Title: Pentagon Researchers, Good Website
Description: physical damage doesnt line up w/757
THE DECIDER - October 5, 2006 01:44 PM (GMT)
i just found a research site on the "internets".....
what do yall think about this site?
| QUOTE |
A good starting point for examining the approach angle of the aircraft is looking at the Report's figure to the right. It shows an approaching Boeing 757superimposed on a satellite picture. This author has added the trajectories of the aircraft's fuselage, engines and the wingtips as well as the scale. The aircraft is approaching the Pentagon approximately at the 42º angle (with the normal of the facade) maintained by the Report with a speed of 780 ft/s (856 km/h). The timing of the picture is ca. 0.42 seconds before impact.
Additionally, arrows showing the corner of the fence bordering the area reserved for the trailers and other equipment of the Pentagon renovation contractors has been added to the figure. The aircraft made a hole in this 6-7 ft high fencethat was situated some 100 ft from the building. The inset suggests that if the approach angle and the impact point stated in the Report are correct, the fuselage and the right engine of the aircraft should both have hit the fence (this can be seen clearly from the next picture). |
| QUOTE |
This picture shows the moment of impact as reconstructed from the data provided by the Report: a B-757 is hitting column line 14 (circled numbers) at the angle of 42º. The figure shows that both the fuselage and the right engine should have penetrated the fence. Yet there is only one hole in it, which makes it obvious that either the angle or the point of impact is markedly incorrect.
Of course, the Report's assertion that the angle was 42º should not be dismissed lightly, for it seems to have a sound basis: "The direction of column distortion consistently formed an angle of approximately 42 degrees with the normal to the west exterior wall of the Pentagon." (p. 34) And there is indeed a third possible explanation: both the angle and the impact point may be correct if the building was hit by an object that made only one hole in the fence.
The hole created in the facade extended column line 9 to 18 according to the Report, from 9 to 17 in actuality. Additionally, clear facade damage apart from broken windows was visible only at column lines 19 to 20, and the facade of the 1st floor had lost its limestone panels from line 3 to line 8. - "Hole" must be understood here in a broad sense, for the outermost columns of lines 15 to 17 are still visible in photographs with their upper ends still attached to the second floor slab (Sources: column damage figure and the facade damage: ASCE p. 53; the aircraft: Boeing; satellite image (on 7 Sept. 01): Space Imaging.) |
| QUOTE |
| With the speed stated in the Report (780 ft/s, i.e. 856 km/h) the engine hit the generator ca. 0.08 seconds before the nose and ca. 0.16 seconds before the tip of the wing (should have) hit the building. As it will be shown below, of the ca. 37-foot long part of the wing lying outside the engine only a disconnected part can have hit the building; the damage is restricted between column lines 18 and 21 and spans an area some 21 to 26 ft wide. The wing had to be totally disconnected from the fuselage and lose at least ca. 8 ft of its length (13 ft, if the Report's 42º approach angle were accepted) in 0.16 seconds. The figure on the right is from the Report; the dimensions of the B-757 are not quite the real ones. Note the marking of the outermost column of line 18 with blue color here as in the diagrams above; this issue will be returned to below. |
| QUOTE |
With the real approach angle (31º) the trajectory of the fuselage of the aircraft goes over three of the spools. Would the aircraft have inevitably hit one or more of the spools?
To answer the question, the vertical position and tilt of the aircraft as well as the shape of its underside need to be taken into account. The answer proves to be affirmative. |
| QUOTE |
| "With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story: The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first-floor slab on grade and the second floor." |
| QUOTE |
| "The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade." |
George Hayduke - October 5, 2006 02:38 PM (GMT)
Looks like yet another site furthering NPT. I can dig it.
THE DECIDER - October 5, 2006 02:52 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Oct 5 2006, 10:38 AM) |
| Looks like yet another site furthering NPT. I can dig it. |
more like no flight 77 at the pentagon.
