Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true I doubt you even remember last year. I have provided info to him on PM how I calculated this and did the same last year.

You are a liar, feel free to scroll back to our interactions from last year and review them.
Our would you prefer that I do it, post the quotes and highlight your dishonesty again?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Post your calculations here

Flight 77 FDR- time it left the runway to the time it arrived at the Pentagon.

The main issue and not solved or debunked the plane 180 feet in altitude at 9.37am. 300 feet above sea level in Washington 300+180= 480 feet too high to have hit light poles near the bridge.

FDR animation.

Nobody could explain this error.

Frank Legge and Warren Strut then came along a wrote a paper claiming there was missing data 4 to 6 seconds-the NTSB released an incomplete set of data to the public. The pilot for truth debated Strut findings and tore them apart. He even admitted the improved data still has the plane too high to hit light poles.

The FDR data does not support a plane hitting light poles whatsoever.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You are a liar, feel free to scroll back to our interactions from last year and review them.
Our would you prefer that I do it, post the quotes and highlight your dishonesty again?

I am fairly certain I discussed magnetic deviation and true north last year.

You obviously don't know this you can't find the true heading of the plane and not include magnetic declination. I even put a compass on a google map of Washington DC to highlight this

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Strut posted and debated his claims on the pilot for truth forum. It was not good for him. You don't even know what the arguments are so why are you saying they are debunked?

The people on P4T are cranks, people who specialise in the art of tying people up with circular nonsense, some of them have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of this after 15 years

They use the same tricks and techniques and junk-science as you, they are just far, far "better" at it

Yet ask any of them for a basic consensus of what really happened regarding the whole event, and they don't have a clue, or they give a thousand different answers

Luckily we have some (sadistic) people on skeptic forums who actually spend the time to counter their nonsense

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I am fairly certain I discussed magnetic deviation and true north last year.

You obviously don't know this you can't find the true heading of the plane and not include magnetic declination. I even put a compass on a google map of Washington DC to highlight this

You're fairly certain? Yet you have the gall to suggest that I don't remember what I discussed or posted here previously?

Have I asked you about true heading or magnetic deviation as yet?

I am discussing altitude, but its probably a little confusing for you trying to keep up with your multiple streams of concurrent Bull****

Just to confirm you lied once again, here is a link to my post to you from the 26/04/2018

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good spot how to work it out. Your wrong on numbers though

9.42am it was 316 feet it dropped 242 feet hit 9.43am about 72 feet off.

9.43 it was 242 feet it dropped to 180 feet at 9.44am and 62 feet off.

So if working though those numbers

Two seconds later
9.45 it would at be at 132 feet 52 feet off.

9.46 it would be at 92 feet 42 feet off.

At 92 feet it flies over the Pentagon by 20 feet. Pentagon height 5 floors is 70 feet.

banie01 wrote: »

Just on your point of the heights being off can I assume that you are measuring ASL?
This is the standard for altitude measurement rather than relative to ground.

Your argument regarding the height differential versus the FDR is reliant upon the height of the Pentagon ASL and not the relative height.

Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

banie01 wrote: »

Well the original Pentagon site at the time of construction varied between 10ft and 40ft ASL, I can't find a definitive ASL height for it currently, but it is entirely reasonable to assume that levelling the site would have given @25ft ASL.

Further to that,nearby Reagan airport is listed at 4.6mtrs ASL, which is @16ft, with the inherent margin of error in altimeters The "missing" height isn't missing at all.

Taking the airport height as a baseline, the 92ft indicated is actually 74ft above ground and taking the likely Pentagon base as 25ft ASL the height becomes 67ft above ground level with the caveat of inherent margin of error.

Aircraft altimeters are calibrated to sea level with ground level set to the destination airport.
In the absence of specific confirmation that the heights reported are above ground, reported heights are always ASL.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You're fairly certain? Yet you have the gall to suggest that I don't remember what I discussed or posted here previously?

