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: 24
29
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Go to Pilots For 911 Truth.


Do you mean the same "Pilots For 911 Truth" that debunked LapTop's NoC flight path?
edit on 1-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

As a reminder, it was you who discredited LapTop's reference.
edit on 1-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   


Do you mean the same "Pilots For 911 Truth" that debunked LapTop's NoC flight path?.

It's LaBTop, not LapTop.

No, he means the same pilots and their forum members that came up with all those NoC flight path witness statements, and then sadly for them, concluded that that NoC plane MUST have performed a FLY-OVER of the Pentagon's west wall.

I took the liberty to prove them wrong ONLY for that fly-over conclusion, since they stepped into the same trap as you, by mixing false DFDR data into their own unearthed righteous witness statements.
Of course their NoC plane, flying at more than 450 KTS would have missed the column 14 impact point by many hundreds of meters.

Since their own 13 witnesses saw that plane, low flying around the northern part of the CITGO station and then some of them saw it impact, WITH THEIR OWN EYES, it should have been clear to them, that the DFDR end speed was a FALSIFICATION.

When 25 witnesses describe a north of CITGO flying plane, that can only mean one thing, and one thing only, that their plane flew much slower than the DFDR reported false end speed of 473 KTS / 954 km/hr.
I showed in my OP already how easy it was for a 230 to 250 KTS flying plane in a 35 degrees bank angle in a 2054 meters radius turn, to fly a bit north of that gas station, and it still was easily capable of impacting the Pentagon's west wall at column 14.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



No, he means the same pilots and their forum members that came up with all those NoC flight path witness statements,...


It has been shown, and proven, that eyewitnesses are very unreliable when it come to air disasters. In regard to the flight path of American 77, there is no documented physical evidence that supports the 23 eyewitness accounts and it would have been impossible for American 77 to fly a NoC flight path and strike the Pentagon in a slight left bank. However, the path of destruction leading to, and within the Pentagon, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77 flew a SoC flight path and all it takes to prove that point is to draw a straight line from the down light poles, to the damaged generator, entry hole on the outer wall of the Pentagon and lastly, ending at the C-ring hole., which once again, would have been impossible from a NoC flight path.


... and then sadly for them, concluded that that NoC plane MUST have performed a FLY-OVER of the Pentagon's west wall.


Did American Airlines announce that American 77 overflew the Pentagon? Where would the aircraft land? How do you sneak an B-757 under the watchful eyes of ATC personnel in the tower and radar controllers? If the B-757 landed at Ronald Reagan National Airport, you are going to have upset air traffic controllers, not to mention pilots on final approach or pilots waiting their turn for takeoff. Who would pay the landing fee for that aircraft? Where would it park? Did anyone stop to think that American Airlines would have taken notice had American 77 landed at that airport? Another note that 9/11 Truthers fail to take into consideration are the passengers and crew of American 77.

To sum it up, there is no case for a NoC flight path in regard to American 77 and the documented physical evidence available automatically overrules eyewitness accounts of a NoC flight path of American 77.
edit on 3-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Your documented physical evidence is falsified, but ONLY when you believe those 25 eyewitnesses, and some of them already told reporters on the day of 9/11, that they were standing in front of the Pentagon, and a few of them even said they were halted in front of the Helicopter landing pad, when the plane flew over their heads and impacted.
On the day of 9/11 they said that.!

And if you don't believe Sgts. Lagasse and Brooks anymore, it's time to lock yourself up and don't drive around anymore, who knows what can happen to you when you fall in the hands of these types of witnesses, they can make up any story to get you framed.

You will never succeed in convincing people like me, who have many years of people management behind their teeth, that these people can't distinct between a plane behind their backs or a plane in full sight in front of them.
That's so basic, your psychological thesis papers you can use in the bathroom, and I will look up the many threads wasted here on exactly this subject, of one psychologist who writes a thesis about the unreliability of eye witnesses, and a whole horde of his colleagues who use a somewhat differential take on these things.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Your documented physical evidence is falsified,...


