The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by gotanybob
[..I'm sure they get lots of warnings but knowing when and where is another story..

We did have good warnings from foreign and domestic intell agencies that had some time frames and even stated there would be hijackings.

So why weren't airports put on higher security at least that would have done something?

[edit on 28-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by fleabit
So "refused to give you an interview" in your mind, means "did not see the plane crash into the Pentagon." Ok.. got it. Also, refused to allow you to publish I am guessing means they definately refuted your story, but who knows.

I never said that and this is not my belief.

Please refrain from speaking for me.

You stated that we were not publishing interviews that contradicted the north side approach.

This is false.

So your much smaller base of witnesses are ALL sober, legitimate sources, and ALL those who reported seeing the plane fly into the Pentagon are lying, dubious, wrong, or because they "refused" to speak with you, are also wrong.

I never said that and this is not my belief.

Please refrain from speaking for me.

You stated that we were not publishing interviews that contradicted the north side approach.

This is false.

I love how someone who didn't answer the phone is someone who "refused to answer the phone." A very clear picture of the bias your research is based on.

Huh?

I said that about Thomas Trappasso who talked to us over the phone, said he would try to give us an interview in person, then refused to even bother to answer the phone or return our calls to decline when the time came.

There is nothing biased in stating this particularly since you asked.

Do you even know what biased means?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Ok, I changed my mind, there was a conspiracy and flight 77 never hit the pentagon, it actually flew over it. I was thinking last night about the conversation Bush and Cheney probably had. It was so obvious at that point that there was a conspiracy. Here is the conversation I imagine took place:

Bush: "god Dick, I sure wish we could find a way to invade afghanistan and maybe carry that way into Iraq."

Cheney: "Yea, Imagine all the money we could make off the oil companies, and you could give Saddamm payback for your dad."

Bush" If there was only some way. some excuse to actually invade those coutries"

Cheney "Well we could stage a terrorist attack on US soil and somehow tie that attack to afghanistan. If the attack was bad enough, you would basically have a free card to attack anyone you want. After all, we can tie terrorism to any middle east country"

Bush: " Thats a great idea Dick. However, what about the killing innocent U.S citizens?"

Cheney: "That is just collateral damage."

Bush: "Right!. Ok whats the plan?"

Cheney: "Well we will use planes as missiles."

Bush: "good idea, what about targets"

Cheney: "The Twin towers would be good. We will have to hit both towers and make sure they fall."

Bush: "How would we do that"

Cheney: "Well we plant and hide explosives in the dry wall. We wait over a hour for the fires to spread and do some damage. Then it would be just like we are demoing the buildings. Heck maybe we can also plant explosive in building 7, and if the damage carries over from the twin towers into building 7, we can also demolish it. That would get ride of alot of headaches for the enron scandle."

Bush: "Wow, you are brilliant. Lets get this plan in motion"

Cheney: "Wait, I am not finished. Why should we stop there. Just in case that isn't enough we should also hit another target."

Bush: "which one"

Cheney: "The pentagon. However this time we wont actually fly a plane into it, but we will make it look like a plane crashed into it."

Bush" How do we do that?"

Cheney: "Well how about this scenario. We say another plane was highjacked. We fly it over DC and make it look like it is searching for the white house. When the highjacked aircraft cannot find the white house, we will make it look like it decides to crash into the pentagon. We fly it on this flight path (Cheney shows bush NoC flight path) but we plant evidence that it flys from this way (Cheney shows Bush official flight path) We can plant downed lightposts, a damaged generator, plane parts on the lawn and inside the pentagon, and burnt bodies in the seats of planes." The plane will be coming from the NoC and just as it seems to crash into the pentagon there will be a huge explosion, and the plane will actually pull up and fly away to a undecided location where we will execute those people and dismatle the plane."

Bush: "How stupid do you think I am. What about witnesses? How are you going to plant all that evidence in the pentagon and pieces of the plane on the pentagon lawn? What if someone has a video camera and is taping or taken pictures in the immediate are. You realize this is Washington DC. It is a major tourist trap. Also if it hits around 9:30, won't there be a lot of traffic. The pentagon is right by 395. People would be able to see the plane pull up and fly over the pentagon. That idea is rediculous, why dont we just fly the plane into the pentagon."

