It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:00 AM
It is rude behavior and mis-use of professionalism that once let me write these remarks.
It's re-reading this Reheat post, and this one too, that made me decide to at last address his strongly exaggerated and excessive minimum 73°+ bank angles which he alleged for a North of CITGO (NoC) flying plane in his Signature link, "Debunking the North of Citgo Theory", still to date situated below all his ATS posts (readable only for ATS members, not for lurkers).

Thereby totally neglecting that such a NoC trajectory is so different from the official SoC trajectory, that you can not interchange flight data from that officially endorsed SoC path to the observed NoC path, such as DFDR-decoded SoC air or ground speeds, as if they are also written in concrete for a solely witness observed NoC flightpath, it has no DFDR found for it.
Which speeds he however, grossly mistaken, does interchange between the two so very different flight paths :

Witnessed NoC last seconds flight path = curved, standard banked.
Officially endorsed SoC leading flight path, extracted from a DFDR = straight, no banks, where the last 4 to 6 seconds are missing from.

Only an Australian computer expert, Warren Stutt, without any former expertise in decoding DFDR's, says he decoded those last seconds. And he concluded that they indicated a further SoC flight path.
Typical possible example of a psyop (psychological operation), let an outsider take the blame if that agency-operation does not succeed. By the way, Warren Stutt seems to have served in an Australian Secret Service agency before he wrote his thesis on AA77's last DFDR seconds. Said one Aussie poster here.

That's why I'm now going to address Reheat's signature link under every ATS post by him, titled "Debunking the North of Citgo Theory", publicized at his NoC rebuttal-page at

Reheat explains there, he's " a retired USAF pilot with extensive experience in pilot trainings areas and in fighter operations. He has over 200 combat missions accumulated in two different conflicts. He also has airline experience both domestic and international ".

I'm impressed, however not to the full extent, because he refuses to address the real air speeds mathematically forced upon and thus belonging to the reported low and standard bank angles, in a logical manner.
His aeronautical "rebuttal" of the North of CITGO (NoC) slightly curved flightpath as seen and reported by 23 eyewitnesses on 9/11, is a misinterpretation of honestly reported near-standard banks by the NoC witnesses.
A misinterpretation of observed standard banks flown by the NoC plane, which automatically are coupled to only a small possible low speed range for those standard banks, as standard aerial math calculations prescribe in the by witness positions forced, flight path curvature with a radius of circa 2000 meter.

Much lower air speeds than the official NTSB speed of 450 KIAS (Knots, KTS), more like 230 to 250 Knots, and he based his explanations at 911myths definitely on those very fast NTSB speeds from the recovered DFDR, which data indicate a SoC path, and based it also on his obvious authority and expertise in aeronautics.
As if that automatically means that we must believe his arguments without any critical reading, and neglect any possible falsification of certain last seconds data in that DFDR.
He knows very well, that all NoC witnesses that saw the slightly banking plane, described its bank angle with a toy plane in hand, as somewhere between 25° to 35°, which are near standard (30° ) banking angle values flown by pilots who value the comfort of their passengers.
As shown by the 4 Arlington National Cemetery workers in my Ref. C video in my later post, all with a toy plane in hand to show the real bank angles of max. 35° they observed with their own eyes.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:03 AM
Which observed near-standard maximum 35° banks thus obviously FORCE us to accept much slower air speeds, according to Reheat's own posted turn/bank calculator link, flown by the plane in that curved NoC turn trajectory at such slight bank angles.
While the curvature dimensions of its slight NoC turn trajectory, starting just beside/south of the Sheraton Hotel at that last OFFICIALLY ENDORSED NTSB data-point from the recovered DFDR from Flight AA77 were well defined by the positions of most of the 23 NoC witnesses under or beside it.
Which slower speeds are unmistakably mathematically coupled by this calculator to its calculated radius of 2053 meters for that curved turn. You can't squeeze another shorter or longer radius onto that curve, which I -unintended- managed to do at that date in time, in my OP and following posts in pages 1, 2 and 3 in this thread.

Fill in Reheat's turn/bank calculator link :
160 KIAS (KTS) as stall speed for a 757, next 250 KIAS (KTS) as the speed in the turn, and 25°, or 30° or 35° as the bank angles, then Calculate three times. Observe the resulting turn radii, G-loads and other data.
Realize immediately that this calculator is for banks in level turns, not banks in descending turns in which the plane automatically gains some extra airspeed, which important fact Reheat also forgot to mention to his readers.
It is written in the small text above that calculator, and he should have implicated the repercussions of the actual different type of flight, the descending turn, on his table calculations.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:07 AM
Reheat however starts (see his data for 'Morin > NoC1' ) with his very FIRST and minimum bank angle proposal, at 250 KIAS (knots), in his strongly exaggerated bank angles calculation table (see a screenshot of it below), as if it belongs to a whopping 70.3° bank angle turn.

How Reheat performed his calculations is a mystery to me.
This is the REAL calculation, Reheat should have done with his by him self advocated on-line bank angle calculator :
Aircraft speed of 250 KTS (288 MPH) entering a 73° bank angled turn with a ridiculous short turn radius of circa 520 meters(0.5 KM = 1702.8 feet) and an increased stall speed of 296 KTS (plane falls out of the air, stall speed for a 757 is 160 KTS) and a 90° turn time of 0.1 minutes = 6 seconds (the real 35° bank angle trajectory its curvature, covered more like a quarter of such a 90° turn, with a real radius of 2053 meters) :

This is MY calculation that covers the REAL turn radius, speeds and banks as SEEN at NoC and covering ALL 23 NoC witnesses.
Aircraft speed of 230 KTS (265 MPH) entering a 34.94° bank angled turn with a turn radius of circa 2 KM (2053 meters = 6736.2 feet) :

And then proceeds with even more and more steeper banks at higher speeds in that tabulated table of him, because he wants the reader to believe that in the NoC scenario ( which is totally different from the official SoC scenario, the same huge high speeds were and must have been flown, according to solely himself as in the officially endorsed SoC flight path taken from the recovered DFDR of Flight 77.
Which DFDR-data its last seconds could have been easily changed or tampered with. The FBI lost track of that black box for about 2 days; search ATS and Google for it.

Which inter-mixing of data from two separate cases is of course totally illogical behavior for an aeronautical expert and sometimes plane crash investigations assistant, as he told us he acted in his service years as such, several times too.

Which unofficial decoded DFDR-data for the last 4 to 6 seconds of increasingly garbled-up data, decoded by Warren Strutt, shows a straight flight trajectory in these last 4 to 6 seconds following the last officially decoded position by the NTSB in that DFDR, which is a point somewhere beside the southern side of the Sheraton Hotel, all the way towards impact at column 14 at the Pentagon's west wall. But those last 4 to 6 seconds have never been officially endorsed. We have to believe Warren Strutt for that part of his decoding job of some extra 4 to 6 seconds in that DFDR.

