WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

A reply to: skyeagle409

When structural steel components fail they can and will make loud noises, and that will develop into a loud roar when hundreds are failing in quick succession, like in all three WTC collapses can be heard, after the initiation events.
I don't contest the well known failure sounds of structural steel.
And their just as well known audio and seismic footprints. So, what's your point exactly?

I contest the failure initiation as laid out by NIST. And I am not alone in that.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: skyeagle409

When structural steel components fail they can and will make loud noises, and that will develop into a loud roar when hundreds are failing in quick succession, like in all three WTC collapses can be heard, after the initiation events.
I don't contest the well known failure sounds of structural steel.
And their just as well known audio and seismic footprints. So, what's your point exactly?

I contest the failure initiation as laid out by NIST. And I am not alone in that.

You are most certainly NOT alone.

The NIST story is so clearly incomplete, and a cover-up. How does NIST ignore the extensive testimony of explosions, ignore basic physics in the report even while admitting "free fall" for 2.25 seconds, all the while refusing to provide a model of the collapse (saying it might "jeopardize public safety"), and yet get virtually no questions from the MSM?

Don't ever give up this fight! Right is right and wrong is wrong. Someday the masses will understand.

NIST, nothing more than a fairy tale for adults...

Once upon a time there were 19 Magical Jihadists from a faraway land. They used itsy-bitsy box cutters to terrify 8 professional airline pilots. These pilots were so terrified of getting a nasty boo-boo they actually let the Magical Jihadists fly 4 commercial aircraft loaded with innocent passengers. Then the Magical Jihadists chanted a secret verse from their Koran making the planes disappear from all Air Traffic Control monitors. Now they could fly them all around the mighty USA air defense system, completely unbothered, for almost 2 hours.

The 9-11 Fairy Tale from Hell

“And then Grandmother Sam ate up the big, bad terrorist wolf, and we all lived happily ever after!”

a reply to: LaBTop

My whole point is that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

There are those who've claimed that WTC 7 was not struck by an aircraft, yet WTC 7 suffered massive impact damage to its south facade, which explains in the final seconds of its collapse, why the building tilted toward the south.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

The NIST story is so clearly incomplete, and a cover-up.

There is no cover-up.

How does NIST ignore the extensive testimony of explosions,...

Recently, I posted comments of firefighters and others who reported hearing explosions. Truthers were not doing their homework so I had to show that they later attributed the sounds they heard to things that had nothing to do with explosives. Question is, why did I have to do homework for the Truthers?

Truthers had blindly concocted another conspiracy theory because they didn't bother to do any homework, or do it properly when they did.

In October 2014, there was a replay of the NBC News report where firefighters reported hearing explosions that they attributed to exploding gas lines, which had nothing to do with demolition explosives.

Other firefighters attributed the explosive-like sounds they heard to things such as collapsing floors. and once again, nothing to do with demolition explosives. Those are just a few prime examples of many as to why the Truth Movement has no credibility.

ignore basic physics in the report even while admitting "free fall" for 2.25 seconds, all the while refusing to provide a model of the collapse (saying it might "jeopardize public safety"), and yet get virtually no questions from the MSM?

Total time for the collapse of WTC 7 was 17 seconds. Check it out.

Don't ever give up this fight! Right is right and wrong is wrong. Someday the masses will understand.

Ever wondered why there is no evidence of a 9/11 False Flag operation after 14 years?

a reply to: Murgatroid

Once upon a time there were 19 Magical Jihadists from a faraway land. They used itsy-bitsy box cutters to terrify 8 professional airline pilots.

Do you mean these 19 Magical Jihadists?

Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).



Magical Jihadists?

Now they could fly them all around the mighty USA air defense system, completely unbothered, for almost 2 hours.

Just to let you know, our air defenses are not geared to intercept aircraft within the borders of the United States, which also explains why a stolen Lear Jet was flown by a mechanic from Virginia to Denver, CO. untouched.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
People need to understand that you cannot just place explosives in a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse, especially without pre-weakening the structure, otherwise you are going to simply have what happened in 1993 where WTC 1 withstood the detonation of a huge bomb or something like this building.

Building Frame

Exactly skyeagle409, I couldn't say it better. If some random explosions cannot bring down the tower in the way it did then fire can certainly not do it. You are aware what needs to be done to get the building down in the observed manner. Who on earth will rely on fire. Bravo !

skyeagle409, you were a pilot and airplane mechanic, as you wrote.
I hope you are not a reincarnation of that other long time Air Force pilot, Reheat.

