I apologize if this is already well known, but I stumbled on this site while searching for a link to backup one of my other posts:

(Link to 911-Strike.com)

It is a bit long but contains a number of interviews and a nice balance of over-flight and impact evidence I have not seen discussed here.

One thing really jumped out at me:

Has anyone done a FOI request for photos or an inventory of these parts?

Not that I know of but you are right, someone should. I don't believe they have any of that.

I'd posted this in a thread that was moved and thought it might be better here.

If proximity to the Pentagon determines how valuable a witness is, I'd think Frank Probst's testimony would be important. Everything quoted below is from 911-strike.com which also provides supporting links:

(bolding above mine)

So here you have a man standing in front of the Pentagon who sees the plane on a flight path similar (identical?) to the Citgo witness and coming right at him. In fact, he has to dive out of the way while it crashes into the wall.

If you put the Citgo witness on the stand to prove a flyover I think the defense would call Frank Probst as a viable counter-witness.

Note: I'm still on the fence between an impact and a flyover. I present this not as an attack on the flyover theory or to lessen the importance of the Citgo witness but just to make those working on proving up that theory aware of this possible counter-argument.

AA77 was over the Annex 3 seconds prior to impact. Its about a half a mile away.

If this guy dove out of the way. .he had 3 seconds to do it How far was he able to "dive"? How much did he get to see in those last 3 seconds? Would he be watching the airplane the entire 3 seconds? If the airplane dropped something (such as a GBU) and then flew over.. he wouldnt know the difference.. He would think the airplane hit. I also doent see anyone walking towards the north end in the DoD parking gate cam video.

The Citgo witness had a much better vantage point.

Somebody should follow this up in an FOIA for sure. Here are some ideas and the contact information.

____________________________________________________________________

Here are the contradictions from the NTSB information.

1) The Flight 77 animation is on a flight path that would make it impossible to cause the damage to the Pentagon.
2) The NTSB Flight Path Study contradicts the flight path of the animation.
3) The last recorded altitude corrected for barometric pressure puts the aircraft approximately 450 feet above the light poles in a position to have not created the damage to the Pentagon.
5) They did not release the radio altimeter data (which could be more accurate than the pressure altitude) as part of the DFDR files to confirm the altitude.

The NTSB refuses to publicly address any of these anomalies as does the FBI. I have personally tried and was refused.

ALL private companies who do DFDR analysis refuse to analyze the data for us even if we pay the normal fees. The comments from them are always similar to this email:

"We took a look at the data. Although we have a LFL file, it doesn’t seem correct, we would have then to check each one of the parameters and validate them, basically creating a new one data frame description file. This (the same work when an airline purchases our system – so financially not viable for smaller projects due to the time required to create a new configuration), and the fact that NTSB and American Airlines are our customers, we decided it is not of our best interest to move forward on with this project. I hope you understand, currently our engineers have a lot of work to do on configurations for our customers. Looking at data from an accident is something that should be reserved and validated for the accident investigation authority only.www.flightscape.com "

By relentlessly pursuing this information through the NTSB and the FBI we may get more information or make it public knowledge that they refuse to produce it. It is my assumption from the attempts to acquire it through the private companies we have been shut out there too. It really is the very best path to action we have besides the FOIA attempts to get video released. It is contradictory and officially released government data that conflicts with the official story.

If you want to do something concrete and specific in regards to the Pentagon - here is your chance. Calls, emails and letters along with FOIA requests are the answer. If you have media contacts then spread this as far and as wide as you can. Do it!

NTSB FOIA SUGGESTIONS:

1) Any and all photos or video of any wreckage associated with the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.
2) The physical location of where the wreckage is stored.
3) The radio altimeter data from the DFDR of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.
4) An inertial damage report from the DFDR of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.
5) The Cockpit voice recorder information from the aircraft that hit the Pentagon and/or a report of its condition.
6) Any and all supplemental internal reports regarding the NTSB work done on the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.