Thus, officially we have no further endorsed flight data then the NTSB one, up to that position beside the Sheraton Hotel.
The rest of AA77's flight trajectory could be anything manageable and imaginable by a good pilot in a 757-200 :

AT ANY SPEED which would keep the plane flying, so, above its registered stall speed. It could easily do so in my proposed trajectory curvature.
And the 4 ANC maintenance workers all 4 told us in their videos, that the plane came slowly over the ANC roofs, turned slightly before their eyes above the ANC parking and then was pushed full throttle. And Terry Morin too, and Sean Boger too, etc.
Especially the 2 CIT video-interviews with William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks, the two Pentagon Police agents at the gas pumps in the CITGO's northern pumps area are blood chilling, these two bet their life on it in 2006 that they were 100% sure, and saw that plane flying very low and very close to them, at the northern side of the CITGO gas station (now NEX gas station).

AND THESE 2 ARE STILL ALIVE, afaIk (as far as I know).

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:11 AM
Thus, that NoC plane flew, after it passed very low just south of the Sheraton Hotel, in a slightly curved flight path, beginning as an evasive maneuver to not fly directly into the high VDOT steel radio tower, just 20 meters south of Columbia Pike, where that street runs just beside and along the, at that time, 8 Navy ANNEX buildings.
Thus it was slightly curving already over those 8 ANNEX roofs, crossing over Columbia Pike down-hill and passing along just a few tens of yards north of the CITGO gas station's northernly canopy (renamed now to NEX gas station), then passing just south of the Arlington Cemetery southern fence's parking lot, then crossing Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) nearly perpendicular, just south of those two trees in front of the concrete HELI-Pad and impacting column 14 in the Pentagon's west wall facade.
And its remains came to rest at the divider space between Ring D and E. As can be seen in the Pentagon Performance Report drawings of the collapsed part of Wedge One, later on in this thread.

These 2 Reheat-remarks below, lack two important, CRUCIAL parts : the by all 4 ANC maintenance workers and the 2 Pentagon Police men at the CITGO gas station mentioned and shown slight BANK ANGLES and their THUS mathematically unavoidable, accompanying relatively LOW speeds for the observed NoC flying plane, up to the point where it passed just south of the ANC parking lot. There it suddenly went full throttle and impacted moments later at column 14 of the Pentagon West wall.

Which doesn't need to have been AA77 for 100% sure, but it probably was, since no other radar blips or witness accounts were registered for a second plane, flying that low, that near to the Pentagon. The only two other planes were the C-130 which was at least 1 minute behind AA77, and the white Doomsday plane which however took off Andrews Airfield a few minutes after the 09:38 a.m. impact of AA77 on 9/11/2001.
The other scenario of two planes, a NoC plane together with a SoC plane as flying eventually in the same tight airspace is certainly not true, since not one of the hundreds of eyewitnesses reported such an event.

These two following remarks of Reheat in his page, are the best examples for the manner in which he omits two specific real facts (speed and bank angle) of the NoC flight path as observed by all of its witnesses :

Reheat : It should be noted that NO WITNESS mentioned the type of bank angles required to complete the required turns.
The turns required to fly north of the Citgo Station are horrendous air show type turns with steep banks and very high G forces at very low altitude which NO ONE WITNESSED.

Reheat doesn't include the NoC witnessed REAL slight bank angles and their necessary and also OBSERVED low SPEEDS, thus that means that ALL his calculations, to prove his two above remarks, were based on HIS assumed DFDR-recorded huge SoC end speeds, decoded by Warren Strutt and of course no pilot can execute these required turns with their resulting radii, at those extremely high officially endorsed SoC air speeds, while their curved flight path must then also fit the then logically resulting huge right bank angles, as written in his far exaggerated table.

He silently and intentionally implicates implicitly also for the totally different reported flown NoC flight path, in a totally illogical manner, the for him ironclad speeds as extracted from the last seconds of the "recovered" DFDR (digital flight data recorder) of Flight 77.

Which are not reported AT ALL by many of the 23 NoC witnesses. Especially the ones with a prolonged viewing time. They reported a much slower, longer flying plane in the first part of that last trajectory.
Simply said, you can't combine air-speeds from a different source, the DFDR, with the air-speeds, banks and positions as reported in the early days original interviews, by honest NoC witness sources.

When one encounters 23 witnesses, from which quite a number of them explained in interviews to have witnessed a plane flying in an, at most, standard bank angle, where "at most" thus implicates a bank angle between 25° and 35°, then an experienced aviator that also knows the necessary NoC turn radius to fly that NoC right turn, immediately has to conclude that the speed of that multi-witnessed huge fixed-wing passenger plane (which is automatically coupled to those slight banks), must have been considerably slower than the officially advocated DFDR-based huge speeds in its last 15 seconds.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:15 AM
Reheat, instead of using such lower logical speeds in his calculations, immediately dismissed those witness experiences as delusional or misinterpreted because of perspective problems.
Because he frantically holds on to the end speeds in the last half mile, NTSB-registered and officially spread, as recorded by the NTSB in its lasts fully decoded DFDR seconds, at the south side of the Sheraton Hotel.
Which huge speed will never fit any slight banking flight characteristics observed by all or any NoC witnesses.

Thus, the only thing he assisted us with, is painting a clear picture of impossible to witness by NoC witnesses, MUCH HIGHER banks at FAR HIGHER speeds.
NoC witnesses however saw standard banks and much slower speeds.
Note also, the DFDR reports NO BANK at all in the last 2000 meters, calculated from a point beside the Sheraton Hotel up to impact.

It is obvious by reading Reheats table and playing around with his turn and bank calculator, that for any speed above 230 to 250 KIAS, combined with any bank of more than 35°, it is IMPOSSIBLE for those NoC witnesses to have observed the Pentagon attack plane.
Which they however saw flying in their reported bank of between 25° to 35° on its OBSERVED NoC curved flight path, inside that relatively flat-curved and slow turn-radius .

In fact it must have flown in a +/- 35° bank at +/- 250 KIAS within a 10% margin. Those flight paths their resulting curvatures and turn radii fit as a glove all witness positions, within a few yards/meters fault margin.

And it suddenly becomes egally obvious that he is playing you with a logical fallacy card.
He clearly ommits one, fatal for his theory, observation from all witnesses in his NoC-rebuttal page : a much slower flying plane.

We don't even have to add the by them observed and guessed speeds as told to interviewers, since in that described and easily plotted NoC turn radius and for the reported standard bank, the automatically coupled speed boundaries could not have exceeded 230 to 250 KIAS. P E R I O D.

