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

a reply to: Informer1958

There are ground effects that make it impossible. Every real pilot knows this.

Great, so if we fly fast enaugh we won't crash

Second line.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is correct, and that is very significant because the NoC flight path is so outrages that even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has now put its foot down. Here is what Rob posted, and about the only thing that I agree with Rob on despite the fact that he is a hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

I like how you cherry pick certain information that supports the OS narratives, especially coming from a website that you say is nothing but disinformation (Pilots For 911 Truth)

So what Rob Balsamo's says his "opinions" are in supporting the OS is good enough for you to use and everything thing else on (Pilots For 911 Truth) is disinformation according to you.

Sorry, I do not support Rob Balsamo "opinions."

Just like you said Pilots For 911 Truth is all disinformation and so is Rob Balsamo "opinions".

You've just committed another blunder with your comment because the math I posted has been peer-reviewed by high-time commercial/military pilots and look what you had posted!

Peer- reviewed? LOL

That is a great big fat fallacy and you know that.

The hard cor fact is, you have NOT posted any math debunking LapTop mathematics. Like LapTop said, put up or shut up.

I might add that with all of that experience, all he had to do was to take over American 77 in flight and fly the aircraft into the Pentagon, which doesn't require a lot of skill with the experience he had under his belt.


* 250 Hours Total Flight Time

* 75 Hours Instrument Flight Time

* 29 Hours Multi Engine Flight Time

According to the OS of the Pentagon crash, Hani Hanjour did not have enough experience to fly a B-757 at near ground level at 400 knots which is near impossible by any seasonable pilot.

According to the OS, the B-757 was flown the same way a military fighter jets are flown and Hani Hanjour did not have enough experience to pull that off.

Furthermore a B-757 is not designed to handled such maneuvers, the stress would rip the plane apart.

No one can fly a B-757 at 400 knots manual just inches off the ground, without it slamming into the ground do to serious ground effects, that is impossible.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 16 feet wide.

Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 , resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased, rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the two WTC towers, it appears that heavy aircraft were involved in each case, but no evidence has been produced that would support the government's version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the central problem with the government's 911 story.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to have been involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I rest my case.

a reply to: Informer1958

I like how you cherry pick certain information that supports the OS narratives,...

My knowledge and experience and the laws of physics allow me to know what to cherry pick.

So what Rob Balsamo's says his "opinions" are in supporting the OS is good enough for you to use and everything thing else on (Pilots For 911 Truth) is disinformation according to you.

In this case, the claim that American 77 flew a NoC flight path was apparently too much even for Rob Balsamo and other highly experienced military, commercial, and private pilots who knew better. The NoC flight path is so far outside the flight envelope of a B-757 that it is absurd to say the least, and yet, there are 9/11 conspiracy theorist with no knowledge of the laws of physics in that regard who are the same folks that are pushing the NoC flight path without a single shred of evidence and despite the fact that documented physical evidence debunks a NoC flight path with no problem.

According to the OS, the B-757 was flown the same way a military fighter jets are flown and Hani Hanjour did not have enough experience to pull that off.

The maneuver was actually very boring. I could have gone from the living room and into the kitchen to make a sandwich and returned to the living room before he completed his banking maneuver, which at no time exceeded the "G" limitation of the airframe.

Now, let's here it from one of the controllers in regard to that maneuver.

Danielle (O'Brien) Howell: Air Traffic Controller

Mr. Meyssan's book "9/11: The big Lie" states that on September 11, 2001 I and my fellow air traffic controllers at Dulles airport had "no possible doubt" that the plane we saw approaching Washington, DC, which subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, "could not be a commercial airliner, but only a military aircraft" because of its speed and maneuverability. In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.

Upon initial impression, I considered the target, later confirmed to have been American Airlines flight 77, to possibly have been a military aircraft. In an interview with ABC's 20/20, I stated, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Since that tragic day, I've realised that it was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere. The usual preparations for a safe landing without our National Airspace System were not a consideration. Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon. Where is this B757 now? There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control.

Where are the crew and passengers from American 77? They have never been accounted for by Mr. Meyssen. Another valid point against the argument by Meyssen is the path the aircraft flew. Meyssen suggests it was a military missile used to impact the Pentagon. Why would a missile make a 360 degree manuever like this to reduce its altitude. A missile would be on course, at its appropriate altitude, when it approached the target.

