The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by discombobulator


If you scroll quarter way down the link page there is a much better view from the direction the plane supposedly came from.

www.freedomfiles.org...

Originally posted by Pawnhaus
Your original witnesses locating plane position from under the CITGO awning were the most solid; now further supported by these new folks. GREAT JOB!

What’s that I smell – 911 official story decaying.

With the exception that those witnesses "under the Citgo awning" all say they saw the aircraft impact the building with one even stating that he saw it hit the lamp posts. These are menacing little problems that keeps plaguing this theory, aren't they.

AND, the fact that an aircraft can not fly the flight path that these irrefutable, corroborated, scientifically formulated witnesses say it did.

I'd suggest that smell you detect is the stench from BS that you apparently are buying from the agenda driven frauds.

Originally posted by Reheat
With the exception that those witnesses "under the Citgo awning" all say they saw the aircraft impact the building with one even stating that he saw it hit the lamp posts. These are menacing little problems that keeps plaguing this theory, aren't they.

Nothing like these problematic photos that plague the OS!


Numerous lampposts still seem to obstruct the path
(Photos: (top left) AP/Dylan Moore (others) letsroll911.org).



Lamppost bases had their bolts cut.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by discombobulator

 

If you scroll quarter way down the link page there is a much better view from the direction the plane supposedly came from.

www.freedomfiles.org...

Gee, you guys love to send people on wild goose chases, don't you? I mean, you link me a page with a million images on it and you just expect me to instantly hone in on the one that you're talking about.

I've scanned through them and I have no idea what you're on about. Which photo is it? Can you give me a direct URL reference to it please?

In the meantime I've managed to mock up this illustration demonstrating why your black and white pictures have been taken from the wrong angle.



The overhead sign in the black and white photos is the green circle at the top. The overhead sign adjacent to the flight path, knocked over light poles and scuffed VDOT mast is at the bottom.

You are looking at the wrong poles, my friend.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Reheat
With the exception that those witnesses "under the Citgo awning" all say they saw the aircraft impact the building with one even stating that he saw it hit the lamp posts. These are menacing little problems that keeps plaguing this theory, aren't they.

Nothing like these problematic photos that plague the OS!

Numerous lampposts still seem to obstruct the path

Then you should have no trouble drawing the flight path across those photos illustration your point. Otherwise, you photos are of somewhere west of the Pentagon and are like flatus in a hurricane, meaningless.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Lamppost bases had their bolts cut.

My, my you have good eyesight. Great deductive skills too. Now, prove that those bolts were cut.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Nothing like these problematic photos that plague the OS!

Numerous lampposts still seem to obstruct the path
(Photos: (top left) AP/Dylan Moore (others) letsroll911.org).

There's nothing problematic about those photos at all. None of those light poles were ever even alleged to have been knocked down by the incoming jet.

Lamppost bases had their bolts cut.

Says who?

reply to post by discombobulator

Gee, you guys love to send people on wild goose chases, don't you? I mean, you link me a page with a million images on it and you just expect me to instantly hone in on the one that you're talking about.

Apologies.
I'm having trouble loading pictures.

Its the 18th photo from the top.



Also,if you look at the b&w photo,the 1st square;this is looking directly down the flight path and there are 3 lampposts still standing.







[edit on 12-8-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll

There are multiple things wrong with that link. First off that area was just renovated so of course there is going to be some marks on the grass. Second the official flight path does not go over those marks like that site suggests. Next to compare the constuction of an apartment building to the construction of the pentagon is ludacris. Next the business jet. Comparing a 757 flying at a rate of 500+ to a business jet skidding off a run way is also rediculous, so is comparing the structure of a warehouse to the pentagon. Also comparing a wood post to aluminum lightpost is laughable.
The doctored photos with AA painted on the side As for the firetruck on the pentagon lawn before the crash:

On the morning of September 11, Mark Skipper and fellow firefighter Alan Wallace pulled Foam Truck 161 out of the Pentagon firehouse and parked it on the Pentagon helipad in preparation for President Bush’s planned arrival later in the day. The crash of the airliner into the Pentagon destroyed the back of the truck and threw Skipper and Wallace to the ground. After calling for help and extinguishing the burning truck, the firefighters turned their attention to the heavily damaged Pentagon.

foam truck 161 from pentgon firehouse
The site you posted above is full of lies and misinterpretations, just like most 911 so called truth sites.

The case of the disappearing-reappearing-disappearing light poles.

The black-and-white photos are post collapse.