Reheat managed to set an awful heap of 9/11 OS doubting people on the wrong foot, for a long time, by his ever changing bit by bit, signature link : Debunking the North of Citgo theory.
In which he used a very misleading manner to let those people believe in his authority and aerial experience.

I will keep it short (I have a LONG row of posts ready for him if he turns up again) and tell you all, that he first used an idiotic S-turn proposal for the NoC plane, and later (now) very misleading and dishonest bank angles of more than 70 degrees and their accompanying G-forces to "weaken" the case of the 23 witnesses who saw a North of CITGO gas station flying plane (Flight 77? ) flying AT MOST in a bank angle of 35 degrees, which is very near to the standard bank angle of 30 degrees for big passenger planes.

Reheat's bank angles are of course idiot huge, since above about 60 degrees bank angles, those G-forces sky rocket, and the turns belonging to such idiot high bank angles are becoming increasingly wide, so wide that that plane, observed by 23 witnesses, never could have hit the Pentagon its west wall, when first observed above the center of the 8th section of the Navy Annex, and indeed flying those idiot bank angles proposed by Reheat.

I proved to him with his own bank angle online calculators, that the REAL bank angles of about 30 to 35 degrees that those witnesses ALL indicated in videos with a toy plane in their hands, could easily be flown inside that trajectory, passing by the CITGO gas station just north of it.
And then impacting the Pentagon west wall near those cable spools.

The TRUTH is, that when so many observers reported such a slight, standard bank angle of 30° to 35° inside that described trajectory with a thus easily plotted and thus fixed turn radius, you can't argue against the fact that that fact alone, mathematically and forcefully prescribes an automatically coupled at that standard bank and turn radius MUCH SLOWER SPEED than the official DFDR-speed of up to 450 KIAS, as Reheat set in his table as his highest assumed speeds.



I see the same style of posting in your posts, a mix of heavy patriotism (of course, you're a military man, doped in it from birth already perhaps if you come from a long military based line), mixed with well known and long accepted facts and cautiously slipped in OPINIONS, not yet (or ever) proved.

I really hope you will not develop the same acidic style as the Reheat one, so that I can still have my hopes up for the huge mass of honest persons that must reside in that huge US military. And hope they will slowly rise the ranks and change the mindset of their top brass at this moment in time.

And I advice you, to stop using that derogatory term "Truthers". You all use it as an abusive word, and that indirectly shows your own misled mindset.
Use the term Doubters, which covers our mindset and yours, much better.

There is a US special operations division, fully concentrated on disrupting the doubting mindset of ever increasing numbers of people around the world. You could find out about them in your own circles, perhaps. Of course other regimes have their own brand too.

From the Solar Calculator Glossary :

Azimuth and elevation - an angular coordinate system for locating positions in the sky. Azimuth is measured clockwise from true north to the point on the horizon directly below the object. Elevation is measured vertically from that point on the horizon up to the object. If you know the azimuth of a constellation is 135° from north, and the elevation is 30°, you can look toward the southeast, about a third of the way up from the horizon to locate that constellation. Because our planet rotates, azimuth and elevation numbers for stars and planets are constantly changing with time and with the observer's location on earth.
See Azimuth/Elevation/Zenith Figure below :

How to calculate azimuth and elevation :
files.abovetopsecret.com...



Astronomical twilight - the time of morning or evening when the sun is 18° below the horizon. (Solar zenith angle is 108°, solar elevation angle is -18°.) See also civil twilight and nautical twilight.

I checked it in Google Earth, and the Spak video is not left/right reversed :
files.abovetopsecret.com...



Note 1, that building with those wrong shadows in its deep square window-frames is not the Chase Manhattan Bank, that one is the one Spak stood in front of, with his back against it.
It's on the northern corner of the east side of Broadway, opposite of St Paul's church, the one with that small bell-tower that has the clock in it.

Note 2, thus, those SHARP shadows, some of which I encircled 3 times in red, are something consistent for that building's surrounding reflective surfaces, since I see those illogical shadows in its deep square window-frames also in GE pictures of 2011, 2013 ,2014 and 2015.
I still find such anomalies very disturbing and it keeps nagging me.