I have shown him, using his own posted online bank/speed calculator, in many ATS posts that at a maximum speed of 250 KIAS (knots) or less, and a maximum 35° bank, that NoC turn radius flight path is easily executable.
And coincidentally also covers ALL 22 witnesses their stories and their exact positions as told by them to their 2001 and 2006 interviewers.
Those interviewers were the Library of Congress (LoC) ones, the Center for Military History (CMH)unit ones, both in 2001, and the two men from the CIT team in 2006 to 2008, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:18 AM

A.. Basic turn calculations and an explanation of how to measure turn radius can be found (Bank Angle and G's) and (Aerodynamics) . (taken from Reheat's NoC rebuttal page its links).Reheat's link 2 is dead.

Instead, use this excellent Pilot Training one, I found :

Pilot training
From there, read Level Turns and Descents and Descending Turns. Read its full chapter " GLIDING TURNS ".

In order to maintain the most efficient or normal glide in a turn, more altitude must be sacrificed than in a straight glide since this is the only way speed can be maintained without power. Turning in a glide decreases the performance of the airplane to an even greater extent than a normal turn with power.

These descending turns are particularly more difficult to calculate than the level turn Reheat assumed, which is NOT the case in a NoC flight path. It had to descend in about an 8° angle, to fly downwards from the Annex roofs to the CITGO station and level-off before Route 27 (Washington Boulevard).
Flight 77 in a NoC trajectory had to be in a descending gliding turn, radius +/- 2000 m. (6000 feet). See the 4 ANC workers video later on.
This is a post link to Warren Strutt and Frank Legge their Jan. 2011 Flight 77 DFDR analysis, solely for its last 4 to 6 flight seconds, that were not included in the official NTSB decoding of the recovered DFDR.
Since those last non-NTSB 4 to 6 secs had an increasing amount of mechanically and digitally data failures signals, send by probes in/on the plane ( -surfaces ) to the Air Data Computer (ADC), in them. Says Warren Strutt, who reconstructed the still correct data (he says).
Read that last link its following posts too.!

Read this part, Turns Around A Point thus too, and this part too, Ground Effect. These lessons are primarily for propeller planes, they have a jet engines chapter too. See f.ex. the part, Jet Airplane Approach and Landing, and Significant Difference, its last sentence :

These flying characteristics of jet airplanes make a stabilized approach an absolute necessity.

I found another on-line bank angle calculator And thus another speed calculator too.

Link-1 : (LT : At a steering-column / stick=neutral position, ) the vertical component of lift is less than the weight. Because of this inequality, the greater force imparted by the weight will pull the aircraft downward and it does not maintain the same altitude (LT : Flight-77 was reportedly descending, thus flying stick-neutral, in a slightly 25° to 30° banking turn around the NoC position ).

The pilot can (LT : in Flight 77, he didn't ) overcome this behavior by pulling the stick back to increase the lift of the plane and maintain the same altitude (LT : Which however indeed happened just before crossing Route 27 by Flight 77; stick-up to come out of that slight 8° dive). It is for this reason that we refer to the (Lt : Stick-up ) maneuver as a level turn, since the aircraft is banked into a turning motion but maintains the same altitude.

(LT : The above shown 30° bank angle in these 2 bank-diagrams is very close to, or the 35° bank reported by those many NoC witnesses)

Link-3 : Turning Performance (Bank Angle) Calculator :
radius = speed2 / (gravity x tangent (bank angle))
time = 2 x PI x speed / (gravity x tangent (bank angle))
where: speed=feet per second (fps = mph x 1.47), mph to fps conversion is done for you on form below
gravity =32.2 fps
EXAMPLE : Speed (MPH) = 250 ; Bank angle = 35° ; Radius = 5994 feet = 1827 m.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:20 AM

B.. I made quite a positional mistake for the center point position of the radius/diameter of my drawn flight path arc in the by me posted flight path turn radius in my OP on page 1 posted on June 7, 2012. Title : " NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ".
This is my post on Page 2 from that thread with a lot of links that are helpful in understanding the issue at that time, namely the too long radius miscalculation by me. Which, at that time had not yet made clear to me.

Non-viable bank angle for my Flight 77 NoC curved arc :

That arc I drew there, is indeed covering all my and the 13 CIT-interviewed NoC witnesses, but NOT at the by me mis-calculated air speed of 269.4 MPH = 234.1 KIAS/KTS and a bank of 24.9°, for I THOUGHT, MY proposed turn radius of 3,200 m / 10,498.7 feet.

The calculation of the figures I put in that drawing, according to the on-line turn/bank calculator inputs, was OK.
But I drew a blue line for a definitely viable NoC curved flight path, of which I am now also definitely convinced by member "exponent", as not fitting/belonging AT ALL to that by me calculated, in fact 1/3 longer radius length of 3,200 m.
The real radius should have been 2,053 m, to precisely fit my above pictured drawn-in blue curved flight path, as will be explained now.
Thus, the blue curve dimension is rightly drawn by me and fitting all NoC witnesses, but its radius length is drawn too long by me.

The real curve form and length, and the chord and sagitta of that arc in my drawing, belonged to a radius length of 2,053 m, and not to the 3,200 m radius length I drew mistakenly in my June 2012 viable arc drawing.
As member "exponent" correctly calculated HERE on page 2 of my NoC versus SoC etc. thread, based on his Google Earth measurements of the sagitta and chord length for my drawn curved arc.
He used, I presume, the formula from these two" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">links at Reheat's page, which offer basic turn calculations and an explanation of how to measure turn radius.
He then measured via Google Earth the chord and sagitta length of my blue curved line, and used that in the formula, to calculate the resulting radius length of 2,053 m.
See this link for an in-depth explanation of such calculations, starting at the 5:30 position in this video :
Examples :
V=300 Knots, radius = 12,748 feet/3886 meter, 32 degrees bank angle. (12:34 position)
V=300 Knots, radius = 11,010 feet/3356 meter, 36 degrees bank angle. (12:42 position)
But according to the 4 ANC maintenance workers, the plane flew much slower, in fact it came in a slight gliding turn over the Annex roofs, dropped down and banked to the right in front of the southern ANC parking just out the ANC fence, and then pushed full throttle, so just north of the CITGO gas station it was first using full engine power.

34.94° bank - Turn Performance Calculator results :

Exponent re-calculated that my curved arc, drawn in as a blue line, in fact belonged to a bank of 35.9°. And I checked and recalculated it by using his 2,053 m = 6,735.6 feet turn radius.
Meter to feet : divide by 0.3048. Feet to meter : multiply by 0.3048.
The closest figure the calculator returns is 6,736.2 feet, which gives a right-bank angle of 34.94° which is still a, just above standard 30°, bank angle.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:24 AM

C. As shown by 4 Arlington National Cemetery workers in the following video with the toy plane in hand in this 2006 CIT interview.
Starting at the 10:45 minute, up to the 17:44 minute, is the Darrell Stafford interview.
Darrell says that the plane was flying flat over the far right side of the Navy Annex roofs, and when it neared his position on the grounds in front of the National Cemetery maintenance BLDG 123C, it started to bank slightly to the right (away from him). He shows something like a 30° to 35° bank angle with a small model plane in his hands. First he shows with that model plane that it was flying level over the Annex its roofs right side, then it started to bank slightly to the right, away from him. Then they talk about the second plane, the C-130 that was send by a military flight controller to observe the situation. It came in much higher, from over the Cemetery grounds, Darrell says, and then the C-130 banked sharp to the left, circling back on its original course to its Air National Guard home-base again, after radioing in that a big commercial plane had impacted the Pentagon.