The suggestion of the use of a military plane or missile, knowing all available facts, is simply beyond consideration.
If Mr. Meyssen had been interested in the full truth, many sources were available. There would have been no better witnesses than the aviation-trained, eye witnesses of Air Traffic Control. In that he never requested interviews of any of us who were there, his interest obviously lies not in revealing any truth, but in his personal financial gain.

Respectfully,

Danielle (O'Brien) Howell

911myths.com...

In other words, it was Thierry Meyysan who took her words out of context in order to deceive the public. Simply amazing how easy he managed to dupe those who'd allowed themselves to be duped.

Furthermore a B-757 is not designed to handled such maneuvers, the stress would rip the plane apart.

What stress? At no time did American 77 exceed its airframe limitations. Case in point; how long did it take for American 77 to complete its 330 degree banking maneuver before it rolled out on a heading straight for the Pentagon?

Our C-5, KC-10, and C-17 transports regularly perform even more drastic maneuvers from higher altitudes and at no time do they even come close to their structural limitations and they not only begin their maneuvers at a higher altitude than American 77, but they complete a full 360 degree maneuver as well, unlike American 77.

I have also perform similar maneuvers during student flight traning and at no time did the airframe of my aircraft come anywhere near its structural limitations.

No one can fly a B-757 at 400 knots manual just inches off the ground, without it slamming into the ground do to serious ground effects, that is impossible.

That is false because it was done by a terrorist pilot who flew American 77 into the Pentagon. I might add that the foundation of the Pentagon was unaffected, which gives you an idea of just how high the fuselage of American 77 was above the ground the aircraft just before it slammed into the Pentagon.

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 16 feet wide.

The entry hole on the west wall was about 75 feet, not 16 feet. "When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry.

That is nothing but pure fantasy of the kind that comes out of Hollywood movies that are not based on reality. You can change the registry if you want, but it will still take me only 30 minutes or less to identify the actual aircraft with no problem at all. Changing the registry is not going to change anything because only a certain number of B-757-200 series aircraft were built and each aircraft is accountable and tracable, including each of their engines, APU's, and time sensitive line replacement equipment.

a reply to: Informer1958

Again I will tell you it is impossible to fly a commercial airliner, B-757 at 400 knots just inches off the ground.

Try telling that to these pilots.









Look what can be done with any airliner.

Not one of those passenger nor transportation planes flew anywhere near 470 KTS in all those You Tubes.
Those are all low speed low pass fly-by's. One of them even has all its flaps and wheels out.
Talking about bending the facts...You should know.

The only one which could come near is that fighter plane, but we can't measure speed on that one, since it came head on in. Fighter planes have quite different flight characteristics than those huge passenger or cargo planes. And again, you should know.

Any huge passenger plane flying within a measured height that's lower than its wingspan, will be very difficult to held in a perfectly straight and level to the ground flight path, the closer it comes to that ground.
You can see that in all those low speed fly-by's, the flightpath is always a shallow parabola, with the lowest part of it as short as possible, to not risk wrecking that airframe.
The (diminished but still noticeable) effects at 450+ KTS of the ground effects will force the pilot to correct his flight stick or steering column so fast, that at any time his plane will be forced upwards, and he would overshoot his target which he had in view through a point on his cockpit windows.

And to top it off, the DFDR of AA77 (in my opinion its falsified last 10 to 15 seconds of it ) showed already for the last 600 seconds of its data frames, that ALL AUTOPILOT FUNCTIONS were switched OFF. Also in that fast descending from 10,000 feet / 3.000 meters, long circling down above Virginia, at speeds between 270 and 320 KTS. I am still puzzled if even an experienced pilot like Ivar_Karlsen could do that so smoothly, without the 3 AP functions. That's why Danielle O'Brien thought it was a military plane, flown by a military pilot, when she looked in awe to her radar screens.