NTSB CONTACTS:

Here is a link to the NTSB released data: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Here is a link to their FOIA request: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia.htm

NTSB Media Contact: Ted Lopatkiewicz (202) 314-6100

NTSB main contact page: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/sources.htm

The NTSB Flight Path Study is a sketch. It stops at the Navy Annex. It is not good for anything except to see the airplane came in from the west and did a 330 degree maneuver. Therefore it doesnt not confim or disagree with the animation.

How far under the canopy was the Citgo witness?

How close to the building?

How near to the store door?

Is there a diagram of where he first actually made visual contact with the aircraft? As opposed to where he thought it came from after he saw it.

What is his audio testimony?

Has a flight path graphic from this testimony been created for analyzing?

If we are going to use the animation for support of this testimony did he report the aircraft at 450-480 feet above MSL above the area? If so, how did the impact disappear behind the mound?

"Did you see the plane hit the building?" - "No the bridge/mound was in the way" (bridge continuation raise) "It happened so fast, I see the plane, then fire and smoke".

From under the canopy how low would an aircraft have to be to make visual contact with it?

Did he see the plane fly over the building from that great vantage point?

These are honest and fair questions for any eyewitness account - especially one that is being used to controvert many other eyewitnesses.

The flight path graphic stops where the animation would if they were both on the same heading. They were not on the same heading.

So are we taking the animation now over the .csv?

If so, what are the things we will keep from the FDR and the things we will disregard?

Probst says: "He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away."

help me out (anyone), wouldnt that put the wing directly over his head? how far from the engine to the wingtip on a (alleged) 757? he is described as tall, wouldnt the plane have ripped his head off?

and how far can an average person dive? far away enough to avoid being hit by a plane, while actually being close enough to have it passed directly over him?

which engine did he jump out of the way of? the right? didnt that side of the plane (supposedly) crash into the generator? where could probst be standing to describe what he claims? if the right wing dipped low, wouldnt it have clipped him?

looking at this pic (from pentagonresearch.com):



where is the sidewalk Probst claims to have been walking along? Is it in front of or behind the fenced in area?


i think he saw something coming at him from the Citgo direction, but it could NOT have been a plane, especially one as imposing and large as a 757, cuz i dont think he could get out of its way. But im not sure i understand exactly what Probst is describing.

am i misunderstanding probst's contentions?

The flight path sketch stops before even crossing Columbia Pike. Look closer Russ.


As for the csv file and flight path... the only way to know if the csv file matchs or contradicts the animation is to plot the entire flight out of dulles based on True Course/speed and time.

The only reason my current flight path based on the csv file contradicts with the animation is because i worked backwards from the impact hole using true course from the csv file. The proper and accurate way to do it is working from Dulles as the starting point.. not the impact hole.

Therefore, the csv file, and flight path study is not in conflict or agreement with the animation till we plot the whole course from Dulles. The NTSB sketch we will never know because it is a sketch and stops before crossing Columbia pike.

Are we clear? Let me know if i need to make it easier to understand.

A Rolls engine at full power flying 6 feet away from him would have sucked him in.

Im not a ramper and dont know the exact dimensions of the top of my head (we were taught proper distance.. but dont remember right now).. but we have "clear areas" painted on the ground at the gate in front of the engines. They are about 6 feet in radius to stay clear from an idle engine. At full power.. a Rolls would probably suck in anyone from about 30 feet away.

which brings me to my other point...

A good portion of that chain link fence should have also been sucked in... not just a perfect round semi-circle as you see.

Try an experiment yourself.. get a long string of paper towels or toilet paper... tape some straws to it (probably a better bond in terms of scale).. .stand it upright taping it to the surface (like the fence) and pass the open end of a vacuum cleaner nozzle through. I bet the vacuum sucks in quite a bit and wont make a perfect hole.

How come birds within 6 feet of the engines don't always get sucked in? Is 718 feet per second to fast to suck everything in around it? Including a grown man of perhaps 200 pounds?

How do you know a bird did or did not get sucked in?