George Hayduke - October 5, 2006 02:55 PM (GMT)
Right, no jumbo jet at the Pentagon. That's what I meant to say.
behind - October 5, 2006 03:26 PM (GMT)
This is Sami Yli-Karjanmaa from Finland. He has wrote much about 9/11.
Lyte Trip - October 5, 2006 04:46 PM (GMT)
Good stuff.
With the alleged tilt of the craft the left engine would have dug into the ground but there is no evidence that this happened.
Plus after the right engine hit the trailer...either the wing and engine would have broken off or else the trajectory of the craft would have changed.
But we see no wing pieces or engine and the hole still "lines up perfectly" as Russell likes to put it.
Well it SHOULDN'T line up perfectly if it hit the trailer.
johndoeX - October 5, 2006 07:04 PM (GMT)
Thats how its done...
good job to whoever did this analysis.
johndoeX - October 5, 2006 07:16 PM (GMT)
I'll just post their conclusions. If anyone finds these interesting, please visit the site for full analysis...
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 1: The angle of approach, 42º, proposed by the Report, is impossible for a Boeing 757 because of the locations of the single hole in the fence and the intact overhead signs and lampposts on the motorway. The only possible trajectory is difficult to reconcile with the Report's information on the tilt of the aircraft at the moment of impact. |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 2: The Report is able to present no rational support for its claim that the right engine's hitting a generator might explain why the outermost part of the right wing never hit the wall of the Pentagon |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 3: The cable spools show that the builing could not have been hit by an aircraft with dimensions similar to those of a Boeing 757 at a vertical position indicated by the Report. |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 4: No support is forthcoming for the claim in the Report that the left engine hit something prior to making contact with the facade. Also no justification is given in the Report for the allegation that such a hit could even in principle explain why the outermost part of the left wing never hit the building. |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 5: The Report's description of the interaction of the aircraft with the second-floor slab has no physical credibility. |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 6: The impact damage to the facade on the right side of the entry point of the fuselage does not correspond to the size, shape and position of the alleged Boeing 757 presented in the Report. |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 7: The facade damage to the left of the entry point of the fuselage is not suggestive of an impact by a B-757. |
| QUOTE |
Conclusion 8: The absence of any kind of damage by the aircraft's tail excludes the possibility of a hit by a B-757. |
| QUOTE |
| Conclusion 9: The Report is not able to explain the hole in the inner wall of Ring C with the story of a crash of a Boeing 757 |
| QUOTE |
Final Conclusion
The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. More generally, no proof of the return of Flight 77 to the Washington area has been presented. On the contrary, e.g. any security camera recordings that would really show what hit the Pentagon have not been made public. (In May 2006, two series of still photos from security cameras were released, but they contain no evidence of a Boeing 757. See www.flight77.info and www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.)
The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities. |
This last conclusion makes ALOT of sense. "Disinformation campaigns containing numerous errors."
This site does it the right way. They took a govt report and went from there.
THE DECIDER - October 5, 2006 07:53 PM (GMT)
yes, seems like a very good site.......still being maintained and everything.
Lyte Trip - October 5, 2006 10:05 PM (GMT)
Russell should be responsible for a complete debunk of this information.
THE DECIDER - October 6, 2006 05:06 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 5 2006, 06:05 PM) |
| Russell should be responsible for a complete debunk of this information. |
i was just wondering what the feelings would be as to weather or not that was a good research site..
looks good to me.
Lyte Trip - October 6, 2006 05:59 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (THE DECIDER @ Oct 6 2006, 05:06 PM) |
| QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 5 2006, 06:05 PM) | | Russell should be responsible for a complete debunk of this information. |
i was just wondering what the feelings would be as to weather or not that was a good research site..
looks good to me.
|
Yeah.
But he is notably absent from this thread.