Then the Darius Prather interview up to the 26:36 minute, and he has the plane very low but level over the left side of the roof of the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, and then it started slightly curving away from him at about a 30° angle as he showed with the toy plane. The most startling remark of Darius is, that the plane's wings cut two lamp posts their tops near the street sign over Columbia Pike, to the NORTH of the CITGO gas station, and that "they saw those two lamp tops laying there after it hit". So not the lamp poles on the SoC trajectory.!!
Then he describes the C-130 coming high from his right and its circling back. And then he draws the flight path as he remembered it on an aerial photo, just as Darrell did before.

Then the Donald Carter interview up to the 32:18 minute, he says it wobbled a bit as if it struggled or tried to avoid something and then came "gliding silently" over the Annex roofs center and then veered off to the right. He also saw the C-130 coming in higher a few minutes later, from the right side (the north) and then suddenly circling back to the north again. His remarkable remark was that " a split second later two fighter planes came in, and went straight to the north, it looked as if they went after that second plane." After the C-130.

Then the William Middleton interview from the 33:40 to the 44:32 minutes, he was driving a water-truck on a path along the south fence inside the Arlington National Cemetery, and just beside the northeast side of the Navy Annex, so much further west than the other workers. William saw the plane as white and its circling down maneuver all the way, and he described it as circling over the DC-area, not as the NTSB described it, as on the other side of the Potomac River. At 36:00 he says that the plane was first circling, as when planes coming in for landing, first have to circle while waiting in line for their turn to land. Then he saw it dropping from right between the Sheraton Hotel and the Navy Annex, and you see William where he was on 9/11, right in front of the corner of the 8th Wing building that nearly borders to the National Cemetery, with about a hundred meters grass and Southgate Road between them. The plane was dropping over and along that grass and road, and it was so low already and so close to William, that he could feel the heat of the engines when it had passed him so close by, over Southgate Road. He says that when it was coming in, you could hear it whistling, and then when it had come down enough, it kicked full throttle after it had passed him and came right over the Arlington National Cemetery its southern parking lot, and he heard its engines spinning up and he watched as it was impacting straight into the building. He repeats that the plane was WHITE. And it came really close past him, so why did he not see the otherwise very noticeable AA color striping at the side.?
Then he says that the plane was kinda slow when it was dropping, and then kicked the throttle after a few wobbles, and hit beside the Heliport Tower.

Basically, all 4 witnesses say the plane came in quite silently and kicked the throttle only after it was along the southern small but longer stretched-out Arlington National Cemetery parking side, situated along its most southern fence, and it was banking at a very slight and normal angle, no more than at a max. 35° angle, as they all indicated with that model plane in hand : (CIT video from July 2008)

Note that the UNOFFICIALLY decoded extra last 4 to 6 seconds of the recovered DFDR, decoded by Warren Strutt, showed no banks at all for AA77 in its DFDR registered but increasingly more garbled last few flight seconds.
And a quite higher airspeed was decoded by the NTSB for Flight 77 in its last OFFICIALLY registered data-frame, which was registered at the last decoded spot in its OFFICIAL SoC straight flight path, its last NTSB decoded position thus being just a few tens of meters south of the Sheraton Hotel.
This is my original drawn flight path that covered all 24 NoC witnesses reports :

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:27 AM

D. This is the today by me constructed alternative flight path (review needed for viability), drawn over Reheats drawing, build on the descriptions of the following 17 witnesses, especially the one from Albert Hemphill.
The transition from a slight left bank over to a slight right bank as reported by Hemphill is addressed in this below drawn flight path, that consists of a relatively short radius, left wing banked arc, then a fast transition flip over to a bit longer radius, right wing banked arc, all at lower speeds than decoded from the DFDR by the NTSB, like 230 to 250 Knots :

1. Albert Hemphill, in his top office in the 8th Wing of Navy Annex : "the plane came in my view over my right shoulder when I stood in my top floor office looking towards the Pentagon, it looked as if it just had made a slight left bank, as if it just avoided some obstacle, after that shifted to a long right bank. The time it was in my sight up to the impact at the west wall lasted about 10 seconds".
Phone call to Albert Hemphill 05/24/10 - by Jeff Hill, Mp3 Download link :
Craig Ranke called Albert just before Jeff Hill did, Craig Ranke's call to Albert Hemphill :

2. Mr Middleton, on the south fence path at Arlington National Cemetery : "I saw the plane fly by in front of me, beside the Annex and low over Southgate Road beside me, standing on the fence path inside but along the ANC border".
3. Chadwick Brooks, on the parking beside Joyce Street, opposite of the western entrance of the CITGO gas station, "I saw the plane passing in front of me from west to east, crossing over the tree line north of CITGO".
4. William Lagasse, under the Northern CITGO canopy, at pump 1, "saw the surface of its right wing which was slightly down, about 100 to 150 feet AGL (above ground level) ".
4a. The point above electrical wires and transformer-posts along the Columbia Pike road, where Lagasse first saw the plane coming into his eyesight.
5-6-7-8. Four ANC Maintenance employees at the ANC grounds. All saw a slow, slight right banking plane flying between the CITGO and the ANC grounds. Realize that such a slight bank automatically indicates a slow flying plane.!
9-10-11-12. Christine Peterson, Penny Elgas, Vin Narayanan, Don Mason. This is another post about Vin Narayanan. And this is Jeff Hill's phone interview with Vin.
They all 4 were stuck on Route 27's center HOV lane in the traffic jam, three of them said they were standing in front of the concrete Heli pad when the plane flew OVER them.
Three of them say the plane came straight over their heads and impacted, while Penny Elgas (audio) said she stood 4 or 5 cars behind the cars where the plane flew OVER, and she saw it flying low toward her, and partly over the CITGO gas station ( Penny : the wing was right over the gas station, and I first thought it would of gonna hit it).
13. Sean Boger, Heliport tower operator, "plane came in my sight from over the Annex center, descending in a slight right bank flying along a path to the north of CITGO, which lasted 10 to 15 seconds".
14. Mr Levi, standing in Lane 1 of South Parking.
15. Roosevelt Roberts, ran and then stood on the edge of the east loading dock belonging to the South Loading area, and the vast South Parking area.
16. Steve Riskus, saw plane cross perpendicular over Route 27 within 300 yards in front of him. He drove southbound, beside the beginning of that white concrete wall that held the soil from the east side of the ANC.
17. Frank Probst, walking along Route 27 towards the two trees, had to dive on the footpath, to not get hit by the plane's jet engine.