Have I asked you about true heading or magnetic deviation as yet?

I am discussing altitude, but its probably a little confusing for you trying to keep up with your multiple streams of concurrent Bull****

Just to confirm you lied once again, here is a link to my post to you from the 26/04/2018

Your posts are wrong. Please link to the discussion. One post is out of context. I have to see what debate was then.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 FDR- time it left the runway to the time it arrived at the Pentagon.

The main issue and not solved or debunked the plane 180 feet in altitude at 9.37am. 300 feet above sea level in Washington 300+180= 480 feet too high to have hit light poles near the bridge.

FDR animation.

Nobody could explain this error.

Frank Legge and Warren Strut then came along a wrote a paper claiming there was missing data 4 to 6 seconds-the NTSB released an incomplete set of data to the public. The pilot for truth debated Strut findings and tore them apart. He even admitted the improved data still has the plane too high to hit light poles.

The FDR data does not support a plane hitting light poles whatsoever.

Nope. The links to the explanation about the missing 4 seconds of FDR data have been provided in this thread and the conspiracy arguments have been exhaustively debunked on skeptic threads. If I recall correctly you weren't bothered to read the threads.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good spot how to work it out. Your wrong on numbers though

9.42am it was 316 feet it dropped 242 feet hit 9.43am about 72 feet off.

9.43 it was 242 feet it dropped to 180 feet at 9.44am and 62 feet off.

So if working though those numbers

Two seconds later
9.45 it would at be at 132 feet 52 feet off.

9.46 it would be at 92 feet 42 feet off.

At 92 feet it flies over the Pentagon by 20 feet. Pentagon height 5 floors is 70 feet.

banie01 wrote: »

Just on your point of the heights being off can I assume that you are measuring ASL?
This is the standard for altitude measurement rather than relative to ground.

Your argument regarding the height differential versus the FDR is reliant upon the height of the Pentagon ASL and not the relative height.

Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your posts are wrong. Please link to the discussion. One post is out of context. I have to see what debate was then.

Click the link I gave you and scroll!
I even went so far as to give you the date!
Explain how my posts are "wrong?"
They are multiple verbatim posts from last April.
You really are a ridiculous liar and funny how your memory fails when you are called out on it.
The conversation is earlier in this thread in black and white.

At this point, I really feel you should be just banned outright from the forum!
You are a timesink, a liar and a troll of really poor BS.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

You're fairly certain? Yet you have the gall to suggest that I don't remember what I discussed or posted here previously?

These people will drag you into the tiniest details, find something that you can't fully explain to them or some insignificant unknown - and that's their victory, that's them "beating" the experts/skeptics. It's a hobby

Cheerful: what speed was the plane doing when it hit the Pentagon? please provide your evidence

Also who was flying the plane?

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

These people will drag you into the tiniest details, find something that you can't fully explain to them or some insignificant unknown - and that's their victory, that's them "beating" the experts/skeptics. It's a hobby

Cheerful: what speed was the plane doing when it hit the Pentagon? please provide your evidence

Also who was flying the plane?

Aren't I glad I have fairly good recall of my thread posts from last year
At this point I think we should just copy and paste our previous replies to CS.
If he can regurgitate his BS, surely we can do the same with our rebuttals

Dohnjoe

Most of these "technical" and "can't explain that!" arguments are covered on International Skeptics forums and Metabunk

e.g. here's one of the threads on the last seconds of FDR and the complexity of explanation involved
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Aren't I glad I have fairly good recall of my thread posts from last year
At this point I think we should just copy and paste our previous replies to CS.
If he can regurgitate his BS, surely we can do the same with our rebuttals

No, you don't recall correctly. Read the top post from TheChizler he quoted me what does it say. I wait for your reply.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, you don't recall correctly. Read the top post from TheChizler he quoted me what does it say. I wait for your reply.

