HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » American 77 flight path d...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:34 PM

American 77 flight path dilemma (Pentagon attack)

The official report tells us American flight 77 struck down the light poles.

But a look at the flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB tells us something else entirely.





As seen here, the plane is coming in too high of an angle to strike the light poles. The altimeter shows 180 ft. It's also hundreds of feet too far to the left of the poles.

...apparently making the official flight path a physical impossibility.





http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html






Houston, we have a big problem here.

65 replies, 7831 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply American 77 flight path dilemma (Pentagon attack) (Original post)
gyroscope Jan 2012 OP
antitsa Jan 2012 #1
gyroscope Jan 2012 #2
antitsa Jan 2012 #4
zappaman Jan 2012 #5
Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2012 #46
zappaman Mar 2012 #47
zappaman Jan 2012 #3
gyroscope Jan 2012 #6
zappaman Jan 2012 #8
gyroscope Jan 2012 #10
zappaman Jan 2012 #12
gyroscope Jan 2012 #14
zappaman Jan 2012 #16
ocpagu Jan 2012 #42
zappaman Jan 2012 #43
ocpagu Feb 2013 #48
zappaman Feb 2013 #49
ocpagu Feb 2013 #54
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #60
Ace Acme Oct 2013 #63
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #44
zappaman Mar 2012 #45
ocpagu Feb 2013 #50
zappaman Feb 2013 #51
ocpagu Feb 2013 #55
William Seger Feb 2013 #53
ocpagu Feb 2013 #56
Ace Acme Oct 2013 #64
Prog_gun_owner Mar 2013 #62
Callmecrazy Feb 2013 #52
gyroscope Jan 2012 #7
zappaman Jan 2012 #9
gyroscope Jan 2012 #11
zappaman Jan 2012 #13
gyroscope Jan 2012 #17
zappaman Jan 2012 #18
gyroscope Jan 2012 #20
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #21
zappaman Jan 2012 #22
gyroscope Jan 2012 #25
William Seger Jan 2012 #32
gyroscope Jan 2012 #34
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #40
William Seger Jan 2012 #29
gyroscope Jan 2012 #33
William Seger Jan 2012 #35
gyroscope Jan 2012 #36
William Seger Jan 2012 #39
jberryhill Jan 2012 #41
gyroscope Jan 2012 #37
William Seger Jan 2012 #38
zappaman Jan 2012 #15
gyroscope Jan 2012 #19
William Seger Jan 2012 #23
gyroscope Jan 2012 #26
zappaman Jan 2012 #27
gyroscope Jan 2012 #28
William Seger Jan 2012 #31
ocpagu Feb 2013 #57
Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #58
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #24
gyroscope Jan 2012 #30
Ace Acme Oct 2013 #65
Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #59
sgsmith Feb 2013 #61

Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:38 PM

1. There's also about 12 witnesses who say 'the plane' flew North of the Citgo gas station

 

thereby destroying the official story which says "the plane" flew South of the Citgo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antitsa (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:42 PM

2. Which is consistent with the NTSB flight path

Houston, we have a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:54 PM

4. Yes, the official Pentagon story is pure bunkum. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antitsa (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:56 PM

5. which part is "pure bunkum"?

but first, what is the official Pentagon story?
when you can tell us what that is, then you can tell us the "pure bunkum" part!
I'll wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:46 PM

46. '77' didn't fly that day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 12, 2012, 01:15 AM

47. It didn't?

I didn't know that.
Are there any links I can read?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:49 PM

3. so, what is it you are getting at?

are you proposing that no plane hit the pentagon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:59 PM

6. Who knows if it did or not

only thing we can be sure of at this point is the official flight path is not possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:12 PM

8. "Who knows if it did or not "

Really?
I guess you are a "no-planer" then.
Didn't know any were still around.

If a plane didn't hit the pentagon...
-Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked
-Generator damage by engine impact: faked
-Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked
-Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked
-Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked
-Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked
-All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw
-tree branches and leaves shorn off at the overpass by flight 77's engine and seen strewn about the highway amongst the downed lamp posts: faked
-the missing foot peg and impact scar on the VDOT camera pole: faked
-The genset trailer damage pushed TOWARD the direction of the pentagon face: faked

All that was faked, eh?