Cheney: "How stupid do I think you are? You really dont want me to answer that? Anyway we will just use government disinfo agents as our witnesses. We have them working everywhere. In fact we have a bunch working for USA Today. We can also use PY-OPS and other undercover agents to collaborate our story. Anyone who doesnt agree we will threaten or buy off. We will use the firemen to help plant some of the evidence inside the building and others to help plant evidence on the lawn. And we can confiscate any video and alter it if need be."

Bush: "What about people seeing the plane fly over the pentagon. There will be thousands of people around that area. Many may have video cameras. How can we make sure we get a hold of them all."

Cheney: "well most, if not all, will be too distracted by the initial explosion to notice a 757 flying a few hundred feet over their head. Anyway it is a chance we should be willing to take. And so what if we get caught. It would just be the end of the United States as we know it. The reward of getting that Iraqi oil outweighs the risk of ruining the USA, dont you think."

Bush: "Yea, your right dick. I know we will get away with it. That plan you presented is brilliant. I am about 95% sure it will work. Maybe if we highjacked another plane then shot it out of the sky, it would give more crediability to the official story"

Cheney: "It would, however then you would catch a lot of crap for shooting down a civilian aircraft. Wait. I got it. We will shoot it down, however we make it look like the passengers actually fought the highjackers and crashed the plane."

Bush: "great idea. Okay so lets put this plan into motion."

Cheney: "Already is. One step ahead of you W."

Bush: ""

Cheney: ""

I know... common sense isn't a strong suit of this theory. I've already asked why in the world would they dare such a stupid plan, and no response. I can't even fathom them trying to plan this out.

For example: Why in the world would you even bother to knock over light poles? I don't get it. If a low flying plane, a giant hole in the building, wreckage, and a missing flight does not convince people that a plane hit, then knocked over light poles certainly wouldn't. There would be no point.

The premise itself is ludicrous. Even a complete idiot wouldn't come up with such a foolish plan. Fly a plane over and hope no one notices?! Picture this: If this had never happened, and someone proposed a conspiracy idea, that they heard this was going to happen, and they posted it, they'd be laughed off the thread. People would have a grand time telling them what idiots they are for even coming up with such a stupid idea.

Has anyone bothered to explain away the over 100 medical workers that worked to identify 184 victims over a span of four months? They were identified by DNA and dental records. The remains were returned to families. Are you suggesting that all those folks working on this are "in on it," and that the families were sent other remains?

Where did wreckage come from? I saw it ON THE DAY IT HAPPENED. I watched live coverage along with everyone else, and the grass was strewn with smaller pieces of wreckage. You are suggesting that people planted this RIGHT IN FRONT OF ALL THE WITNESSES, and NONE noticed?!

You can't account for all the eyewitnesses, you can't adequately explain away the more salient facts, and yet you want us to buy your theory based on a handful of witnesses that didn't see the end result of crash?

Have you even thought hard about the light poles? Where is the evidence of the Pentalawn being impacted by 400-500mph light poles? Everyone of the poles are laying neatly beside their base with no damage to the lawn. Unless the light poles either stopped the plane, or sheared off the wings on contact, the light poles should be almost instantly accelerated to the velocity of the aircraft impacting them. The physics(as I understand physics) of the collision between the plane and light poles should have sent the light poles flying in the direction and speed of the aircraft.

Inelastic collision equation:
m1=typical empty weight 757
v1=impact speed per 9/11 commission report
m2=estimated weight of light pole
V'f=velocity of aircraft and light pole after collision
m1V1 + m2V2 = (m1 + m2)V'f
m1V1=(m1 + m2)V'f
(128,730lbs)(530mph) + (200lbs)(0mph)= (128730+200)V'f
68226900+0=128930*V'f
V'f=529.177mph


