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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Just for argument the 757 crashed into the Pentagon and did not go inside it exploded outside the building?

The problem, right now is the The flight Data is showing a different approach of flight to the Pentagon. The plane going North East is avoiding 5 lightpoles altogether was the plane a second event? Did a explosion inside the building occur before the plane arrived?

See, you've dodged the question again.

Why does the FDR not show the 757 flying away from the Pentagon afterwards?
Remember, it can't be because the government manipulated or edited it according to you.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well we don't know if he is just a random taxi driver. Off camera he said he we came across the highway together? Investigator asked was this planned, he said it was planned? If he was just caught up in an event it just happened. Why when asked would he say it was planned?

Again, what's the conspiracy answer?
Why would they bother to get him involved?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The details of the flight data recorder (and misinterpretation of that data) are, as mentioned, detailed here

For the lazy, 90% of it is covered on the first page

To repeat, conspiracy theorists commonly believe that finding one mistake, one data error, one missing piece of data, one anomaly, one witness saying something strange.. anything at all, no matter how tiny and ultimately insignificant proves the entire thing is an unspecified "inside job" regardless of all the other evidence

They approach a situation backwards. It's a conspiracy and anything that can't be 100% explained to them personally means it's a conspiracy

Rational people do not approach an investigation in this manner. They also realise that not every tiny detail can be accounted for or explained post-fact. They understand that the weight of evidence, the fact that evidence corroborates and correlates with other evidence and the consensus of experts is part of the process of building the true picture. Not working backwards from a "conspiracy" every time.

I read the first guy post he does not explain why the plane was positioned NE at 70 degrees magnetic on final approach. He showed no evidence the data was not accurate, no sourcing or any reply by the NTSB to confirm his statements. If there information in the link that talks about this do post I willing to read. The thread 109 pages.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

See, you've dodged the question again.

Why does the FDR not show the 757 flying away from the Pentagon afterwards?
Remember, it can't be because the government manipulated or edited it according to you.


Again, what's the conspiracy answer?
Why would they bother to get him involved?

The stimulation ends two seconds before the crash, not sure why. Guessing here could be missing data or the data could not be retrieved I don't know?

Only Lloyd England and people involved can tell you that. There is a picture of Lloyd England on the bridge with two men in white shirts who they are I don't know? Strange thing is Lloyd England said there was a guy living down the street from him on the bridge who took those famous photographs of his taxi and the light pole. Strange coincidence a neighbour would be at the spot to record this event or his involved in this pre-planned event?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The stimulation ends two seconds before the crash, not sure why. Guessing here could be missing data or the data could not be retrieved I don't know?

So the data just ends right before the crash and before the plane flew away.
Why would that happen entirely at random and all by itself?
That was a stroke of luck for the conspirators...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Only Lloyd England and people involved can tell you that.

So you have no answer and you can't make sense of the conspiracy explanation. Wish it didn't take so long for you to admit that...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So the data just ends right before the crash and before the plane flew away.
Why would that happen entirely at random and all by itself?
That was a stroke of luck for the conspirators...

So you have no answer and you can't make sense of the conspiracy explanation. Wish it didn't take so long for you to admit that...

Yes, the simulation ends roughly about 2 seconds before the crash. Yes, I agree it strange the simulation just ends abruptly like that. Plane was 180 feet in the air when the simulation stopped. At that altitude the plane was too high it could have gone over the building or hit clipped the building on the 5 floor?

Flight data is proof of a conspiracy yes

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes the simulation ends roughly about 2 seconds before the crash. Yes i agree it strange the simulation just ends abruptly like that...

So why does it end?
Where did the data go?
Was it cut out by the conspirators?
It can't be cause that would be editing, which you declared was impossible.
Did it just randomly stop there by sheer luck and coincidence?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight data is proof of a conspiracy yes

if this was so, why release it?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So why does it end?
Where did the data go?
Was it cut out by the conspirators?
It can't be cause that would be editing, which you declared was impossible.
Did it just randomly stop there by sheer luck and coincidence?
if this was so, why release it?

1: You need to ask NTSB why.

2: I don't know it missing from CSV file that had the FDR data.

