The PentaCon

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
[
Waaiiiit a minute here.

Are you suggesting yoiu have heard of people in the pentagon COURTYARD that saw the plane??

I personally know one who claims that, yes. There were also other
people there I suppose, as there usually is. I questioned him about it twice since I wondered about his visability at an upward angle. Please elucidate the relevance of it.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I personally know one who claims that, yes. There were also other
people there I suppose, as there usually is. I questioned him about it twice since I wondered about his visability at an upward angle. Please elucidate the relevance of it.

Jack's going to say this proves a plane flew OVER the building, since anyone in the courtyard could not have seen AA77's low angle approach.

According to some feedback I've read from John Lear, the tight turns required to have had AA77 fly just over the north of Citgo and still make to banking turns pass nearly over the light poles seems to be theoretically possible although would subject the airplane to high G's, and there are doubts if the alleged hijacker could have performed the manuever.

Using the following Google frames and a still frame from Pilots for 9-11 Truth I will show what I believe to be "Smoking Gun" evidence that AA 77 was seen approaching on the North side of the Citgo and still managed to take down the light poles and enter the bldg on the trajectory indicated by the column damage.

It's important to note that aircraft control is most difficult at minumum controllable air speed (MCAS). This flight regime is used during landing...full flaps, nose high attitude, low airpseed..Its called the regime of reverse controls...throttles to control altitude and climb rate, stick to control air speed...all while stall horns are wailing away. Its much easier to control an aircraft at higher speeds. For this reason I dismiss the statements that it's impossible that an inexperienced pilot could have performed the manuevers. At 350-400 kias all it would take is good eye hand coordination and coordinated stick and pedal control...no flaps, throttles, instruments, etc. just eyeballs out the window and a steady hand.

First is the FDR path provided by pilots for 9-11 Truth - they note that due to a flaw in the data, the path was recorded with longitude off approx. 20 miles to the west but EDIT (latitude) was correct:



In the next shot, I've redrawn part of the yellow path drawn by Pfor911T in white using the Google measuring tool. Ive redrawn the segment with the most extreme course corrections. I would have preferred to transfer the yellow line but I lack the computer skills. I have redrawn so it would be on a map at the same scale as the next which is large enough to clearly show the pentagon:




This image shows my hypothetical final approach over the north corner of Citgo and left hand bank into the building passing roughy over the light poles. It's important to note this image and the previous image are from roughly the same altitude 24.4K ft so the scale of the turns is very close.





Comparing the last two images you can see that if you belive the FDR data, it is cleary possible to bank the aircraft into the pentagon as I have hypothesized. The last two hypothesized course corrections are smaller than those made earlier in the approach.


[edit on 2/26/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 2/26/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 2/26/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by CameronFox

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?

I think I qualify as 'real' airline people. At least I am a 'real' pilot.

The answer to your question would depend on where the 'pull up' was to begin. At 350 to 450 knots its not going to take more than tiny 'nudge' on the control column to climb above an obstacle 40 feet higher than you are.
Barely anymore than 1 G.

From the descriptions of the witnesses I would say that the aircraft was already just above the height of the Pentagon, but if he wasn't, lets say he waited until he was half way between the Citgo station and the Pentagon, it would take the smallest amount of pressure to climb another 40 feet or so, level off, fly through the smoke, climb to maybe 200 feet or so for another 3 minutes, call Andrews on a right base leg for runway 19, land and taxi into a hangar. Total time from alleged impact: less than 5 minutes.

But why risk an airplane. Just use a holograph.

Originally posted by johnlear
...it would take the smallest amount of pressure to climb another 40 feet or so, level off, fly through the smoke, climb to maybe 200 feet or so for another 3 minutes...

Wouldn't flying "through" an explosion like that disrupt the flight of the plane? To steal a phrase someone used earlier: send it cartwheeling?

Using the following Google frames and a still frame from Pilots for 9-11 Truth I will show what I believe to be "Smoking Gun" evidence that AA 77 was seen approaching on the North side of the Citgo and still managed to take down the light poles and enter the bldg on the trajectory indicated by the column damage.

1.I am saying it is possible the poles fell without an aircraft hitting them.
2. If you believe all the witnesses than there could have been 2 planes or a missle with hologram.
thanks John

[edit on 26-2-2007 by rich1974]

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by johnlear
...it would take the smallest amount of pressure to climb another 40 feet or so, level off, fly through the smoke, climb to maybe 200 feet or so for another 3 minutes...

Wouldn't flying "through" an explosion like that disrupt the flight of the plane? To steal a phrase someone used earlier: send it cartwheeling?

