achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach?

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:04 pm #1

I copied this Op that achimspok posted at P4T for posterity:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... opic=20147

I only copied achimspok's original post is because its good information that deserves its own thread. The rest on P4T is just the same snakes posting their fluff and Rob Balsamo chiming in with some nonsense threatening to ban achimspok for opening up their Pandora's box of lies and deception!


(Both myself and achimspok have been banned from posting at P4T by Rob Balsamo)

----------------------

achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach? A step back from the details...

First, two reasons for posting this:
Firstly, I read the Albert Hemphill telephone call conversation threads and was a little shocked about the harsh words and the way to turn the meanings of the words in any useful way.
Secondly, I read the 757 "Remote Control And Flight Crew Lockout Technology Available" thread - a very interesting thread!

Imo both together makes not very much sense. Therefore it seems to be useful to step back from the details and to have a little more distant look at all these things.

THE PENTAGON STRIKE

1) There are 5 light poles. The damage looks pretty much like a mechanical damage. It looks like hit down with a gigantic baseball bat. No soot, no shrapnels nor any sign of tiny explosions. It is what it is. The former straight poles are bowed diagonally to the street and sheared off. It would be possible to get the exact angle of the force from the square at the bottom of the pole to compare it with the alleged trajectory.



2) We know the lamp head height was 40ft and we can estimate the elevation of the damage. That leads to a path for the "whatsoever". Imho it must have been some plane due to the wingspan. Any missile theory cannot explain that path through the damage or we need a missile as big as a plane or two missiles. So the possibility for that is pretty small because there would be a hundred better possibilities to shoot a plan into pieces or just to shoot a hole into the building.



3) Still there is no serious contradiction regarding the photographs of airplane debris and a Boeing 757. Several websites deal with that topic. I wrote something here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewt ... ?f=8&t=377

4) The witness Albert Hemphill said something about 3 to 5 seconds. Is it evident for a slower speed? The distance between Navy Annex and the impact hole is about 840 meters.
v= 840m/3s = 280m/s = 626mph
v= 840m/5s = 168m/s = 375mph

So it's time to have a second look at the flight path. Let's start with the "right shoulder" flight path.



This is the the view from the top floor of the Navy Annex. The camera position is visible in the above image.



Right shoulder? Yes. Clearing the bridge? Yes. Over the CGS? Yes, it looks like. Nevertheless the plane flew south of it.

That's how it should looks like from a 2m elevated surveillance camera with a 25mm lens. Imagine trees and buildings in the background.
Imo, the plane that is about to hit the right point looks a lot higher. The engines are still above the lawn but...





Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:09 pm #2

...the biggest problem is still...



Nevertheless, a flight path above the Navy Annex would require a banking to turn the plane into the final path through the lamp poles.
Total time 3-5 seconds.
Speed 370-620mph.
In other words, the plane is leveling at high speed just some feet above ground. At the same time it must turn about 7° in 1.5-2.5 seconds and a total of 12° in 3-5 seconds.



From the WTC flights we know that the wings flexing upwards. However, even a small banking angle is inconsistent with the damage to the light poles e.g. the starboard wing would miss pole 1 to hit pole 3 in the right elevation while all light poles on the left would be hit at a lower elevation.

THE PLANE DIDN'T BANK while clearing the bridge!

What's about a straight flightpath?





The major problem remains. The plane has to fly close to the ground into the "valley of death" while leveling to not hit the ground.

Albert Hemphill would have seen something like this:



...same for CGS and bridge. Right shoulder? Yes. Any higher altitude at that point in time would looks more like "over" the right shoulder.

The surveillance camera would see the very same. No difference.

Without banking the wings hit almost exactly the estimated elevations along the path through the light poles.



That's how it looks like from the north side of the Citgo Gas Station.



Would you say it banked right or would you say it banked left?
Would you say it came over the Navy Annex? More left? More right? In the middle?
You should see the GIF in about the real speed. Try to count about 4 seconds for the flight from the corner of the Navy Annex to the impact. If it works then ask yourself how many separate puffs or bangs you might hear or see from the light poles? Is "one flash" a good description of what he probably saw? What would you say?

(I would say: WOW HANI! HEY FRIENDS, THAT'S A f*** TERRIBLE CESSNA PILOT!)

Look at the tiny yellow cab above! A poor old black man is sitting in that car. It's all he has. He do it for living.
One second of PURE HELL! ...noise, flash, hot wind, some aluminum stick nearly impales him. The building next to him is exploding. ONE SECOND! Go and ask him where he was exactly and if he saw an American Airlines!

Where is the plane? Is it a big plane or a small plane? Is it over the Navy Annex or in front of it and right to the CGS? Banks it left or right?
For all these questions we have to distinguish between professionals and the "normal" witness. The answers could be the 100% opposite.



That's the view from the tower of the heliport and that...



...is the actual position of the plane.



Right, it's a big plane.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:10 pm #3

Is there any problem about that plane? Yes. And it looks like that:



But first let's have a look at the following witness drawing!


The little cross is the point of view.

Obviously Darius Prather tells us that the plane hit where the hole is. And obviously he saw the plane somewhere over the Navy Annex. So if the altitude of the plane was a little more than roof hight then the plane MUST have been on the south side of the Navy Annex. Keep in mind that one of the arguments for the impossibility of any "over or north of the NA" approach is that the plane had to bank extremely. According to Rob any turn of more than 5° can be excluded at that speed and for that distance. So what is the "Prather Banana"?

I would say the plane became bigger and bigger until it was scarry BIG and headed for the impact hole. That's "perception".

In other words that flight path is the description/perception of the "official flight path" seen through the eyes of a scared man.