Imagine that.
behind - October 6, 2006 06:19 PM (GMT)
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa has also wrote about WTC and NIST etc
911review.com/coverup/nist.htmlBut... this is off topic but it have always looked interesting to me, what Ed Plaugher said at a news briefing Sept. 12, 2001.
DoD News Briefing - Victoria Clarke, ASD PA
(Also participating are David Chu, under secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Meg Falk, director of the Office of Family Policy; Maj. Gen. Jim Jackson, commander of the Military District of Washington; and
Ed Plaugher, fire chief of Arlington County.)
...
Q: Can you give us any sense of the area that was destroyed, how wide it is? How many feet? And did it break through to all five rings of the Pentagon?
Plaugher: It did not break through to all five rings, and I do not know the measurements.
Q: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?
Plaugher: First all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.
The other question?
...
Q: Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel or --
Plaugher: You know, I'd rather not comment on that.
We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know.
...
Q: Where is the jet fuel? Just --
Plaugher:We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So --
...
www.yale.edu Lyte Trip - October 6, 2006 06:58 PM (GMT)
Wow!
Sounds like he was about ready to pee his pants!
Russell Pickering - October 6, 2006 07:05 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 5 2006, 04:46 PM) |
Good stuff.
With the alleged tilt of the craft the left engine would have dug into the ground but there is no evidence that this happened.
Plus after the right engine hit the trailer...either the wing and engine would have broken off or else the trajectory of the craft would have changed.
But we see no wing pieces or engine and the hole still "lines up perfectly" as Russell likes to put it.
Well it SHOULDN'T line up perfectly if it hit the trailer. |
Divide 155 feet by 780 fps. Is there time for this change - .19 of a second? Momentum? Mass and all those things?
Russell Pickering - October 6, 2006 07:11 PM (GMT)
Sami is a very good researcher.
Lyte Trip - October 6, 2006 09:18 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 6 2006, 07:11 PM) |
| Sami is a very good researcher. |
So then what about his analysis do you find incorrect?
Russell Pickering - October 6, 2006 10:04 PM (GMT)
I will have to look at it in detail. I am still trying to get a fair shadow analysis up and a flight path for critical review. I've had a couple of jobs come in and am pretty busy.
Remind me.
johndoeX - October 11, 2006 01:19 AM (GMT)
Shameless bump for good research...
THE DECIDER - October 12, 2006 06:12 PM (GMT)
i was hoping russ sorta compare notes with that site [whistle]
Russell Pickering - October 12, 2006 06:34 PM (GMT)
I have a second email in to Sami. I respect him and his research.
Here is his position on the research from his site, "First, however,
I want to emphasize that the main point of my analysis is to refute the ASCE Report mentioned, and I have in principle nothing against the idea that a Boeing 757 might have been at the Pentagon and (partially) destroyed before the impact, provided that convincing evidence can be presented. Such evidence, however, is not contained in Hoffman's analysis, nor have I encountered it anywhere else."
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/trapcomments.htmlHere is his first reply to my initial email:
__________________________________________________________________
Hi Russell,
Haven't seen much to make me change my view. Which is, if there was a big plane, things certainly didn't happen the way ASCE describes them.
So are you going to publish something new?
Cheers,
Sami
___________________________________________________________________
This is what I am waiting for a reply back on:
___________________________________________________________________
Sami,
I have been working on a lot of new stuff. I am testing it in a forum right now. People are wanting me to critique your piece but I wanted to acknowledge you first. I very much respect your work and wanted to invite you to observe some of the new data available including the DFDR, new video and other NTSB related items.
I agree 100% with your debunking of the ASCE report and its false premises. The critique would be based on new data that also conflicts with the ASCE report. Yes - I have shifted to including an aircraft in my Pentagon investigation.
I wanted to approach this without offending you personally.
Do you ever go to forums or would you like to be a part of this process. I can send you a link so you can at least observe.
Let me know.
Russell
____________________________________________________________________
So we will wait and see what happens.