3: Don't know

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

So why does it end?
Where did the data go?
Was it cut out by the conspirators?
It can't be cause that would be editing, which you declared was impossible.
Did it just randomly stop there by sheer luck and coincidence?
if this was so, why release it?

1: You need to ask NTSB why.

2: I don't know it missing from CSV file that had the FDR data.

3: Don't know

Wow, honest answers for once.

So of you can't explain why they would release it, and you can't explain why the data suddenly ends for no reason, and you can't even explain the original point of your thread...

Maybe you're wrong about some stuff...?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Wow, honest answers for once.

So of you can't explain why they would release it, and you can't explain why the data suddenly ends for no reason, and you can't even explain the original point of your thread...

Maybe you're wrong about some stuff...?

Well nobody seems to be able to answer me why the plane was NE passing the Navy Annex and not South West passing the Navy Annex. It should not be a difficult question to answer if the Skeptics are confident the plane true course was SW?

Why was the plane 180 feet in the air 2 seconds before impact?

Why the data ended suddenly we can guess at. The data could not be retrieved, damage to the data at the end, the plane crashed? I don't know I can only work with the evidence given to us.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well nobody seems to be able to answer me why the plane was NE passing the Navy Annex and not South West passing the Navy Annex. It should not be a difficult question to answer if the Skeptics are confident the plane true course was SW?

Why was the plane 180 feet in the air 2 seconds before impact?

Dohnjoe's link does a good job of explaining this.

But again, it's not really nessesary to address when the conspiracy doesn't explain it and the conspiracy doesn't make sense.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why the data ended suddenly we can guess at. The data could not be retrieved, damage to the data at the end, the plane crashed? I don't know I can only work with the evidence given to us.

Why would the plane suddenly crash for no reason? Why did it crash and how did no one notice.
Why would the data go missing from exactly the point of where it would have crashed into the Pentagon and have no other data at all from any other point after. Why was none of the data before that point corrupted?
If the data was damaged to the point where a huge chunk of it is missing, why would you assume that the rest of the data is perfectly accurate.

Very suddenly the conspiracy seems to be relying on a lot of strange and lucky coincidences.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Dohnjoe's link does a good job of explaining this.

But again, it's not really nessesary to address when the conspiracy doesn't explain it and the conspiracy doesn't make sense.


Why would the plane suddenly crash for no reason? Why did it crash and how did no one notice.
Why would the data go missing from exactly the point of where it would have crashed into the Pentagon and have no other data at all from any other point after. Why was none of the data before that point corrupted?
If the data was damaged to the point where a huge chunk of it is missing, why would you assume that the rest of the data is perfectly accurate.

Very suddenly the conspiracy seems to be relying on a lot of strange and lucky coincidences.

OP in that thread response to this question.

Quote:
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?

My animation? I assume you mean NTSB's animation. I can't answer that question, you should ask them.

OP is speculating and postulating the engineer who made the animation made errors but he doesn't offer evidence for that. I still on the first page, but I going to try read this thread over the next day or so and see what people on here are saying.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

OP in that thread response to this question.

Quote:
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?

My animation? I assume you mean NTSB's animation. I can't answer that question, you should ask them.

OP is speculating and postulating the engineer who made the animation made errors but he doesn't offer evidence for that. I still on the first page, but I going to try read this thread over the next day or so and see what people on here are saying.

And?
Assuming this is an accurate description of the total of their argument, (it's not.) so what?

Where's your evidence that the 757 crashed afterwards for no reason and the data was corrupted exactly from the moment it was supposed to have hit the Pentagon for no reason?
Where's your evidence that there is missing data?

Why should we believe those huge silly assumptions, but then think that the idea of an engineer making a slight mistake in a random unimportant simulation is a step too far?

Does the NTSB mention anything about this missing data from the plane's flight from the Pentagon?
Surely while analysing the data, they'd have seen the damaged parts and mentioned them?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And?
Assuming this is an accurate description of the total of their argument, (it's not.) so what?

Where's your evidence that the 757 crashed afterwards for no reason and the data was corrupted exactly from the moment it was supposed to have hit the Pentagon for no reason?
Where's your evidence that there is missing data?

