It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

That damaged generator fits perfectly with a south-of-the-gas station flight path when a straight line is drawn from the downed light poles to the generator, the hole in the west wall of the Pentagon and finally, the C-ring exit hole. A simple straight line the proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Now, let's take a look at one of your videos where it says that the wreckage is that of a DC-9-11 at the C-ring exit hole from tome line 1:04 to 1:18.

I noticed that the wreckage is that of a B-757. You will also notice the wheel hub of a B-757 in that video near the C-ring exit hole.

Now, let's take a look at your next video.



In that video, go to time line 4:82. That photo of a cruise missile was doctored in the colors of American Airlines.

In other words, you are posting videos that contain bogus information. I might add that the C-ring punch out hole was created by the landing gear of American 77, which was evident by the fact there is a wheel hub and even remains of a tire near the C-ring exit hole and cruise missiles do not have landing gears.

I might add that a cruise missile was incapable of inflicting that level of damage at the Pentagon, much less take down the light poles and then strike the generator before striking the west wall of the Pentagon and finally, punching that C-ring hole.

It seems that you were unaware that in your video depicting a cruise missile strike, that video was doctored and well-known, and once again, cruise missiles do not have landing gears, yet wheel hubs and shredded B-757 tires were recovered at the Pentagon, even at the C-ring hole where structural engineers indicated that the C-ring hole was made by the landing gear of American 77.

As shown, your videos and depictions are highly flawed when evidence is taken into consideration.












edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I am still firmly convinced by at least the two Pentagon Police officers their interviews as NoC witnesses, that a huge passenger plane flew in fact really North of the CITGO gas station in a slightly curved, 2054 m radius, 35 degrees banking flightpath at 230 to 250 KTS.

It's of course not so amazing that so many people here, at a Conspiracy Seeking site, still believe in a SoC flight path, because that is strengthened of course by those 5 SoC path-indicators which in my eyes are a bit overdone, when compared to the honestly told oral stories from 25 NoC witnesses.

Of course 9/11 planners would plant as many indicators as possible to strengthen their in advanced prepared and necessary for their attack-intention, internal damages evidence.
If caught, they knew their own death would be imminent. So they overdid it a bit to be very sure of the outcome, the so badly needed deception of the masses.

You can obtain many further good images and videos from this linked-to site, whether you are a North or South of CITGO flight path believer, both can use them to their personal advantage.


Keep in mind however, that when you honestly believe Lagasse & Brooks their 9/11 event recollection, then try to imagine a NoC incoming plane, which could never have impacted the west wall under that angle as laid out as a SoC flight path angle of 42° to the normal on the west wall ( = 48° to that wall), or 61.25° to the true north line.

A NoC plane must have impacted at an angle somewhere between 80° and 90° to the wall, or at about 20° to 0° to the normal on the wall.
And at a much lower end-speed, and its less compressed debris could not have penetrated so far as a SoC flying, much faster plane, just no further than the back of the E-Ring area (which had no concrete divider walls on its first and second floors) :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


In that case, it means that all 5 indicators of a SoC flight path were staged, if one firmly beliefs Sgt Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks. You should read the Northwoods Paper, to see to what lengths those generals in the sixties were prepared to go to have 5 reasons to invade Cuba :

Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba - National Security Archives :
nsarchive.gwu.edu...

Or how LBJ got his invasion of Vietnam :
LBJ Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident :
nsarchive.gwu.edu...

Or how human history shows endless false flag operations :

These False Flags Were Used To Start A War :
www.zerohedge.com...

10 false flags operations that shaped our world :
www.thirdworldtraveler.com...


Then those 5 above mentioned eventual Pentagon SoC attack indicators are not such an impossible task to imagine anymore....



I am now going to read 50+ more posted pages in my ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"" thread, it surprisingly enough has amassed to 95 pages...

To my Readers, thanks in advance for your persistence, to try to read all this.
I appreciate it. Do step in, you never know what you could bring to the plate, that wasn't thought off by all of us....And keep asking, or you never get your specificly sought after, important to You, answers.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



am still firmly convinced by at least the two Pentagon Police officers their interviews as NoC witnesses, that a huge passenger plane flew in fact really North of the CITGO gas station in a slightly curved, 2054 m radius, 35 degrees banking flightpath at 230 to 250 KTS.


This depiction proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77 passed south of the Pentagon.

Proof, that American 77 passed south of the gas station.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



2. The gash in the roof of the generator trailer and the right jet engine damage to the fence has fascinated me to no end, as you can see :


Since you've confirm that the right engine of American 77 struck the generator, why did you post a video that claimed that a DC-9-11 struck the Pentagon?


And your next video claimed that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon?


