The Generator-trailer its cabin roof-gouge is made by a NoC flying AA 77.

reply to post by LaBTop


WAIT a TICK!!!!

1. What "all" evidence? Five on the ground laying light poles, who by the way not one believable witness saw getting hit? Because they were already placed laying there, which can be the only explanation for such a lack of notion of those poles being hit and cut down.

Out of that rather long diatribe, I stop you right there.

Really?

Light poles that were "already placed laying there"? One (at minimum) in the middle of a busy nearby roadway??

Are you paying attention to yourself?

Originally posted by ProudBird

Are you paying attention to yourself?

lol...of course not! He's too preoccupied with that "back wall of the E Ring"...you know, that "back wall" that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by trebor451

 

You first.
Did you notice a few posts up, in my post, the sentence :
""Look at the space occupied by Special Navy use : ""

blah blah blah snipped

You know, a truism of Truthers is to generate a vast amount of absolutely meaningless blather under the mistaken guise of intelligent discussion.

You talked about "the back wall of the E-Ring". I pointed out there *is* no back wall of the E-Ring, except from the third floor up, which the aircraft never breached.

You responded with a violent blast of projectile digital diarrhea that said *absolutely* nothing.

FYI, I worked in the building for a number of years. I know very well the construction characteristics of the building, and I'll say again...your reference to the "back wall of the E-Ring" is a typical display of Truther logic in that they really, truly, honestly have no clue whatsoever regarding anything they blather on about in these fora.

Comic relief. Clown car.

Could you tell us next about the anti-aircraft batteries located on the 10th floor of the Pentagon and in the subteranean self-defence nodes? Thanks!

So far all labtop has proven is that trailers can move when struck by a plane.

Somebody call the news media. We need to have a press conference.

Light poles that were "already placed laying there"? One (at minimum) in the middle of a busy nearby roadway??

reply to post by ProudBird


Why doesn't the NTSB data corroborate the plane hitting the light poles? Surely it can't be incorrect in calculating the plane's height, altitude, location and angle of attack all wrong.

Originally posted by LaBTop

1. What "all" evidence? Five on the ground laying light poles, who by the way not one believable witness saw getting hit? Because they were already placed laying there, which can be the only explanation for such a lack of notion of those poles being hit and cut down.

No credible witnesses?

How about Terry Morin? In his FIRST account.

As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110)

How about Albert Hemphill?

"clipped a light pole"

How about all of these accounts:

Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects

1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]

2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]

3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]

4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]

5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]

6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]

7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]

8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]

9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]

10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]

11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]

12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]

13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]

14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]

15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”

16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]

17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

19. “There were light poles down.”[404]

20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]

21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]

22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]

“As he reached the west side of the building he saw a light post bent in half.”[408]

“The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a… the tail of a lamp post.”

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Eyewitness names are below corresponding with the numbers at the end of the quote.
I guess all of these people must CIA plants right?

And back to Terry, how can you use an account that is unverifiable, via an alleged phone call, done years later, with details that are nearly opposite that were said immediately after the events on 9/11?

But since you are so enamored with this new version of Terry Morin's account, let me ask you this and I want a straight simple answer, not your usual text diarrhea: show me the hill that Terry ran up in his new account, and how much of an improvement to his field of view would he have gotten by running up hill? Would you like a topographic map of the area? Check the topography of the area and show me exactly what hill Terry supposedly ran up, and still managed to watch the plane fly all the way down at high speed. The only uphill slope I can find is a slight rise from wing 5 to wing 1 that maybe gives you 5-6 feet height. But you'd have run quite a distance t get any rise but you still dont get a view over the Annex. It appears that CIT's version is a load of crap.

Here is a link to the Topographic map of the area around the Navy Annex. Let us see how well you can interpret a topographic map and extrapolate data from it. I know I can, and from what it tells me, this "new and improved" version is a load of horse-dung.

www.trails.com...

reply to post by Morg234

Why doesn't the NTSB data corroborate the plane hitting the light poles?

It does.

Only place it "doesn't" is in the fantasies spewed by a particular "pilots" for "truth" web site. A site which, BTW, has gotten very claim they've made wrong, to date.

reply to post by Morg234

Why doesn't the NTSB data corroborate the plane hitting the light poles? Surely it can't be incorrect in calculating the plane's height, altitude, location and angle of attack all wrong.