I have seen planes suck in birds (well. the aftermath.. never had one myself.. yet... did have a bird strike though). I have seen a plane suck in a human and shoot red spray out the back. There is a video of this one on the web.. i think over at ogrish. Continental mechanic got too close (IIRC). Didnt know what hit him.

Jets actually produce most of their forward motion through suction. Doesnt matter the speed. They are still sucking air in while moving the plane forward. If anything or anyone is in that air.. they get sucked in too..

Thrust - http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thrust1.html

Propulsion - http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bgp.html

Newtons 3rd Law - http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton3.html


"The engine produces hot exhaust gases which flow out the back of the engine. In reaction, a thrusting force is produced in the opposite direction.

Here is a bird strike right on an intake cowling.
http://www.vs41.navy.mil/photos/keywest_02/bird_strike_2.JPG

Google images "bird strike".

Thrust is generated by any engine to move it forward. A propeller produces thrust.

I dont expect you to understand that a jet engine produces most of its thrust at the intake. It does produce thrust out the exhaust as well. That is one of the things that make a jet engine so much more efficient than a normally aspirated piston engine.

It sucks in the air.. the airplane moves forward. Newtons 3rd law.

Inlet performance - http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/inleth.html

These are MUST reads to fully understand the above statements.

When an aircraft is taxiing - is it "sucking" itself forward?

Yes...

Do you think it has an engine connected to the wheels? Like a car?

Let me clarify the above statement before it gets twisted and spun up...

A jet produces thrust via the intake AND exhaust. Im not a jet engine designer... but it is well known by pilots that most thrust is produced by the intake. Depending on the engine. .that could be 51%/49%... or higher.

I know Turbofans produce ALOT of thrust at the intake.. its essentially a turbo-prop. Same principle.

Air Intake (Inlet)
The standard reference frame for a jet engine is the aircraft itself. For subsonic aircraft, the air intake to a jet engine presents no special difficulties, and consists essentially of an opening which is designed to minimise drag, as with any other aircraft component. However, the air reaching the compressor of a normal jet engine must be travelling below the speed of sound, even for supersonic aircraft, to sustain the flow mechanics of the compressor and turbine blades. At supersonic flight speeds, shockwaves form in the intake system and reduce the recovered pressure at inlet to the compressor. So some supersonic intakes use devices, such as a cone or ramp, to increase pressure recovery, by making more efficient use of the shock wave system.

There is a good article on jet engines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

I hope you guys arent going to spend a week on this... Engines on a plane does pretty much the same job at moving a plane as your arms and legs makes you swim.... [yawn]

(if this is about the flight 77 sucking in stuff from the pentagon scene into its engines, I think at the speed it it was reportedly going, you would be physically hit before being sucked in its engines...)

All jet engines, which are also called gas turbines, work on the same principle. The engine sucks air in at the front with a fan. A compressor raises the pressure of the air. The compressor is made up of fans with many blades and attached to a shaft. The blades compress the air. The compressed air is then sprayed with fuel and an electric spark lights the mixture. The burning gases expand and blast out through the nozzle, at the back of the engine. As the jets of gas shoot backward, the engine and the aircraft are thrust forward.

http://inventors.about.com/library/invento...engineworks.htm

I am searching for "intake thrust", "inlet thrust" and "negative thrust" and finding some interesting things. But not an explanation.

This guy lived...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=66...et+engine&hl=en

im looking for the one with the Continental Mechanic.. its messy though. .so be warned.

Russ.. do you think a jet engine doesnt suck? What are you trying to prove? lol

I am looking for confirmations to these ideas. You always tell me to learn more. One thing, I was a a C-130 Airlift Bombardment Aircraft Maintenance for about 5 1/2 years on the flight line. I learned a little about engines although not so much about altitude.

The thrust of a fluid, especially as distinguished from the thrust of a propeller.

This one is just from NASA: http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/j.html

Ive seen a video of someone being sucked in a jet engine, he was like 4-6 feet from the intake while the plane was was idling.... not sure of what exactly was that plane but it looked like it happened on a carrier..