The wreckage at the Pentagon was not indicative of wreckage from a DC-9. In other words, you confirm the strike from a B-757 and yet, you post videos containing bogus information, one of which was doctored to add a cruise missiles leaving a fiery trail which cruise missile do not do just before impact because they are powered by conventional jet engines without afterburners.

edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop



2. The gash in the roof of the generator trailer and the right jet engine damage to the fence has fascinated me to no end, as you can see :


Since you've confirm that the right engine of American 77 struck the generator, why did you post a video that claimed that a DC-9-11 struck the Pentagon?


And your next video claimed that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon?


The wreckage at the Pentagon was not indicative of wreckage from a DC-9.


My good man, did you ever consider that DC could mean District of Columbia ?
And 9/11 means, yup, September 9, 2001. It's getting a tad bit hilarious, don't you think so yourself.? Could you step down a bit, and really READ my posts.?

And those videos contain other material that I used, and of course I do not condone a cruise missile hit, you should know that by now, reading and answering so many of my posts.
edit on 21/10/15 by LaBTop because: Forgot to type my text, ROTFL.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



My good man, did you ever consider that DC could mean District of Columbia ?


I knew that. I have been TDY to Andrews AFB and billeted at Bolling AFB. I have spend a lot of time in the Washington D.C. area.


And those videos contain other material that I used, and of course I do not condone a cruise missile hit, you should know that by now, reading and answering so many of my posts.


Don't post anything that is not true. I see it as an attempt to mislead.

edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



I am still firmly convinced by at least the two Pentagon Police officers their interviews as NoC witnesses, that a huge passenger plane flew in fact really North of the CITGO gas station in a slightly curved, 2054 m radius, 35 degrees banking flightpath at 230 to 250 KTS.


American 77 was traveling at over 400 knots and a slightly curved banking maneuver would have had American 77 missing the Pentagon completely if a north-of-the-gas station flight path was flown.



To my Readers, thanks in advance for your persistence, to try to read all this. I appreciate it.


You post testimonies from people whose statements do not jive with the documented physical evidence and it has been shown that eyewitness testimonies are not reliable in air disasters and remember, sources have been presented as well.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Could you at last understand, that the NoC flight path and its indicators are MY OPINION, and the SoC flight path and its indicators are YOUR OPINION.?

And that we laid out BOTH enough evidence that WE BOTH think is sufficient to let the READERS decide...?

NOW, could you be so kind to ATTACK my NoC flight path INDICATORS, such as the witness interviews and the views expressed in them by those honest witnesses?
And at last try to proof them wrong without ONLY presenting endlessly, your SoC flight path INDICATORS, which do not undermine mine, since when my witnesses are right, then your proposed SoC flight path is made up, with all its indicators.

And you persistently keep mixing in, DFDR-speeds of your proposed SoC flight path, into my NoC proposed WITNESSED flight path, which is based on solid eyewitness interviews.
That's very bad science. You can't ever do such things in science.

Instead of endlessly repeating the same posts, many of them containing parts of my evidence that you then bend to your advantage (you seemingly think so), could you constructively add some things to this discussion, at last?
And yes, of course I saw your evidence, and I am not impressed by it, my OPINION is still standing strong as stainless steel.

As a thread opening poster, I laid a lot of evidence on the table, and you avoid to address THAT evidence. You only call these people mistaken. Were you THERE?

And yes, we know by now that your boss was somewhere there. S0, what? I don't know the guy. The readers neither, so it has no advantage in this ""parody of an honest discussion"". Thousands of people were there, but only perhaps about 100 of them, SAW that plane.

By avoiding the other poster's evidence, any poster makes a parody of every seriously intended discussion . Try another methodology, it will let you gain much more RESPECT.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


In that case, it means that all 5 indicators of a SoC flight path were staged, if one firmly beliefs Sgt Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks.


The documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon debunks the claim of a staged event at the Pentagon.



You should read the Northwoods Paper, to see to what lengths those generals in the sixties were prepared to go to have 5 reasons to invade Cuba :


Ah yes, the keyword that I have been looking for; "Northwoods." I have notice over the years that there are conspiracy theorist who've fabricated false information in their attempt to mislead people and have used "Northwoods" in their argument in their attack on the government.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
A reply to: skyeagle409

You can't even bring yourself to admit a WRONG conclusion, your career doesn't interest us that much.
Your arguments will do.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Could you at last understand, that the NoC flight path and its indicators are MY OPINION, and the SoC flight path and its indicators are YOUR OPINION.?