[edit on 28-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by fleabit


I couldnt agree more. The whole idea that the government would attempt something like this is insane. And it make no sense. Hell they could have flown one plane into the twin towers and we would of had reason to go to war. The whole idea that there is some governement conspiracy is idiotic. With all these elaborate ideas posed by so called truthers, all you have to do is use common sense to figure out that the jist of the official story is indeed true. Of course common sense is few and far between on this and other conspiracy boards. Unfortunatly most people who come up with these theories have some other agenda, whether it be to profit from it or just an ego thing. Take 2012 for example. Look at all the books that are written on the subject. I bet 90% of those who wrote those books are doing it purely for financial gain. They actually dont think anything is going to happen on that day. It is really quite sad that people take advantage of the gullible. Not sure what CIT motive is. I think it might be both financial and an ego thing. That guy in the interview and pictures I have seen of them sure make them look like they are pompase a*******.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
The physics(as I understand physics) of the collision between the plane and light poles should have sent the light poles flying in the direction and speed of the aircraft.

I think the factor your physics is missing is inertia (as applied to the poles attached to the ground). All the pole pics show that they were actually severed at the point of impact as well as breaking their frangible bases so it appears that whatever struck them went clean through them which removes the requirement for them to accelerate to the speed of what hit them. The energy of impact is expressed in severing the pole with enough force at the base to produce failure there as well.

Much as I hate loose analogies, try this one:
The old candle and sword trick as seen by virtually all who ever watched old movies. Hit the candle slowly with the sword and it's knocked over intact, but hit it fast enough and it's possible cut it clean through with it toppling at all. (with a very thin bladed sword of course)


[edit on 28/8/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Have you even thought hard about the light poles? Where is the evidence of the Pentalawn being impacted by 400-500mph light poles? Everyone of the poles are laying neatly beside their base with no damage to the lawn. Unless the light poles either stopped the plane, or sheared off the wings on contact, the light poles should be almost instantly accelerated to the velocity of the aircraft impacting them. The physics(as I understand physics) of the collision between the plane and light poles should have sent the light poles flying in the direction and speed of the aircraft.

You do realize those post had breakaway bases. There is no way to tell what would happen to a breakaway lamppost if it was clipped by a 757 traveling at 400+ mph. We have no idea at what amount of force is required for those lamppost to breakaway at their base. Guess there would have to be some kind of study done to figure this out. Actually lets look at it another way. If those lamppost were planted, dont you think the people would know where they actually should end up if a plane hits them.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Exactly. Plus PP you are leaving out the fact that they have breakaway bases.

reply to post by Pilgrum


No, the analogy you use doesn't make sense here. The lampposts were aluminum, the wings are aluminum. What happens if you hit a sword with sword instead of a candle?
What does breakaway bases have to do with the scenario? It's only going to add a little resistance into the collision and a hinge causing the lamp posts to accelerate toward the ground instead of totally horizontal. The end near the plane's wing would still be travelling over 500 mph hitting the ground.

I think people try to hard to guess what would have actually happened. While physics is hard science, there is often surprising results when new things are tested. In the cases of both the twin towers, and the Pentagon crash, you have many things happened that simply hasn't happened before. There is going to be some stuff we don't understand, and some things we are going to get wrong. Just because a book says when object A hits object B, reaction C occurrs, doesn't mean this in practice is how it is going to turn out. Most didn't even know about the breakaway bases, for example. How many other factors did people not consider?

Also ponder this: People are making guesses as to what "really" happened, with apparently a mindset of whoever planned this, are a bunch of bumbling and idiotic morons. If YOU could figure out "that light pole should have flown 1000 feet!," don't you think someone masterminding this would have thought of it? Not to mention, I don't know who in their right mind would "ok" an idea to "just fly over and hope no one notices." The entire thing is bunk.

Originally posted by Pilgrum The energy of impact is expressed in severing the pole with enough force at the base to produce failure there as well.

The poles have a breakaway base that breaks pretty easy.

So the poles should have been moved by imapct.

Also i have seen no wing or plane debris around the poles, the wings are lightweight and can easly shear off in pieces when hitting an obsticle.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima you are about the furthest thing from a physicist as there is. Also we do not know what would happen it a plane hit those post. As far as I know it has never happened before. Also if you are claiming they were planted, where is the evidence of this. Where are the witnesses of those items being planted. If they were planted the night before, surely someone would have noticed lamps knocked down or missing.