Now you try to to fly a B-757 over more than 300 meter at up to 470 KTS, at a height of less than its wingspan, but more near to half of its wingspan and even much less than that, up to just 1 meter under its jet engine nacelles, without any automatic aids from the autopilot functions, so, MANUALLY, over a level grassy surface.
You will be catapulted upwards, after you had forced your wrists to the max, while pushing your steering column repeatedly downwards multiple times per second, trying to keep that 757 level flying.
You would have to correct the upward forces acting on your wings several times per second, since that plane WILL try to lift up.
No human can react that fast, and hold that plane in a steady line toward his aim, without autopilot functions ON, at speeds up to 470 KTS.
And a 757 is a very slow reacting plane, on human inputs. Only direct control signals to the motors that operate the up and down movements on the main wings and horizontal tail wings, via the autopilot functions could have kept that plane flying so LOW and perfectly parallel to that grassy lawn.



Do read that important text under that above diagram about the last 4.5 seconds of its flight, and realize, that the NTSB only officially endorsed its DFDR data, up to exactly a point in time, BEFORE those last 4.5 seconds.
To a point in the air, just a few tens of meters south of the southern wall of the Sheraton Hotel.
Look it up on one of my posted maps, how FAR that point is from the CITGO station, and how easily it could have been flown in a slightly curved path leading it along a north of that CITGO station's flight path, at airspeeds around 230 to 250 KTS.
Those last 4.5 seconds of flight are not OFFICIALLY endorsed, they don't dare to do so....

a reply to: LaBTop

Now you try to to fly a B-757 over more than 300 meter at up to 470 KTS, at a height of less than its wingspan, but more near to half of its wingspan and even much less than that, up to just 1 meter under its jet engine nacelles, without any automatic aids from the autopilot functions, so, MANUALLY, over a level grassy surface.

How many people reported that American 77 slammed into the Pentagon at a high rate of speed? The throttles were fire-walled after American 77 rolled out of its descending banking maneuver. Let's take a look here.

American 77

Aircraft Performs Elaborate Maneuver - The Dulles controllers are unable to identify the plane because its transponder—which transmits identifying information about an aircraft to radar screens—has been turned off [WASHINGTON POST, 9/11/2001; WASHINGTON POST, 9/12/2001]

It is flying at almost 500 miles per hour while approaching Washington, and then performs a rapid downward spiral, “dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes,” before hitting the Pentagon [CBS NEWS, 9/21/2001; USA TODAY, 8/13/2002]

Moving 'Like a Military Aircraft' - Controller Danielle O’Brien will later recall: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.” [ABC NEWS, 10/24/2001]

Another controller, Todd Lewis, will recall: “[N]obody knew that was a commercial flight at the time. Nobody knew that was American 77.… I thought it was a military flight. I thought that Langley [Air Force Base] had scrambled some fighters and maybe one of them got up there.… It was moving very fast, like a military aircraft might move at a low altitude.”

www.historycommons.org.../11=aa77

The airspeed of American 77 was well in excess of 400 knots at impact and I might add that the transcribed data were reduced from the recorded binary values to engineering units using conversion formulas obtained from American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company, which applied ONLY to the airframe of American 77. The SSFDR for American 77 was a Loral Fairchild Model F-2100.

You have to understand that the documented physical evidence and the laws of physics do not support a NoC flight path.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has debunked the NoC flight path as well.

Give me a break, the fraud you used to mock about is your next 'source' now? Awesome!
Circumstantial evidence for the NoC, brought to you by SkyTV.

Another pie... ah forget about it, you know the process:

...Mr. Loeb said his personal experience also played into his skepticism. Recently he and his wife saw a two-vehicle collision, and unlike plane crash witnesses, they both saw it from the same angle. Within moments, they disagreed about what they had seen. Among other key details, Mr. Loeb said he could not recall whether one of the vehicles had been a truck or an S.U.V.

www.nytimes.com...

They didn't argue about which street the truck/ SUV took, did they?
Of course he's correct with regards to the interpretation of details, that's precisely what the article is about. But we're talking about the general position in the sky, Sky (is it a pun?). Hence the article didn't address our issue. Anything else?

originally posted by: LaBTop
And a 757 is a very slow reacting plane, on human inputs. Only direct control signals to the motors that operate the up and down movements on the main wings and horizontal tail wings, via the autopilot functions could have kept that plane flying so LOW and perfectly parallel to that grassy lawn.