Which has what to do with the ASL?
As Chizler pointed out to you

TheChizler wrote: »

Your own screenshots show the altitude dropping from 597' to 180' in 5 seconds. Assuming a linear rate this a drop of 83 feet per second. If we do a linear extrapolation in the next two seconds your 180 foot drop is well accounted for, and we'll within the margin of error considering the low sampling rate and given I don't know where in those seconds the screenshots were taken.

Of course this is assuming the pentagon ground floor is at 0 feet relative to the figure in the diagram, but that seems to be what you're claiming.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Which has what to do with the ASL?

Post the quote or I will no more deflection.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Post the quote or I will no more deflection.

Go on....
You accusing someone of deflection?
This is actually becoming interesting now

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Go on....
You accusing someone of deflection?
This is actually becoming interesting now

Context. FDR 180 feet. Then I did some rudimentary calculations why the plane would fly over the Pentagon at this height.

Dohnjoe

Not to keep repeating this but the hallmark of faulty conspiracy thinking anywhere is an obsession/focus with discrediting the established version of events in any way possible instead of developing a solid competing theory

Historians refute and debate historical details all the time, they absolutely don't attack "the official version" and then walk away satisfied with providing nothing

Refuting bull**** takes much more effort than producing it. Truthers have shown they are more than happy to endlessly create bull**** than attempt to create one single credible counter-theory

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Context. FDR 180 feet. Then I did some rudimentary calculations why the plane would fly over the Pentagon at this height.

Your rudimentery calculations are based on a flawed assumption.

Again, don't get me wrong. Your English is likely better than any attempt I could make at your native tongue.
But that quote doesn't add any context to the discussion.
Do you know why?
Because I addressed it in my quoted post above.

So dust off your dictionary, scroll up to post #1456 and address the ASL issue as its been laid out.

banie01 wrote: »

Just on your point of the heights being off can I assume that you are measuring ASL?
This is the standard for altitude measurement rather than relative to ground.

Your argument regarding the height differential versus the FDR is reliant upon the height of the Pentagon ASL and not the relative height.

Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

And just you are aware of the way its worked out....

banie01 wrote: »

Well the original Pentagon site at the time of construction varied between 10ft and 40ft ASL, I can't find a definitive ASL height for it currently, but it is entirely reasonable to assume that levelling the site would have given @25ft ASL.

Further to that,nearby Reagan airport is listed at 4.6mtrs ASL, which is @16ft, with the inherent margin of error in altimeters The "missing" height isn't missing at all.

Taking the airport height as a baseline, the 92ft indicated is actually 74ft above ground and taking the likely Pentagon base as 25ft ASL the height becomes 67ft above ground level with the caveat of inherent margin of error.

Aircraft altimeters are calibrated to sea level with ground level set to the destination airport.
In the absence of specific confirmation that the heights reported are above ground, reported heights are always ASL.

Actually reading back to last years post and I came across another gem from you :pac:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nobody cares about your ground rules only you. Your theory sucks.

1) landing gear was not down so the landing gear would have broken apart with the plane by the time it got to C ring. If the titanium engines did not survive the landing gear would not have.

2) it looks like a hollow charge blast occurred inside the building. A hollow charge would produce a deep cylindrical hole.

3) No landing wreckage was pictured near or outside the hole.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Your rudimentery calculations are based on a flawed assumption.

Again, don't get me wrong. Your English is likely better than any attempt I could make at your native tongue.
But that quote doesn't add any context to the discussion.
Do you know why?
Because I addressed it in my quoted post above.

So dust off your dictionary, scroll up to post #1456 and address the ASL issue as its been laid out.

Sure whatever you want to think. The discussion was about the height of the plane on the FDR animation. I even did maths right after based off this.

. I was clearly talking about plane height in altitude 180 feet. Reason

And just you are aware of the way its worked out....

Actually reading back to last years post and I came across another gem from you :pac:

I busy at home so take some time to reply to posts.