18. Terry Morin, says the time from when he first heard the plane up to impact lasted about 12 to 15 seconds. Time from hearing it first coming towards him, up till seeing it pass over him between the 4th and 5th Annex Wing buildings was 1 to 2 seconds, so that last stretch up to impact lasted according to him, between about 11 to 14 and/or 10 to 13 seconds flight time to impact.

Which reported flight times coupled to the reported STANDARD BANKS are all in total disagreement with the 3.2 seconds that Annex-to-Impact stretch was flown in the officially endorsed, straight flight path of Flight 77, according to the "recovered data" of the DFDR found near the C-Ring hole in the Pentagon.
These much longer reported times already indicate to the critical reader, that there is something wrong, either with the witnesses, or with the DFDR.

Thus, YOU, the reader, decide for yourself what is easier :
To change all the 22 stories already told on 9/11 or shortly after, by all 22 eyewitnesses,
or change some last seconds of recorded data by fiddling around a tad bit with the electronically registered data on a digital medium like the DFDR solid state chips.

Which DFDR unit was coincidentally lost for about 2 days as reported in news papers and FBI reports, until it magically appeared again on someones FBI desk.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:29 AM

You have to click on the 11 red colored subject titles, or, go here and do the same :
You'd better read however the whole -long but interesting- CIT response article HERE. It has dozens of links to information packed sources.

In my opinion however, there was no fly-over. There's no witnesses of such an event. And don't come up with Roosevelt Roberts, he definitely is not a fly-over witness.
Just Search ATS and fill in the search-terms " LaBTop Roosevelt Roberts ".

What these 23 NoC witnesses indicate however, is a low impact at a 75 to 80 degrees angle on the Pentagon's West wall's obliterated tree in front of its wall-column nr.14. And then the compressed plane debris plus building debris came to rest somewhere near the divider space between the outer E-ring and the D-ring. And that space collapsed half an hour later on top of the plane debris. We never saw any photos of the clean-up of exactly that space.
There were no brick walls in between the C-ring and outer E-ring on the first and second floors, it were essentially two huge office spaces with thin one-brick, or plastic, or wooden or gypsum wall dividers.

Both refs 1. and 2. are good reading for their loads of information. But not all of it is true, and has been contested in many forums. Make up your own mind.!
I am still firmly convinced that the 23 NoC witnesses told the truth and really saw a huge passenger plane pass low north of the CITGO gas station in its max. 35 degrees bank angled path to the west wall of the Pentagon.

3. Title : The Generator-trailer its cabin roof-gouge is made by a NoC flying AA 77.
Not conclusive, there's however lots of info in there. Like my Roosevelt Roberts post. And my victims post. And my attack reason post. And my dangling concrete cover-strips post.
And this post, and this post, and this ASCE report post, and this Purdue University simulation post. Read the rest of my posts on the next 5 pages.
Especially this one HERE, with all the explanatory drawings on the gouge photos, and then waypastvne corrected the 42 degrees angle of impact to 48 degrees to the normal on the wall in the ASCE report, and calculated the true north heading to 58 deg. true north. While I came up with 61.2 degrees true north.
And this is my final explanation with drawings in my thread page 7, titled " NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all." :

My big ASCE Report post, about the ONLY 4 hrs access time granted to these engineers to the Pentagon attacked Wedge 1, on 04 Oct. 04, 2001.

4. Radar and NTSB Time Normalization for 9/11 Data Source, by John S. Farmer 2009.
CLICK the 23 Pages PDF file about the 84th Radar Evaluation Squad time difference average of 25.3 seconds, while at the time of the Pentagon event, the time difference was only 25.1 seconds.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:34 AM

E.. Let's at last also correct my NoC flight path drawing in my OP of this thread, titled :
" NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all."

Read first its full page 1, then start reading all my 7 posts on top of its page 2, that give a multitude of links to other posts, threads, discussions, explanations and calculations with the intention to give you a good grasp on the NoC issues.

In accordance with the intention of that thread, I will also prove to the readers that the signature line-link of Reheat ( " Debunking the North of Citgo Theory ") is based on far too high airspeeds, and thus he will never be able to fit his excessive speeds into the 23 NoC witness sightings of a much slower plane.
Reheat clearly accepts only one acceptable TRUTH for him, as told by his life long paymasters, the last ten US governments, and their obedient Institutes.
In short, he vehemently defends a south of CITGO gas station flying Flight 77, the SoC theory.
Based on his trust in the truthfulness of the recovered DFDR (digital flight data recorder), the 84th Radar Evaluation Squad radar reports, the FAA their flight controllers reports, the Pentagon damage reports, the first responders reports and what he thinks are true eyewitness reports for a SoC flight path.

Let's dissect first, a few of his, and many others their strong beliefs :

1. The DFDR its last recorded data points (officially endorsed by the NTSB) were situated according to the Flight 77 recovered DFDR's last fully recorded positional data stream frames, about 100 meters south of the south side of the Sheraton Hotel.
I do not contest that position. I contest the trajectory from there to impact.
Reheat thinks the plane went straight on, from that point on, along a SoC flight path to its impact point at column 14 in the west wall of the Pentagon under an angle of 42 degrees with that west wall. The DFDR deducted flight path, if extrapolated from its last mile positional data, supports of course such a scenario.
Every conspiracy seeker will understand that data can be manipulated. And those 23 NoC witnesses observations strongly suggest that this was the case for the offered Pentagon attack "evidence" heap.

I am firmly convinced, that from that last DFDR recorded and by the NTSB checked data-point on, the plane made a sudden evasive move, slightly northwards, a slight left bank turn thus, to avoid hitting head-on, the tall VDOT's radio communications mast made of steel beams that stood 50 meters south of the Navy Annex building.
Directly after that, the plane slightly right-banked back to the right, to execute the 30° up to 35° right-banked curved NoC turn, ending up at the same Pentagon west wall column 14, but under an angle with the west wall of perhaps 70° to 80°. Impacting and perforating through the first E-ring, and then its remaining debris stopped somewhere at the room walls or space dividers between the D and E-ring.

