The PentaCon

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
... But the one thing that is certain now is that the plane flew on the north of the station. This is corroborated by ALL of them.

This proves it didn't hit the building.

Period.

...

how so? obstacles have to be taken into consideration, of course, that doesn't constitute proof, however. we don't know the exact altitude, so i'd rather revise impact location than rule out the impact itself.

Well first of an interesting theory! Just some points that i noticed.

1. Only one (1) witness say's the plane lifted as if to go over the pentagon
2. Out of the three people that had a side view of the plane only one identified the logo???

Those are my only concerns with the content of the video. The sound could of been better but hey! I agree that the video opposes the official flight plan of the plane, but how many witnesses saw the plane on the official path against the four in the documentary?

motive for 9/11: the PNAC

it should be noted that many of the signatories of this document, released in September of 2000, pop up in the Bush Administration. including:

Cheney
"Scooter" Libby
Bolton
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Zoellick
Armitage
Abrams
Dov Zakheim

Second, Are there any pilots out there with 757 time who can tell us whether the turn radii required to follow the blue flight path would be theoretically possible in a 757 @ 350 kts?

Only sim time here (all 1 hour of it), but no; the yellow line is much more feasible. It takes approximately 7 seconds to roll from 30 degrees of left bank to 30 degrees of right bank, then you have the inertia of the aircraft as it changes course as it goes from turning left to turning right (we're talking about moving upwards of 160,000lbs of aircraft at 350kts - that is a lot of energy!).

That maneuver could only be pulled off by a fighter at those speeds and pulling several g.

The yellow, more sedate line is much more likely.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by LaBTop
darkbluesky,

Based on which facts did you draw your yellow proposed flightpath line in the last post on page 1 ?

LaBTop - The first thing I should point out to you is that I'm a skeptic of the False Flag Conspiracy Theory. I'm not a proponent. Your line of questioning makes me think that you think I am.


Now, about the yellow line. It's Jack Trippers line. Not mine.

Where did you get this info from ? (""was on course at the driving range, "")

Jack Tripper says it flew over the driving range. I'm just saying if that was true, it was lined up perfectly to make it look like it knocked down the staged light poles. Thats all I meant by "on course".

Why did you call this one finalflightpath3 ?

Because I drew several different blue trajectories.

Are there any other finalflightpath jpg pictures in your photobucket account beside the other finalflightpath2.jpg I found?

Why don't you tell me If you've logged onto my photobucket account?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

I do not pretend to be able to read the minds of the megalomaniacal perpetrators.

But for some possible insights into this I suggest you read the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and the exit speech from Dwight D. Eisenhower about the military industrial complex.

Permanent global war on a shadowy uncatchable enemy requires a pretty significant pretext.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]

I acknowledge that there is a military industrial complex, and a CFR and a tri-lateral comission, etc.

And I believe the government conducts so called “false flag” operations.

I understand there is much to be gained, not just by the key players, but by many, in perpetuating global conflict.

With these beliefs confessed, let me inject a little humor:


Where: Pentagon West Lawn
When: Sometime before 9/11/01
Who: Flase flag project managers 1 and 2 (FFPM1, FFPM2)


FFPM1: “So I was thinking we’d bring the plane in this way here” (points to the air)

FFPM2: “Plane? A real plane? Are you serious? Why not use a holograph like the NY boys are doing?”

FFPM1: “Holograph?…I heard it was going to be remote piloted airplanes, with laser guidance as a backup. They’re also going to bring down the buidlings with explosives in case the planes don’t do the job.”

FFPM2: “Well…whatever. So you say bring it in this way huh?” (points up towards the south of the Citgo gas station.)

FFPM1: “That’s right, and he’ll pull up here” points up… “just before he gets to the building....and thats when we’ll set off the explosives!”

FFPM2: “Why not just crash the plane into the building?....Then we won’t have to haul in all the fake airplane parts and bodies and everything?”

FFPM1: It’s no big deal….we can do all that at the same time we’re cutting down the those light poles" (points at light poles) "and placing one right in the roadway while everyone is looking at the fireball.”