That won't fly in your case and the documented physical evidence proves that, and the documented physical evidence doesn't support your eyewitness accounts either. To further add, the laws of physics does not support American 77 flying a NoC flight path and striking the Pentagon while in a slight left bank, an impossible maneuver that Hollywood would be hard-press to duplicate on the silver screen.


... but ONLY when you believe those 25 eyewitnesses,


Now, that 25, up from 23, is a gain of two. What's up with that?!
edit on 3-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Since their own 13 witnesses saw that plane, low flying around the northern part of the CITGO station and then some of them saw it impact, WITH THEIR OWN EYES, it should have been clear to them, that the DFDR end speed was a FALSIFICATION.


It was brought to your attention on multiple occasions that documented physical evidence does not support any of your eyewitnesses. Let's do a review as a reminder.



For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn’t Believing

WASHINGTON— HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things

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.)


Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident

We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely
reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).

The in-flight breakup happened in less than a second, and almost all the eyewitnesses, including experienced pilots, gave grossly inaccurate accounts when compared to the film record.


The testimony of your NoC flight path eyewitnesses is null and void by documented physical evidence and invalidated by the laws of physics.



No, he means the same pilots and their forum members that came up with all those NoC flight path witness statements, and then sadly for them, concluded that that NoC plane MUST have performed a FLY-OVER of the Pentagon's west wall.


Well, I think it's time to review Rob Balsamo's report on the issue.



NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS
01/02/2010
By: Rob Balsamo

Peer Review by: Captain Jeff Latas, Commander Ralph Kolstad


Introduction - Citizen Investigation Team (CitizenInvestigationTeam.com) has conducted, recorded, and published interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack on 9/11. Of these witnesses, over a dozen were in excellent locations to be able to judge where the plane flew in relationton the former Citgo gas station, which was the last major landmark along on the plane's flight path in the final seconds before it reached the building. All of these witnesses unanimously state that they witnessed the plane flying on, or headed towards, the north side of the Citgo gas station. This includes all known eyewitnesses on the property of the station itself, who had the absolute best possible vantage point to judge which side of the station the plane flew on with zero room for perspective error.

It is physically impossible for a plane approaching the Pentagon on a flight path consistent with eyewitnesses’ statements to have caused the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and Pentagon as photographically documented and reported. The following technical analysis will present the calculations that demonstrate this simple scientific fact.

Objective: To determine if an aircraft is able to pass to the north side of the Citgo gas station as reported by eyewitnesses and still cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and Pentagon.

Important Note: The simple fact is that most if not all of the eyewitnesses did not stop watching the plane the instant it came even with the north side of the gas station. In order to assert that the plane may have transitioned from the north side of the station to a trajectory that would allow it to cause the observed physical damage -- beginning with the first down light pole -- one would have to ignore everything drawn and reported beyond that point by the eyewitnesses. Ignoring witness statements is intellectually dishonest and not an objective approach to such an analysis. This specifically includes,but is not limited to, their placement of the plane over or very near the parking lot outside of the Arlington National Cemetery maintenance buildings, of which a number of witnesses are explicit. If the hypothetical maneuver in question were possible -- which as this paper shows, it is not -- it would still be a moot point as physical damage analysis and a North Approach Impact hypothesis is not consistent with witness statements, reports or drawings.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


As far as overflying the Pentagon, it never happened. American Airlines, operator of American 77, reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, which explains the recovery of B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon along with the recovery of human remains of passengers and crew. No one saw American 77 overfly the Pentagon.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
To further add, the laws of physics does not support American 77 flying a NoC flight path and striking the Pentagon while in a slight left bank, an impossible maneuver that Hollywood would be hard-press to duplicate on the silver screen.

Show us your calculations to prove it.
I have Penny Elgas and Sean Boger and a few others to show you it could be done, as they saw it done with their own eyes. And a lot of on-line turn calculators.
You, up till now, only come up with just words or twisted calculations.