Reheat and others curiously enough concentrated on just one aspect of my defense of the 23 NoC witnesses that saw a big passenger plane flying in a curved flight path around a point to the north of CITGO gas station (NoC).
They were not concentrating on these 23 witness statements !
Instead they noted my INCORRECT drawn length of the radius, which I had coupled to my CORRECT drawn 30° up to 35° right banked curved NoC turn-curvature, which as Reheat correctly said, was about a 40% misjudgment by me of the length of the resulting turn its radius, as drawn by me in my first post's drawing with that big white bottom part in it.
In which I, on top of the radius length mistake, also INCORRECTLY situated the center point of its turn radius :
Check the lengths of my 5 drawn radii, they are not identical, thus the center is misplaced by me. Another needed correction which they seemed to have missed in my OP drawing.
This is that incorrect radius drawing with my additional big white bottom portion, to accommodate the space for the also incorrect placed by me center point of that also incorrect drawn radius length.
Exponent calculated in page 2 it should have been 2053 m instead of 3200 m written inside my drawing :

Reheat wrote that the curved NoC flight path I drew should have a 2700 meters radius instead of my turn/bank calculator outcome of 3200 meters. He thus was also wrong.
I had drawn an INCORRECT radius of 3200 m; while exponent later on page 2 calculated that a 2053 m radius in fact belonged to my CORRECTLY drawn curved flight path, covering all 23 NoC-witness positions and interviews.

Which incorrect drawn radius I measured by comparing the length of the Navy Annex (300 meters) to the other given length of 200 meter in the raw Google Earth drawing I used.
Because of the low-res quality of the enormous Google Earth picture I used, I miscalculated the Navy Annex length, it should be smaller. Thus, the resulting length of my radius, instead of 3200 meters, should have been drawn as a length of 2053 meters (x 0.3048 = 6736 feet) on that GE map.

My biggest mistake however was trying to draw that radius in that now much too far compacted huge Google Earth map-photo plus additional huge white space area.
ATS-member "exponent" (a fine peer reviewer) corrected me here, and showed us, that my drawn NoC flight path curved line, did by far not belong to my quite miscalculated radius length of 3200 m, as I thought.
In fact my drawn radius that I thought was 3200 m, was 1150 m too long on that extended GE map, it showed a curve belonging to a radius of just 2053 m, exponent explained.

This is exponent's map (1.692px × 815px (scaled to 491px × 236px)) plus radius calculation :

Since he did not draw the actual curved flight path in his drawing, I did that for him :

Exponent : Chord length is 1176m (LT : his red line)
Sagitta length is 86m (LT : his blue line))
(Google Earth measurements)

radius = 1176²/8*86 + 86/2
radius = 43 + 1176²/688
radius = 2053m
Your radius is 1150m too large according to the diagram I can extrapolate from your low resolution image. If you'd like to pick more accurate spots I can recalculate.
This also increases the predicted bank angle (using the same, allegedly incorrect values) to 35.9°
Feel free to present your rebuttal, I look forward to it.

Of course I have no rebuttal of his correct calculation, he was using the correct formula from this Performance-link on Reheats NoC-debunking page.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:37 AM
There is however no problem at all, for flight AA 77 to have flown, as all 13 NoC witnesses and 10 other witnesses also reported, in a curved turn around the north side of the CITGO gas station, with a radius of 2.053 Km, and in a (near) standard right bank angle attitude of 30° up to 35° at an initial speed -when entering the turn- of 234.109 KTS ( 269.4 MPH).

And even up to 434.5 KNOTS (500.111 MPH) initial speed and the same 35° bank angle, but then it would have followed a much wider turn radius (23986.6 feet = 7.311 Km), which resulting curved flight path would not cover all witness positions, at most one or two.

The radius of the curved turn will widen with higher speeds, i.o.w. the curved turn will be getting more stretched, getting closer to a much less curved, nearly straight flight path line, when the speed values which are entered in the on-line turn calculator increase.
The constant factor in every bank / turn calculation is the rated stall speed of a 757 of 160 KTS, or 184.160 MPH, filled in in that on-line calculator, when initiating that turn after it had just passed over the roof of the Navy Annex its Wing 8 building.

I intended to show the readers the radius length belonging to the curved turn I had constructed in my opening post on page 1 of my thread. That passed over all the 13 CIT flight path witnesses and the 10 additional witnesses I have found.
Due to a comparison fault of the arc-radius made by me, with the length of the Navy Annex I ended up with a one third too long radius length of 3,200 m instead of the proper value of 2,053 m at a very slight right bank angle of 24.9° at a speed of 230.2 MPH, which is alike the one as shown by the 4 ANC workers with a model plane in their hand, when asked by CIT who were interviewing them, if they could show how the plane was approaching them :

Explained here. And these are the two important parts from my post :

3200 m Radius drawing with big white bottom portion to fit the center point of that radius :

Turn/bank calculator results :

Another row of my posts on page 3.

1.540px × 742px (scaled to 819px × 394px)

Now read Reheats explanations in his follow up post,

and realize then immediately, with the new knowledge you have now gained from my above explanations about the iron-clad, indisputable combinations of SIGHTED slight standard BANK ANGLES and the then NECESSARILY SLOWER SPEEDS accompanying such slight bank angles, derived from Reheat's own posted turn and bank calculator, that Mr Reheat cleverly tries to flood you with his undoubtedly vast aeronautical experience and know-how, but is distracting you, the reader, from the simple TRUTH :

Reheat : In addition to your concocted definition of small versus large bank angles you find that the speed must be unreasonably slow. It's even contrary and slower than the speed you specified earlier in the thread. The bulk of your witnesses indicated the aircraft was haulin' ass, yet you choose two who indicated it may have been slower in order to fit with your fantasy.

A huge passenger plane passing in such close vicinity as most NoC witnesses experienced, will easily leave the impression that the aircraft was haulin' ass...If readers ever visited flight shows, they will recognize what I mean. Jet engines in flight make a lot of noise flying so close and low past the viewers.

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.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:45 AM

1. Readers should read all my posts on this "NoC versus SoC issue" thread page 4, starting with this one, where I explain why I post such long-winded walls of text, and that I was just convinced by 2 JREFers that both Rob Balsamo's and CIT their Pentagon fly-over theory was based on a misinterpretation of the 2 phone interviews done by CIT of Roosevelt Roberts. And that theory did cost CIT most of their on-line backers.
The rest of my posts on page 4 are full of nice drawings and pictures for the textual impaired readers who lean heavily on quick scanning of posts, to determine if they need to read the text too.
By the way, Reheat posted one page earlier his personal motive to post in this 9/11 forum.

These earlier 3 posts of mine are helpful too, in understanding my stand on the NoC matter and the methods used to construct my turn radii :

2. My discussion of the peculiar moment in time that those last 4 seconds of the DFDR of Flight 77 found by Warren Strutt were popping up : just after the full video interview with Lagasse and Brooks by CIT came on-line in 2006, shattering the whole, till then solidly build-up SoC official explanation of 77's straight line flightpath, in its last 15 seconds. and introducing the NoC flight path theory. Based on 13 CIT interviewed eyewitnesses. I found another 9 on top of that.

3. The 2006 CIT (Citizen Investigation Team, 2 persons) video interviews of sergeants Lagasse and Brooks, Pentagon Heli-tower operator Sean Boger, and the ceiling flash under the CITGO gas stations northern canopy, after which all the activity inside and outside the gas station changed, because a plane had impacted the Pentagon west wall.