FFPM2: “Light poles???? Nobody told me anything about the light poles!!! Why am I the last one to hear about anything around here?"

FFPM1: “Sorry , didn’t’ you get the TPS report?” Anyway, I figure we’ll take down 5 or 6 of ‘em."

FFPM2: Well. I just hope the pilot flying the plane with all those people onboard that we’ll have to kill of imprison forever, can remember which way he’s supposed to fly over the building so nobody tries to claim the plane couldn’t have knocked down the poles…..Are you sure we need these fake knocked down poles?”

FFPM1: “Trust me.”


[edit on 2/24/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 2/24/2007 by darkbluesky]

DarkBlue, you know, that sounds like something that would come from a Mad TV/SNL type skit.

I thought it was pretty funny myself.

Watched the video.

Jack read my feedback pls:

Feadback:

I asume that the plane flew over the pentagon you conclude on the fact that it didnt cut the Light Poles on the path of the eyewhitness.

This is aboslutly unclear in the video.

The only hint to this conclusion is at the very beginning:
'Eyewitness: Plane Pulls Up -Doesn't Hit Light Poles'

and is missleading in big way because that reads like the Eyewitness state the plane has been pulled up. (which is not the fact)

Also does the conclusion that the plane flew over the pentagon instead hit based on not hitting the light poles hold water?

The plane could have dived in my opinion passing the light poles above and hitting the pentagon at its base..

Note wrongb but the 'Pull up' commend is partly missleading in another way. Someone will think of climbing hard and then wonder why the plane wasn't visible.

In case of a fly over it probabily happend in low altitude to stay hidden. 150ft before and after the pentagon (IMO).

I see how you get to the conclusion of a fly over instead hit. However you need to make that more water proof.

The way it is in the video it distracts from the main point.

You need to question: Does it really matter if the plane hit the pentagon or not in your case? NO! It doesnt.

What matters is that according to the eyewitness the plane flew on another route to the pentagong and on that route it is impossible to have hit the destroyed light poles seen in the photos (evidence) and reported in the official story.

This is the contadiction and this is the somkeing gun here and not wether the airplane did hit the pentagon or not at the end.

About the movie.. Like others pointed out I suggest you compile a shorter one with the eveidence only right to the point and pay attention not to make conclusion that are not clear comprensible.

Very great that you made that video and I hope it does move somethign in the 9/11 case.

The only little disturbing thing for me is that your smoking gun, stays and falls with your eyewitness.
I don't think os but, they all could have lied for whatever reason, so it's not a hard fact based proof.

-------

speculation:

I can well think that the pilot left the preplaned route.
It's not easy to target the pentagon form a flat angle to the wall instead 90 degree. If not programmed in the aircraft and flown with autopilot You have to judge the angle form the air. I think the angle looked too flat for him to be the right one and the pilot corrected onyl to figure out that it had been right. When he figured it was too late.

Jack, Thanks for the doc.

I can see theres plenty of peeps ready to criticise your efforts, and some valid points have been made, but I found it informative, and its certainly given a new angle - sorry -to look at this event from.
Surely anything that can add to the discussion should be welcome. Witness testimony has to be evaluated as it stands, and short of a full blown confession from a perpetrator its all we are likely to have.

At that altitude, at that speed, the pentagon would have been a difficult target to hit dead on, even for a skilled pilot.
I'm not sure how anyone trained in light aircraft and unfamiliar with the terrain is supposed to have pulled off the attack as claimed - seems unlikely to me.

Appreciate your efforts.

I used logic instead of logging into your photobucket account.
An old method from pre-Google times. Just change the numbers and see if an existing link comes up.

Because those 2 links let me believe you had read my plea in the huge "757" thread to start comparing all locations and statements from the "bart" page and other witness pages on the Net not included in the "bart" page, to construct a logical flightpath for the plane seen by so many in so many different positions.
I posted there a few which had a much better "glow of reality" than the many "tabloid type" ones from the well known "populous-popular" sites.

I have less time to post momentarily, that's why I read by now, only this thread in the Pentacon forum. Thus my question for a link to the source of the Google Earth photo.