Note 3, when you look carefully, you see that there is a faint horizontal boundary running from left to right in that above picture, best to see in the midst of that huge pillar. That line is under those red circled shadows. Did they use some photo-shopped part of that building? But what for? And in all pictures from all years...
I see no reason at all for such a ridiculous behavior of the Google software.

Note 4, those shadows must be some artifact in all those photos, left by some behavior of the local light circumstances, which must be perfectly explanatory by some light-physics rules.
One thing is clear in my 2015 picture, it's not diffuse light.

Note 5, the address at the top center is 203 Canyon of Heroes, which is the former Broadway.
Thus not 214 Broadway, as the person that analyzed that Spak video, printed above his screen-shots.

Note 6, the sun in my above GE picture is clearly somewhere around the noon azimuth/elevation. See the people walking, their shadows.
Did they paint those peculiar illogical square window-frame shadows with some dark paint?
Seems too far fetched to me.
By the way, those shadows can never directly originate from sun rays, they must be reflections.
Since the sun arcs from east to west in Manhattan, from a slight southern orientation to the back of that building which is situated opposite of St Paul church southern side.

This is a link to a post by JGourley at 911blogger.com, the megaupload site is already for a long time dysfunctional, so perhaps you can get these Merritt & Harris, Inc. and Burro Happold Report pages back through the WayBack Machine site, or someone saved them somewhere else :
911blogger.com...

New Reports on the Twin Towers Released
Submitted by JGourley on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 11:25pm

fireproofing FOIA Twin Towers

On January 8, 2008, I submitted a FOIA Request to NIST asking for all records that relate to the fireproofing upgrades made to the Twin Towers prior to 9/11. I was recently successful in getting three new reports about the condition of the Twin Towers just prior to 9/11 released.

One report is a fire engineering assessment completed by Burro Happold in February of 2000. The other two reports were property condition assessments done by Merritt & Harris, Inc. a year or so prior to 9/11. These reports together total hundreds of pages, and I want them widely released so they can be analyzed in light of the NIST reports on the collapses of the Twin Towers. Note that the Merritt & Harris reports are very large files.

Merritt & Harris Report #1: www.megaupload.com...

Merritt & Harris Report #2: www.megaupload.com...

Burro Happold Report: www.megaupload.com...

Please report any interesting findings here.

This is the only comment of 5, that give some sparse details :

1) Does Par 4, Pdf Page 14 of MH2 mean that there were entry points to the innards of WTC1 & WTC2 from WTC7?

2) The Capital outlay plan for 2001 mentions $2.4M of expenditure for upgrades to the HVAC and Fire Emergency systems. That work would have been done by or in coordination with ABM Industries.(Pdf Page 64, MH2)

3) ABM Industries signed a contract for the "Electrical, HVAC, and general maintenance" of the WTC (Par 4, Pdf Page 26).

Has anybody saved those 3 reports?

Title : World Trade Center - Extreme Close Up!! (FOX5 NEWS aired)
www.youtube.com...


But this is not the BBC video from the cameraman running for his life, in which you clearly saw that huge exterior chunk hit the ground just beside the Tower's base, in front of the dust and debris clouds. I will find that one soon.

Some 2009 -Bonez- post about the basement and lobby explosions, with a few photos of the damage there, not long after the planes impacted high above in the Towers :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And a paper on the left behind amount of jet fuel (sort of kerosene) which was insufficient to be of any importance regarding the 1 hour and 1.5 hr later occurring collapses.


A paper by Tony Szamboti on the WTC 1 and 2 demolition thesis :

Like I mentioned in an above post, I contest the failure initiation as laid out by NIST. And I am not alone in that.
This engineer has put together the exact same reasoning as I did, regarding the inward bowing of those perimeter column rows. Connected to one tower side its center floor, situated on the 98th floor of the North Tower :

page 5 and 6 : The NIST press release does not mention either the floor assembly fire testing or the low percentage of columns found to have experienced high temperatures in the microstructure testing. Both the press release and the report’s conclusion attempt to point towards a theory of dislodged fireproofing materials as the reason for the alleged interior steel weakening. It is a virtual certainty that NIST did floor assembly fire testing without fireproofing, as a failure in that case would have proven their fire weakening hypothesis.(9)
As there is no mention of failures during these tests, it is obvious that they apparently did not produce results which would back up the fire induced collapse theory. It is important to note that NIST has not been able to cause physical models to fail with the fire induced collapse theory.
It is instructive that the first visible signs of failure on the North Tower are when the antenna mast moves downward by ten to twelve feet before the perimeter roof line moves. This is indicative of the central core suddenly and completely failing first. If you haven’t seen this watch it frame by frame at the link below.
911research.wtc7.net...