Why should we believe those huge silly assumptions, but then think that the idea of an engineer making a slight mistake in a random unimportant simulation is a step too far?

Does the NTSB mention anything about this missing data from the plane's flight from the Pentagon?
Surely while analysing the data, they'd have seen the damaged parts and mentioned them?

I going to not reply for awhile I going to go through this thread and see what the Skeptics are saying.

These are some replies by the OP to chew on till then.








There is no evidence the NTSB data contains errors and not unimportant data. Its flight information about Flight 77 I think ir would be a high priority to release it right?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

=44
There is no evidence the NTSB data contains errors and not unimportant data.

Ok, so then even that theory is out then.
If the data had no errors, then that means that there can't be any missing data.
So that means the flight could not have continued after the moment the data stopped.
You'd said it's impossible that the data was manipulated. It can't have been corrupted by a crash later and extra data could not have just vanished.

So the only conclusion that you can possibly reach using your own assertions is that the plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Otherwise you have to conclude that the data is in error or it was edited, which also is incompatible with the conspiracy.

You've painted yourself into a pretty silly corner here.

Cheerful Spring

Only on page one and this poster just bashed them silly. I notice this on this thread here too, deflection

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so then even that theory is out then.
If the data had no errors, then that means that there can't be any missing data.
So that means the flight could not have continued after the moment the data stopped.
You'd said it's impossible that the data was manipulated. It can't have been corrupted by a crash later and extra data could not have just vanished.

So the only conclusion that you can possibly reach using your own assertions is that the plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Otherwise you have to conclude that the data is in error or it was edited, which also is incompatible with the conspiracy.

You've painted yourself into a pretty silly corner here.

Missing data is only the last two seconds. We have over 1 hour and 30 minutes of data from when the plane took off from the airport and reached the Pentagon just before impact or passed the Pentagon.

Yes the conclusion is the plane crashed if data just stopped, but the flight data places the plane in the wrong place and it missed the 5 light poles.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so then even that theory is out then.
If the data had no errors, then that means that there can't be any missing data.
So that means the flight could not have continued after the moment the data stopped.
You'd said it's impossible that the data was manipulated. It can't have been corrupted by a crash later and extra data could not have just vanished.

So the only conclusion that you can possibly reach using your own assertions is that the plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Otherwise you have to conclude that the data is in error or it was edited, which also is incompatible with the conspiracy.

You've painted yourself into a pretty silly corner here.

Missing data is only the last two seconds. We have over 1 hour and 30 minutes of data from when the plane took off from the airport and reached the Pentagon just before impact or passed the Pentagon.

And after?
Where's the data from the flight away from the Pentagon?
It can't be edited out.
It can't be corrupted or missing cause you just said that the data has no errors or missing parts. Nor does the NTSB mention anything about any such data being missing or even existing. If such data existed, the NTSB would have seen some evidence for it and mentioned it, cause apparently they're not in on the conspiracy.

So if the data can't have been edited or have magically vanished at just the right time, what else could it be?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes the conclusion is the plane crashed if data just stopped, but the flight data places the plane in the wrong place and it missed the 5 light poles.

Lol so it crashed at some point in those 2 seconds then?
Where did it end up and where's the evidence for a second plane crash in Dc on 9/11?
If the gap is less that 2 seconds that puts it very near the Pentagon if not right in it...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And after?
Where's the data from the flight away from the Pentagon?
It can't be edited out.
It can't be corrupted or missing cause you just said that the data has no errors or missing parts. Nor does the NTSB mention anything about any such data being missing or even existing. If such data existed, the NTSB would have seen some evidence for it and mentioned it, cause apparently they're not in on the conspiracy.

So if the data can't have been edited or have magically vanished at just the right time, what else could it be?

Why would it be an error if you believe a plane crashed? Skeptics say on that forum once the plane impacted the Pentagon, the data did not have enough time to record, two seconds it got corrupted? I don't diagree with that explantation.

Well i don't know i going to continue reading the thread to see if anyone contacted NSTB for why the last seconds are missing?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol so it crashed at some point in those 2 seconds then?
Where did it end up and where's the evidence for a second plane crash in Dc on 9/11?
If the gap is less that 2 seconds that puts it very near the Pentagon if not right in it...