Besides that, I also have a soft spot for Mount Fuji drawings and pictures, with those beautiful cherry blossoms included. (smile)



I was mainly starting to address the more intelligent remarks from various posters. (Yes, Left Behind, you also made a few other remarks which deserve more attention.)

I think it's really time now to re-validate all the witness statements which gave location, time and distance regarding a plane.

One anonymous witness statement from a latino gardener, working in the Arlington Cemetery, given the first days after the Pentagon attack, attracted my attention very early on already.
He was sure the plane went straight over him, so crossing over the cemetery grounds.
I found it very, very peculiar that he was the only anonymous witness at that time, since all other witnesses gladly gave their names and professions without any objection.
And the only one who gave a very different flight path for the last half mile or so.
His account now fits miraculously in the 4 Pentacon film witness statements.

So, very early on, there must have been a damn well organized damage control team on the job and they must have scared him off to give his name.
Or he was resilient from the beginning to give his personals to nosey reporters, based on the adagio : better care for me and my family, than for the whole world, don't get into any kind of trouble.
He must have known from the beginning that what he saw was definitely not in line with all the other Pentagon Road traffic jam witness statements filling up the papers and tv-news.
And knew he was on very shady ground with his witness account.
He recognized the smell of deceit when he followed the news.

Another note on the reasons for 9/11.
Rumsfeld held a press conference at the Pentagon on 9/10, about the trillions of dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon books.
Could it be that even he and his fellow PNAC members didn't realized, they just stirred up the hornest nest?
And that the military/industrial complex and their paymasters, the prime banks, had already planned the whole response in case this investigation couldn't be downgraded anymore further.
That 9/11 was also meant to get all the politicians back in line again, with an offer they could not resist.

I posted long ago the names and jobs of the NAVY intelligence ONI office (Office of Navy Intelligence), who got all killed on 9/11, except one young team member, and the names of the Pentagon Accountancy Team who also all got killed on 9/11.
After that, the Pentagon released a memo, that the missing trillion dollar investigation was halted for at least 8 years, since all key accountancy members were dead. And I explained how very, very strange that memo was in the light of standard procedures to make backups from all proceedings, in triple form or more. Not one backup survived ?

Ain't that damn abnormal in a military in love with multiple copies for about every piece of paper or electronic data you can think of?

Never heard a thing about the missing trillions after that.
It just vanished. TRILLIONS of dollars UNACCOUNTED for.
Most of it used for black operations all over the world, and to line the pockets of the ones in the know.
No interest by the media.
What country has the USA become when that can pass the public interest barrier without a shimmer of response?

See my posts in the huge 757 thread for much more in depth details regarding the trillions missing and what happened to the investigating teams that 9/11 morning. And the long time hatred by all other agencies, military or other, against this very ONI office.
It's my belief, that ONI was the last line of defence against a fascist take over by the real powers in charge, the globally spread banks.
It's all about the money. The banks have it, yours and theirs.
Get them all under democratically controlled surveillance, and all wars will end, and humanity can concentrate on the real meaning of life.
The real big banks have their own private armies, for damage control, and they are far more powerfull than f.i. the CIA and the NSA. I know.
They use them, not the other way round.
Start investigating f.ex. the biggest Swiss banks, and find out where those HUGE faults in the bedrock under them are for. Where they have to use trucks to cover the distances down there.
Start with Union Bank Suisse, UBS.
The real gold bullion stocks lay there, not in Fort Knox or where ever.
THERE! Many thousands of metric tons. You can buy every politician with that might. And they do. As a matter of standard procedure.

Study the gold price before 9/11, and the huge increase in the years after.
And guess who in fact made that profit? The gold stock holders, in casu the banks. Much, much more than the war profiteering rackets.
The banks made profits on both....

Try to find yourself the location of the ONI offices with the adjacent Accountancy offices.
Then look at the damn unlogical attack path for proposed fanatic muslims trying to inflict as much damage as can be to a major military object.
Don't get fooled by posters who say a swallow dive in the roof section would have been much more difficult than what we saw exercised.
It is the best option, not a 30 foot high, flat approach to a recently reinforced wall at near ground level with all the obstacles endangering their mission.
Just fly in at 150 feet high, than slowly push the wheel down to dive under an angle of 30 ° into the roof of the front, Potomac section, with all the high brass occupying it.
Just use logic, and don't get distracted by semi technical deception.