Margin of error.
Altitude of the light poles. Was the ground perfectly level?

I would expect a 50 foot difference in altitude between actual and black box. But the relative change in altitude should be darn close.

And then there's those witnesses...

How many witnesses does it take to silence the truther movement??

reply to post by GenRadek


honestly? show us a video and then we'll talk.
if you indeed want a honest answer, debunker.
so far, those 5 frames depict jack #.

and you KNOW this, maaaan!

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by GenRadek

 

honestly? show us a video and then we'll talk.
if you indeed want a honest answer, debunker.
so far, those 5 frames depict jack #.

and you KNOW this, maaaan!

Ahhhh.....the old rock solid logic of "If there's no video, it didn't happen!!!11!!" routine. Don't the Truthers ever get tired or recycling these old useless argumentum ad idiocy clown routines?

Faster and funnier...

Purdue University CGVLAB its Pentagon attack simulations animation using LS-DYNA Runs:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5506786479079283934

Google Video Link

They posted it at Video Google, 5 years ago.
Purdue University CS; authors Popescu, V., C. Hoffmann, S. Kilic, M. Sozen, S. Meador;
More info www.cs.purdue.edu...

From that Purdue site, a screenshot of the position of the plane in a SoC angle of attack.
The right wing's jet engine will smash right in the middle of the side panel of the generator cabin, the guard rails are too high to hit anything, when the nose cone and the fuselage will indeed follow a precise 42° horizontal attack angle and a vertical 8° downward angle, and that nose cone impacts at a spot on the second floor slab, just through the center line of that two windows wide fuselage entrance hole :




Same screenshot below , but I placed an additional plane in the right, NoC 80° angle of attack.
The outer flap's guide rail will make that gouge in the roof of the generator cabin, under a 80° angle. It began to hit that cabin roof just behind the right-side roof-rim, then started to rip through the roof, deeper and deeper until it left a progressively getting deeper gouge. That impact force delivered such a blow to the front part of the trailer, that it was pushed off its static, upholding reversed U-construction (who knows the short term) under the front of the trailer, and got shoved around to a position of about 46° to the west wall length and the long fence.
The inner guide rail will rip a piece of the wire netting of the fence away and make that "hole" in the fence. The jet engine stays a few meters clear from the fence and its corner, it passes to the left side of the fence corner, and is also at the right height to just miss the cable spools(or just make a dent in the top of two of them), and hit the west wall's first floor space at the right hand side of column 14. Its fuselage which is positioned above the wing level and even higher above the jet engine level, will make that 2 windows wide fuselage-entrance hole :





It seems none of the readers of my post where I first showed this zoomed-in and cropped by me, NAVY aerial photo of the situation at the Renovation areas in front of the Pentagon's west wall, have understood what the grave importance of my remarks in that photo are, and what they implicate.







That means I still have to explain what details you must have missed in that drawing.

I thought it was obvious by now, after all these photos and drawings I already posted in here. Where are the days that our onboard Official Story debunkers, that once enormous group, that reacted on every freshly introduced Official Story attacking post, instantly would post their own observations when shocking evidence like my photos and drawings were posted.

Have you all been intimidated so much by that JREF wolf-pack scouring this forum, that you do not dare to post anymore in our 9/11 conspiracy threads and posts? What the heck is going on lately in our two conspiracy forums?
HAVE YOU GIVEN IN? To those few-liners? Where's your pride and guts!

Don't get intimidated by their "status" or "expertise". They do not have expert knowledge about every level of education, by far not.
I do value their posts where it is clear that they are an expert in that field (ProudBird f.ex.) and do give reasonable explanations as their answer, but when I read the signature line link of Reheat, I doubt he is an expert in aviation calculations. He seems to be at least an ex Air Force pilot, but his calculation skills are so poor, that he keeps telling here that a NoC flight path with a slight 23° right banking turn ending in that by many people reported impact, is impossible. I gave him the calculations from his own link, that it is no problem at all at quite high speeds too, but he keeps stubbornly shouting around here, that it is only possible under an idiot huge bank angle, which would have been reported by all witnesses.
However, all NoC and other witnesses reported MY calculated viable 23° right banking turn.
Then I show him his own linked to online calculator results, that give a slight 23° right bank turn as result by those speeds, and you know what?
His endless insult drivel is repeated ad infinitum, while constantly shouting that that plane must have flown that idiot huge right bank. Yep, very professional behavior. Keep neglecting the evidence, take another cookie.