The discrepancy is the altitude Flight 77 was about 180 feet in the air near the highway, 2 seconds out from crashing, then the data stopped. At that altitude the plane was going over the Pentagon. I not pilot i don't know if you can't get the plane to come down to 20 feet or 30 feet in two seconds?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would it be an error if you believe a plane crashed?

Because I accept reality and believe the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

If we are to believe your version, either the plane flew off after buzzing the Pentagon, flew for a long time then crashed for no reason, then by sheer luck and coincidence and against all possibility the crash perfectly erased all the data between its crash and when it flew over the Pentagon, and left no evidence for this and left the rest of the data perfectly intact and with no signs of error or corruption.

Or

The plane crashed in those two seconds only somehow not at the Pentagon and also that no one noticed a second plane crash in Dc on 9/11.

Both of these options are impossible and silly, but that's what the conspiracy theorist must conclude according to you.

Where do you think flight 77 crashed and when?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because I accept reality and believe the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

If we are to believe your version, either the plane flew off after buzzing the Pentagon, flew for a long time then crashed for no reason, then by sheer luck and coincidence and against all possibility the crash perfectly erased all the data between its crash and when it flew over the Pentagon, and left no evidence for this and left the rest of the data perfectly intact and with no signs of error or corruption.

Or

The plane crashed in those two seconds only somehow not at the Pentagon and also that no one noticed a second plane crash in Dc on 9/11.

Both of these options are impossible and silly, but that's what the conspiracy theorist must conclude according to you.

You can't think like that you have to prove the Flight 77 data is inaccurate. As the government claims this flight Data recorder was found in the wreckage of the Pentagon. You can't pick and choose the data points you like and don't like. Clearly, the FDR is showing a plane on approach to the Pentagon NE of where should be to take down 5 light poles. You have to tell me why this FDR data is inaccurate with verifiable sources that we check off.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can't think like that you have to prove the Flight 77 data is inaccurate. As the government claims this flight Data recorder was found in the wreckage of the Pentagon. You can't pick and choose the data points you like and don't like.

So then flight 77 did crash at the Pentagon...?

If not, where did it crash and when?

If it's away from the pentagon, where's the data from after the plane flew over it?
The only one picking and choosing reality here is you...

King Mob

Hey so what happened to the idea that flight 77 went missing for 40 odd minutes so it could be replaced.

Do you still claim this even though the flight recorder shows otherwise?

TheChizler

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why was the plane 180 feet in the air 2 seconds before impact?

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.

King Mob

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.

There's that pesky basic math ruining the conspiracy theory's fun again...

TheChizler

King Mob wrote: »

There's that pesky basic math ruining the conspiracy theory's fun again...

It's almost as if the theory hasn't been thought through fully...

Cheerful Spring

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.

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.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Hey so what happened to the idea that flight 77 went missing for 40 odd minutes so it could be replaced.

Do you still claim this even though the flight recorder shows otherwise?

In real time the plane went missing for 42 minutes. The Flight data recorder is evidence released 6 years later after 9/11 that reconstructed the plane flight path.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

In real time the plane went missing for 42 minutes. The Flight data recorder is evidence released 6 years later after 9/11 that reconstructed the plane flight path.

So where does the flight recorder data indicate the plane was being replaced like your previous claim?
Do you now accept that the flight was the same one that left the airport?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So where does the flight recorder data indicate the plane was being replaced like your previous claim?
Do you now accept that the flight was the same one that left the airport?

Well obviously a Flight recorder is not going to show another plane, in the area? Flight 77 data recorder is just evidence the plane didn't strike the Pentagon near the light poles.

Yes of course i accept this is a plane that flew out of the airport, if the FDR is accurate.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well obviously a Flight recorder is not going to show another plane, in the area? Flight 77 data recorder is just evidence the plane didn't strike the Pentagon near the light poles.

Yes of course i accept this is a plane that flew out of the airport, if the FDR is accurate.

Ok, so you were lying earlier when you claimed that plane might have been replaced in those 42 minutes.
And we now know that the plane was near the pentagon when the crash occured.

So where do you think the plane went after the pentagon?
Where's the Flight data for it continuing on after it flew over the pentagon and why did it stop suddenly there?

