Reply #69: cordite, no reports of burning-flesh odor -- & response to 3 objections [View All]

[dick_eastman]

I've seen the cordite smell report -- and always forget to mention it when summarizing evidence.

I have never seen a report of the smell of burning flesh -- not a fact that gives much weight to the small-killer-jet-Boeing-overfly thesis, but certainly one that does not help the official "Boeing-did-it" version either.

I'd like to address some other matters here:

Here are some statements by discussants and replies:

======================

Statement:

"77 was not on a path to Reagan National Airport"

Reply:

I believe this comment is supposed to mean that Flight 77 was not headed striaght for Reagan National as it came over the Sheraton, over the Annex, over the gas station and over the crash of the killer jet into the west wall of the Pentagon. However I have never ever -- not even once -- maintained that it was. Here are the relevant facts concerning the overfly:

a) Reagan National airport is only one mile from the crash.

b) The path over Sheraton, Annex, gas station and crash is a straight line path which when extended east takes Flight 77 just north of the 14th street bridge. The first Washington D.C. local radio accounts of a crash, based on listeners calling in reports, had an airliner crashing into the 14th-Street bridge.

c) After flying over the crash it would be less than 4 seconds before the jet would be closer to the airport than to the crash -- so it would become part of the airport scene

d) To land immediately at the airport the plane the airplane would have to bank sharp to the right, and even then it would have to land at the southeastern-most runway

e) The Boeing could also have merely climbed into the holding cue of aircraft waiting to land -- as all aircraft had been called upon to land at once and normal scheduling was cancelled -- landing from any direction at any time.

Summary: The fact that the path of approach from Sheraton to crash is not a straight-line path that leads to the airport is well known and has been taken into account from the day I learned of the close proximity of the airport. Ron Harvey has been told all of the above time and time again.

HERE IS VERY IMPORTANT SUBSTANTIATION AND EXPLANATION IN DETAIL WITH PHOTOS OF INFORMATION ABOVE:

Here is what happened to Flight 77 after it overflew the Pentagon crash
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/18

===============

Statement:

77 was nowhere near to any legitmate flight path, nor even was it headed towards DCA when it hit the Pentagon, nor (according to all but one of the witnesses who noticed) was the landing gear deployed.


Reply: All three of the above statements are true and in agreement with my account of the events. It takes six seconds for landing gear to come down and lock. Since there is no contradiction with my understanding of the events and since these three facts are not incompatible with any portion of the small-plane thesis, we can safely proceed to the next comment.

=================

Statement:

Witnesses familiar with the airport's activities especially said that they noticed the plane because it was flying too low and not on any nornal flight path.


Reply:

I believe this discussant means to say that witnesses who live and work near the airport know the normal approaches to the runways of Reagan National, and that some witnesses first noticed the plane because it coming in from the west rather than from the north, northwest, northeast, or south, southwest or south east. If that is what is meant, then it is a true statement. I have quoted these witnesses in several locations. These statements are compatible with the small-plane thesis. (See above URL for illustrated treatment of the overfly and the blending into the airport traffic.) Remember, these witnesses are speaking of the plane before it reached the crash-overfly point -- as I said above, the plane would have to have banked over the 14th street bridge to have landed immediately (and then it would have had to forgoe the closest runway or else touch down in the middle of it further south -- but it also could have merely made a larger circle around the airport, joining the planes in the emergency landing cue.

Here is another illustrated overview of the relevant stages of this black-op deception:

Here is what really happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/10

Forgive me for not commenting on the many posts that I agreee with or that raise new points that I have nothing worthwhile to add to (none of the points that I have seen raised challenge the evidence or the offered deductions from that evidence that is the "small-plane" interpretation of the Pentagon event.

-----------

One important line of evidence has not yet been explored to any depth here.

Everyone accepts the civil engineers conclusion that the killer jet nosed into the Pentagon dead-center at external pillar designated #14 in the report. (By pillar we mean the vertical column of wall between columns of windows.) Yet in every simulation that has the correct angle of appoach (50 to 60-degrees of angle from the wall), including that of Sarah Roberts herself, has, as it must, the starboard (right) wing engine of the Boeing in a line to hit the wall between pillars #'s 16 and 17. YET, AS IS DISTINCTLY SHOWN IN SEVERAL PICTURES, AND ESPECIALLY IN AN ENLARGEMENT PREPARED BY SARAH ROBERTS HERSELF (WHICH I USED TO OFFER, BUT WHICH IS GONE NOW THAT YAHOOGROUPS NO LONGER ALLOWS ATTACHMENTS IN ITS POSTED MESSAGES) THE INTERIOR WALLS ARE CLEARLY STILL STANDING BETWEEN PILLARS 16 AND 17, AND ALSO, FOR EXTRA MEASURE, BETWEEN PILLARS 17 AND 18. (I will send this to anyone who asks for the SARAH ROBERT'S SMALL-PLANE PROOF PHOTO.) It is proof as conclusive as the missile-smoke-and-missile-explosion photos, as conclusive as the too-short aircraft photo, as conclusive as the contradiction in paths between that of the killer jet as determined by the physical evidence of holes and downed poles and the path of the Boeing that overflew the crash as observed in its approach by witnesses who describe it always in a line over the Sheraton, over the Naval Annex, over the gas station.

I am most anxious to see this one discussed. Remember: write to [e-mail] for the pictures that prove no starboard wing engine of a plane whose nose struck the Pentagon at pillar #14 hit the Pentagon as SARAH ROBERT'S SMALL-PLANE PROOF conclusively demonstrates. (Of course, Sarah Roberts was attempting to make a different point when she prepared this very powerful evidence for the small-plane thesis.)

By the way, some have wondered how I heard about the DU forum. I exchange information with many investigators and Nico Haupt, whom I do not know well and whom I do not believe is posting here, indicated that that lively discussion was going on here with Sarah Roberts and Ron Harvey -- but I finally checked it out at the time of the new format transition and only got in two comments before those discussions were closed. Then I returned later to see what had started up.

I do not know any of the discussants here except Ron Harvey, although I think I am getting to know and appreciate the most active discussants pretty fast. Just thought you needed to know that.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.