Back to that explanation.
The yellow 42° attack line drawn by me in that NAVY aerial photo, must be the path that one of the flaps guide rail housings sticking out from under that right wing, did follow on its way in. Since those things are aligned under the right wing, exactly parallel to the fuselage (body) of the plane, to avoid at all means any extra, and excessive air resistance drag on the wings and the whole flight performance of the plane.
They follow the same flight path as the plane's body. Parallel to that body.

But that 42° angled yellow line does not depict the BODY, no, it depicts one of the outer flap guide rail housings, and probably one of the two most outwards ones.
Because the two inward ones are situated just beneath the fuselage, and just beneath the right jet engine, and that engine has not touched that trailer, if it would have done so, the whole trailer would have been blasted into thousands of tiny pieces.
And since Frank Probst his witness account from the ASCE report and in some newspapers I linked to in my OP page at my only thread that was allowed at PilotsForTruth before it got closed by Balsamo the dictator there, clearly stated that he saw the right wing TIP slash through the generator cabin roof, it is quite sure that he saw the out-most flap guide rail housing's sharp bottom slash through that roof.

Thus, that leaves us with a plane body that flew many meters to the left of my drawn 42° yellow line. And I have news for that JREF wolf pack of hard core real-9/11-truth debunkers. Even if my yellow 42°-line would depict a line through the plane's body and nose cone, it still does miss the two windows fuselage hole at the column 14 position in the west wall, the official impact point of the nose of AA 77, with more than 15 meters.

But it gets even much worse for them, that 42°-line does not depict that plane's body, it depicts some plane part under that right wing its out-most wing-tip area, which must be the outer flap guide rail housing, hanging some 0.8 yard/meter under that wing-tip area.

That leaves us with only one logical conclusion, based on the real, 80° angle and the progressively deeper cutting form of that generator cabin roof's gouge, as clearly can be seen in the hires gouge photos I posted; namely that the body and NOSE of AA 77 that was flying about 15 meter to the right of that wing tip area, in the unreal case that the plane's wing tip area slashed through that trailer roof diagonally from front left towards back right under a by the ASCE report proposed sharp angle of 42°, was aimed at a spot at, or just missing the northwestern, back side corner of the Heli pad tower building.

Good grace, that ASCE reports attack angle of 42° could never ever have impacted under that 42° angle, the two windows hole in the west wall, its right wing and its lower hanging 4 flaps extensions and the jet engine would have slashed first through the whole wire netting of that fence, and then through not one, but three trailers parked in that fence corner area, and the deepest part of that right wing would have smashed through the side of that generator cabin, when you follow the logic of the ASCE report, and take in account the dimensions of the bottom of the right jet engine housing up to the nose cone's height, in a clean flight configuration, no wheels down, no slats or flaps out.

Because for that 42° fairy tale to become true, you must neglect the fact that when the jet engine has missed the whole trailer side (which it clearly did, see all my trailer photos), its much higher passing four flaps guide rail housings did miss that generator roof area with at least a feet or more. But probably much more, because these four extensions under the right wing, can only touch that cabin roof, when the bottom of the right jet engine nearly cuts the grass on the lawn, look at my Boeing 757-200 dimensions drawings in my opening posts.
And then, the fuselage and the nose cone would have slashed right through those cable spools, who were only slightly damaged, in the top area of two of them.