The explosion set off inside the Pentagon probably wouldn't have been more than smoke and fire after it went through the reinforced wall. But no, it would take more than what we all saw as an explosion to affect in any way the flight path of a 250,000 pound airplane traveling at 350 to 450 mph.

If a comercial air line did hit those poles why where they still on the road or near the road, they were really close to where they were standing in the first place.
So at that speed with that kind of a weight an airplane such as a boeing would for sure cause the poles to be in another location at some distance from the initial location.
So another look at the poles location after the incident would be intresting.
From what I know and what I have seen in the pictures they were real close if not in the same position from where they were standing before, and that is uncacceptable if in deed a comercial airplane did hit those poles.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
[
Waaiiiit a minute here.

Are you suggesting yoiu have heard of people in the pentagon COURTYARD that saw the plane??

I personally know one who claims that, yes. There were also other
people there I suppose, as there usually is. I questioned him about it twice since I wondered about his visability at an upward angle. Please elucidate the relevance of it.

The recently released NTSB flight path has the plane never flying over washinton dc at all or the pentagon.

Nobody in the courtyard would have seen it.





But you see people didn't know this at first so there were published accounts of people in washington saying they saw the plane.

If you know any of them personally and they are willing have them contact me.
[email protected]

That's pretty funny stuff darkbluesky.

Why don't you illustrate that on a closer image and see what John has to say about that?

Like how about using these two.....







And remember.....it has to stay low and not hit any other poles either!

Jack - I'm glad to hear you like my material.

I'll get back to you with aircraft routes overlaid on your pics tomorrow. I don't have any editing apps on my home computer.

Just one other question. What was the orignal source of the first of the two pics in your last post? And can I find it on the internet?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
According to some feedback I've read from John Lear, the tight turns required to have had AA77 fly just over the north of Citgo and still make to banking turns pass nearly over the light poles seems to be theoretically possible although would subject the airplane to high G's, and there are doubts if the alleged hijacker could have performed the manuever.

Now just a minute here darkbluesky...in case you don't remember, here is what I said:

OK, at 750 feet per second (450mph) it would take 4.66 seconds to travel that distance while completing one turn to the right of 35 degrees and one turn to the left of 40 degrees. Assuming you could make the turn to the right of 35 degrees in 1 second then from the right bank to the left bank in 2 seconds (that would be a bank angle change of 180 degrees at a rate of 360 degrees per second) then a 40 degree heading change in 1 more second you would have .66 seconds to level from a 90 degree left bank. The leveling bank from the 40 degree left turn would have to be at a rate of greater than 90 degrees per second or actually about 120 degrees per second. Assuming that both the wings and the tail were still on the airplane when it hit the Pentagon that would have been quite a feat of airmanship for a Arab hijacker on his first flight in the Boeing 757. Heck that would have been quite a feat even if the wings and tail were not still on the airplane.

There is no possible way that anybody flew this profile in a Boeing 757. None. Nada. Not by intent not by accident. It is totally one hundred percent impossible. If you look carefully at the numbers above they show a totally impossible maneuver.

"Doubts that the alleged hijacker coud have performed this maneuver?" There are only 2 ways this maneuver could have been performed by anybody including me:

(1) No way
(2) No frigging way on earth. Period.

Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
That's pretty funny stuff darkbluesky.

Why don't you illustrate that on a closer image and see what John has to say about that?

Like how about using these two.....

And remember.....it has to stay low and not hit any other poles either!

Jack

looking at those two images, the plane supposidly flew over the circular road (bottom right) above the tree's, and next to the sign that hangs OVER the road.... but yet.. managed to knock down 1 light pole.

what about the tree?
surely a plane coming that close would of sent the leaves/branches flying
what about that sign that hangs OVER the road, surely if it hit the lightpole sugested, it would of hit that sign too......

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

what about the tree?
surely a plane coming that close would of sent the leaves/branches flying
what about that sign that hangs OVER the road, surely if it hit the lightpole sugested, it would of hit that sign too......

Possibly.

How anybody could look at this photo and the damage to the Pentagon and say that a Boeing 757 crashed into it is beyond me. There is no possible way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon and caused so little damage.

I would appreciate it is some talented ATS member could place a Boeing 757 in relative size and dimensions at the point of impact with the Pentagon, Thanks.

Here is an oldy but a goody for that John.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Here is an oldy but a goody for that John.

Thanks Jack. Now we need someone to put that Boeing 757 in the picture above.

I expect darkbluesky to come up with a flightpath where the body of the plane would have passed over the north east top of the Citgo gas station canopy.