You are so damn wrong.
The B757 and any other Boeing product are very responsive in manual flight.
The autopilot have limited control authority, and can not do anything that a human pilot can't do faster.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Give me a break, the fraud you used to mock about is your next 'source' now? Awesome!

I am correct. All you have to do is to prove me wrong with facts and evidence, and I am waiting.

.Mr. Loeb said his personal experience also played into his skepticism. Recently he and his wife saw a two-vehicle collision, and unlike plane crash witnesses, they both saw it from the same angle. Within moments, they disagreed about what they had seen. Among other key details, Mr. Loeb said he could not recall whether one of the vehicles had been a truck or an S.U.V.

Now, let's take a look here.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)

Now, you know just how unreliable eyewitness accounts are when it comes to air disasters, and once again, eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path are not supported by the documented physical evidence.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: LaBTop
And a 757 is a very slow reacting plane, on human inputs. Only direct control signals to the motors that operate the up and down movements on the main wings and horizontal tail wings, via the autopilot functions could have kept that plane flying so LOW and perfectly parallel to that grassy lawn.

Ivar_Karlsen : You are so damn wrong.
The B757 and any other Boeing product are very responsive in manual flight.
The autopilot have limited control authority, and can not do anything that a human pilot can't do faster.

Then I admit you are right during standard flight conditions.
I found this :
Search queries : The B757 responsive in manual flight
About 477.000 results.

How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767? - AirSafe.com
www.airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

17 sep. 2001 - Using a full motion flight simulator, a relatively unskilled pilot shows how easy it would be to fly a 757 or 767 airliner. ...Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying maneuvers.

How about at 470 KTS max flight path, tapering between about 20 to 1 meter above the grass of the other side of Route 27, then the lawn, over a minimum 300 meter trajectory?
The problem I see, is that neither one of us has ever flown under such crazy conditions, and were able to tell our children about it.

However, I suppose you could give us your expert opinion if the diminishing wing vortex influences (ground effect) at such high speeds would still have caused the plane to force itself constantly upwards, and if a pilot could have kept it right on the column 14 bulls eye, in a straight flight path mere meters above the lawn.?
That diagram text I posted seems to be insure. And as far as I found out, the speed sensor of a 757 is situated under the fuselage, not under the wings, so why should it flutter.? Thinner areas will flutter first.
What I think that diagram indicates, is not flutter of the speed sensor or positional sensors, but real up and down hopping of the whole plane, to keep it focused on its aim, that column 14 spot the pilot must have been trying to keep in his "visor".

You know that 4.5 seconds of jumping up and down by that fuselage, is telling something to an investigative mind.
That's a very long time and distance for a pilot spasmodically trying to aim that plane on the second floor slab, mere meters above the soil.

There is also the subject of the DFDR, how far to its end is it still believable? As far as I know, those last 4.5 secs were not endorsed by the researchers from the NTSB. So where did this diagram come from? Warren Stutt or Frank Legge who analyzed the last 4 to 6 garbled-up seconds or so? I do not know.
Since I believe the 25 NoC witnesses, I can't belief the whole DFDR to be true, parts of it, perhaps.
But surely not the last 4 to 6 seconds, those are EXACTLY those that cover the NoC flight path.
That's why I also stand somewhat doubting that diagram, where did it come from? I think I found it in a wide Google picture search.

Another try for finding sanity.
This is at last a sentence we can work on :

skyeagle409 : The NoC flight path is so far outside the flight envelope of a B-757 that it is absurd to say the least

I don't even have to ask you, on which NoC flight characteristics you base that opinion on.
Since you already posted them :

Originally posted by: skyeagle409
Speed = 400 knots
(LT : which mathematically results then in : )

West Turn Radius = 2834
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/2834*11.26)
Bank Angle = 79 Degrees*
G Force = 5.2 G**

East Turn Radius = 1639
Bank Angle = arctan(400^2/1639*11.26)
Bank Angle = 83 Degrees*

And it contains ONLY dishonest bending of reality.
Your speed, and thus the resulting bank angle and radius of the curved flight path are far out of the, by credible witnesses, observed values.
And you try to introduce the same hilarious left-right banking transition, at that exaggerated speed of 400 KTS, just as Reheat did in his earliest signature link version, I have it saved.