[edit on 12-8-2008 by Boone 870]

reply to post by jakyll

Also,if you look at the b&w photo,the 1st square;this is looking directly down the flight path and there are 3 lampposts still standing.

That first square is directly in front of the pentagon and is no where near the flight path. The plane did not hit the pentagon head on.

Uh oh. There seems to be a schism in debunkerland.

One says, "none of those light poles were ever even alleged to have been knocked down by the incoming jet" and the other implies that the AP faked the photos.

[edit] Wait, a third debunker just weighed in, saying the lampposts are directly in front of the crash site and are no where [sic] near the flight path.

Better go into a huddle and get your stories straight, gentlemen.




[edit on 12-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by tide88

The site you posted above is full of lies and misinterpretations, just like most 911 so called truth sites.

I wouldn't know i haven't looked at it all,i was just using it for the photos.

Originally posted by jakyll

Apologies.
I'm having trouble loading pictures.

Its the 18th photo from the top.

The photo in question appears to have been taken from I395, almost due south of the impact spot. From the perspective of this photo AA77 came in from the left. It did fly not through or above the poles in this photo.

Also,if you look at the b&w photo,the 1st square;this is looking directly down the flight path and there are 3 lampposts still standing.

Utter garbage. It is not looking directly down the flight path, as I have metioned before, because you are looking at the wrong overhead sign.

The overhead sign that the aircraft flew immediately adjacent to is 170 yards south. It has a guard rail and wall on either side, is surrounded by trees and has a VDOT mast right next to it. As I have said before, none of these features are present around the overhead sign in your black and white photos.

The bottom left photo in the black and white series is the clear giveaway to the photographers position. The rising mound on the right leads to the R244 underpass/R27 overpass which the plane flew directly over.

So this photographer was definately not underneath the flight path looking in the direction of the impact site.

He is to the northwest of the flight path (as it flew over R244/R27 over/underpass) looking at the impact spot from a different angle and you are looking at completely different light poles.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Uh oh. There seems to be a schism in debunkerland.

One says, "none of those light poles were ever even alleged to have been knocked down by the incoming jet" and the other implies that the AP faked the photos.

[edit] Wait, a third debunker just weighed in, saying the lampposts are directly in front of the crash site and are no where [sic] near the flight path.

Better go into a huddle and get your stories straight, gentlemen.

I'm really starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

The four black and white photos are from the wrong angle and show a completely different set of poles to the ones that were actually knocked over. How is this not clear to you?

Who has implied that AP faked the photos?

It is well known which five light poles had been knocked over, and there is plenty of photographic evidence showing these poles laying on the ground ON THE DAY.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Uh oh. There seems to be a schism in debunkerland.

One says, "none of those light poles were ever even alleged to have been knocked down by the incoming jet" and the other implies that the AP faked the photos.

[edit] Wait, a third debunker just weighed in, saying the lampposts are directly in front of the crash site and are no where [sic] near the flight path.

Better go into a huddle and get your stories straight, gentlemen.




[edit on 12-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Wow you really pulled that one out of nowhere. No one claims that any photos were faked. It was just that they ARE DECEIVING from the angles and places they were taken. The photo I was talking about was taken at an angle that was in front of the pentagon. See post above with green circles.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


The black and white photos were taken on the north side of the flight path.

The photo I posted was taken on the south side of the flight path.

I did not claim fakery, that was sarcasm. That must have 'flew-over' your head!

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

The black and white photos were taken on the north side of the flight path.

The photo I posted was taken on the south side of the flight path.

I did not claim fakery, that was sarcasm. That must have 'flew-over' your head!

This guy isn't even trying anymore. He's already thrown in a few heavily cherry picked and thoroughly debunked witness statements, and stuck to them like glue.

Go back a few pages and witness the absolute sheer stupidity where he claims there is no question mark at the end of a preamble question.

Notice how he doesn't even back up any of his claims, like the bolts being cut on the poles?

He's trolling.

reply to post by discombobulator

It is well known which five light poles had been knocked over, and there is plenty of photographic evidence showing these poles laying on the ground ON THE DAY.

I'm not arguing that.
As i said i'm talking about the lampposts that are within the grounds of the Pentagon,ones that were close to the building itself.They were still standing.

Originally posted by jakyll

I'm not arguing that.
As i said i'm talking about the lampposts that are within the grounds of the Pentagon,ones that were close to the building itself.They were still standing.

Well do you wanna try pointing out which ones you are talking about then?

Do you need a map with all lightpoles marked on it so you can choose?