The discussion was about the height of the plane- FDR animation 180 feet clearly their context. I even did rudimentary math how far it would drop at this height and how long it takes. It may be wrong i can remember this far back. You trying to catch me on a post I made a year ago, this is sad.

You said this not me in your post
Quote Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

Really no issue explain how so? The plane height is based on the altitude at a certain time..

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I busy at home so take some time to reply to posts.

The discussion was about the height of the plane- FDR animation 180 feet clearly their context. I even did rudimentary math how far it would drop at this height and how long it takes. It may be wrong i can remember this far back. You trying to catch me on a post I made a year ago, this is sad.

You said this not me in your post
Quote Assuming the Pentagon is built on a surface 20ft ASL there is no issue with the height recorded on the FDR.

Really no issue explain how so? The plane height is based on the altitude at a certain time..

I'm not trying to catch you out based on something you said a year ago!
You are the one who claimed ASL was never previously mentioned.
You are the one who lied, yet again.

The basis of ASL is laid out in my earlier and quoted posts.
It's already explained with examples.
Read it, if you have a specific question or don't understand it. Ask me a question.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

What is the altitude measured from?
What point?
Ground level?
Absolute sea level?

NTSB FDR what else? It reads 180 feet at 9.37am. In Washington DC above sea level is 300 feet 300+180= 480 above sea level.

The FDR also shows the pressure of 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The CAS is reading 462 knots at 9.37am, but I believe its wrong.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NTSB FDR what else? It reads 180 feet at 9.37am. In Washington DC above sea level is 300 feet 300+180= 480 above sea level.

The FDR also shows the pressure of 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The CAS is reading 462 knots at 9.37am, but I believe its wrong.

Check your figures with reference to Reagan airport, 300ft above sea level is hugely incorrect.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Check your figures with reference to Reagan airport, 300ft above sea level is hugely incorrect.

Well then provide proof I willing to change my mind.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well then provide proof I willing to change my mind.

The proof has already been provided to you.
You either haven't read it, haven't understood it or just did your usual trick of ignoring it.

Ronald Reagan international Airport is 16ft ASL.
The calculations I gave you earlier take the original site height of the pentagon of 10ft to 40ft ASL.

Levelling the site would likely give a ground level ASL height for the Pentagon of 25ft.

Do you deliberately ignore information previously given? Is it in the hope that people will give up answering you?
Or do you really have such poor attention to detail?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The FDR also shows the pressure of 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter

Which means what? Convert that to a meaningful measurement while accounting for ambient air pressure and weather?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The CAS is reading 462 knots at 9.37am, but I believe its wrong.

You "Believe" it to be wrong?
Based on what?
Where is your proof?
What evidence have you that it was not travelling at the speeds attested to on the FDR and consensus data?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

The proof has already been provided to you.
You either haven't read it, haven't understood it or just did your usual trick of ignoring it.

Ronald Reagan international Airport is 16ft ASL.
The calculations I gave you earlier take the original site height of the pentagon of 10ft to 40ft ASL.

Levelling the site would likely give a ground level ASL height for the Pentagon of 25ft.

Do you deliberately ignore information previously given? Is it in the hope that people will give up answering you?
Or do you really have such poor attention to detail?

There elevations across the site, which range from (10-40 ft) above sea level. They are referring to the ground conditions That's all.

The plane hit the first floor it did not hit the top floor of the Pentagon. All this is irrelevant though because it's the position of the plane at 9.37am is the problem. You see on FDR the plane is too far over the highway to hit light poles.

Even Strut admits who speaking for debunkers said the correction in the data still has the plane too high. Strut even admitted this on the pilot for truth forum.

Cheerful Spring

Strut was involved writing this paper debunking conspiracy theories about the Pentagon attack. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

In one thread he made this post. Quote, and Strut post is important.