4. I definitely found multiple MANUAL pressure resets ( or inserted by some REMOTELY CONTROLLED device) in that Flight 77 recovered FDR, which normally only will be done when a plane goes up, or back down through the 18,000 feet ceiling.

Which means that the hijackers knew the PRECISE barometric pressure at Reagan International Airport, while still far out of reach of any radio relayed information regarding that information. Evidenced by the fact that they did not bury their plane into the soil, or overshot the Pentagon during the last few hundred meters, while being deep into a still influential ground effect, even at that ridiculously high speed. Ground effect lessens considerably at high speeds.

OR, some or all of the recovered FDR is false.
Look at this last 5 seconds vertical and horizontal acceleration diagram of AA77, then read the rest of that page 37 and the next, last page 38.
Diagram title : Behavior of Flight 77, as by FDR, in the last 5 seconds :

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:49 AM

Title : 9/11 Pentagon Witnesses - They Saw the Plane Hit!
At 1:31 / 4:04 in the video a text from Penny Elgas, from June 5, 2009, is shown on screen :

"I saw it over the gas station, I saw it over the grass, I saw it right in front of me, I saw it hit the building."

When you Search ATS with these terms : " LaBTop Penny Elgas Jeff Hill Pump it Out ", you will find my post with its links to all Jeff Hill Pentagon-eyewitness audio-interviews done by him by phone with the links to her phone interview with Jeff Hill from the PumpItOut forum, in which she clearly stated to have been standing at a standstil in the traffic jam in the center lanes of Route 27 (Washington Boulevard), almost in front of the Pentagon and its square, concrete, helicopter pad in the lawn in front of the Pentagon's west wall, when AA77 flew past her, over the car that stood 4 or 5 cars in front of her, into the Pentagon at column 14 in the huge concrete floor slab of the first floor.

I really would like to hear an explanation from the usual OS Trusters, how she ever could have described a SoC flying plane from her point of view while standing nearly in front of the Pentagon, as flying over the gas station and passing right in front of her.
Look for that at aerial maps and my witness positioning drawing :

Click for full picture:

Click for full picture:

Click for full picture:

Click for full picture:

By the way, there are quite some more interviews with Penny, which I all mentioned in my past ATS posts about her being in fact a firm NoC witness, while others used her statements as an impact witness without realizing how devastating her full interviews were to the official SoC 48 degrees angle of impact to the normal on the west wall.

She could have never ever been able to see an officially endorsed AA 77 flying at her RIGHT side while it was clipping light poles there, as ALSO passing over the CITGO gas station at her LEFT side....

That could have only been possible if she would have described her position as standing in front of, thus south of, the overpass bridge over the road leading to the Pentagon South Parking, which road name is Columbia Pike.
She never did so, she always firmly said she was sitting in her car which was standing almost in front of the Pentagon.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:58 AM

H. 1. The CIT Response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole their Pentagon statements.

2. American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence.
An ABUNDANCE of many good Pentagon pictures and videos, one of them the whitish vertical imprint of the thin front of the tail stabilizer on the facade, which I never saw before.
Lots of FAA flight controller tapes, radar tapes with mil.fl.controller voices overlaid, etc etc.
There's a video of a Dutch private pilot with low experience hitting 3 times out of 3 the target, the Pentagon, while the real AA77 recovered DFDR airspeeds of between 260 and 300 knots were programmed in the Boeing full motion flight simulator for that 5 mile wide, 300 degrees turn around towards the west wall of the Pentagon, and the throttles at near idle positions :
"Novice Crashes Into Pentagon Three Times In Simulator"

The Pilots for Truth website put up the same simulator flight, however, they programmed far too high airspeeds in their simulation of the corkscrew turn by AA77, and ended up in a dutch roll every time when they flew around 500 MPH in their turn maneuver (2:03 into the video) :

I have to mention ONE STRANGE fact : the DFDR shows that all three autopilot functions were switched off already 10 miutes before that 300 degrees turn. It seems to be quite difficult to perform such a steep descending 300 degrees turn without the aid of those autopilot functions.

3. Penny Elgas text :

Eye Witness Accounts Eye witness and participant recall accounts are important but only when validated and verified by primary sources and secondary information. Given the complete story of AA 77 and the Pentagon we can now add to the account an exceptional eye witness account, that of Penny Elgas. Her detailed, articulate, and reflective narrative is consistent in its detail and provides a vivid picture to complement the technical work of Legge and Stutt.

Penny Elgas : I entered the highway a little after 9am so that I could take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane. As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon. -snip- Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. -snip- In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. 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. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes

4. At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 : , page 12 - Above Top Secret The telephone interview with Penny Elgas by Jeffrey Hill from his PumpItOut website : Jeffrey Hill ( he seems not to be friendly with CIT ) from the pumpitout website (screen name ... Here he tries to find out if she saw the plane cross over Route 27 in a perpendicular 90° .... Search for "LaBTop flash CITGO".

5. Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate ... And probably bring all out war over to the US. ... Hill from Pumpitout did, avoiding the exact position of Penny Elgas ... reply to post by LaBTop.

6. NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ... Are you afraid to find out, that Vin is present in one of the Steve Riskus pictures in a totally different spot ... Listen to the phone interview of Jeff Hill with Penny Elgas , it's up at his site, PumpItOut. ... Originally posted by LaBTop

7. NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ... Labtop is now looking for a piece of tail, so maybe he'll be distracted by that and ..... his interview by CIT at the CITGO gas station pump where he was filling up his ... Penny Elgas who said she stood no more than a few cars behind that .... Eugene Debbs typed out part of Jeff Hill's phone interview with Albert ...

8. NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ... When I want to know something about aircraft crashes, I seek out an .... These are 22 phone interviews Jeff Hill did with Pentagon 9/11 witnesses. ... me from accessing this link to Penny Elgas her phone interview? ... I am now logged in as LaBTop in your forum, as you can see and ... Forum

9. post by LaBTop - Above Top Secret So I ran back in the South loading and I saw forcing people out of the building. .... incoming from the SOUTH-WEST, over the high on the hill situated Navy .... Board President Captain Jeff Latas and Commander Ralph Kolstad who ..... The full interview shortly after 911 with Penny Elgas will give you an idea ...
This is also a page with alot of discussion about the interviews with Roosevelt Roberts, the PfT and CIT main fly-over candidate witness. Which he was not. He saw the C-130 making an U-turn above but in front of Route 27. And returning to its Air National Guard home base. Read my posts on page 52 too, about Sean Boger seeing the plane coming to him, on the right side of the gas station, as seen from his position, standing in the Heliport tower and looking towards the gas station. That's coming in from NoC, north of CITGO.

Penny Elgas said she stood a few cars behind where the plane crossed Route 27 in front of the Pentagon, and thus behind Cristine Peterson, who told us that she stood right in front of the Heliport's concrete landing pad, when the plane flew straight over her head.