Actually, the NoC is a non-argument because the documented physical evidence speaks louder than words. If you want to know the rest of the story, simply contact American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. After all, they were the companies that supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77, which applied ONLY to the airframe of American 77.

edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
A reply to: skyeagle409

Why do you not insert the OFFICIAL NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES links I posted, in your "rebuttal".?
It's no conspiracy MISLEADING piece, its right from the horses mouth. DE-CLASSIFIED.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Why not contact the companies I've mentioned and let them provide you with the straight scoop? Let them tell you that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

I like to keep things simple.
edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
A reply to: skyeagle409

You should ATS-Search my posts that proved the falsification techniques used for the FDR (not Digital, it were tapes) from the first Airbus disaster in France (at Mulhouse ? ), where Airbus showed its first plane to the press, and it didn't recover from a low pass by the press, and "glided" into the wood behind the runway.

They did not notice that a reporter in the bushes, had photographed the two recovered black boxes (red in this case), and they were changed for other ones with a different paint job and contours.
And the changed ones "proved" that the pilot made an "error".
He did not, it was a serious software glitch in Airbus their flight computers, which caused in fact that disaster.

So, don't tell us that governments (the French and German in this case), do not fall back to sneaky methods when the stakes are so high.
Airbus would have never come further than the development phase, when this cheat was directly discovered.
It took YEARS, and that poor test pilot was ruined. FILTHY, that's the word for PLANNERS like that.

EDIT : en.wikipedia.org...
See the Alternative explanation. The pilot was later rehabilitated. Airbus never admitted to cutting 4 seconds from the tape. Too much at stake.
Could that sentence cover 9/11 too.?
edit on 21/10/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop



Could you at last understand, that the NoC flight path and its indicators are MY OPINION, and the SoC flight path and its indicators are YOUR OPINION.?


Actually, the NoC is a non-argument because the documented physical evidence speaks louder than words. If you want to know the rest of the story, simply contact American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. After all, they were the companies that supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77, which applied ONLY to the airframe of American 77.


Was it ever clear to you, that the OFFICIALLY decoded DFDR was ended about 4 to 6 seconds before impact?
Which are exactly the ones where the evasive maneuver to avoid the steel VDOT tower started.

And in this discussion, it's not possible to use the extra seconds "decoded" by Warren Stutt, the software engineer from Australia.

So, your priceless DFDR data, do NOT cover the extremely important 4 to 6 seconds in which that 230 to 250 KTS curvature was flown, inside a NoC flight path.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



You should ATS-Search my posts that proved the falsification techniques used for the FDR (not Digital, it were tapes)


That won't work. Just ask American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. so they can tell you the rest of the story.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Was it ever clear to you, that the OFFICIALLY decoded DFDR was ended about 4 to 6 seconds before impact?


You have to understand that documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon does not support a north-of-the-gas station flight path.



So, your priceless DFDR data, do NOT cover the extremely important 4 to 6 seconds in which that 230 to 250 KTS curvature was flown, inside a NoC flight path.


Even at 250 knots, a B-757 could not have flown that NoC flight path. Do you know why?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
A reply to: skyeagle409


SE409 : Don't post anything that is not true. I see it as an attempt to mislead.


Ehh, DC-9-11 rings a bell in your own conscious.?
Btw, I see it as a funny, but genuine mistake from your side...why do you feel the need to paint me as a liar? Someone who misleads is a ....?


SE409 : Since you've confirm that the right engine of American 77 struck the generator, why did you post a video that claimed that a DC-9-11 struck the Pentagon?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop



You should ATS-Search my posts that proved the falsification techniques used for the FDR (not Digital, it were tapes)


That won't work. Just ask American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. so they can tell you the rest of the story.


It was an Airbus.
With tapes instead of solid state memory chips.
Which by the way can be ALTERED much easier.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop



Was it ever clear to you, that the OFFICIALLY decoded DFDR was ended about 4 to 6 seconds before impact?


You have to understand that documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon does not support a north-of-the-gas station flight path.

OF COURSE NOT, IF IT WAS PLANTED, that was the whole reason for planting it. When you belief Lagasse and Brooks. And I, and lots with me, still firmly do believe them.
You can't see an SoC flying airplane through a huge ceiling and the whole building, if you are filling up your police cruiser's gas tank, looking NORTH. See the FOIA freed CITGO tapes.




So, your priceless DFDR data, do NOT cover the extremely important 4 to 6 seconds in which that 230 to 250 KTS curvature was flown, inside a NoC flight path.


Even at 250 knots, a B-757 could not have flown that NoC flight path. Do you know why?


AHA, AT LAST WE ARRIVE AT ADDRESSING MY OPENING POSTS. After 12 pages of running around the real thread subject.

SO, destroy my posted online bank angle calculator evidence, please.
And don't think you can come up with the end speeds of that, thus clearly tampered with, DFDR.
The last officially admitted DFDR speed, beside the Sheraton Hotel, will be a falsification too, in the case of Lagasse and Brooks their observed, clearly NoC flight path..




top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join