By the way, Jack, I think in a slimmed form, the film you made will be Pulitzer material.

Pull It Sir, from under their rotten behinds..!

I hope for you and your co-makers, it will become a classical ATS one liner.

[edit on 24/2/07 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by CameronFox
I see the majority of the posters here agree with my assesment. This video is the first 911movie to dedunk itself. WHY?

The end claims that the plane flew over the pentagon yet all three witnesses saw it hit.

The white cop gave IN DETAIL the angle of the plane...the tail section.

IF and thats a big IF there was a discrepancy in the flight path...you should have concentrated on that.

This video is pure trash and will get laughed at by ANY serious media outlet. You will however have your handful of people that want so badly to hold onto a conspiracy that just isnt there.

Then if you think all this is a joke maybe you can explain how light pole number 1 poped out of the ground, since the distance from the light pole to the flight path is enormus.

Good documentary jack, but you should of sticked to the light poles only, you gave the chance for people to attack you, the officers stated clear that they didin't actuly see how the plane impacted the pentagon exactly, from their descrition the plane went straight for the pentagon and crashed in to it, after a while they stated that they didint actuly see how the plane crashed in to the pentagon.
But what can you do, some will do anything to discredit people that seak answers.
Any way, good job over all, it was a good documentary, the most that impresed me in this documentary was light pole number 1.




[edit on 24-2-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78


Then if you think all this is a joke maybe you can explain how light pole number 1 poped out of the ground, since the distance from the light pole to the flight path is enormus.

Can you tell me to which flight path you are refering to? The offical one?
Or the fantasy that Jack has put together?..... Better question is... how can government officials PLANT light poles in the middle of rush hour traffic!



THINK a little will you.... how many poles were there? That would mean you would need at least that many trucks with SEVERAL persons required to have their vehicles in the DIRECT VACINITY of the poles... WAITING for plane to crash (or fly over) THEN jump out of their vehicles and eithe A- Plant broken light poles. or
B- knock them down. (one on top of a cab)

Don't forget the damaged gate and Generator.

Any REAL airline people in here that can calculate the G's it would take to pull a 757 over the pentagon at the last second going at 400-500 mph?

ALSO... if you want me to keep pulling this sorry excuse for a "smoking gun" ..a little more....

How come their computer graphics ONLY showed one direction? Why didn't they show the "fly over" from a different angle? I can tell you why... it would make it look even MORE unrealistic. There would have been a trail of smoke coming through the explosion where the plane flew through.

So badly you want there to be a conspiracy here.... sorry the facts are out there and you avoid them. Who are the sheep? Who is brainwashed?

let's help Jack get to some more witnesses to interview.!

This is the next one in the "bart" list, under the now famous Sgt. William Lagasse, the Pentagon Police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor:

Source: 911research.wtc7.net...

Liebner, Lincoln

"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low," said Army Captain Lincoln Liebner. "My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening."
www.smh.com.au...

Liebner, Lincoln

After the second plane hit the World Trade Center, Major Lincoln Leibner jumped in his pickup truck and raced to the Pentagon. As he ran to an entrance, he heard jet engines and turned in time to see the American Airlines plane diving toward the building. "I was close enough that I could see through the windows of the airplane, and watch as it as it hit," he said. "There was no doubt in my mind what I was watching. Not for a second. It was accelerating," he said. "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "
www.theosuobserver.com...

Here he said it was diving, while in the next interview he stated it was level :
Liebner, Lincoln

Maj. Leibner drove in and made it as far as the south parking lot, where he got out on foot. "I heard the plane first," he said. "I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery." From his vantage point, Maj. Leibner looked up and saw the plane come in. "I was about 100 yards away," he said. "You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit." The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. "The plane completely entered the building," he said. "I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast. I've heard artillery, and that was louder than the loudest has to offer. I started running toward the site. I jumped over a fence. I was probably the first person on the scene." A tree and the backend of a crash truck at the heliport near the crash site were on fire and the ground was scorched, Maj. Leibner recounted. "The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake," he said. "The aircraft went in between the second and third floors." At that point, no one was outside. Spotting a Pentagon door that had been blown off its hinges, Maj. Leibner went in and out several times, helping rescue several people. "The very first person was right there," he said. "She could walk. I walked her out onto the grass." Maj. Leibner said a police officer pulled up onto the grass and began to help. "Everybody was hurt," Maj. Leibner said. "They were all civilian females. Everybody was burned on their hands and faces.
www.usmedicine.com...