10. Multiple explosions at the Pentagon on 9/11 :

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 07:01 AM
11. "First video report of plane hitting Pentagon" by FOX5 News, AA77 impact was at 09:38 and the video starts in the last seconds of 09:42 a.m. and it last for 3 minutes and 29 seconds :

During all this time, you clearly see traffic moving fast in the outer north AND southbound lanes....
Look carefully in the left bottom corner of the FULL-screen. You see the Pentagon South Parking Lot in its lowest left screen part, and the two trees in front of the Helipad at a 1/3 level of the left screen part, and the huge white concrete wall on the National Cemetery side of Route 27, and in front of that white concrete you see lots of cars pass up and down that Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) during all these 3.5 minutes.
While all witnesses said the traffic stood at a standstill when the plane came over their heads and impacted directly after that.

How come we have all these stories AND photographs by Ingersoll and Steve Riskus, where not ONE moving car is to be seen in all their photos, and in many of them, all the cars in the HOV lanes are empty and at a standstill. While their drivers have crossed the northbound lanes to watch the carnage?

The problem is, we can't see clearly if the HOV lane has any moving cars inside their lanes. The video is too grainy to conclude definitely if those HOV lane cars were also moving, or if there were even any cars in that HOV lane.
Perhaps anyone interested could find a sharper HD-copy of this FOX5 News video in that huge on-line 9/11 video repository?

PS: after having a good look again, I see in the region above the letter "i" from LIVE, on the video screen, between those two trees, some dark spots that probably are slowly moving cars in the HOV lane, and I even seem to see one SUV that was trying to turn around. These slowly moving black blobs are passed by whiter, faster moving blobs in the outer northbound lane closer to the Pentagon lawn, and cover up for a moment the black blobs in the HOV lane. I also see a lot of fast moving white cars in the southbound outer lane passing BEHIND those black blobs in the HOV lane.
So, yes, we already see FOUR minutes after impact, up to 7.5 minutes later, still slowly moving cars in the HOV lane, which is not at all in accordance with the photos shot by Riskus, who stopped beside the south bound outer lane and began to shoot photos with NO moving cars in it, within a few minutes after impact, as he said many times on-line and in interviews.
And Elgas, Peterson, Mason and Varayanan all four said they were in the HOV lane, at a standstill.....three of them say they were standing IN FRONT OF THE HELIPAD when the plane flew right over them, while Penny Elgas said she stood nearly in front of the Pentagon, and saw the plane fly over the 4th or 5th car in front of her, then impacted. Which means Penny stood also very near to that Helipad, and NOT somewhere south of the overpass bridge in Route 27, where Columbia Pike goes under towards the Pentagon's South Parking.
Because that's where she MUST have stood if she saw the SoC diagonally flying plane passing beside and just north of that huge street signs board hanging over Route 27 a few meters before that bridge overpass. She clearly stood not there, since she also said that she saw the plane coming at her, while looking out of her driver side window, coming at her from right over Columbia Pike :

The only way to have that happen, is when she described a NoC flying plane, the dark-blue line in the above photo, and stood somewhere near the right border of the above photo at the end of that yellow line, looking out of her driver side window, seeing the plane coming at her, straight over that part of Columbia Pike in the back of the CITGO gas station.
And she thus stood a few cars behind those other three witnesses, near those 2 trees in front of the Helipad. And NOT just before that overpass bridge, where that yellow line levels off.

PS2 :
I was right, here you have a video shot by Dave Statter just about 8 minutes after impact, near the Helipad, where you see moving cars in all lanes, so also in the HOV lane (0:24), and two stubborn still parked cars in the HOV lane that get passed in that HOV lane by another car in the second HOV lane. And then you see a camera man with clearly a professional TV camera on his shoulder running past at the end of this short video.
Title : Video at Pentagon helipad shortly after impact, 9-11-01 :

edit on 10/10/15 by LaBTop because: Last video doubles its screen. Why, I have no clue, play it at YouTube, there it's alright.!

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 07:03 AM

Fill in : LaBTop Christine Peterson ,and click SEARCH. You get 1 result for LaPTop.
And then click on "Did you mean: LaBTop Christine Peterson" and you get 3 pages, 28 results:

*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin ...
From LaBTop's witness list: Steve Riskus - impact. Christine Peterson - impact. Sean Boger - impact. Deb Anlauf - impact. Gary Bauer - impact

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over., page 1
May 4, 2009 ... Originally posted by LaBTop ... Christine Peterson says the plane crossed over her head and thus her car, which she told us, was standing in ...

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ...
Christine Peterson can easily be reached via her Alumni page at NAU, Northern ... edit on 25/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given).

At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 : , page 13
edit on 20/11/11 by LaBTop because: Link to YouTube garbled up. ..... witnesses of a NoC path, and Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas and a ...

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ...
Penny Elgas and Christine Peterson stood near and in front of the Heli pad when the plane flew over them, thus .... reply to post by LaBTop.

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11 ...
But Penny Elgas, Christine Peterson and Vin Varayanan did tell their reporters, that they ... edit on 24/6/15 by LaBTop because: See my EDIT.

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ...
Labtop is now looking for a piece of tail, so maybe he'll be distracted by ..... Just as Christine Peterson who is the strongest NoC witness and ...

*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin ...
Christine Peterson, born in 1973, was sitting in her car standing still ... That is just your opinion, and LabTop just decisively proved you wrong.

CIT's own logical fallacy in their fly-over thesis., page 3
Originally posted by LaBTop .... LaBTop's NoC and Impact flight path fits in perfectly. ..... She was a few cars behind Christine Peterson.

Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate ...
Funny you ignored all my previous posts, as did LaBTop and ..... We also have a stated position of Christine Peterson (she stood in the traffic ...
Terry Morin :

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 07:06 AM

J. Lots of eyewitness accounts for the Pentagon attack :

Christine Peterson :
I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.

And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.

In front of the helipad, plane flew over her, then Penny Elgas must have stood 4 to 5 cars behind her car, since Penny said the plane crossed the road over the cars that were 4 to 5 cars in front of her. So Penny stood about 20 meters behind Christine, who stood in front of the Helipad.

William Middleton Sr. :
William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.
Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.

That means it accelerated from its frontal position at the ANC parking, up till impact.

James R. Cissell :
''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.
''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''
In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind.
''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.
He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.''

A NoC plane would have flown partly OVER the helipad. A SoC plane couldn't fly over the helipad, certainly not as seen from the very near position Cissell was in, as he explained so vividly.

ETCETERA. Many more NoC viewers, if you could interview them, without gag orders.

It's done.!

edit on 10/10/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

+7 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Wow not going to lie here tldr. Could you give us a short answer to how you feel.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 12:17 PM
a reply to: LaBTop
That's a pretty long rebuttal to someone who has not been here since Dec. 28, 2012.

Just saying


top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in