It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Go to Pilots For 911 Truth.
Do you mean the same "Pilots For 911 Truth" that debunked LapTop's NoC flight path?.
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.
Your documented physical evidence is falsified,...
... but ONLY when you believe those 25 eyewitnesses,
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.
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.
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.
NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS
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.
---We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).---
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.
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.
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.
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.
Btw, I am sure you will repeat again your 400+ KTS fallacy in any of your calculations.
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.
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?
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.
KC-135 at high speed
Now, what was that you said about the impossibility of aircraft to fly very low to the ground at high speed?
My advice to you is to not scoff at that, for which you have no understanding.
IF I would've said that, yes. Read again!