Now, that 25, up from 23, is a gain of two. What's up with that?!

You missed my posts about them.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   
A reply to: skyeagle409


---We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).---


LT : Bringing up that analysis of eyewitness reports about a 1 second event, is very different from the NoC witnesses analysis and doubting them on the few very basic details, like if a plane flies behind your back or in front of you, especially when your back and top view is clearly blocked by multiple huge objects.

Thus, even when Lagasse would have turned around, could he have never seen another plane that flew on the other side of these huge objects. Basically, he stood in a "box" with only its northern side open.
And on top of that, we have the man on video, filling up his police patrol cruiser tank, standing with his back to the SOUTH, and thus LOOKING NORTH, in the northern part of that CITGO gas station. And we have a flash on the ceiling of that northern part, EXACTLY when that plane flew north of that ceiling, while the southwards positioned sun its rays reflected from that plane's right side downwards onto the shiny roof of a parked car, and reflected back up to that ceiling and into the lens of the security camera in the southeast top of that ceiling.
And directly after that flash, all visitors inside that station ran to the eastern door to look at the impact point on the Pentagon west wall, which followed 2 seconds later.

The testimony of your NoC flight path eyewitnesses is null and void by documented physical evidence and invalidated by the laws of physics.

LT : Show me your calculations using your laws of physics.
And your documented physical evidence must have been falsified, its the only conclusion after viewing and reading all those NoC witness interviews.

LT former post : --- : No, he means the same pilots and their forum members that came up with all those NoC flight path witness statements, and then sadly for them, concluded that that NoC plane MUST have performed a FLY-OVER of the Pentagon's west wall. ---

Well, I think it's time to review Rob Balsamo's report on the issue.

Rob Balsamo's excerpt clearly talks about the impossibility for a NoC flying plane, to have caused all of your physical damage, nothing else, so why you bring that up, is beyond my comprehension. And yes, he was the one who convinced these two from the CIT team, that their NoC flying plane had no other choice than a fly-over, which I proved wrong.

And it is clear from the beginning that I find a fly-over of AA77 a strange idea, and thus concluded and proved with valid calculations, an impact. So there's no need to endlessly repeat that fact, and let it seem as if I also believe in such a fly-over.

Btw, I am sure you will repeat again your 400+ KTS fallacy in any of your calculations.
If you do so again, after all those other numerous times already, and you will not be corrected, every reader will know what's really going on.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Let's continue with our conversation in this thread.



Which point about speeds? If you believe all those NoC witness statements, then you know the DFDR data for at least the last ten seconds must have been altered.


Exactly.



Only a remotely programmed auto-pilot system, or even a pilot that remotely steered by means of a nose-cone installed video camera plus autopilot systems, could have made those corrections on that dangerously low trajectory. At those last DFDR speeds. Of up to 573 Mph / 956 km/hr.
We know that B-757 ground effect behavior does become less grave at higher speeds, but it is still there, and must be corrected by repeated fast short downwards-upwards movements of the flight stick or steering column. Which seems not doable by a human pilot at 956 km/hr while still keeping his aim.


That's the point I was thinking of as well, max-speed in groundeffect sounds like pure insanity. An impossible stunt for a 'starter' with regards to piloting-skills.




Rob Balsamo's excerpt clearly talks about the impossibility for a NoC flying plane, to have caused all of your physical damage, nothing else, so why you bring that up, is beyond my comprehension. And yes, he was the one who convinced these two from the CIT team, that their NoC flying plane had no other choice than a fly-over, which I proved wrong.


He seems clinging to his... ehm... 'sources' for the sake of convenience only. A liar's citation as excuse for a missing intelligent counter adds only more credibility to the NoC path witnesses and your calculations.

I'm impressed how much information you gathered for your point and how you were able to read the lousy picture from that security-cam, regarding the angle of approach to the Pentagon.

Thanks for the contributions!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Show us your calculations to prove it.


