|
[[
In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car,
the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car
lengths in front of me. ]] 4-5
car lengths can be approximated to about 60 ft. The length of the wing to the
fuselage is 56 ft, making a total of 116 ft from driver to fuselage. Subtract a
little, as the plane is alleged to be slightly banked, thus reducing the
effective horizontal width. Offset this for the length of her car’s bonnet.
Let’s call the 4-5 car lengths can be approximated to about 60 ft. The length of
the wing to the fuselage is 56 ft, making a total of 116 ft from driver to
fuselage. Subtract a little, as the plane is alleged to be slightly banked, thus
reducing the effective horizontal width. Offset this for the length of her car’s
bonnet. Let’s call the total distance from driver’s eyes to fuselage 118 ft. To
make the maths easy, round it to 120. Sitting in the car, her eyes are about 4
ft off the ground, so the effective height of the plane from her eye line is
about 76 ft. Round this to 80. If you check the angle made by something which is
80 ft high and 120 ft distant, it’s approximately 30 degrees. When I sit in my
car, a 30 degree angle from my eyes looks straight into the folded up sun visor.
In other words, you can’t see something at this angle from a car. Of course,
it’s a little different for each person, depending on their car, seat position
and posture Her distances, as in the case of Wallace are subject to inaccuracy,
but the point needs to be made that on the basis of these figures it would be
impossible for her to see the fuselage, from that height and distance. The open
sun roof wouldn’t help. The fuselage would be behind the section that joins the
windscreen to the roof edge. Of course, with a moment to spare, one can change
this by leaning forward, but its been established that she probably has about
1/4 of a second to sight the small section of the windows and AA colour scheme
that isn't obscured by the wing. Because of the many variables, we can’t state
with certainty that the fuselage was hidden from her vision, but when taken at
face value, it appears to be impossible for her to have seen it. SUMMARY
It
is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site,
and this is backed by solid mathematical proof. There
is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the part of the
plane which cannot have entered the crash site. There
is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site. Cremation
of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and physically
impossible. Even
could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the context of the
modest damage to the wall. The
hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a
missile. Fake
wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating
the American Airlines colour scheme. Eyewitness
evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports have been presented
to try to shore up the official story. Claims
that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on board, are mutually exclusive
with claims that the plane was cremated, and with the official line on the WTC
victims and the Bali bomb victims. So
if it didn’t hit the Pentagon, what happened to AA 77 and the passengers? An
important question, but it’s irrelevant to the argument of whether it hit the
Pentagon. By way of analogy, imagine a murder prosecution where the defence has
presented an overwhelmingly strong case - more than just reasonable doubt -
solid proof that the accused cannot possibly have committed the crime. But then
the prosecution plays it’s trump card. “ But if your client did not commit the
crime, then who did? “ The defence answers that it has no idea. Everyone would
agree that a guilty verdict on this basis, would be an outrageous lapse of
logic. Yet this is precisely the same lapse of logic as suggesting that a lack
of alternative explanation for what happened to the plane and the passengers is
in any way relevant to the question of whether it hit the Pentagon. The
government knows what happened. Investigators have to work it out bit by bit.
The full truth will emerge in time, if a methodical, rational, step by step
approach is persevered with. I
can see one good reason to cling to the belief that AA 77 hit the pentagon. The
unshakable faith that the govt would not - could not lie to us. A faith so
strong that the laws that laws of physics and motion suspend themselves in order
to maintain it. A faith so strong that even the government admitting that it
lies cannot overturn it. This statement from Solicitor General
Olsen. http://old.smh.com.au/news/0203/20/world/world10.html [[
"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government
might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore
Olson, told the court on Monday. "It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance
of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be
perceived as necessary to protect vital interests." ]] Of
course, he could be lying … |