Because that he will think is the only possible way a plane of that size and inertia could have made a "smooth" turn to the right from there and back to the left.
As John and I already have explained it, that is totally out of this worlds physics.
The plane would have smashed in the enormous road spanning sign.

And, if that could ever be true, we would have seen a HUGE black plane shadow in the Citgo video, sliding over the ground from left to right through the video.
(Look at the shadow of the canopy in above smaller picture at 13:00 hrs.)
There is no such moving shadow at all to observe, which clearly proves that the plane passing on the north was much further away than passing over the canopy.
As both officers in Jack's interview stated, it passed over somewhere near the fence from ANCemetery with the stone blocks under it, just above tree level.

Have a good look at both pictures, and try to see the fence. And the trees.
I see it clearly.

And that observation is in concert with mr. Middleton's observation from his grass mower on the Arlington National Cemetary.!

EDIT: darkbluesky,
Why did you remove this picture, used the last by g210b in this post at page 8 :
i128.photobucket.com...
Post : www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's very bad taste to do that kind of thing at this moment.
You disrupt the flow of discussion, what are you afraid of, loose of face?
I have it saved, btw.

[edit on 26/2/07 by LaBTop]

It takes balls to suggest the plane could have flown on the north side of the station and still knock down all the light poles.

Not only will pilots laugh at you but anyone with common sense will as well!

eric.bart.free.fr...

Federation of American Scientists

Another aspect of overpressure occurring in air bursts is the phenomenon of Mach reflections, called the "Mach Effect." When a bomb is detonated at some distance above the ground, the reflected wave catches up to and combines with the original shock wave, called the incident wave, to form a third wave that has a nearly vertical front at ground level. This third wave is called a "Mach Wave" or "Mach Stem," and the point at which the three waves intersect is called the "Triple Point." The Mach Stem grows in height as it spreads laterally, and as the Mach Stem grows, the triple point rises, describing a curve through the air. In the Mach Stem the incident wave is reinforced by the reflected wave, and both the peak pressure and impulse are at a maximum that is considerably higher than the peak pressure and impulse of the original shock wave at the same distance from the point of explosion. Using the phenomenon of Mach reflections, it is possible to increase considerably the radius of effectiveness of a bomb. By detonating a warhead at the proper height above the ground, the maximum radius at which a given pressure or impulse is exerted can be increased, in some cases by almost 50%, over that for the same bomb detonated at ground level. The area of effectiveness, or damage volume, may thereby be increased by as much as 100%.
www.fas.org...

Bart thinks 3 bombs were INSIDE the plane and were detonated just before impact, that's why we see the white flash in the first "impact" video still leaked by the DoD in 2002.
The white flash is the supersonic detonation front, causing the water vapour in the air to condensate instantaneously when hit by such a front.
Then follows the explosion gaseous front which is more orange.

The ORIGINAL "bart" website can be found here :
eric.bart.free.fr...
and there you can find this picture, and also the one Jack posted for John :



with the Arlington National Cemetary in it, the column damage pattern inside the Pentagon, and the official flightpath plus lightpoles damages.
And also the fence with the trees described by the 2 officers from Jack's interview.

Have a damn good look at the column damage pattern, and tell me if you now see THREE head on (90°) damage patterns too. I do, already a long time, and posted about it before.

And one is coming in over the helipad, where mr. Leibner described a big heli was hit, and he heard victims crying inside. (see my earlier post here)
EDIT: we saw NO damaged heli at all in all early pictures, so let's suppose it was the cabine of the burning fire truck mr. Leibner described.
Still strange, that rear end of the fire truck damage. It stood very near the first (most north) head on impact of a possible warhead. End EDIT.

The plot thickens.

Let's suppose Jack is right and the plane flew this new flightpath, coming in head on on the west wall, launching 3 warheads, bunker busters or so, and flew high over the building. Then the DoD checkpoint boot camera's video's suddenly make more sense, the white smoke trail we definitely saw in there, was a rocket smoke trail, or even a combination of 3 of them.

And the real plane was too high to be seen at all in that peculiar video and 2002 photo stills.

EDIT: and all the damaged light poles and 52° impact damage pattern was staged with explosives. end EDIT.

[edit on 27/2/07 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by pepsi78

From what I know and what I have seen in the pictures they were real close if not in the same position from where they were standing before, and that is uncacceptable if in deed a comercial airplane did hit those poles.

What about the numerous eyewitnesses who saw the plane hitting the poles, or the numerous eyewitnesses who saw debris from the plane all around the highway where the poles were knocked over?


Why do four peoples testimony, performed and edited by people trying to prove a plane didn't hit, outweigh the many more witnesses who saw the plane take the "official" flight path and the ones who saw the plane hit the poles?