So he came in at the parking lot, probably at about 9:30 a.m. (since the plane impacted 9:38 a.m.), when most parking spaces nearer to the main South entrance will have been occupied, and I do not think a major at the Pentagon has deserved already a privat parking spot near the entrance.
So he parked at the far south west end, probably.
He ran to the south entrance (see the nice aerial photo with that huge south parking lot in it, and see the probable distance he had to run, if forced to park at the far south end somewhere), and swirled more or less diagonally through the many lines of parked cars to the south entrance, when he heard the plane first, and :I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery..
That observation collaborates with the PentaCon film witnesses, and the Arlington Cemetery gardener, by the way.

There is only a small area of that parking place that allows to see the plane impact at the west wall from that view point, just follow the line of the west wall face further over the south parking lot :

That means he saw the now only possible flightpath, the blue line, from "about 100 yards away," he said. This all fits the now known facts.
Also his remark: " a police officer pulled up onto the grass and began to help. That was the police car we saw speeding through the toll boot in the famous DoD-released video.

Leibner, Lincoln

Captain Lincoln Leibner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck. We got one guy out of the cab," he said, adding he could hear people crying inside the wreckage. Captain Liebner, who had cuts on his hands from the debris, says he has been parking his car in the car park when the crash occurred."
abc.net.au...

This is the most strange and intriguing set of remarks from Maj. Leibner.
If this is true, perhaps that helicopter with the persons in it was the target, and they were so important, that the helicopter strike had to be concealed at all costs. He again is right that the fire truck back was on fire, as can be seen in many photo's.
""We got one guy out of the cab," he said, adding he could hear people crying inside the wreckage. ""
I suppose he means cabin. But which one? The firetruck? No way, since we know from reports, that the 2 firemen in the truck jumped out and hid behind it, and lived to tell.
So, he MUST mean the helicopter cabin, and it must have been a big heli, since he only HEARD people crying inside, but does not mention he SAW them, so it was no plexi glass dome Bell or the like one, but a much bigger closed canopy one.

If this news report is true, and so far all other remarks by Maj. Leibner were right in line with what we know now, here follows my "Hollywood style" latest conspiracy theory :

The real President Bush had just secretly arrived at the Pentagon, and was killed in the heli crash. They could not let this be known, and hauled in his acting double in Florida, gave him a weeks drug induced crash course how to behave ( in all first week news reels of him, he seemed VERY upset and dizzy, constantly repeating the same sentences -make no mistake etc-) and could suddenly address the nation again a week later without even looking at a paper. Remind the famous ear piece and the box on his back under his suit?

Can be a tabloid Aussie reporter tripping up the news.
Investigate !

[edit on 24/2/07 by LaBTop]

First post, so I hate to do this but....


dude... sorry to burst your bubble, but your theory is impossible... Physics disproves the idea alone...

1. the plane could not follow the blue flight path without the radii of the turn being much longer and wider, Thus changing the angle of impact, if the plane followed the blue path shown it would have struck the building sideways, causing an impact hole 4 times longer than the one pictured.

2. You say the plane flew above the building repeatedly. Both officers in your interview even say they saw the plane impact the building.
2.a. One officer states he is a k-9 explosives expert, and that the impact he saw was not a detonation but an 'impact' (sic)
2.b. It is Phsically impossible for a detonation to occur timed with a plane fly-over that low to the ground. The Shockwave From any Detonation would have sent the tail of the plane upwards, and caused the front of the plane to dive... Basically the plane would have cartwheeled through the pentagon doing 100x more damage.