And hang on, what's this "IF" ****?
Are you now insinuating that the FDR might not be accurate now you've painted yourself into a corner?

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.

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

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so you were lying earlier when you claimed that plane might have been replaced in those 42 minutes.
And we now know that the plane was near the pentagon when the crash occured.

So where do you think the plane went after the pentagon?
Where's the Flight data for it continuing on after it flew over the pentagon and why did it stop suddenly there?

How am i lying a flight recorder is not going to show us if another plane, a missile, or bomb caused the damage at the Pentagon?

Yes, the plane was near the Pentagon, but even if I agreed with you it crashed there, the FDR places the plane NE of the Navy Annex. To knock down 5 light poles the plane has to be SW of the Navy Annex. You figure that out for me then we can talk!

The C hole damage doesn't even make sense. If landing gear came through this hole. Why isn't this device shown outside the hole? This is the hole just after the crash.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How am i lying a flight recorder is not going to show us if another plane, a missile, or bomb caused the damage at the Pentagon?

Because previously you were claiming that the plane was replaced.
Now, the corner you've painted yourself into does not allow for that.

Now again,
Where is the flight data of the plane flying away from the Pentagon?
Why does it stop right at the Pentagon?
Where did the plane go?

If you don't know, please just admit that.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because previously you were claiming that the plane was replaced.
Now, the corner you've painted yourself into does not allow for that.

Now again,
Where is the flight data of the plane flying away from the Pentagon?
Why does it stop right at the Pentagon?
Where did the plane go?

If you don't know, please just admit that.

You're creating this in your head. I said another plane could hit the Pentagon. Could be missile or bomb could have gone off in the building. Of course, you ignored this thinking of mine. You preferred to think you caught me out in your own head.

FDR data stopped two seconds before the crash, i have said this numerous times.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FDR data stopped two seconds before the crash, i have said this numerous times.

Ok.
Why does it stop?
Coincidence?
Magic?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
Why does it stop?
Coincidence?
Magic?

Why don't you tell me why the C hole looks like a hollow blast charge? Why is the landing gear damage not shown outside the C hole? This entire thread you refused to answer a single question. Can you answer these two questions now?

Contact the NTSB if you want the answer, question answered.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why don't you tell me why the C hole looks like a hollow blast charge? Why is the landing gear damage not shown outside the C hole? Just like this entire thread you refuse to answer a single question, i bet.

Because, like every time you've tried to change the topic, it's a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact your conspiracy theory is silly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Contact the NTSB if you want the answer, question answered.

They will tell me that the plane crashed into the pentagon.

Why do you think it stopped?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because, like every time you've tried to change the topic, it's a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact your conspiracy theory is silly.


They will tell me that the plane crashed into the pentagon.

Why do you think it stopped?

I going to ignore you because you don't want to debate the evidence at all. If you're so confident in your belief you should be able to answer me.

It not a deflection because the C hole is exit point for the wreckage of the plane. If landing gear from Flight 77 made this hole. What happened where is the wreckage outside the hole? Where did it go?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I going to ignore you because you don't want to debate the evidence at all. If you're so confident in your belief you should be able to answer me.

Why would I answer you when if I took time to actually dig into it you'll ignore all my points and questions and try to run away to the next point when it's becoming clear the conspiracy theory is stupid. Like you are doing now. Like you've done with every single point?

If you'd like, I can address and tackle the hole you are pointing to.

But first you're going to have to show that you're not going to resort to the same tactics you've been using this whole thread.

It's pretty clear to everyone reading and yourself that you have no answer as to why the FDR stopped.
You know, except the one...

TheChizler

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.

What's the source of these numbers? This is different data to what you've posted in the screenshots. Are they real altitude (calculated after) or raw altimeter values? If they're FDR altimeter data has it been calibrated for that location? Do you know the typical accuracy for that altimeter?

banie01

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: »

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 the 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.

Flight 77 animation has the plane 180 feet above sea level but it doesn't match with the barometric pressure altitude shown in the data. In the data it says 29inhg. The barometer pressure was actually 30inhg on 9/11 in Washington. This would put the plane over 400 feet in the air and about six or seven seconds behind in time to have hit the Pentagon at the time stated in the data.