Maybe you should read up on FDRs and black boxes.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/misinformation-flight-77-flight-path.html

Oh, and can you provide a source beyond YouTube that this is an "official" animation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:23 PM

10. I know you love putting words in people's mouths

but that's not what I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:26 PM

12. sorry

here's a simple yes or no question.
did a plane hit the pentagon?
here is your chance to answer in your own words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:30 PM

14. I don't know what hit the Pentagon

apparently some aircraft of some kind did hit the Pentagon because the flight data recorder was recovered.

but what kind of aircraft is the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:32 PM

16. "but what kind of aircraft is the question."

Maybe to you.
However, here on planet earth, we know what type of aircraft hit the pentagon.
I will give you credit for your incredibly inventive and evasive answer since it is making me laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 02:08 AM

42. ...

 

"here on planet earth, we know what type of aircraft hit the pentagon."

Speak for yourself, will you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:49 PM

43. I speak for billions

here on planet earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:20 PM

48. No.

 

You don't. And you can't prove you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #48)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:24 PM

49. billions...with a "b". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:14 PM

54. You wish

 

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:43 PM

60. Poster apparentely accepts that a FDR can be dummied up and inserted into the wreckage

but the genius/ninjas behind it would just 'whoopsie, fucked up' and programmed the wrong flight path for all that work they did to break the light posts and such on the way in.

Such doltish geniuses that arranged this 'event', eh? Tens of thousands of pounds of explosives to bring down the towers, wired in without anyone noticing, but oh look, it falls symmetrically therefore it's a conspiracy, when if these mad geniuses could have wired it to blow, they could have brought it down like a tree fall if they wanted to, thereby eliminating the appearance of impropriety.

Impressive how incredibly stupid these supposed genius mad overlords are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #60)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 04:26 PM

63. Sometimes participants in evil conspiracies do thing to sabotage those plots

 

Have you ever considered that?

Hypothetically, maybe WTC7 was supposed to fall straight down in a perfect controlled demolition when it was hidden by the dust from the collapse of WTC1. But hypothetically maybe somebody sabotaged the detonators so they didn't go off on schedule.

Hypothetically, maybe flight 77 was controlled by computer, and somebody sabotaged the programming so that it would fly north of the Citgo and leave the hypothetically faked lamp poles lying on the ground even though the plane didn't hit them. (I don't see how the lamp poles could have been faked, but that's a separate issue.)





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 06:06 AM

44. Then why don't we SEE a clear video of the crash

They only give us a short look at the crash. The Pentagon should have a lot of camera's that should have recorded the crash. Why don't they show it? What are they afraid of? Do you know passenger plane engines are 9 feet tall. And the picture at the Pentagon shows an engine that is at or below knee length. And again they ID'd everyone but yet, they never reconstructed ANY of the planes. I used to be a believer in the planes, but since I have NEVER seen ONE picture of a SEAT in the debris, I have questions. Again, DNA survives, but plane debris vaporized. And since I saw this video it also makes me question if planes were used. Watch till the 43 second mark. Close out the small window on the right, and click your mouse to play, pause real fast. Is that still a plane to you? I know this sounds overboard, but that doesn't look like a plane to me.

&list=FL8xfGXcDXJPRK2TvsxVFmSg&index=2&feature=plpp_video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:16 PM

45. "The Pentagon should have a lot of camera's that should have recorded the crash"

Says who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:24 PM

50. Of course...

 

Why would there be cameras around the Pentagon? It's just the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. No surveillance cameras needed in the site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #50)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:29 PM

51. But they didn't. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:18 PM

55. Thank you Captain Obvious!

 

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:51 AM

53. Your fallacies

In the first place, you assume that all the surveillance cameras were being recorded, when in fact most were monitored in real-time, not recorded. As you point out, this was not a 7-11 store: Security at the Pentagon depends of armed guards actively monitoring what's happening now, not on reviewing video tape after something happens.

Second, the cameras on the roof were pointing down to observe the parking lot, grounds, and entrances, not to watch the skies over the Navy Annex for incoming planes, so even if every camera was being recorded, the fact that only two cameras saw the impact is not really surprising.

