that a plane could have been carrying either or both also. Is there any end to this conspiracy? Will it be solved or just continue to be endless hours of pure speculation? Some very impressive evidence has been presented here by intelligent people While many others are content to just accept the official explaination put forth by the
feds, I suppose we will each have to decide for ourselves