Just say what I wrote above is wrong using your calculation the Pentagon is 20ft above sea level the plane still 160 feet too high to strike light poles. The angle would be a big problem it should be at 80 feet or less at 9.45am

At 9.44 plane at 160 feet.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why would I answer you when if I took time to actually dig into it you'll ignore all my points and questions and try to run away to the next point when it's becoming clear the conspiracy theory is stupid. Like you are doing now. Like you've done with every single point?

If you'd like, I can address and tackle the hole you are pointing to.

But first you're going to have to show that you're not going to resort to the same tactics you've been using this whole thread.

It's pretty clear to everyone reading and yourself that you have no answer as to why the FDR stopped.
You know, except the one...

Go ahead explain the C hole.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Go ahead explain the C hole.

Flight 77

mickdw

So my initial theory was that:

A missile hit the Pentagon. .... reason for no footage being released.


Plane was sent in to do a close flyby.... Flight data accurate. Light poles staged. Lloyd English was on the bridge and on line of downed poles. He later claimed he was further along under actual flight path.

Are there any reports of plane seen flying away from pentagon?
What happened the flight if it didn't hit the Pentagon?
2 huge questions that need to be answered before my theory holds water but there are certainly aspects that don't hold up.

In terms of flight data as released, it's a hell of a lot easier for a government to simply not release a portion of data than falsify an entire flight data recorder log so even if the plane did fly on, I don't think it was impossible to make the info past the Pentagon disappear.
I don't buy the highly technical info as linked to to try to explain away errors in data. The flight data recorders are consistently accurate. Think of any reconstructed crash. The data when modelled never shows a plane landing in the terminal building if it was clearly seen to crash on the runway.... I don't believe for one second that errors in data are responsible for plane appearing to be in the wrong place versus the downed light poles.

King Mob

OK, but I'm going to lay out some ground rules.
You assert anything as truth, you're going to have to back it up, or I'll dismiss it as bull****.
You ignore any points or questions, I will take them as conceded or you are unable to answer them.
You post an hour long YouTube video or another poorly formatted picture, they will not be counted as a reply. You have to type out your points yourself.
You try to bring up another topic or point that is not directly and specificly connected to this one, this is you giving up.

So first we'll set aside the fact that all evidence, including the FDR you hold up as infallible all point to flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. We'll also set aside the fact that in all of these pages we've not see a single sensible explanation for why they would not just fly a 757 into the building.

First and foremost, there is no reason to doubt the hole was caused by the landing gear.
The front landing gear of planes are strong and dense compared to the rest of the plane, so if it was barrelling through the building, it's entirely possible for it to break through a brick wall while the larger, less sold parts of the plane break up.

Secondly, I'll just cut to the chase and assume that you are not going to furnish an alternative theory.
There is no viable alternative explanation. It could only be the landing gear as there is no evidence supporting anything other idea. Furthermore, we again have the conspiracy theory making zero sense. There's no reason why they would blow a suspicious looking hole on the Pentagon. There is no reason they'd take a picture of it, then release it.

So my questions are this:
1. why, beyond an argument from ignorance do you doubt the real explanation? Why couldn't the hole be caused by the landing gear?

2. Pretend the damage was cause by the landing gear, what do you expect the pictures to look like, and why beyond an argument from ignorance would you expect them to look like that?

Honestly, I'm betting you won't get 3 posts deep without trying to squirm away or starting to ignore questions.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

So my initial theory was that:

A missile hit the Pentagon. .... reason for no footage being released.
.

Again why would they not just fly a plane into the building?
Why leave all these clues?

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

So my initial theory was that:

reason for no footage being released.

Some footage has been released. It's meh, CCTV quality (not like the multiple TV cameras that caught e.g. the second hit in the towers). Anyway, that aside..

Let's start with the missile hitting the Pentagon theory:

1. How many witnesses reported that a missile hit?
(1a. How many witnesses report that an aircraft swerved away from the Pentagon?)
2. Where was the missile fired from?
3. What was it's path?
4. What type of missile was it?
5. What missile parts were identified?

i.e. do you have any substantiated, credible evidence that a missile struck the Pentagon