2009


Dohnjoe posting info from 2006.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047

This not only the post he realises the truthers are right.

Overheal

Sum this up for me, please:

1. What was the last time recorded in the FDR? What was the altitude, and is this ASL or ground to [original destination airport]?

2. How long after was the impact?

3. What was the altitude at (1)?

4. What was the theoretical rate of descent for the plane to have reached its target at (2)?

5. If we assume that the hijackers may have readjusted the destination ground level, did/would the FDR detect that?

smurfjed

Check your figures with reference to Reagan airport, 300ft above sea level is hugely incorrect.

I don't think that Reagan airport has anything to do with it, it's more the difference between two pressure datums. The datum which was set on the altimeter subscale and the local pressure at the Pentagon.


But this is also taken from the Legge/Strut report.

despite the existence of a large number of eyewitness reports that the plane hit the building,6
including some of these 13 north-path witnesses, 7 and despite the absence of the many reports of the plane flying over the building that would be expected, given the large number of vehicles in traffic jams nearby.8
This theory requires that the long, straight line of complex damage was done by some other means

So how would one account for this lack of sightings of the aircraft flying over the building, or the C130 crew somehow missing it? Or the radar stations not tracking it especially as the military were awake by this stage?

smurfjed

1. What was the last time recorded in the FDR? What was the altitude, and is this ASL or ground to [original destination airport]?

A: In the USA there is a Transitional Altitude where all aircraft set their altimeters to a pressure datum of 29.92 InHg and express their height in Flight Levels, the assumption is that this aircraft's altimeter was set to 29.92 and that the drivers didn't adjust it.

5. If we assume that the hijackers may have readjusted the destination ground level, did/would the FDR detect that?
A: They weren't flying a proper instrument approach, more a case of looking at a big building and pointing the aircraft towards it.

smurfjed

The CAS is reading 462 knots at 9.37am, but I believe its wrong.

It's a value in the FDR, why do you believe it to be wrong?

smurfjed

I am fairly certain I discussed magnetic deviation and true north last year.

You obviously don't know this you can't find the true heading of the plane and not include magnetic declination. I even put a compass on a google map of Washington DC to highlight this

Where exactly did you get the MAGNETIC DEVIATION of THIS aircraft on a particular heading. The TRUE and MAGNETIC headings are shown in the FDR CSV file.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe posting info from 2006.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047

"here's one of the threads on the last seconds of FDR and the complexity of explanation involved"

Note the bolded part. There are dozens of threads on the FDR and radar tracking, the sheer length and complexity of the one I posted is an example of the effort required to refute the bull****

911 conspiracy theorists have become "experts" in the obtuse art tying people up in circular technical arguments (it's all you do on this forum) It's become their only recourse in the debate because they can't provide a simple alternative as to what happened, with credible supporting figures and evidence

Here's a recap on all the actors in your theory (which changes depending on what day of the week it is)

It involves Larry Silverstein, his insurance company, the "CIA Muhajadeen", NORAD, explosives that are silent but "make a little noise" in all 3 towers, all the unnamed people who planted the explosives and prepped the buildings, parts of the media, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, unspecified generals, unspecified businessmen, Saudi princes and Saudi officials, certain NIST investigators and experts, possibly Mossad..

It's ridiculous stuff in the extreme, like a child making up a story to it's parents. When asked about this personal "story" of yours you retreat back to conspiracy videos and deflecting onto "explain it to me" and borrowed contradictory arguments from conspiracy forums (which are all debunked)

The Nal

How many eye witnesses saw flight 77 fly over the Pentagon?

Dohnjoe

Stepping back for a moment, the Pentagon one is especially hilarious because it makes no sense in any form. Even those truthers who claim it was flight 77, with Hani flying, on almost the same course, but it hit from a slightly different angle

Why would the "authorities" create this massive conspiracy of faking FDR, radar data, ATC, eye-witnesses, cutting lampposts.. just to claim the plane hit 5 degrees off - it had the exact same effect

Why go to all that effort and risk for the exact same end-product?