It contained a drawn fat red line of some sort of slalom path, to let the plane end up in line with the SoC damage, after it passed NoC, which of course is a mockery of what the real eyewitnesses all reported and was recorded on 9/11 or later, by interviewers from the press, military, congress (= politicians) and concerned citizens.
He withdrew that first signature version, after too many respected people told him how crazy of an example it was.
So he came up with his next version. Curiously, the same you use, yours is however more unbelievable, as it is mixed with his first version : far too high speed for a hilariously slaloming NoC flight path.

In fact, you introduce only the same made up data into a NoC flight path.
A path that is strictly only possible when a few factors are met within strict, very small boundaries, as observed by eyewitnesses :
1. First enter their observed bank angle : 35 degrees (you : 79 to 83 degrees)
2. Enter then the B-757's rated stall speed : 160 KTS
3. Enter the speed in the online bank calculator : 230 KTS (you : 400 KTS)
and the turn radius will result as : 6721.2 Ft = 2049 m (you : 2834 at 79* to 1639 m at 83* )

Which 35* right bank is what the NoC eyewitnesses observed, just as the slower speed of 230 KTS, much slower than the SoC plane, and the NoC slight curvature with its radius of 2049 to 2054 meters.

Online turn and bank calculator.
At banks above 70*, it won't work, since that means you're flying outside the safety envelope of the aircraft.
Use it at certain CHOSEN speeds. 230 KTS for a NoC plane.!
400 KTS for a SoC plane, which however flew in a straight path according to its DFDR, so that 400 KTS speed is a joke or mockery when you use it in an online TURN and bank calculator.

Note : From Luiz Monteiro's excellent site :
Article: Bank Angle for a Standard Rate Turn.
There's a simple FAA approved approximation formula for a pilot to calculate the required bank angle in-flight, for a standard rate turn, depending on the (TAS).

The bank required to achieve standard rate turns changes with your true airspeed (TAS). The higher that speed, the greater the bank angle will need to be in order to achieve a standard rate turn : Bank angle, in degrees = 0.15 x TAS (in KTS)

My Example for NoC : 0.15 x 230 KTS = 34.5* bank angle. (was a curved path)
His Example for SoC : 0.15 x 400 KTS = 60.0* bank angle. (but was a straight path.! )
When you accept a NoC path, you also have to exclude the DFDR data, since they are impossible to implement in a NoC trajectory, as skyeagle409 and Reheat so laboriously proved to us.

Definition: A standard rate turn is a maneuver in which an aircraft turns at a rate of 3* per second (3*/s) . If this turn is held for exactly two minutes (120 seconds) the aircraft will complete a 360* turn since: 3*/s x 120s = 360*.

Forum-flooding won't help much, it's clear by now to every educated reader that dishonestly exaggerating data information is used in wrong turn calculations, in repetitively posted texts, or worse,in doctored calculations for a curved NoC flight path with its witness-observed bank of circa 35 degrees and THUS its mathematically-intrinsic resulting speed of max. 230 to 250 KTS. And never ever at 400 KTS.

While distractors are using, obviously incorrectly, an arbitrarily chosen, far too high 400 KTS as NoC-airspeed, which however ONLY fits in the officially endorsed, however a straight flown, SoC flight path.

Of course we end up with ridiculous large bank angles that way, and that was the whole subject of this thread's opening posts, to expose the DISHONEST method used, to try to shoot down an adversary.
Reheat used it first in his 911myths signature link. You are using the same scientific dishonesty now in your online argumentation. And you even use his crazy slalom scenario, again. Think first and learn from the failures of others, is my advice.
Anyone is obliged to his/her opinion and preferred flight path, NoC or SoC, but not at all costs, especially not when basing it on scientific dishonesty.

As any reader can see in my opening posts, there is a strict separation necessary between both flight paths their airspeeds, otherwise the whole online exchange of thoughts becomes a farce, a mockery.

A reminder :


Do not believe any distractors. That NoC curved flight path was very easy to fly in a near-standard 35* right-bank angle, at a speed of 230 KTS, and has then flown over the exact 9/11/2001 positions of all 25 NoC flightpath witnesses.

