Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Josh_B, Jan 4, 2003.

  1. Josh_B


    found it:

    Analysis Of Flight 77 Flight Path by a Former Air Force Pilot

    As a pilot and former Air Force navigator, I was interested in the flight paths of the various aircraft on their way to their targets. It was fairly simple to find the WTC routes, but I have yet to see a map showing the route flown by the aircraft that was said to have hit the Pentagon. So I read some of the reports and put together the attached maps....

    ...The description also said the airplane appeared to line up on the White House before making a right 270 degree turn to collide with the Pentagon. The map I drew ( see Attack Path ) is one which meets all the conditions in the description, and is consistent with what I know about how large airplanes behave at low altitude (I used to do airdrop in a C-141, flying at 300' AGL up to 280 knots)....

    ...But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.

    When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon.

    Of course, this is all speculation, not facts.

    I started this analysis because I was curious about why at 9:40 a.m. on a clear day in the Nation's Capital and major tourist destination, there is not ONE photo or video of the airplane at any point in this route. None of the excuses (no cameras, not near any landmarks, etc.) make any sense — hell, there were both photos and video of the Concorde on fire, and that wasn't anywhere near a tourist spot.

    Moreover, I'm surprised that I haven't seen this map — or ANY map — of the Pentagon airplane's approach. Given all the information that we were deluged with in the weeks after the attacks, it surprises me that this graphic was omitted.

    Anyway, that's my contribution to the effort to try to make sense of an insane event. I don't know if it adds clarity or static, but it seems a part of the puzzle that has been missing.

    Analysis by
    Steve Koeppel
    Palm Springs, CA

    The attack path map is pretty interesting. Also the lack of any other photo's from any bystanders is puzzling too.

    #31     Jan 5, 2003
  2. Josh_B


    I had similar thoughts when first saw this. Just a another line of hoax out there.

    But it doesn't add up. If the plane was pulverized on a hardened structure upon impact, ( and according to pentagon photos ) what created the 2.5 yard exit hole, penetrating 3 buildings completely, (6 reinforced wall and the inner walls too)at some angle?

    And no other remains left besides 2 black boxes and a plastic light and a small aluminum fuselage skin section? I have difficulty understanding that the engine blades disappeared along with brake pads. And I will not even touch the human DNA remains issue.

    I'm also looking at this pentagon provided pic:


    and it's just amazing how the left side is clean shear cut, and the grass is clean with no gouges just in front of the "impact" area

    according to max401's post: ....Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion....

    wild, good post on the science behind this, still looks like it doesn't add up.

    max401 good info, officials do seem to keep saying that the pics are misleading and they have other explanations that fits the plane story.

    btw do you have a link on this? thanks.

    bobcathy1, which pics are you referring to? which one shows the hit marks by the wings on the building?

    It would be very revealing to know what were the findings material etc of whatever came out of the exit hole in building 3 where the firemen are standing.

    Was part of a 757 nose or what? surprisingly it was left out of any so far known reports, but it would very easy prove the case either way.

    Good posts.

    #32     Jan 5, 2003
  3. Notice how the "exit hole" is perfectly round?


    Looks man made to me. That section of the Pentagon was undergoing extensive reconstruction.

    They found more than just airplane pieces, they found enough stuff to identify every passenger except one. And they identified the remains of the Solicitor General of the United States wife, the very well known lawyer and legal commentator, Barbara Olson.
    #33     Jan 6, 2003
  4. wild



    "They found more than just airplane pieces, they found enough stuff to identify every passenger except one. And they identified the remains of the Solicitor General of the United States wife, the very well known lawyer and legal commentator, Barbara Olson."


    Authorities would have us believe that 63 of the 64 people aboard AA 77 were identified from DNA testing.
    This link
    (See question 20)

    explains why DNA testing is not able to identify all of the WTC victims. Because DNA is destroyed by high temperatures. Read any article or technical paper on DNA storage and sampling, and it will mention the critical role of correct temperature in maintaining the integrity of the samples. And they’re not talking about temperatures above 600 degrees C as being destructive, but temperatures below 150. It needed a minimum temperature of 660 to melt the plane. Actually, a lot more because it would have to have been 660 minimum at the extremities, so it would have been much higher in most of the centre fuselage where the people were. The temperatures required to cremate it are almost unimaginable. And yet we are supposed to believe both stories, that nothing remains of the plane, but 63 of 64 victims still had their DNA intact, while at the same time the heat generated in the WTC is a serious obstacle to DNA testing.

    We were told that even many victims of the Bali bombing in Oct 2002 might never be identified.