3. You say the Light poles were rigged destruction, the officer (the k-9 officer) interviewed even said the OFFICIAL (which he is correct the only official report is the local police report) report says nothing about the plane flying over the opposite end of the citgo... He also states he saw all the damage you are speaking of, only he saw it in the direction of the flight path they reported to you.



Basically the only thing you uncovered is that the Government(what a suprise with G.W.B. as our leader) made an error in documenting the worst crime scene in this nation... We all knew that when the WTC Steel was melted down two weeks later...


Can somebody make a Friggin documentary about the real problem behind 9-11? We all know the Government knew ahead of time, We all know about Operation Northwoods, We all know the Kennedy Assasination was a Black Op... How about we focus on our government lying to us about not knowing... and quit trying to make excuses for why they DID KNOW....



sorry to rant but, 9-11 was an inside job, as in UBL is CIA and he Pissed with Bush over not pulling out of Saudi bases... He Warns us he's gonna bomb us And Rove saw that as the perfect time to Pounce on Saddam to have a midway point to draw a new energy source for America. Afghanistan was a cover war for a Natural Gas Pipeline...

In surmation... The Planes on 9-11 Were REAL.... They REALLY FLEW FROM AIRPORTS WITH REAL PEOPLE in them... They ALL ReALLY DIED... We don't know who flew them but we know 12 of the 19 people we said did it, didn't... They really hit the WTC, and the REALLYHELPED BRING THEM DOWN.... then a plane really flew into the pentagon... Then they either shot down the last one or the passengers fought with the pilots killing themselves in the process[Which I highly doubt was there goal... they wanted to live, thats why the fought back]

WHEW...

With that said make a documentary about 9-11 and leave all of the bull# out...


Thanks


~Coven Out


~~Carson stole my catch phrase.... It's cool though I gave his girl the clap~~

Can you tell me to which flight path you are refering to? The offical one?

How about I put it like this, I'm refering to the flight path the 2 officers described that were present at the time of the impact on the scene.

Or the fantasy that Jack has put together?.....

What are you talking about? jack just went down there and asked, that is all he did, he is just telling us what other people have seen there.
It's clear in the video to me, not only the 2 officers are saing it but they are also drawing it.
The guy before the officers comes close on saying the same thing, none of the 3 place the plane on the left side of the station.

Better question is... how can government officials PLANT light poles in the middle of rush hour traffic!

THINK a little will you.... how many poles were there? That would mean you would need at least that many trucks with SEVERAL persons required to have their vehicles in the DIRECT VACINITY of the poles... WAITING for plane to crash (or fly over) THEN jump out of their vehicles and eithe A- Plant broken light poles. or
B- knock them down. (one on top of a cab)

Don't worry another way is planting plastic explosives on the poles, it's easy to do.

Any REAL airline people in here that can calculate the G's it would take to pull a 757 over the pentagon at the last second going at 400-500 mph?

And do you have any idea on how long it takes to level a plane of that size and then point it back down?
And also by saying this you are touching a sensitive matter I belive with the terrorists doing imposible manuvers before crashing in to the pentagon, but let's not get in to that okay, let's not divert this topic, let's stick to the light poles.


At least it's imposible for 1 light pole to be downed, it's too far away, the pole with the cab near.
I don't see how that pole got in the position it was, do poles have legs?
Are you saying those 2 officers were not telling the truth?, or do you beilive the official flight path ?still?



[edit on 24-2-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by coven
3. You say the Light poles were rigged destruction, the officer (the k-9 officer) interviewed even said the OFFICIAL (which he is correct the only official report is the local police report) report says nothing about the plane flying over the opposite end of the citgo... He also states he saw all the damage you are speaking of, only he saw it in the direction of the flight path they reported to you.

Basically the only thing you uncovered is that the Government(what a suprise with G.W.B. as our leader) made an error in documenting the worst crime scene in this nation...

You know that there is photo evidence, do you?
So no, it's not an error in documenting because there is hard photo evidence where the damaged light poles were and were not.

