Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?
- Thread starter TC329
- Start date
Well you have added the "never ever" clause.
I think I was 10 the last time I ever told someone, "never ever".
You win!
9-11 was an inside job!
Nice analogy. LMAO!
I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them
at 500 MPH 40 feet up?
Too bad nothing supports the OGCT flight path. AA77 didn't hit the poles.
Nothing in the data shows impacts of light poles either. Yawwwwn...
Why must you keep repeating the same lies to get attention? We've covered
this in a few threads already.
Crazytimes
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 348
Nice analogy. LMAO!
I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them
at 500 MPH 40 feet up?
Too bad nothing supports the OGCT flight path. AA77 didn't hit the poles.
Nothing in the data shows impacts of light poles either. Yawwwwn...
Why must you keep repeating the same lies to get attention? We've covered
this in a few threads already.
Then what hit the poles ? How did they end up broken and on the ground ?
TheGrunion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 267
Nice analogy. LMAO!
I guess the lamp posts are designed to breakway when an aircraft hits them
at 500 MPH 40 feet up?
No, they are designed to break when a compact car hits them at 30 MPH (or less) just above the base.
If you had the slightest understanding of physics, you would understand that the forces (vector and moment) that the plane exerts on the breakaway section of the pole are massively greater than the design forces which would cause the pole to fail (breakaway).
I believe the loony bin explanation is that they were cut down the night before and planted. Since it was done by the MIB, of course there were no witnesses nor did anyone see them laying around that morning. Go figure!
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Hi, thanks for telling me "one last time," Dom.
Anyway, here is your task:
"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."
I bolded something, just for you. I think it is important, wouldn't you agree?
Ah, but you claim that you "presented that" in this thread. That is a curious claim, Dom, one I did not expect you to make. You see, you may have forgotten your OP, which states:
"Strangely, they show it hitting the building ...."
I however did not.
So Dom, I am simply going to have to insist on your answer:
"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
This is mind boggling. I can see why PFT won't divulge a theory as to what they think actually happened and/or how the plan was carried out. It's because they can't. They come to the same realization that the conclusions drawn from their supposed evidence doesn't add up to any plausible outcome. Can someone from the truther side of things please explain how the secret meetings might have gone when planning this attack on the Pentagon?
Let's look, for example, at the actual flight path. PFT claims it was NOC. The official story says otherwise. How in the world did this screw up happen? How could the plane fly NOC and then they release FDR information that shows otherwise?
They would have to had created the fake FDR information ahead of time in order to plant the evidence right?. What a chance to take! I can hear the planning meeting now...
-Agent 1 finishes reading the top secret documents that Agent 2 just delivered and is ready to discuss them-
Agent 1: "Ok. So we want to simulate a plane crashing into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Yeah. That's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "The document uses the word "simulate". That's means that we AREN'T actually going to crash a plane into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Right. No plane."
Agent 1: "Well, what are we going to use?"
Agent 2: "A missile."
Agent 1: "A missile?"
Agent 2: "That's what I said."
Agent 1: "Ok. It also says that we want to do this in the morning. Are you aware that it's LIGHT outside in the morning?"
Agent 2: "Yeah? SO what. It's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "What if people see the missile?"
Agent 2: "That's what the diversion is for."
Agent 1: "What diversion?"
Agent 2: "We actually fly a plane towards the Pentagon."
Agent 1: "I thought the document said to simulate a plane crash?"
Agent 2: "Right. We won't fly the plane INTO the Pentagon, but over it."
Agent 1: "In the morning?"
Agent 2: "Yup."
Agent 1: "In broad daylight?"
Agent 2: "Yup."
Agent 1: "What if someone sees the flyover?"
Agent 2: "They won't."
Agent 1: "They won't? How so?"
Agent 2: "We'll have an explosion at the face of the Pentagon that will pull everyone's attention to it and make it look like the plane hit the Pentagon. They'll totally miss the flyover."
Agent 1: *rolls eyes* "Ok, whatever. So we're simulating a plane crash right? What about bodies and such?
Agent 2: *rubs hands together* "You'll love this! We actually fly the folks on the flight in question to a remote location and kill them. Then we burn them up and bring what's left BACK to the Pentagon lawn and sprinkle them all over."
Agent 1: "Sprinkle? When do we do this?"
Agent 2: "A few minutes after the explosion but BEFORE the fire fighters, police, and first responders get there."
Agent 1: "How long does that give us to sprinkle?"
Agent 2: "A few minutes. You gotta work fast."