The wings on the 757-300 and 757-200 are less swept and thicker through the center than those on earlier Boeing airplanes, permitting a longer span. The lower wing surface is slightly flatter, and the leading edge is somewhat sharper. This improves lift, reduces drag and makes for improved aerodynamic efficiency and low fuel consumption.

The only difference between the 757-300 and the 757-200 wing is that the former has been structurally reinforced to handle the increased load.

source Although I do not work for boeing the wings on this 757 are reinforced. You nor I can claim what would happen if the plane hit lightpost.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum The energy of impact is expressed in severing the pole with enough force at the base to produce failure there as well.

The poles have a breakaway base that breaks pretty easy.

So the poles should have been moved by imapct.

Also i have seen no wing or plane debris around the poles, the wings are lightweight and can easly shear off in pieces when hitting an obsticle.

how about these claims:

Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo...It knocked over a few light poles in its way." Mark Bright: "...at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet." Rodney Washington: "...knocking over light poles" Kirk Milburn: "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles." Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in." Kat Gaines: "saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles." D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles." Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car. Now in the Smithsonian Institution's 9/11 collection. Lincoln Liebner: "It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lampposts. I could clearly see through the windows of the plane. It was maybe going 500 miles an hour - when it just flew...into the Pentagon ... less than a hundred yards away."

fragment of plane that hit lightpost

Originally posted by tide88 Also we do not know what would happen it a plane hit those post. As far as I know it has never happened before.

Well you are wrong yest again.

I can show you accident reports of planes hitting light poles.

Please try to do some basic research before posting so you do not look so immature.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Another immature comment. You cannot be serious. Man you really look like a dumbass. It is unbelieable how stupid you really are. No plan debris from the plane hitting the lamppost. You do some research before posting such things and being so immature. Cool show me accident reports of a boeing 757-300 hitting lamppost. Instead of calling me immature, be an adult and post your evidence. LOL you are comparing a gulf stream to a 757. That is funny.


[edit on 28-8-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 28-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by tide88 No plan debris from the plane hitting the lamppost.

When are you going to learn how to read and do research. Might want to look up something called the NTSB, they have lots of accident reports.

I can show reports of planes hitting light poles and the damage but as usual you will just ignore it and keep living in your fantasy world.

Lets look at FLight 255.
1. www.ntsb.gov...

The airplane collided with obstacles northeast of the runway when the left wing struck a light pole located 2,760 feet beyond the end of the runway. Thereafter the airplane struck other light poles, the roof of the rental car facility, and then the ground.

2. www.toledoblade.com.../20070812/NEWS11/70812012

The light pole sheared off part of the plane’s right wing, crippling it and starting a fuel fire. The doomed aircraft glanced off several other poles and the roof of an Avis Rent-A-Car building before crashing onto Middlebelt.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


It might be nice if you mentioned the difference between the lightpole in your example, and the lightpoles at the Pentagon.

You DO know there was a huge difference, correct?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Like you ignoring the piece of the plane that was sheered off when it hit the lightpost. The picture I posted with the witness that saw the plane hit the posts? Btw lamppost are completely different as was the plane. Show me a 757-300 that hit a lamp post at that speed with those exact same kind of breakaway lamppost made out of the same material.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by tide88]

Here is a SAME STYLE breakaway base pole from the same neighborhood that was downed by wind:


Notice how the cast aluminum broke all jagged and random as you should expect from a sudden force.

But look at the base of pole #4 how it is a perfectly even cut and that has a sooty residue around it:






Does it really make sense to suggest the base would break so symmetrically after being hit by a 90 ton Boeing traveling 535 mph?

More detail on light poles here.

An even better question....

Why were the light poles completely ignored in ALL official reports?

Why wasn't there an official forensic analysis done on the poles with a break down showing how the plane would have hit each one of them?

Why we left to speculate off photographs?

This should seriously bother any true critical thinker or skeptic but the pseudo-skeptics seem to be perfectly fine accepting the word of the government out of hand with zero forensic analysis.



[edit on 28-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]