These frames don’t show slow creep, they show sudden failure of the central core itself. They certainly don’t show the perimeter walls failing first. If the central core failed first it would cause the floor trusses, not to sag, but to follow them downward. In this situation the other end of the floor trusses would apply a tremendous force and bending moment to the perimeter wall columns, causing them to bow inwardly and ultimately to fail. Some of the NIST photos of WTC1, showing inwardly bowed perimeter columns, are frozen frames taken from video. In these photos the roof of the building and antenna mast are not shown.
It would be interesting to see these videos, without cropping of the roof-line and antenna mast, to determine if the bowing of the perimeter columns occurs after the antenna mast starts moving downward.

The downward movement of the antenna mast, before the perimeter roof-line, certainly makes it appear that the central core failed first and that it’s failure is what caused the floor trusses to move downward and pull on the perimeter columns, causing them in turn to bow inwardly, buckle, and fail.
The central core needed to have a loss of 67% of its original strength before any collapse initiation could begin to occur, and even then it could not be sudden, due to the strain hardening of the steel which would take place after initial yielding.(10)
Since the evidence for column damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, cannot account for more than a 20% loss of strength in the central core, it does not appear any collapse initiation, let alone a sudden initiation, can be accounted for without some form of artificial weakening process or controlled demolition being involved. By demolishing the central core, the destruction of the building could also be done with the added advantage of the demolition being mostly hidden from view.

REFERENCES :
9. NIST photos of fire experiment setups. See uninsulated truss setup in next to last picture at bottom. wtc.nist.gov...
10. “Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible” by Dr. Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti, Dec. 2007.

I advice to read Szamboti's "Endnotes and References" too (page 7 to 11).

Plane impacts covered the 94th to 98th floors in the North Tower, and the 77th to 85th floors in the South Tower.
The collapse initiation floors of both towers, were the 98th floor and 82nd floors of the North and South Towers respectively. Which were not the lowest plane impact floors. More like the top ones, with most of the fire insulation intact on those initially mostly undamaged top floors, impacted only very locally by plane wing tips. Weakening followed by buckling, caused by fires, of a lot of vertical steel, is thus illogical.

The South Tower was hit as the second one by Flight 175 at 09:02:54 EDT and collapsed as the first one at 09:59:04.
The North Tower was hit as the first one by Flight 11 at 08:46:26 EDT and leaned at 10:20 EDT and collapsed as the second one at 10:28:31. See Szamboti's drawing on page 11, this below one:
files.abovetopsecret.com...



The plane's fuselage and its two jet engine cores were responsible for the heaviest impacts on the facades. The whole frontal surfaces of the planes which hit those facades did shear off bolts and welds of the exterior columns, displacing them as broken out "snow plow" Vierendeel remnants.
The planes left over momentum still overpowered their inertia and pushed those exterior remnants in front of the crushed plane remnants. The plane and the building's exterior columns compressed remnants, meeting some 5 (WTC1N) and 9 (WTC2S) huge horizontal 4.5 inch thick re-bar enforced concrete floors that acted as huge "cheese slicers", were both compressed like a huge harmonica. Forming huge surfaces that inevitably hit the interior core columns with a LOT less force per surface area, than when the plane hit the exterior, some milliseconds before hitting core columns.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Are you suggesting that all those companies you mention, some with lucrative government contracts, would not make false statements?

Sorry, I know better than that. Big companies know that to graduate, one must cooperate.

The damage observed at WTC cannot possibly have been caused by office fires and gravity. If the airplane company Boeing were to examine the debris from 911 in the same manner it is going to examine the flaperon found last week, we might come to other conclusions, but it won't ever get the chance (assuming it even wants to) because the parts from the airplanes on 911 is hidden away somewhere in secret. We have only the reputation for mendacity of the government to rely on. The official story is a deception and a lie.

a reply to: Salander

The damage observed at WTC cannot possibly have been caused by office fires and gravity.