You should construct a reversed impact scenario by yourselves.
Start a 42° line to the trailer, from the two windows wide entrance hole center, at the second floor slab its plane's nose-cone impact position on it, in any one of my hires photos or aerials.
Then extend to the generator trailer under an angle to the west wall of 42°, another line under it, starting at the spot on a small perpendicular line drawn downwards from the nose cone impact point, that depicts the bottom of that right jet engine. And take in account the AA 77 measurements I gave you already in my OP, which you can take from my AA 77 dimensions drawings.
See if you can make that jet engine just miss the cable spools top sides, the fence its corner post, and still let one of the two outer wing TIP flap-extensions under it, scrape over that generator cabin roof.
In a 42° angle to the west wall or the fence, in the horizontal plain. Going back upwards in about a 8° vertical angle, since the plane came in in a slight downward angle.
Scraping that cabin roof with its wing tip, like Frank Probst reported in the ASCE report to have seen from a distance of about 60 yards/meters while walking on the footpath along Route 27, near the twin trees in front of the white concrete of the Heli pad with the huge H painted on, and then diving to the grass while the plane passed over his head. Some others, f.ex. on Route 27 said to have seen that wing tip doing that too, btw.
Do not forget to implement the strong upwards bending of that wing, in flight in dense air, at the ASCE and FDR reported speed. And their conclusion based on the right wing imprint on the wall, where a part of that right wing seemingly impacted under an 8° upwards angle. Good luck with that.
No chance that you will ever make that happen.

Which AA 77 recovered FDR's end speed I do not believe in, and neither do I believe in at least the last 20 to 10 seconds of that recovered FDR. They must have been a falsification. If the 9/11 planners had to interfere in hard evidence material, they did it as sparsely as possible.
I gave irrefutable evidence in one of my other threads about that FDR, that at least the first data part of that AA 77's FDR did show that AA 77 did indeed departed from its usual southernly gate, D 22. Which the PilotsForTruth forum and main site pages still stubbornly contradict. The owner, Balsamo, still keeps his pet theory up, that AA 77 departed either from a northernly gate, or another southernly gate further away from D22. He is dead wrong on that. He knows very well that my calculations in my ATS thread about it showed him wrong, but this man can't bring himself to admit his poor calculation and analysis skills.

Now, let us concentrate on my other drawn-in, red 80° flight path line, also depicting the flight-path of the out-most flap guide rail its sharp housing bottom, 0.8 yard/meter under that right wing's wing tip area.
It is clear that in this case, the right jet engine passes that fence many meters to the left of the fence its corner pole, and that the wing tip can slash through the cabin roof under a 8° vertical, downward flight path angle, and in a 75° to 80° horizontal angle, as seen in the roof gouge direction pictures, and that the fuselage and its nose cone will impact exactly at the two windows wide entrance hole area seen in those hires west wall impact area photos I linked to. The trailer is swept backwards about 46° and knocked off from its double legged point of support under the front bottom end of the trailer. That's why you see the trailer's front end hanging down in all 9/11 photos, when it was photographed in its 46° to the fence position. And that the cable spools only slightly were touched by the belly bottom of the plane.
I do expect that the instant strong deflecting reactive force on the wing, at its impact into the cabin roof top, has caused the right wing tip area to sweep further back-upwards and therefore the 8° upward wing imprint on the far left side of the entrance hole.(see my posted 8° up, wing imprint photo)

Well, the 80° angled impact path has a much greater chance of being true, than that ridiculous 42° angle. In fact, all the NoC witness evidence and the gouge and trailer photos favors the NoC, 75° to 80° attack and impact angle.

And all ASCE report and Purdue University Investigation its photos, drawings and animation depict other than a 42° attack angle. Check it yourselves with a plastic graduated arc.
Because, when they would have used the real and correct 42° angles, it would be instantly clear that such an 42° angle did not fit the obstacles in that path behind the fence, the cable spools and the impact damage and entrance hole. And not one flight path has been drawn by them showing the vertical and horizontal lines of an 42° attack path, since then these lines would not pass over the obstacles, but cut head-on through all of them. And the nose cone impact would end up far left of the two windows entrance hole with its center point on the second floor slab. Somewhere in the Heli pad tower.

reply to post by trebor451


lol, yeah skippy.

IF your gubmnit shows you 5 frames that depict jack #
and tells you "there is an aeroplane", and when you know that
there are 80 videos confiscated by the fbi and when you know
that at least 1 or 2 out of those 80 must clearly show boeing
757 hitting the pentagon...

YEAH, skippy. you should be a little skeptical.
but hey, for being skeptical you actually have to have some
of that grey matter in yer mellon. which, quite obviously, none
of you debunkers have.

and you KNOW this, maaaaan!

reply to post by psyop911

IF your gubmnit shows you 5 frames that depict jack #
and tells you "there is an aeroplane", and when you know that
there are 80 videos confiscated by the fbi and when you know
that at least 1 or 2 out of those 80 must clearly show boeing
757 hitting the pentagon...