(Edit to add): Third, we'd know that Flight 77 crashed into even if there were no videos at all, and even if there weren't hundreds of people who actually saw it happen. We'd know that because that's where is was found. Duh. Trying to refute the evidence for that by raising questions about the videos is beyond silly, especially since we know from Flight 175 that no number of videos will ever convince "no-planers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:24 PM

56. Yeah, sure.

 

It makes a lot of sense that the cameras are not used for recording, but only real time monitoring, in places such as the Pentagon... also, a quite exotic argument about the position of cameras. Useless, of course, considering the lack of footage. And, as I said already, I saw no airplane found on the site. I just saw some tiny little debris that the government, media and their parrots keep telling that is evidence of an airplane crash. Only that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #53)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 04:29 PM

64. From whence do you derive your intimate knowledge of the surveillance systems at the Pentagon?

 

It almost sounds like you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:31 PM

62. and for some reason the aa defences faild that day.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #44)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:39 PM

52. Looks like a plane imo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:07 PM

7. I should add

we wont know that until the NTSB provides the rest of the flight recorder data.

for some unexplained reason, the NTSB decided not to release the part of the FDR where the plane supposedly impacts with the Pentagon. which is why the animation is abruptly cut off. do they have something to hide?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:15 PM

9. Oh, I see

the government faked a plane hitting the pentagon and then released a video showing that they faked a plane hitting the pentagon.
Is that how you see it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:26 PM

11. That appears to be the case

perhaps a whistleblower in the NTSB decided to release it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:28 PM

13. oh, really?

and I'm sure you have some sort of evidence where that video on youtube came from, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:33 PM

17. The source is provided in the OP

if you bother to look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:38 PM

18. Oh, PILOTS FOR TRUTH is the source?



Again, this video has been covered before.
Do you know what year this is?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=125586

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:50 PM

20. So according to you

all the witnesses are lying about where they saw Flight 77 fly over them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:57 PM

21. actually, there have been some good discussions of this

There are eyewitnesses on both sides of the issue. I'm not sure one has to infer that any of them is lying. But the physical evidence seems to support a southern route.

At least, that's how it seemed to me last time I thought about this, several years ago. Clearly the animation doesn't make much of a case, on its own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:06 PM

22. So according to you

all the witnesses are lying about where they saw Flight 77 fly over them?
are the ones who saw it hit the pentagon lying too?
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Crash_Evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:24 PM

25. That wasn't the question

I don't dispute that something hit the Pentagon.

the flightpath of the object is what's in question here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:58 PM

32. If you "don't dispute that something hit the Pentagon" then...

... there is no question about the flight path: It was over the bridge, as the damage path clearly shows.

If you want to buy the "north of the Citgo" bullshit, then you also need to buy the "fly-over" and fake crash bullshit, since that's the whole point of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:06 PM

34. The flight recorder data shows otherwise

the aircraft is too high in the air to contact the poles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:48 AM

40. based on what evidence?

As far as I can tell from your posts, you still seem to be relying on the animation, which makes no sense. Not only does the animation demonstrably not agree with the FDR data on which it is purported to be based, but I'd be pretty startled if it had accurate 3-D rendering of the light poles. How can you purport to know that "the aircraft is too high in the air to contact the poles"?

You're up against considerable eyewitness evidence, not to mention the physical evidence of the poles being downed; I haven't seen you offer an alternative explanation for any of this.

Hmm, I wonder what David Chandler and Jon Cole think about this?

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole

It would be hypocritical of me to quote David Chandler as an authority on anything, but it's interesting to think about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:33 PM

29. What?!?

> we wont know that until the NTSB provides the rest of the flight recorder data.

> for some unexplained reason, the NTSB decided not to release the part of the FDR where the plane supposedly impacts with the Pentagon. which is why the animation is abruptly cut off. do they have something to hide?


Where did you get that bullshit? I can't believe that even Cap'n Bob is dumb enough to make a claim like that.

The entire FDR file was released, but it was in a proprietary format. For a couple of years, Cap'n Bob and one of his cohorts who had access to software that could decode the raw data deliberately hide the fact that there were incomplete data blocks at the end of the raw data that the NTSB had not included in the published spreadsheet version. Those incomplete blocks show that the spreadsheet data, which was used to make the animation, ended at least 6 seconds before impact, not less than 2 seconds as Cap'n Bob insisted. During those same years, rational people contended that incomplete data was the most probable explanation for why the spreadsheet data ended with the plane still too high to hit the bridge, and Cap'n absolutely insisted that that just wasn't possible. Finally, a bright programmer was able to reverse-engineer the data encoding and discovered those incomplete blocks, and Cap'n Bob's fortunes as a conspiracy huckster have been in sharp decline every since.