People have said that for 14 years.
But not one has proven it.
One person makes his living claiming it's not possible. But he never tries to prove what he claims did happen.

How can you a non expert (I assume) dismiss the over whelming majority of experts who support the general thoughts that planes and fire brought the buildings down?

It's fine to claim the earth is flat.
But to ignore the curvature from high flying crafts makes you look bad at best.

For this conspiracy to be taken seriously all the known facts must be accounted for.
The OS essentially does just that. It ain't perfect but it's far better than any of the crazy ideas from the conspiracy side.

a reply to: Salander

Are you suggesting that all those companies you mention, some with lucrative government contracts, would not make false statements?

Not in this case by any means. Add to the fact that remains of passengers and crew and their possessions have been recovered and identified. In addition, aircraft wreckage, ACARS, radar data, and communication tapes prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those aircraft were American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175.

Sorry, I know better than that. Big companies know that to graduate, one must cooperate.

Tell that to the victims' families.

The damage observed at WTC cannot possibly have been caused by office fires and gravity.

Of course it can. In fact, WTC 5 suffered internal collapse when fire alone weakened its steel structure and it wasn't struck by an aircraft.

It was impossible to prepare and plant explosives in the WTC buildings and not attract a lot of attention. Explosives alone could not have brought down the WTC buildings and I even posted photos of buildings in Iraq that were struck by multiple cruise missile strikes and JDAM attacks and yet, the buildings remained standing and they were much smaller than the WTC buildings.

People get the wrong idea that planting bombs in steel frame buildings will bring them down. I guess that never heard what happened when terrorist detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC 1 in 1993, which left the steel columns sitting within the huge bomb crater. Now, explain to us why WTC 1 did not collapse.

If the airplane company Boeing were to examine the debris from 911 in the same manner it is going to examine the flaperon found last week, we might come to other conclusions, but it won't ever get the chance...

First of all, all aircraft parts are labeled with part numbers, which apply ONLY to a particular aircraft. All they have to do is to look in the parts catalog, in this case, the B-777. If the numbers are unreadable, they can go to the parts breakdown page in the technical manual of the B-777.

... (assuming it even wants to) because the parts from the airplanes on 911 is hidden away somewhere in secret.

Let's take a look to see where they hidden the parts from American 77 on the day it crashed.

Wing Flaps at the Pentagon

B-757 Fuselage Wreckage at the Pentagon

American 77 Video Just Before Impact

More B757 Wreckage at the Pentagon

We have only the reputation for mendacity of the government to rely on. The official story is a deception and a lie.

You can take the government out of the loop and you will still have the private sector confirming events as they happened on 9/11 and back it up with facts and evidence, which they have already done.

The true lies are what I uncovered from those Truther websites, which is why I had my confrontation with Rob Balsamo, founder of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" after I caught him posting disinformation, misinformation and lies on his website.

a reply to: Salander

Sorry, I know better than that. Big companies know that to graduate, one must cooperate.

Let's take a look here and I don't understand why you keep missing it despite the fact I have posted this before.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the
collapse.


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal.

Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: LaBTop

skyeagle409, you were a pilot and airplane mechanic, as you wrote.
I hope you are not a reincarnation of that other long time Air Force pilot, Reheat.

Definitely not me by any means.

Reheat managed to set an awful heap of 9/11 OS doubting people on the wrong foot, for a long time, by his ever changing bit by bit, signature link : Debunking the North of Citgo theory.

I have always been known as skyeagle409, mainly in another forum, but I too, am in agreement that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions.

It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

journalof911studies.com...

American 77 Flight Path

Flight Path of American 77

Flight Path of American 77

Light Poles Knocked Down by American 77

Light Pole Knocked Down by American 77

In addition, we have American 77 flight data.

American 77 Flight Data

Considering the flight path of destruction left by American 77, there was no way that aircraft passed north of the gas station.

We have discussed ad infinitum here at ATS and in several other forums, the DFDR as served up by the official US institutions such as the FBI and NTSB. They say the FBI took over and did what would be the NTSB standard procedure investigation, since it was a criminal investigation. The NTSB let another company make an animated flight video of Flight 77, from start to impact. Normally they do that themselves.
That animation shows us that all three autopilot functions were switched off, about 10 minutes before that huge 352 degrees turn around began to be executed. And kept so, until impact.