(And byway I was very surprised about the officer ignoring this evidence also and babling something about 'the only true offcial report' instead investigating his contradiction with the photo evidence. )

To your other two points:
1) Wrong by what I know the 757 is capable to fly that. About that 4 time more damage I have no clue about what you are realy talking. But the damage of the impact is depending on a number of more unsure variables than the angle of impact you have to know to conclude if the damage would fit to the observed damage, and only that matters and not a factor to a reference you already don't know.

2) True, and the reason why jack should not damage his discovery with that still to proven theorie.

I suggest not to lose the focus on the only relevant point:

Originally posted by pepsi78

let's not divert this topic, let's stick to the light poles.

At least it's imposible for 1 light pole to be downed, it's too far away, the pole with the cab near.
I don't see how that pole got in the position it was, do poles have legs?

Are you saying those 2 officers were not telling the truth?, or do you beilive the official flight path ?still?

This is what you need to answer.

There are only 2 possibilities:
1) The officers were not telling the truth.
2) The officers were telling the truth.

If 2 is true than you have a direct conflict with the photo evidence of the damaged light poles and this means a 100% valid smoeking gun and that it was pre-planed.

Originally posted by g210b

Originally posted by coven
3. You say the Light poles were rigged destruction, the officer (the k-9 officer) interviewed even said the OFFICIAL (which he is correct the only official report is the local police report) report says nothing about the plane flying over the opposite end of the citgo... He also states he saw all the damage you are speaking of, only he saw it in the direction of the flight path they reported to you.

Basically the only thing you uncovered is that the Government(what a suprise with G.W.B. as our leader) made an error in documenting the worst crime scene in this nation...

You know that there is photo evidence, do you?
So no, it's not an error in documenting because there is hard photo evidence where the damaged light poles were and were not.

(And byway I was very surprised about the officer ignoring this evidence also and babling something about 'the only true offcial report' instead investigating his contradiction with the photo evidence. )

Yes I've seen the photos... and LIKE MY STATEMENT SAID... SIMPLY... All you have proven is that the government had prior knowledge, and let it happen, then proceeded with the necessary steps to cover it up...
If you buy into the "they didn't have planes it was missles and explosives only" you are buying into the dis-information... you are being swayed by an agent provacatour... 'lets not look at the big picture, lets try and solve it by one puzzle piece...' I could care less if they used military personel to do it, or some unsuspecting terrorists who think they pulled a fast one on the Great Satan; WHAT ABOUT THE SINGULAR FACT THEY LET IT HAPPEN... WHY? WHO WAS TO GAIN? EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE...

To your other two points:
1) Wrong by what I know the 757 is capable to fly that. About that 4 time more damage I have no clue about what you are realy talking. But the damage of the impact is depending on a number of more unsure variables than the angle of impact you have to know to conclude if the damage would fit to the observed damage, and only that matters and not a factor to a reference you already don't know.

you are the only person in the avionics world to ever think a 757 can turn 90 to the left, center back, 90 to the right center back, at 350kts. and a few hundred feet off the ground... On top of the less than 1/8th mile to perform this manuver in... Now if it was a straight line (as corrected in the post above) its more plausible... secondly... Plane has more structural integrity tail to nose, than wingtip to wingtip... a plane hitting sideways (as the original diagram show the out of control plane would have been doing at the time would have damaged at least 4x the amount of area... this is all basic physics and any professor can validate these claims.

2) True, and the reason why jack should not damage his discovery with that still to proven theorie.

still to unproven is what you meant to say i do believe... no scientist has validated these claims... Just some 80's sleaze ball with 2 hot roomates

If I was right then YES he does need to reconsider his discovery and investigate it more thoroughly... the key is behind the time put into any investigation, don't spend much on it, don't get it right... Work[literally work, read up, documents,people places and things related, INVESTIGATE] 6 1/2 years on it, and the details are all in line...

at best this is a shoddy start to what I expected to be an intriguing documentary... Instead I wasted 1:15 of my time to hear this guy say the impossible happened, Now please don't waste my time trying to debunk what I have studied on this... ask a physics major...


COVEN OUT


~~Carson Stole my Catch Phrase, So I Gave His Girlfriend the Clap~~

Can someone tell me why there was a traffic jam sometime before the Pentagon was struck, right there and then so everyone can see it?