Given the fact that the painted path is impossible for the plane without extreme banking and given the fact that it hit where it hit, we know - thanks CIT - that obviously the official path is the right path and that some BIG plane hit where it should.

The very same pattern is visible in almost ALL the painted paths I found.

CIT should immediately have noticed it because the argumentation for the north path is based (ONLY) on the "physical impossible" south path according to the NTSB data.

The NTSB data describe a path straight through/above the VDOT antenna mast. I don't know how exact these radar data can be (and may be these data were polished for the public without noticing the mast in the way) but ...



...a turn of about 7.5° is enough to miss the VDOT antenna north of it. The straight path through the damage (light poles, generator, wall) would be south of the VDOT mast.

Given the "felt" banana of distant north witnesses and the probably amplified impression of witnesses close to the path, I would place the flightpath in the south of the VDOT mast.

Nevertheless, let's have a look at the "north of VDOT" flight path in contrast to the CIT argumentation for a "proven North of Citgo path".

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:13 pm #4

It's been said that Edward Paik was in the best position. Was he?



"Looks like my shop here."

Notice the VDOT mast on the right. The Navy Annex is invisible from that position. It's on the left behind the shop.



"Loud noise that's why I running out..."
Given the speed and low altitude the entire flyby might have lasted for about 3 seconds.
Where was he? How fast can he run?

Let's look what he is describing?




It looks like south of Columbia pike. That's what he initially describes.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:14 pm #5

A little later Ed describes the wings over there and the body of the plane over his shop.
Well, that's Ed's banana. Otherwise he initially describes the path of the starboard wing tip.
Nevertheless, it's impossible that the plane was really that low to get the body over the shop and the wings in the shown direction.



Probably he saw something like this (but in 2 seconds) and ran out to see if the Navy Annex was hit. But it wasn't.

That's what he say what happened. And of course, in front of the bright sky the wings should look like dark gray.

Given the perceptional banana, is it possible that he saw the plane south of the VDOT mast?
If so then the plane could fly through the lamp poles without any banking straight into the hole.
IF ... and only IF ... "what-ever-piloting-that-BIG-BIG-plane" can manage the leveling.

wrote:Quote: John Bursill

"I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:19 pm #6

Robert Turcios is another CIT "north of Citgo" witness.



"I ran out here to see what's going on."
How fast can he run? He had about 3-4 seconds from the noise to the hit.
May be he heard the noise coming from "between the trees"???

Where was he?



He says he saw the plane approaching between the trees.



...these trees.



So he was at the south east corner of the Citgo gas station and saw the plane coming from the NORTH.





In other words, because of the 5 meters wide VDOT mast is standing exactly in the way of the NTSB data a 90° turned flight path is "scientifically" more reliable?

Imo Robert Turcios didn't see any plane at all. He heard the noise and the boom and ran up the grass bank to see the smoke.
"I could not probably see when it hit the pentagon..."
May be he told his manager that he saw the plane (however it effected the payroll). What should he tell his manager 9 years later?
...but that's just my impression.

Craig Ranke was on the scene? He saw the grass wall, saw the trees in the north?
He knew that an approach from behind Prather is extremely unlikely.



Later Robert Turcios painted that flight path when confronted with an aerial view of the scene.



He also saw that an approach between the trees isn't very believable even if it describes his impression best.
According to his own painting of his position !!! he woudn't see the plane coming from the painted direction at all because his entire view was blocked by the roof of the gas station.

(Nevertheless, an animation makes us believe that Robert Turcios talks the whole time about some "north of the Navy Annex" approach.
That's not the case! It should be said that the video gives no help for the viewer to understand where the witness is and where the trees are. )



Eyewitnesses of Flight 77 Debunk Government's Story 2/5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNZNmQP ... re=related


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 5:21 pm #7

Here are two rough animations of the (imo) reasonable flight paths.

The red cubes on the right side showing the elevations of the
1) Navy Annex
2) light pole 1
3) Pentagon
taken from the P4T website.

These elevations differ from the Google Earth elevations but in comparison to photographs the P4T elevations are the correct ones.

The NORTH of VDOT path:



The SOUTH of VDOT path:



Questions:

* Do we have any hard evidence to definitely exclude a flight path near the VDOT tower? If so then is it a reason to prefer a north of Citgo path and flyby? If not then...

* Is one of these paths near the VDOT mast a believable result of coincidences and the decisions of an untrained and unexperienced "pilot"?

* Is there any reason not to choose the middle of the highway to prevent a collision with either the VDOT mast or the Navy Annex and to fly directly into the corner or south side of the Pentagon?





* Is either a special skill or special equipment necessary to succeed near the VDOT mast and along the path to the final impact hole?

* Is there any advantage to fake an attack by flying over the building and away?







Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 19th, 2010, 5:05 pm

June 14th, 2010, 8:30 pm #8

shure wrote:

Jeff

The tail did appear to shift to the right of the planes body before impact

I thought it was wind shear!

A witness at Citco (or was it Hemphill) called it ground affects!

It may have been the plane hitting the first light pole for all I know

What I saw was almost exactly what I see in this Gif Pic but the camera was DIRECTLY below the plane!

The plane did not come into the frame from the left as seen in the Gif but that is pretty accurate from my perspective
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 13th, 2008, 6:51 am

June 14th, 2010, 9:16 pm #9

Maybe you saw a traffic camera feed!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 14th, 2010, 1:10 am

June 15th, 2010, 9:27 am #10

Jeff,

It looks like gibberish to me. As you are posting it as good information, you must have read it and therefore understand it - could you write a summary post please?
Quote
Like
Share