Why, when all you need to do is to obtain an aerial photo of the Pentagon and draw a straight line from the downed light poles, damaged generator, E-ring impact hole and finally, to the C-ring punch out hole. No calculations needed, just plain old-fashioned common sense that proves that American 77 flew a SoC flight path and that straight line will point the way to reality.



I have Penny Elgas and Sean Boger and a few others to show you it could be done, as they saw it done with their own eyes. And a lot of on-line turn calculators.


That is false, because all of the documented physical evidence debunks all of your eyewitnesses and proves that American 77 flew a SoC flight path.


edit on 4-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

That's a good one, point taken.

Apropos reality, question for Air Men:
how many lightpoles can a plane in groundeffect and highspeed, but without any autopilot-functions, take before Superpilot handles the sticky slightly sweaty?

9/11myths for comics, think I'll start right there with your input. Thanks for any answer in advance!





posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Btw, I am sure you will repeat again your 400+ KTS fallacy in any of your calculations.


If you check your own witnesses, they describe American 77 slamming into the Pentagon at a high rate of speed, not at the slower airspeed that you speak of.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



Rob Balsamo's excerpt clearly talks about the impossibility for a NoC flying plane, to have caused all of your physical damage, nothing else, so why you bring that up, is beyond my comprehension.


Simply because he confirms my claim that it was impossible for American 77 to have flown a NoC flight path and cause the well-documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon. It is all very simple to understand.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Apropos reality, question for Air Men:
how many lightpoles can a plane in groundeffect and highspeed, but without any autopilot-functions, take before Superpilot handles the sticky slightly sweaty?


All of the documented light poles on record. BTW, a pilot can handle an aircraft much quicker than an autopilot. Just thought that you would like to know that.


edit on 4-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



That's the point I was thinking of as well, max-speed in groundeffect sounds like pure insanity.


Let's take a look here to see if you are right.







An impossible stunt for a 'starter' with regards to piloting-skills.


Actually, Hani Hanjour obtained an commerical pilot license, which requires much higher flying skills than needed for a private pilot, not to mention that he had many hours flying IFR, which requires an even higher, more precise flying skill.

Afterward, he applied for a B-737-Type rating, so with those facts in hand, who duped 9/11 Truthers into thinking that he didn't have the skills to fly an aircraft? After all, he had well-over 200 flying hours.

edit on 4-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Hoooray! SkyTV pulling legs again, that was funny. Star for you.

The first flew maybe 300 Km/h and the second was a fighter, wasn't it? F16?
And the context to my question was...?

Less reflex and more reflection, please!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

One of the videos depicted a KC-135 at high speed very low to the ground.

Now, what was that you said about the impossibility of aircraft to fly very low to the ground at high speed?

BTW, did you know that at very low altitudes, a B-1 bomber can outrun F-15's and F-16's over long distances? Just thought that you would like to know that. Ever heard an F-15 pilot tell a B-1 to slow down?

My advice to you is to not scoff at that, for which you have no understanding.
edit on 4-11-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't need your advice, mate. You need mine.



KC-135 at high speed


Context is not your friend, but for discussions sake I'll just ask how fast that would be.
Looked not much faster than any high speed drive-by (go to 2:17 for an example).





Now, what was that you said about the impossibility of aircraft to fly very low to the ground at high speed?


IF I would've said that, yes. Read again!



My advice to you is to not scoff at that, for which you have no understanding.


Chapeau!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I guess I can sum it up by simply saying that you have been made aware that large aircraft can fly at high speed at very low altitudes with no problem.



IF I would've said that, yes. Read again!


Since it was impossible for American 77 to have conducted a NoC flight path and strike the Pentagon in a slight left bank, the flight path issue was a non-issue from the beginning.

These depictions should have been clues that a NoC flight path was a fabrication.

Depiction 1: SoC flight path Proof

Depiction 2: SoC Flight Path Proof

Depiction 3: SoC Flight Path Proof

Depiction 4: SoC Flgiht Path Proof



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join