Agent 1: "Ok, fine. What about the FDR information for the simulated plane that crashes into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "It's already been created and will be planted at the scene. Brilliant huh?"
Agent 1: "WHAT!? Are you kidding me!? How can be sure that the visible flight path will match what the plane actually does on the day of the attacks?"
Agent 2: "We can't. We'll just have to be close. Nobody will figure it out." *pulls out map* "Here's what we created in the fake recorder. We fly south of this Citgo station. We will also plant some light poles on the ground and claim the plane hit them on the way to the Pentagon."
Agent 1: "What.... WHY!?"
Agent 2: "To make the crash more believable."
Agent 1: "Ok... When do we plant those? We can't do it in the morning as it'll be rush hour. People will notice."
Agent 2: "Right. That's why we plant them the night before. In the dark."
Agent 1: "Wait. You plant LIGHT POLES at night so nobody will see, but you plan a flyover, a fake crash, the sprinkling of bodies, the planting of the FDR, AND a missile strike during the day!? What the...."
Agent 2: "SHOOSH! Don't question the boss please. Just do as you're told."
Agent 1: "Ummmm... Ok."
Agent 2: " During the confusion and since EVERYONE will be looking at the Pentagon in flames, we will move the light poles to their designated areas."
Agent 1: *sigh* "Why don't we just actually FLY a plane into the Pentagon?
Agent 2: "And ruin all the hard work and planning we've done? NEVER! You will follow the plan as designed. Got it?"
Agent 1: *sigh*
-The morning of the attacks, Agent 1 and 2 are heard talking over their headsets, right after the explosion-
Agent 1: "We have a BIG problem!!!!"
Agent 2: "What is it!?"
Agent 1: "The plane flew north of the Citgo!!! We're screwed!!! What do you want Agent 3 to do with the FDR we faked!?"
Agent 2: "Plant it anyways! Hurry!!"
Agent 1: "WHAT?!!?!?!"
Agent 2: "Do as you're told. NOW!!!"
Agent 1: "Ok. What about the light poles we staged the night before!?"
Agent 2: "Lay them out like we planned."
Agent 1: "But it doesn't match the flight path! Why don't we just leave them there and say that the DOT left them there from a previous project?"
Agent 2: "Nope, too late. Plant them as planned."
Agent 1: "Fine! What about Lloyd? We already smashed his windshield with a hammer!"
Agent 2: "Continue as planned. He will still use the story we rehearsed with him about the light pole spearing his windshield."
Agent 1: "Ok. You're the boss. I hope nobody notices the mistakes!"
Agent 2: " They won't. Nobody is THAT smart. Don't worry about it. Get going!"
*Agent 1 overhears the following from Agent 2's headset*
PFT: "Hi guys! What's going on here?
Agent 2: "Oh crap...."
So please. Explain to me why the government (or whomever you think did this) would release information that totally discredits their story? Why didn't they just fly an actual plane into the Pentagon and be done with it? No faked FDR, no illusion to distract onlookers from a flyover, no planted light poles, no planted bodies, no planted shills, no possibility of mismatched flight paths, and no need to fake FDR data.
How friggin' stupid.
Let's look, for example, at the actual flight path. PFT claims it was NOC. The official story says otherwise. How in the world did this screw up happen? How could the plane fly NOC and then they release FDR information that shows otherwise?
They would have to had created the fake FDR information ahead of time in order to plant the evidence right?. What a chance to take! I can hear the planning meeting now...
-Agent 1 finishes reading the top secret documents that Agent 2 just delivered and is ready to discuss them-
Agent 1: "Ok. So we want to simulate a plane crashing into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Yeah. That's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "The document uses the word "simulate". That's means that we AREN'T actually going to crash a plane into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Right. No plane."
Agent 1: "Well, what are we going to use?"
Agent 2: "A missile."
Agent 1: "A missile?"
Agent 2: "That's what I said."
Agent 1: "Ok. It also says that we want to do this in the morning. Are you aware that it's LIGHT outside in the morning?"
Agent 2: "Yeah? SO what. It's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "What if people see the missile?"
Agent 2: "That's what the diversion is for."
Agent 1: "What diversion?"
Agent 2: "We actually fly a plane towards the Pentagon."
Agent 1: "I thought the document said to simulate a plane crash?"
Agent 2: "Right. We won't fly the plane INTO the Pentagon, but over it."
Agent 1: "In the morning?"
Agent 2: "Yup."
Agent 1: "In broad daylight?"
Agent 2: "Yup."
Agent 1: "What if someone sees the flyover?"
Agent 2: "They won't."
Agent 1: "They won't? How so?"
Agent 2: "We'll have an explosion at the face of the Pentagon that will pull everyone's attention to it and make it look like the plane hit the Pentagon. They'll totally miss the flyover."
Agent 1: *rolls eyes* "Ok, whatever. So we're simulating a plane crash right? What about bodies and such?
Agent 2: *rubs hands together* "You'll love this! We actually fly the folks on the flight in question to a remote location and kill them. Then we burn them up and bring what's left BACK to the Pentagon lawn and sprinkle them all over."
Agent 1: "Sprinkle? When do we do this?"
Agent 2: "A few minutes after the explosion but BEFORE the fire fighters, police, and first responders get there."
Agent 1: "How long does that give us to sprinkle?"
Agent 2: "A few minutes. You gotta work fast."
Agent 1: "Ok, fine. What about the FDR information for the simulated plane that crashes into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "It's already been created and will be planted at the scene. Brilliant huh?"
Agent 1: "WHAT!? Are you kidding me!? How can be sure that the visible flight path will match what the plane actually does on the day of the attacks?"
Agent 2: "We can't. We'll just have to be close. Nobody will figure it out." *pulls out map* "Here's what we created in the fake recorder. We fly south of this Citgo station. We will also plant some light poles on the ground and claim the plane hit them on the way to the Pentagon."
Agent 1: "What.... WHY!?"
Agent 2: "To make the crash more believable."
Agent 1: "Ok... When do we plant those? We can't do it in the morning as it'll be rush hour. People will notice."
Agent 2: "Right. That's why we plant them the night before. In the dark."
Agent 1: "Wait. You plant LIGHT POLES at night so nobody will see, but you plan a flyover, a fake crash, the sprinkling of bodies, the planting of the FDR, AND a missile strike during the day!? What the...."
Agent 2: "SHOOSH! Don't question the boss please. Just do as you're told."
Agent 1: "Ummmm... Ok."
Agent 2: " During the confusion and since EVERYONE will be looking at the Pentagon in flames, we will move the light poles to their designated areas."
Agent 1: *sigh* "Why don't we just actually FLY a plane into the Pentagon?
Agent 2: "And ruin all the hard work and planning we've done? NEVER! You will follow the plan as designed. Got it?"
Agent 1: *sigh*
-The morning of the attacks, Agent 1 and 2 are heard talking over their headsets, right after the explosion-
Agent 1: "We have a BIG problem!!!!"
Agent 2: "What is it!?"
Agent 1: "The plane flew north of the Citgo!!! We're screwed!!! What do you want Agent 3 to do with the FDR we faked!?"
Agent 2: "Plant it anyways! Hurry!!"
Agent 1: "WHAT?!!?!?!"
Agent 2: "Do as you're told. NOW!!!"
Agent 1: "Ok. What about the light poles we staged the night before!?"
Agent 2: "Lay them out like we planned."
Agent 1: "But it doesn't match the flight path! Why don't we just leave them there and say that the DOT left them there from a previous project?"
Agent 2: "Nope, too late. Plant them as planned."
Agent 1: "Fine! What about Lloyd? We already smashed his windshield with a hammer!"
Agent 2: "Continue as planned. He will still use the story we rehearsed with him about the light pole spearing his windshield."
Agent 1: "Ok. You're the boss. I hope nobody notices the mistakes!"
Agent 2: " They won't. Nobody is THAT smart. Don't worry about it. Get going!"
*Agent 1 overhears the following from Agent 2's headset*
PFT: "Hi guys! What's going on here?
Agent 2: "Oh crap...."
So please. Explain to me why the government (or whomever you think did this) would release information that totally discredits their story? Why didn't they just fly an actual plane into the Pentagon and be done with it? No faked FDR, no illusion to distract onlookers from a flyover, no planted light poles, no planted bodies, no planted shills, no possibility of mismatched flight paths, and no need to fake FDR data.
How friggin' stupid.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
So now you're accusing the guys who were out there working of lying during their interviews? You know, the ones that were out on the lawn and had to run for cover so as not to get hit by the plane that they saw coming rigt at them?
Gosh, me being accused of making stuff up by the biggest liar in the 9/11 cult movement. How cute!
If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.
A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.
Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case?
See ya in skewl.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.
A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.
Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case?
See ya in skewl.
Grunion, this isn't worth pursuing, because Turbofan's playing the usual truther game. He's implicitly claiming that something other should have happened than the light poles breaking off when the plane hit them, but refusing to make an explicit claim as to what should have happened. He's then going to point out that you don't have convincing proof that the light poles should have broken off, and suggest that this supports his vague assertion that they therefore shouldn't have broken off. It's a version of the fallacy of denying the antecedent, and it's a classic dishonest debating technique.
Turbofan, either state how the light poles should have behaved when hit by a plane, with evidence; admit that you don't know how they should have behaved, and that therefore you have no position here; or forget about having any credibility.
Dave
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
LMAO!
or maybe we wont.
Keep up the great spinning
Say PFT'er, with all your "incredully" (Hi Craig!!), maybe you missed my request:
"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."
I made it big and bold for you and Cap'n Bob!
TheGrunion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 267
If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.
A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.
Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case?
See ya in skewl.
It is not flawed. Heck, its not even an analogy.
Do you know what a breakaway pole is? Do you know that its base is designed to fail when struck by a small car at moderate to slow speeds? Do you know that this is done because people stand a much better chance of surviving the impact without significant injuries if the pole gives away, rather than remains rigid?
Of course an impact to the top of the pole from a large plane at 500 MPH is much different than the impact of a small car at its base!
Why do you not understand basic physics? This is the really easy stuff, much easier than the flight path physics that you don't understand.
It should be easy for a bright guy like you to verify that the poles had breakaway bases and are designed to fail at the base (specifically, the bolts which anchor the base to the foundation fail). Do you agree that this is the case?
Do you know what a force is? Do you know how to calculate a force? Do you agree that the force of impact (Vectoral force) caused by the plane was much greater than the force of impact from a small car driving 30 MPH?
Do you know what a moment of force is? Do you know how to calculate it? Do you agree that the moment of force (torsional force) caused by the plane was much greater than the force of impact from a small car driving 30 MPH?
The base bolts are going to fail (shear) once they experience a force stronger than they can resist. They are specifically engineered to do so. We know they can't resist a slow moving small car. Why do you think that they will hold up to a fast moving large plane?
This isn't an analogy. It is applied physics at about the simplest level possible. If you can get this right you really shouldn't be wasting your time with flight paths.
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Turbo is right. a car at 30 mph is one thing, but to expect a huge jumbo jet flying at 500mph to knock down a light pole? Well that's just absurd. The plane obviously would have bounced off the pole and landed in the other direction. It's huge plane, not a car. Come on people, let's think this through next time. Thanks Turbo, I don't know how you manage to walk about with that huge brain.
It is interesting to say the least that the CIT/PFT simply brush it off like
"sure it could have been done under the cover of night".
I don't know the traffic flow around the Pentagon BUT I would imagine that the Pentagon has plenty of people who are on site at the Pentagon around the clock.
The WHOLE AREA that those light poles covered must have been VERY WELL LIT!
There are plenty of windows on the Pentagon from which PEOPLE COULD SEE OUT!
Yet not one report of strange goings on?
NOT ONE PERSON reports seeing people with torches "cutting down" the light poles?
AND WE HAVENT EVEN addressed the cars on the freeway passing by!
I would think that SEVERAL LIGHT POLES ALL OVER THE GROUND might attract major attention!
On a daily basis motorists are used to seeing that area well lit and now all of a sudden that area is completely dark yet NOT A SINGLE person mentions this?
When I am driving down the freeway a single light pole that has fallen down gets my attention.
Most people ARE TRAINED when you learn to drive to KEEP YOUR EYES MOVING!
Also how long would it have taken to down all these poles?
A few hours minimum?
Once these are removed don't they have sensors that go off notifying personnel of this?
Is the VDOT now involved in covering up mass murder?
So very sad to what the CIT/PFT have done to Lloyd the cabbie.
Ya but This is the friggin Pentagon!
You don't think that they have specially developed light poles that break away when a car hits it but STOPS A PLANE DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS?
This is the US Military we are talking about!
If you don't see that they have advanced technology such as this then you are obviously a government loyalist!
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
A funny thing happened today.
I was driving home on the 5 freeway today, and I saw a light pole lying by the side of the freeway.
That was about 10:45 am local time.
I would find it hard to believe that no one on the highway near the pentagon would have noticed downed light poles. It's just so out of place, you can't help but notice it.
I was driving home on the 5 freeway today, and I saw a light pole lying by the side of the freeway.
That was about 10:45 am local time.
I would find it hard to believe that no one on the highway near the pentagon would have noticed downed light poles. It's just so out of place, you can't help but notice it.
Gee thanks for making it nice and big! If you want that info, go to PFT and
ask them via PM, or start a thread.