It's so dumb on any level

banie01

I've unearthed a new CT based solely on the image below...
This image presents more credible evidence and a compelling case for its actual existence than anything, ANYTHING posted by CS to date on any of the CT threads contaminated by his nonsense!

It likely ties the recycling efforts in with Mossad too and thus with CS 9/11 theories.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I used to think Israeli involvement in 9/11 was crazy and was just anti-Semitic till I found out an Israeli spy was seating as a passenger in front of Satam al Suqami's (the passport guy) He was a trained assassin and not well known information Israeli spies lived only a few blocks away from the hijackers on 9/11.

So makes sense to me this was a deep state Israeli operation included Saudis as handlers.

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

Where exactly did you get the MAGNETIC DEVIATION of THIS aircraft on a particular heading. The TRUE and MAGNETIC headings are shown in the FDR CSV file.

Debunkers they claim the magnetic heading was not adjusted by the NTSB. They claim they made mistakes with no evidence whatsoever provided to prove this. In the FDR animation, the magnetic heading is 70 degrees (the true course is 61,5 degrees to the east) 9.5 or 10 degrees is the adjustment it been a while since I looked this up though.

The plane is in the wrong location to match the official story (it's flying on the Northeast side) The Plane flying passed the Navy building on the left side.

The official story the plane was to the right of the Navy Annex, flying a Southwest path heading to the Pentagon.



Two Pentagon police officers were asked on the video where did you see the plane. They both said the left side and there no a chance in hell the plane was flying Southwest they said 0 chance. They even marked on a map the location of the plane and matches with the NTSB data flight path.

Overheal

why do truthers argue the plane could not have flown low enough to hit the pentagon? I’d like the math on that, regardless of heading.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

why do truthers argue the plane could not have flown low enough to hit the pentagon? I’d like the math on that, regardless of heading.

Because they are looking for something to prove there's a conspiracy and "the ground effect" is a cool, clever sounding term they can brandy around.

Cheerful spring is an exception in that all conspiracy theorists who suggest such a thing are arguing that flight 77 never hit the pentagon and it was instead a missile or hologram or some such.
Cheerful only changed his position after painting himself into a corner, realising that he'd claimed the flight data was inerrant and then couldn't claim that it was also tampered with by the conspirators.

He now maintains that there is still a discrepancy so as to avoid admitting that he was wrong and believed and argued for an untrue theory.

It has absolutely nothing to do with math.

Overheal

I hear you, but this was earlier based on some waffling back and forth argument about the last altitude in the FDR vs. how tall the Pentagon was ASL vs. how many seconds between the last FDR timestamp and the collision. These points appear to have been all argued across multiple posts but so there is no confusion on my part, I’m wondering if these can be presented clearly to explain the theory that it is impossible for the plane to have bridged the altitude gap.

The Nal

We dont need math when 100 odd people saw it happen. There were skidmarks across the lawn. We know exactly what direction the plane came in at.

Arguing that it didnt happen is absolutely ludicrous. And hilarious.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

I hear you, but this was earlier based on some waffling back and forth argument about the last altitude in the FDR vs. how tall the Pentagon was ASL vs. how many seconds between the last FDR timestamp and the collision. These points appear to have been all argued across multiple posts but so there is no confusion on my part, I’m wondering if these can be presented clearly to explain the theory that it is impossible for the plane to have bridged the altitude gap.

There's a couple of CT tropes that CS is bouncing around and parroting.

The first is that the top speed of the plane in question is lower than is claimed in the real events, thus the plane couldn't be going that fast.

Second is the notion of the ground effect would prevent the plane from going as low as claimed in reality.

Third is that there is a large drop in the data, where the plane seems to fall rapidly and conspiracy theorists claim that such a drop is impossible.