If that plane was not just standing there, but going 530moh, I dunno if I woulve said he was sucked in... or hit by that plane..

It didnt look to be a pleasant experience though, thats for sure...

first the "sucked in" possibility (found these pics while image searching "bird strike"):

from http://mtsu32.mtsu.edu:11313/pictures1.htm








but my point is more along these lines:


for the wing to cut into the fence (with the corner section still standing), then the angle of approach would have to be along the same lines as the above. No the above is not to scale by any means, but that is irrelevant. The standing section of fence in the corner dictates a very specific confined path, one that does not match the supposed plane impact angle, regardless of scale.




























and my personal favorite (note how the wing has begun to detach from the body):


The above are all examples of what happens to planes when they impact a single bird. What do you think 5 poles would do to an airplane's wing? or engine? so how can you contend that the plane managed to maintain its structural integrity (as in the wings didnt rip off) after impacting the poles?

EVen if the "momentum" carried this plane to the wall, wouldnt pieces if not entire sections of plane have ripped away upon any impact with any light poles?

The intake still sucks in the air no matter the speed. It will suck in anything in its way. Just google "sucked into jet engine" and you will come up with many hits.. including a flock of birds thatr brought down an airliner...

Something like a ramjet doesnt suck.. no moving parts.


(i cant believe im arguing this..lol)

if the guy was 6 feet away with the airplane coming at him.. i would think he would have been sucked in. Along with anything else that wasnt firmly bolted down and/or extremely heavy (such as the generator).

Yes, but they would carry the same momentum as it happened so close to the 'final' impact...

just blink your eyes... thats the difference in time between pole impact and pentagon impact.

thank you.. i was looking for those too...

maybe so JDX... but at hat speed it would be impossible to tell the difference... at 530moh, if its 6 feet off the engines path, theres no time to suck it in..

Part of flight line safety is VERY much based on intake hazards. I was there. I have seen what gets sucked into engines on my FOD walks.

But the intake does NOT produce thrust let alone most of it. Period.

Find me the science of it.

Then find what happens to the "sucking" when the aircraft is being propelled from exhaust THRUST.

This is time to just say it was a misstatement and move on.

paranoia,

Look at some of those and see how close the bird was to the intake and not sucked in.

Russell

haha... there you go... thats the best way to illustrate it!

so what if they werent suct in? i never said they would be. My point has been all along that whatever path was actually taken, it could NOT and would NOT make contact with ANY poles. Why? Because it would destroy the plane.

lol.. Russ.. what do you think happens on a propeller?

Its the SAME THING on a Turbofan.

The intake produces thrust. You are getting confused because you think thrust has to be produced by exhaust only. You are wrong.


Ask any pilots with experience and they will tell you its well known that a jet engine produces more thrust at its intake than exhaust.

Thrust is what happens when the airplane moves forward.

But hey.. dont think that sucking in air.. produces thrust...lol

Im not sure of that paranoia,, but even if the poles sliced the plane perfectly, they would not alter its course much!

were talking about a roughly 300 pounds object (the top of it, lever effect..) against something going extremely fast and weighting several tons.

all of this would have happened so fast, even if you split the plane into x number of parts... all the mass is going to impact the building... no lightpole is going to change that..

http://home.earthlink.net/~x-plane/FAQ-The...Jets-Props.html

Jets versus Props.

"At standstill, this comes in part from just running the air through the compressor and turbine. However, most of the jet's thrust comes from heating the air. The air entering the engine is at atmospheric pressure; the air pressure leaving is only slightly higher, so by the old gas equation PV = NRT the air must be leaving at a velocity that's faster roughly in proportion to the amount by which it's been heated (in absolute degrees)."

Read the whole article.

Then have another pilot explain that MOST of thrust is at the intake!

thats confusing.. [dunno]

if you could fart the air your sucking in realtime, like a jet engine, you would produce some thrust...

The fact is, the main goal of sucking in air is to bring more oxigen in the engine so it can creates a bigger 'bang'...

the more you suck air (oxygen) the more powerfull the thrust..