There are traffic accidents every day in front of business. But how many are actually caught on camera?
Yours is the old truther fallacy that security cameras are pointed at the sky. Look at the camera videos on line and on the tele. They are all from an overhead position, pointed down at their customers. This keeps the customers from tampering or accidentally blocking the view. Ask yourself where you would place a camera in a business situation??
The same goes for the Pentagon. You aim the cameras at points of entry or people congregation not at the sky or open fields of grass.

Use some common sense when you think of those videos.

Then there's all those eye witnesses...

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by trebor451

 

lol, yeah skippy.

IF your gubmnit shows you 5 frames that depict jack #
and tells you "there is an aeroplane", and when you know that
there are 80 videos confiscated by the fbi and when you know
that at least 1 or 2 out of those 80 must clearly show boeing
757 hitting the pentagon...

Since you seem to be the "Resident Expert" on these videos, why don't you tell us exactly where these "80 videos" were located and the businesses, establishments and/or buildings they were associated with and the "1 or 2" that would "clearly show" the aircraft impact.

We'll wait.

reply to post by LaBTop


Your posts are getting more and more pathetic. It's quite obvious that virtually no one is reading them entirely anyway. That's a good thing in this case because your "whacked out" 23 degree bank angle for that turn is WRONG no matter how many times you write it. That stops your NOC Impact garbage right there....

I don't care how many times you think you've calculated that, it is a DELUSION. I could write in larger colored letters if that's what it takes. There is no need to argue any further because that completely kills any further delusion that your theory could work. It can't no matter how many times you attempt to calculate that kind of bank angle it won't work....

[/end thread]

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Your posts are getting more and more pathetic. It's quite obvious that virtually no one is reading them entirely anyway. That's a good thing in this case because your "whacked out" 23 degree bank angle for that turn is WRONG no matter how many times you write it. That stops your NOC Impact garbage right there....

lol....what was it I said a few posts back about LaBTop's posts?

You know, a truism of Truthers is to generate a vast amount of absolutely meaningless blather under the mistaken guise of intelligent discussion.

LaBTop's latest blast of digital diarrhea was, as expected and as usual, completely devoid of any semblance of anything that could be related to critical thinking.

I know quoting one's own post is gauche, but you when history repeats itself you gotta point it out.

reply to post by trebor451


He wrote some kind of garbage a while back in another thread about how a descent would shorten the turn radius. He apparently thinks a transport category aircraft has the same capabilities as a fighter. Fighter pilots have known how God's G can help to shorten turn radius since WWI, but it won't do jack squat for a transport category aircraft unless there is some super duper secret invention that allows one to do aerobatic type maneuvers. (Guess I shouldn't even mention that as he'll try to use it.)

He refers to how he used MY link to prove his 23 degree bank delusion apparently in hopes that other "truthers" won't know the difference. They don't, but I do and he is totally full of crap with no clue what he's doing.

There is no need to argue anything about this any further. He can't get past the large bank angle required to make the turn no matter how hard he tries. It's a dead issue before he even get's past the CITGO...

Just like all of his other stuff this one is DEBUNKED solidly and firmly...

Only place it "doesn't" is in the fantasies spewed by a particular "pilots" for "truth" web site. A site which, BTW, has gotten very claim they've made wrong, to date.

reply to post by ProudBird


Are you saying that the NTSB graphic of flight 77 available all over the net is altered, or some Pilotsfor911truth fabrication?

reply to post by Morg234


"PilotsFor911Truth" is the source of misinformation.

The NTSB information is factually accurate. The "P4T" have completely mis-represented all of the facts, as part of their agenda of spouting nonsense, since their inception.

I'm taking bets as to what Labtop will do now with this thread. Here are the choices:

1 - Stay away for a week or so until the thread is either way down or off the page.
2 - Return to argue with more walls of text that no one can understand insisting that his 23 degree bank will fulfill his NOC to impact delusion.
3 - Immediately start another ridiculous thread full of his trivia with more walls of text few can or will read.
4 - Return and admit he is wrong, but construct a typical wall of text....all excuses as to why he made a mistake.
5 - Return and apologize for misleading everyone because he is an honest "truther" like he said he is...