Anyone who still takes Cap'n Bob seriously hasn't been paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:01 PM

33. So what do the incomplete data blocks show?

according to this programmer who you say reverse-engineered them?

Does it show how this large commercial aircraft is able to go from 180 feet to dropping down to ground level and leveling out within the blink of an eye? That seems quite a spectacular feat. Another 9/11 first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:07 PM

35. You have a bad habit of digging your holes deeper

Six seconds is not a "blink of an eye." The data in those blocks isn't usable, but the mere fact that they are there means that there is no mystery in the FDR data: The descent rate in the good data extrapolated for six seconds hits the building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:26 PM

36. Not necessarily

the bad blocks could have been of the FDR continuing to record after impact.

if the blocks are unusable you don't know that. you are merely assuming.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:15 AM

39. "the FDR continuing to record after impact" ?

Continued to record after the impact that you deny happened?

I see you haven't really given much thought to the, um, subtleties of proving AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon using an FDR that was found in the Pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:00 PM

41. IMHO, that's the best part of this whole line of argument


"Tests on the bullet recovered from the dead man's body indicate he was not shot."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:14 AM

37. One other big problem

notice in the video beginning at :40.

by the end of the animation at :58 notice how the plane has flown over ALL FIVE of the light poles without striking them. these light poles should have been knocked down, but the FDR clearly shows the aircraft flying well above them and to their left. why do the light poles remain intact?

the official story cannot be possible.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:02 AM

38. You didn't even read the post I linked to

Come back when you have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to zappaman (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:46 PM

19. I see no mention of the flight data recorder

in the thread you link to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:07 PM

23. It isn't 2006 anymore

There's no excuse for recycling this bullshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x125586

Edit to add synopsis: The flight data recorder absolutely shows the plane's path over the bridge where the light poles were down. The Pentagon graphic was added in the animation, but someone apparently rotated it the wrong way in attempting to adjust magnetic north to true north.

Bonus: Pilot for "truth" Cap'n Bob Balsamo (johndoeX) gets caught trying to foist a bogus graphic off on us in post #49. Anyone who still takes Balsamo seriously hasn't been paying attention. I

(Edit again: Sorry, I didn't notice that zappaman had already posted a link to that thread.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:25 PM

26. Does DU have a rule against posting threads about Flight 77?

if you don't want to talk about it, you are free to leave the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:28 PM

27. I think he was helpfully pointing out

like I did, that this has been covered before.
He also pointed out, as I did, that it is not 2006.
The real question is why are you posting this crap that was shown to be bullshit 5-6 years ago.
I suggest you revisit the conversation from 2006.
Hope that helps!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:32 PM

28. Thats your opinion

not mine.

no one is forcing you. if you're so uncomfortable discussing the topic at hand, you are free to leave anytime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:35 PM

31. His is an INFORMED opinion

Not all opinions are created equal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:59 PM

57. He's an "informed opinion" for you.

 

Only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ocpagu (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:16 AM

58. For me too. And for most people who've gone through this madness in 2006.


All this north of Citgo, controlled demolition babble has only one purpose - to keep people from discussing pertinent things, like, for instance, the curious actions of Richard Blee surrounding 9/11.

It's crazy to see that people still inhabit the limited hangouts established in 2002 (presumably by the very people who so blatantly failed us on that day..)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:12 PM

24. I'm always surprised that there isn't a better video than the one's posted on Youtube or wherever.

It's the PENTAGON, yet the closest camera is blocks away?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:34 PM

30. The footage they did release

shows nothing that resembles a Boeing 757.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 04:35 PM

65. Not releasing the videos accomplishes two things

 

It makes Pentagon-hostile activists spin their wheels endlessly speculating about what did or didn't hit the Pentagon and it establishes the principle--as Messrs. Chandler and Cole tell us it's a publiclty-accepted principle--that Pentagon business is none of our business and we have no right to see those videos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:46 AM

59. Wouldn't the wing hitting the light pole at 500 mph sever the wing and cause it to crash any way?

 

long before the pentagon///\\\???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prog_gun_owner (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:37 PM

61. Define "long"

 

Pulling a distance on google earth, it's roughly 800 feet from the center of the interchange where the damaged light poles were, to the front of the Pentagon. Plus the fact that most light poles break away at the bottom, I really doubt that that any damage to the wing was significant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread