Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Come now, the plane(flight 77) either hit the Pentagon or it went somewhere esle and it and all on board were disposed of in some fashion.
Not necessarily. PFT does not speculate on what happened to the passengers of flight 77.
What is not neccessary, the fact that the plane was either in the Pentagon having crashed there, or somewhere else? Is there a third choice?
Does PfT acknowledge that the persons on board the flight were never seen again by anyone? If so then there are again two choices, they either died in the crash at the Pentagon or they are somewhere else.
Given that PfT flatly states that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon then they are stating that it went somewhere else and that the persons on board ae elsewhere.
Sure, they do not wish to speculate on the whereabouts. That is beacuse doing so quickly illustrates that what they are proposing is rather unweildy to say the least.
The perpetrators of 9/11, if they carried out an operation that killed thousands, certainly would not be concerned with keeping a few hundred persons on the a/c's alive, nor would they be concerned with keeping 4 multi million dollar aircraft intact. In fact it would be a whole lot easier if they were all killed and disposed of.
PfT now would like us to believe that rather than kill the people and dispose of the aircraft that would be officially stated as having crashed into the Pentagon by actually having it crash into the Penatgon, the people were killed elsewhere and the plane disposed of by some other means.
PfT may not explicity state this but if there is another choice that follows from the PfT statement that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon then let's have it.
Quote:
So there was nothing to hide the flyover and they are throwing out the intrepretation of Turcois' statement in which Craig asserted that Turcois was saying the the fireball obscured the impact.
It is still possible that the fireball obscured the plane, but the key point is that it was a distraction.
So witnesses who were watching this aircraft fly towards the Pentagon saw it 35-100 feet above the Pentagon then saw a great big explosion off to one side of the path of the aircraft and somehow believed that it had hit the Pentagon. Is that pretty much it? Remember, Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois and others, including Boger all said that the plane they were watching hit the Pentagon.
Quote:
Well Turbofan suggested it may have been at least 100 feet above the roofline of the Pentagon which is itself 77 feet high. "Low" is subjective but this plane was described by all in position to to do as having hit this building. TF then has a plane flying over twice the height of the building that it is reported by all to have hit.
I don't recall TF saying the plane didn't descend at all.
He refered to it in the " Addressing GL Arguments For North Path ". I'd quote him except Cappy Robby seems to have again removed permission to views those threads unless one is registered. I am banned because I suggested that PfT write up a concise , purely technical paper about the FDR data and submit it for publication to relevent print media.
Quote:
PfT asserts a bank angle between 22 and 60 degrees, at 45 degrees it would have to be at least 35 feet above the Pentagon in order not to have its wing impact the roof.
Really? You know aircraft measurements? How did you determine this?
The great majority of witnesses describe a large aircraft. Many also state twin engined passenger jet and flight 77 was a 757. If it was not flight 77 then see again the above(where did that 757 go?) Using a wing length of 50 feet and some high school level trigonometry for a bank of 45 gives one the 35 foot required clearance. If PfT wants to allude to it being a specialty aircraft without actually stating that it was they are simply being deliberatly obtuse.
Quote:
furthermore several witnesses comment on it hitting the ground floor. How can PfT reconcile such reports with a plane they assert was at least 45% higher than the building?
Name the witnesses. Have you even read this article?
You are not aware of the fact that several witnesses state that the plane touched the ground at, or slightly before, impact?
Furthermore the media reports, the pictures of the pre-collapse damage illustrate a ground floor hit. Do you not think that any of the large number of witnesses who saw a plane flying towards the upper floors of the building would find it odd that it actually hit 70 feet below the roof line and yet no one thought it odd?
Quote:
then there would be nothing to hide the flyover especially from Lagasse and Brooks or anyone who was south of the impact point.
You don't know the extant of the explosion/smoke. Besides, the key point is that the explosion was a huge distraction.
So witnesses who were watching this aircraft fly towards the Pentagon saw it 35-100 feet above the Pentagon then saw a great big explosion off to one side of the path of the aircraft and somehow believed that it had hit the Pentagon. Is that pretty much it? Remember, Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois and others, including Boger all said that the plane they were watching hit the Pentagon.
Taken together with your nonsense about "dropping a bomb" on the Pentagon, it is false. You are correct, the false media reports confused the witnesses.
I admit that the media has confused me in the past but generally when they print something that is wrong or contradicts my personal experience I conclude that the media is wrong and I am correct. If in your world the media holds hypnotic sway over the thoughts of the masses I am glad I do not live in your world.
Quote:
That was a long night for LLoyd then wasn't it. Standing at the side of the road with a honking long pole sticking out from the windshield of his taxi and hoping that no one noticed him.
There is no evidence a pole was ever in his windshield. Its very curious that you are attempting to "debunk" CIT without knowing even their basic claims.
Again it is not my idea that Lloyd may have been there at the side of the road all night long. I cannot view the post on PfT where I read it though. On the other hand, even if Lloyd simply smashed his windsheild with a hammer and , with the aid of another 'agent' or two, placed the pole on the road then CiT/PfT are now stating that in order to keep anyone from seeing agents scrurrying about on 9/11 they placed the poles during the night except for the pole that would end up in the single most visible location of all of the. That would be the one in the middle of a well travelled roadway where a most cursious set of events went completely unnoticed and uncommented upon. A cabby stopped his car, got out, smashed his windsheild with a hammer then proceeded to aid another(others) to move a damaged lamp pole from the side of the road(or from a white van) and place it on the road.
Do I have it right now?
Quote:
See above. I might also add then that no one noticed broken lamp posts. The security detail of the Pentagon, which according to TM contentions should have video surveillance of the surrounding area, did not notice that these lamp posts, supposedly knocked down by Flt77 were actually put in place during the night. (yeah, yeah "shut up or you get to spend the next 5 years in Thule, Greenland,,,, or worse, and if you stay shut up here's a pile of cash")
This makes little sense. If they have video of a plane knocking these lightpoles down, why haven't they released it? If they have videos of people knocking down the lightpoles, why wouldn't they be able to withold it? I believe the claim was that the Pentagon had plenty of surveillance, not necessarily the surrounding roads.
You misunderstand me. In the above I suggested that a person witnessing poles being planted that later were said to have been knocked down by flight 77 would be threatened. I said nothing about videos.
As I have suggested before, Jaydeehess, why don't you, Reheat, and Farmer go to the PFT forums,
Well it seems that I am no longer allowed to view posts in the "Debate" section and being a banned person from PfT I will not be logging on.
at least start up a private conversation with Rob and Turbofan, so you can come up with a reasonable flight path. It makes little sense to speculate on the values, especially when you're ignorant of their most basic claims. .
Oh, but I am aware of their most basic claims. As I stated above if Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon as PfT states then it, and its compliment of souls on board, went somewhere else never to be seen again.
If a plane with a wingspan of at least 100 feet (note that is smaller than the 757) was banking at 45 degrees as it passed over a building then the center of the fuselage must clear the roof by at least 35 feet.
If the idea of planting the lamp posts in the dead of night was to keep people from seeing it occur then this does not reconcile well with the CiT tale of Lloyd England stopping and carrying out several rather curiousity raising actions on a well travelled highway.
You can contact TF yourself and ask him what he said anbout no pull-up and the fact that the FOB roof is at least 100 feet above the height of the Pentagon roof.