That specific near-standard rated curved path has a radius of 2049 to 2054 meters. And would have needed 120 seconds to complete a 360* turn at 230 KTS. (* = degrees) It flew that NoC ~30* arced trajectory, starting beside the Sheraton Hotel, in perhaps 6 seconds.

For the metric born members :
230 knots (KTS) = still a whopping 425.96 km/hr. Much faster than a Formula I race car.
And when you, as a spectator suddenly see such a fast NoC plane flying past in front of you, of course you will later say that it flew very fast, since that is the comparison you have in your head, seeing speeding cars on the ground, in front of you on TV.

By the way, 470 knots = 870.44 km/hr, that's about the cruising speed of a 757 at 10 km high in far much thinner air (circa 0.8 x the sound barrier speed)
230 KTS = 265 mph
470 KTS = 541 mph

lots of neat specs....stats and details....I'm a pilot....that wasn't a liner that hit.......
I spotted a ton of discrepencies with the pics of the damage at the frontside.....I could fill volumes.....man!

a reply to: LaBTop

Let's take a look to see just how difficult it is to fly an airliner.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

ots of neat specs....stats and details....I'm a pilot....that wasn't a liner that hit.......

If you are a pilot, why are you arguing the points? Any pilot would have known that it was impossible for American 77 to fly a NoC flight path and strike the Pentagon in a shallow left bank.

I spotted a ton of discrepencies with the pics of the damage at the frontside.....I could fill volumes.....man!

If you are a pilot, what can you tell me about the wreckage you see in the following photos?

Photo 1: Aircraft Wreckage at the Pentagon

Photo 2: Engine Wreckage at the Pentagon

Photo 3: Aircraft Wreckage at the Pentagon

a reply to: LaBTop

Which 35* right bank is what the NoC eyewitnesses observed, just as the slower speed of 230 KTS, much slower than the SoC plane, and the NoC slight curvature with its radius of 2049 to 2054 meters.

That won't fly. A slower airspeed would have required a steep banking angle, which did not happen in the final seconds before impact. Once again, documented physical evidence does not support eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path.

A reminder :

Thanks for the reminder because it reminded me that its time for a review.

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)

www.nytimes.com...

There is no evidence of a NoC flight path, because all of the documented physical evidence proved that American 77 flew south of the gas station.

We can also take a look here.

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

www.journalof911studies.com...

a reply to: LaBTop

I don't even have to ask you, on which NoC flight characteristics you base that opinion on.
Since you already posted them :

Did you confirm that American 77 struck the Pentagon in a slight left bank? If so, then you debunked your own NoC flight path theory.

It contained a drawn fat red line of some sort of slalom path, to let the plane end up in line with the SoC damage, after it passed NoC, which of course is a mockery of what the real eyewitnesses....

Of course it makes a mockery of the eyewitnesses because physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon does not support a NoC flight path, and let's remember that eyewitness accounts to air disasters are very unreliable, and here is another example.

Unreliability of Air Disaster Eyewitness Accounts

The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: ''How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire.''

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.

www.nytimes.com...

Once again, documented physical evidence speaks louder than works.

A reply to: skyeagle409

That won't fly. A slower airspeed would have required a steep banking angle, which did not happen in the final seconds before impact.

Free the fart, so it can fly : free online medical advice.

Sadly, Reheat's own online bank and turn calculator speaks against you.
And may I remind you, that the final 4 to 6 seconds of that SoC its DFDR are not endorsed by the NTSB, this should be a dead ringer for investigative minds.
Especially since Warren Stutt send them and all other institutes involved, a letter and asked them to include his decoded last seconds, full of increasingly garbled up data, in their DFDR decoding.

They rejected his advice, leaving Stutt flabbergasted. That reaction caused him presumably, to leave the 9/11 scene.
And of course the bitter online attempts to humiliate him, by professional pilots from a certain web site. And Skeptics from all over the 9/11 playground. It takes an ironclad character to stand up in this storm of psyops.
He gave up.

a reply to: LaBTop

And it contains ONLY dishonest bending of reality.

In that case, I would like for you to answer this simple question. Does the document physical evidence support support a NoC or a SoC flight path?

If you answer NoC, then you are going to have to provide physical evidence.