We have some long time B757 pilots on record, who all remarked that when they would have to perform that circling down with those correct airspeeds which ended right on a line straight into the west wall of the Pentagon, that it would be extremely difficult to get it right the first time in a certified B7557 flight simulator, when all three autopilot functions would be set off, without ending the turn with a Dutch roll, or missing the target in the last seconds and overshoot it at those crazy high speeds from the DFDR.

I suppose you agree with common sense, when any eyewitness says on record, that the plane flew right over their head or car while they stood in a traffic jam, in the center lane of Route 27, and right in front of the concrete heli-pad, that it never ever could have been the SoC plane trajectory which they witnessed.
To the contrary, they must have seen another trajectory, the NoC one.
Then you will come up with the unreliable witness theory, and I will say that most courts rely on such witnesses, accompanied with additional evidence. Which are many times solely OTHER witnesses.
In the NoC case, 23 other witnesses who all say the same, already on the day of 9/11, or shortly after. So don't bring up the memory mix-up over longer times, they were recorded very early by two US institutions you trust.
The Library of Congress and the Army's Historical Unit.
Then in 2006, some were again video interviewed and explained essentially exactly the same as they already did in those early days.

Thus, we have 23 eyewitnesses on video and audio records, who all swear that the plane they saw flying very low and nearby, did bank at about 35 degrees, flew slower than the DFDR offers, and around the northern back side of the CITGO gas station, and impacted the Pentagon west wall.

These subjects have been debated here so many times, it should be unnecessary to beat that horse for the stumpiest time. I'm afraid such a remark will not help, since you seem to substantially run behind the latest discussions regarding the DFDR and Flight 77 subjects in past years.
In short, when you strongly believe the authenticity of those 23 NoC witnesses, there is only one conclusion : that DFDR is tampered with. Only the last 10 seconds.

The flight simulator video that Rob Balsamo offered with Captain Rusty Aimer is a joke, they used flight speeds of 500 Knots or MPH (have to look it up) inside that 352 degrees turn, which is pertinently untrue, since the NTSB its DFDR-based animation shows much lower airspeeds flown within that turn around.

You should read my only thread I was allowed to post at Pf911T about all those witnesses who all said the plane impacted, and see the inevitable ending (Balsamo convinced the CIT team-of-two, that only a fly-over was possible). That man really needs a good shrink.

a reply to: LaBTop

I suppose you agree with common sense, when any eyewitness says on record, that the plane flew right over their head or car while they stood in a traffic jam, in the center lane of Route 27, and right in front of the concrete heli-pad, that it never ever could have been the SoC plane trajectory which they witnessed.

The downed light poles, structural damage inside the Pentagon and the damaged generator point to the south-of-the-gas station approach because there was no way American 77 could have knocked down the light poles and internal structural beams of the Pentagon if the aircraft approached the Pentagon north of the gas station.

It you look at the downed light poles, they line up perfectly with the damaged generator, damaged structure columns and the C-Ring hole, which could not have been possible if American 77 passed north of the gas station, and there was no way American 77 could have conducted that tight turn before striking the Pentagon.

American 77 Flight Path and the Pentagon

American 77 Red Line Flight Path

Damaged Pentagon Generator

American 77 Flight Path Toward the Generator

It's impossible for a plane approaching on the north side flight path described by the witnesses to have caused the damage to the generator trailer.

Why American 77 could not have passed north of the gas station

This is where documented physical evidence overrides eyewitnesses testimony because the the path of destruction leading from the downed light poles to the C-Ring hole is firm evidence that B-757 passed south of the gas station.

As for the low-level altitude, that is not very difficult either. At Travis AFB, our C-5 and KC-10 transports have performed low-level minimum-controlled proficient altitude holding just only 5 feet above the runways with their landing gear down. We can also take a look at this video.

In addition, they are cleared to perform 360 degree landing maneuvers from altitudes as high as 10,000 feet. The maneuvers are more dramatic than that performed by American 77, yet performed by aircraft much larger than American 77.




The flight simulator video that Rob Balsamo offered with Captain Rusty Aimer is a joke, they used flight speeds of 500 Knots or MPH (have to look it up) inside that 352 degrees turn, which is pertinently untrue, since the NTSB its DFDR-based animation shows much lower airspeeds flown within that turn around.


I have caught Rob Balsamo distorting the facts. I also found flaws in the initial NTSB flight path report, but since then, the data has been corrected.