CS also claims, in a theory unique to him, that the plane actually flew in from a slightly different direction from how it did.
The reasons for this are still mysterious.

Currently he seems to be bouncing between the 3rd and 4th options as he recently realised how out of his depth he was in the 1st option.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How many eye witnesses saw flight 77 fly over the Pentagon?

It appears the plane was on the wrong side to hit light poles.

Pentagon eyewitnesses saw the plane coming in from the North. The FDR even has the plane coming in from Northside. Information contradicting the official flight plane.

I not claiming no plane crashed I'm disputing the direction it took.

Even Lloyd England light pole hit his cab, and those images went around the world to prove the official story, is now saying the lightpole incident never happened on the bridge (southwest) Where did it happen then? He claims it happened on the north side near the cemetery where the Pentagon officers said the plane was. It is very strange.

NSTB FDR places the plane too high at the end when it crashed. It knocked off 9.37-44 seconds at 180 feet adjusted for the correct pressure was 480 feet.

Even the Radar returns by the FAA the plane is to the north and not hitting light poles and was too high.

Dohnjoe

I'm not even sure what the theory is here? it was a different pilot? the plane didn't hit? it was a different plane? why?

Overheal

The Ground Effect won't offer the net resistance to a deliberate attempt to crash the plane that the CS demands. It's one of those things that a pilot would feather with during a regular landing, with full flaps, but I doubt any truthers have really dove in and tried to math out the balance of forces equations or the simulations to suggest that the plane couldn't have dove.

Am I going to have to do the math myself? Because if I do I don't want someone's feelings hurt.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

We dont need math when 100 odd people saw it happen. There were skidmarks across the lawn. We know exactly what direction the plane came in at.

Arguing that it didnt happen is absolutely ludicrous. And hilarious.

False there was no skid marks across the lawn. The grass was pristine with pieces of the plane on it.

If the plane hit the grass it would have broken up there.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm not even sure what the theory is here? it was a different pilot? the plane didn't hit? it was a different plane? why?

I believe the going theory is that it was Flight 77. At least it was the same model of plane as claimed by sane people.
However cheerful maintains that it was remotely piloted, somehow, and that either there were no passengers on the plane ever, or they were removed at some point. So we can add them to the list.

The reason for why they plane was flown in a slightly different angle was apparently to cover up another event that was happening in the pentagon at the same time. I believe this was another case of them needing to destroy some paper, but them using a paper shredding was too obvious.

He has been unable to elaborate any further and got upset when it was pointed out how silly this all was.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NSTB FDR places the plane too high at the end when it crashed.

That's not the moment it crashed, though...



That's roughly the moment at or before it is overhead with the highway. Unless you're telling me the wingpsan of a 757-233 is somewhere in the range of 800 feet and not 124'10" as specified by Boeing? The sides of the Pentagon are 921 feet.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

That's not the moment it crashed, though...



That's roughly the moment at or before it is overhead with the highway. Unless you're telling me the wingpsan of a 757-233 is somewhere in the range of 800 feet and not 124'10" as specified by Boeing? The sides of the Pentagon are 921 feet.

It too high to hit light poles on the bridge. Notice its height over the highway. Its even higher due to adjustment of pressure in Washington DC (480 feet high)

Lightpoles were hit (80 feet above sea level) 40 feet in height, the official story!

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It too high to hit light poles on the bridge. Notice its height over the highway. Its even higher due to adjustment of pressure in Washington DC (480 feet high)

Lightpoles were hit (80 feet above sea level) 40 feet in height, the official story!

Why are you adjusting for Washington DC?
The DC datum point is @4 miles away from the Pentagon on the opposite riverbank and on a hill.

The Pentagon is located on the riverbank of an estuary as is the conveniently adjacent Ronald Reagan Airport.
Same side of the river, very similar elevation and a datum point of 16ft ASL
Surely it's the logical Datum point to use for your "calculation" rather than DC?