    [[ Some Australians killed in the Bali terrorist attack are so badly mutilated they might never be identified...The equipment included medical supplies, DNA testing facilities and refrigerated containers to ease the crisis at Denpasar's vastly overworked makeshift morgue.
    But officials admitted today the carnage was so horrific that technology would make no difference in some cases.
    "It's highly likely that some victims will be unable to be identified," said Australia's consul-general in Bali, Ross Tysoe.
    Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, visiting the scene for the first time, said: "Many of them are burnt beyond recognition."
    Those close to the deadliest of the two explosions, at Sari's nightclub in the Kuta tourist strip, would have "disintegrated", Mr Downer said. ]]

    And yet we are supposed to believe that those at the centre of a blast which vapourized a 100 ton aircraft left DNA which tested 98.4% successful.

    To analogize this it’s worth going back to the 1 to 10,000 scale model. It’s like suggesting that before you set fire to it, you placed inside 64 small pieces of plant or animal material. After the catastrophic explosion of the 1/2 gallon of kerosine successfully reduced the 18 lb aluminium model to dust and ashes, 63 of the 64 pieces of material inside, were still able to be successfully DNA tested.


    #34     Jan 6, 2003
  5. I have to agree with Daniel-M here. You guys are spinning tall tales. This theory has been explored in a bestselling book in France. Great events with apparent discrepancies to the weak mind are fodder for conspiracy theories. Just look at Wild.

    Has anyone seen a jet plane wreckage site, one where the plane dove uncontrollably at high speed to ground impact? The plane is reduced to small debris.

    The conspiracy theory needs to explain what happened to the plane that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon and its passengers, who have been reported dead. I have not heard one report from family members of the plane's dead saying that their family members are indeed alive, or were never on the plane.

    The logical corrolary to the theory is that the plane and its passengers were somehow snuffed out somewhere else, or they
    never existed.

    Now, there were 2 other planes that day that were hijacked and photographed and video taped as they struck thier targets. And a third one that crashed before its intended target, without photographs. Was that a hoax? And what about the well known passengers on the Washington planewho called friends and family during the hijacking on thier cell phones? These people have disappeared. Is this all part of a massive cover-up?

    I have seen all the photos and its seems to me that the plane blew up upon impact, was reduced to smalll debris, and a good part of its flammable materials burned away. And there are photos of plane parts scattered about the Pentagon lawn, but these photos were conveniently ignored by the web site.
    #35     Jan 6, 2003
  6. Josh_B


    What did they use? Blow Torch? Explosives? notice the black residue (smoke/fire) on the wall above hole.

    They even marked it punch out hole!!! after some cleanup of debris there.


    Ofc it was was manmade like a DU tipped cruise missile man made tool.

    According the Rumsfeld the renovations were recently completed. DNA? ok this is too much to believe form the "officials"
    They claim the plane got pulverized in 2500 degrees fire, no engine to be found anywhere, titanium alloy blades gone, wheel breakpads gone, only black boxes found (kept under lock) some plastic lights and aluminum skin portion. And in all this they found a DNA sample of a human being??? LOLOL at that temperature there is nothing left.

    Good responses, makes one wonder and dig harder.

    "Lying to the public is all right, says Washington's chief lawyer

    By Mark Helm, in Washington

    The United States Government's top lawyer has said that officials have the right to lie to American citizens, telling the US Supreme Court that misleading statements are sometimes needed to protect foreign policy interests."

    This just doesn't add up.

    Try this: Forget about the date, and the gov't reports, and even the possibility of coverup etc.

    and look at this whole thing objectively. Something did hit the pentagon. A 757? it just doesn't look it. Look at all the crashes posted in other links here...

    good posts! Thx

    #36     Jan 6, 2003
  7. Ever notice that fireman always have an axe? What do you think that's for? The hole could have been made for the same reason, to get at a fire, let pressure out, etc.

    Hole made by the tip of a missle? Look at all the other missle and bomb damage we have seen from any war footage since WWI. Except for a bomb crater, does anything explode in nice round holes, especially in a wall?

    By the way what do you think knocked these light poles down on the road and directly in front of the Pentagon's crash site? Could it have been a low flying Boeing airplane?
    #37     Jan 6, 2003
  8. Josh-B. You neglected the background for the missile theory.

    The French writer proposed it was a US Govt. sponsered attack, to make the Arabs and Muslims look bad (do they really need help looking bad?), and to increase support for Israel (do they really need more US financial support here?).

    And who masterminded this? Three Jews in a backroom who SECRETLY CONTROL THE WORLD!!!!!!

    Come on, three Jews sit down together and they can't agree on what to eat.
    #38     Jan 6, 2003
  9. They can't eat pork and milk, right?
    #39     Jan 6, 2003
  10. #40     Jan 6, 2003