NEW ANALYSIS: The Required Low and Level Impact Versus Standing Poles and Obstacles on North Side Path
Posted on January 11, 2011
In the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of this website, item #2 reads: "Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?"
The short answer to the second question is "no," and that FAQ page (viewable in full here) is an important resource explaining why that is the case.
A new section has now been added to this page. It is entitled:
(Clicking the link above or the preview image below will take you to the new section)
Use the following URL when linking directly to that section (it should jump right to the proper spot on the page):
The ground-level damage [to the building] combined with the lack of foundation damage means that the plane -- if it had struck -- would have had to have done so extremely low and virtually level with the ground (i.e. not in a descent). However, the photographic evidence shows all poles and obstacles on the north side path fully in tact. This means that a plane approaching from north of the Citgo station would not only have missed the downed light poles, but would also have flown OVER numerous other light poles and other obstacles an instant before reaching the building. This further underscores the fact that the plane did not hit the building, and could only have continued on over the building after clearing all of those obstacles on the north side flight path.
This is a point which has been noted by Citizen Investigation Team and others for years, and it is now made more clear than ever.
Note: It is important to link to the full section as opposed to simply linking to the overhead and/or the pictures of the standing poles & obstacles (seen in the preview image above), because they must be understood in conjunction with the required low and level impact, which is also documented in that section.(See here for original announcement on the CIT research forum, Jan 11 2011, 11:31 AM)