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: 28
29
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

That's a lot of stuff to read.
But I still say a plane hit the Pentagon.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   
I think you could have known a long time ago already, that I have said that too.
Let's see, from somewhere on, around January 2002.
This thread is for sure only about the question, if that Pentagon west wall IMPACTING plane flew NoC or SoC.

If you really think this thread is about a plane missing the Pentagon's west wall, you can read on at the PfT (Pilots for 911 Truth) site & forum, there you can find a lot about that peculiar theory.

Which I never endorsed, and that's why Rob Balsamo, the owner there, tried to ridicule me in my only thread ever that I posted at his site. My thread there was about the 12 additional NoC flight path eyewitnesses I found, on top of the, by then 13, found by the two guys from CIT.

And I got of course banned by him after he found out that I firmly believed from about day one on, that Flight 77 flew into column 14 at the Pentagon's west wall. And thus certainly did not perform a tight fly-over, as Rob advocates.
He got really mad when I pointed them on their total misrepresentation of Roosevelt Roberts 9/11 interview and his Military History interview. And the two hastily performed phone interviews by the CIT guys, while Roosevelt was driving in his car and had to watch the other drivers too.

Search ATS : LaBTop Roosevelt.
Perform the same search query at the PfT forums, and you will find my only thread, where I extensively advocated for more NoC flight path witnesses, but strongly against a fly-over.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
pop.h-cdn.co...



Compare the above collapse sequences to the below graph :



And realize that I do not insinuate a nuclear incident at the WTC towers on 9/11/2001, but solely want you to realize that the seismic footprints of both tower collapses are damn indicative of a huge explosion, and not of the slow onset of a natural collapse that is comparable with an earthquake.

We should have seen an earthquake-alike seismogram, however, what we see in reality is an explosion seismogram.
I can't explain it any better in laymen terms.
If you want even better evidence, be my guest, knock yourself out with some photographs of planted explosive device or the likes.

A nuclear test is nothing else than a HUGE explosion....
So what you see in the upper graph, is a seismogram of a huge explosion.
The LDEO 9/11 Tower collapses seismogram clearly looks like that one, and not at all like the earthquake seismogram.

And it's a dead give-away, when one part of the 9/11 story is a lie, why should the other parts, like the Pentagon attack story, be anything else than part of the same shameless lies?



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
but solely want you to realize that the seismic footprints of both tower collapses are damn indicative of a huge explosion,


No they are not, so you claim it was a silent explosion, that also did not have any blast! and not of the slow onset of a natural collapse that is comparable with an earthquake.


We should have seen an earthquake-alike seismogram,


Wrong, as it was not a earthquake.

h

owever, what we see in reality is an explosion seismogram.


No we do not.


And it's a dead give-away, when one part of the 9/11 story is a lie, why should the other parts, like the Pentagon attack story, be anything else than part of the same shameless lies?


Lies told by those pushing conspiracy theories like explosives were used....



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
No one heard a nuke go off.
No one felt an earthquake.

These claims of nukes and seismic events are just pure BS.
Just like all the other conspiracy BS.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Ngatikiwi
BTW were any engine components, debri etc ever recovered and analyzed?


Yes, as well as DNA from the passengers and crew from Flight 77, as well as luggage from Flight 77....


Yes, according to our illustrious Pentagon Spokesmen. That's the same group that members of the 911 Commission considered charging with perjury for their wildly changing stories before the commission. LOL.

Would our Pentagon ever lie to us? Think Vietnam, think Jessica Lynch, think Pat Tillman. YES, they would lie to us.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop

That's a lot of stuff to read.
But I still say a plane hit the Pentagon.


I agree that likely an aircraft of some type hit the Pentagon. The notorious "parking lot camera" frames showed something. Trouble is, the object was MUCH too small to be a 757



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
No one heard a nuke go off.
No one felt an earthquake.

These claims of nukes and seismic events are just pure BS.
Just like all the other conspiracy BS.


Comprehensive reading difficulties?
Don't think so, it neatly fits certain rude online baiting behavior and rude de-baiting techniques.


LaBTop : And realize that I do not insinuate a nuclear incident at the WTC towers on 9/11/2001, but solely want you to realize that the seismic footprints of both tower collapses are damn indicative of a huge explosion, and not of the slow onset of a natural collapse that is comparable with an earthquake.


It's this kind of non-corrected pure LIES, obvious to anybody reading such posts, that starts making further postings in this forum uninteresting.
LDEO at Columbia University recorded strong seismic events at 34 Km away from Manhattan during the Tower collapses, while SamKent, who wasn't there at all, tries to convince us that no one in the near vicinity felt an earthquake-like event when those towers came thundering down? Did he even read the NIST report? Or listened to the NIST witness reports?

I really hope it's not a case of selective moderation, but the old adagio of having not enough time to read all posts. However, posts only trickle in at a very slow pace here lately.
Why threatening to close this 9/11 forum, when there's so little objectivity lately.

Why does no one correct at least his last two very rude lines?
I've waited two weeks now for decorum to be reinstated, as promised, and see no intervention.
I don't dare to use those two abbreviations (BS) for fear of getting banned or my posts getting dumped.
Why is he getting that much slack in this, lately so sensitive forum, and do we, serious researchers, have to walk on eggshells?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
A reply to: hellobruce


hellobruce : No they are not, so you claim it was a silent explosion, that also did not have any blast! and not of the slow onset of a natural collapse that is comparable with an earthquake.


All italicized words after your exclamation sign (!) are mine, you just copied them there.
Why you use them in combination with your own untrue first sentence; I have no idea.

And it's very untrue, since I never ever claimed ANYWHERE that it were silent explosions.
That was an invention by yourself, as is recorded in your years old posts here.

1. And of course they were accompanied by several huge blasts, you can clearly hear them detonate in this North Tower video, starting at the very onset of that North Tower collapse. That video was first posted by (now ATS moderator) _BoneZ_ here at ATS, many years ago already (Sept 04, 2010) :

www.youtube.com...


And for your info, this was a video from the officially endorsed NIST 9/11 Online Video Depository that was FOIA wrestled from their unwilling hands.
I posted the links to that online video depository earlier in this thread and in many other posts and threads made by me. I advice you to make better use of the ATS Search function. It's a goldmine.
Note the man with the baseball cap, he explains a very peculiar thing, namely that when he came home and listened to all those Tower 2 and 1 collapses repeated endlessly on TV, he noticed that "they" had taken ALL EXPLOSION SOUNDS OUT.
The "boom boom booms" he so vividly describes in the second part of the above _BoneZ_ video, in his interview, he says he heard them in both Tower collapses.

2. I also posted the Trinity Church video plus audio file, where you also clearly hear those huge explosions at the onset of the South Tower collapse :
www.mediumrecords.com...

3. And this is another South Tower explosions video,taken from the officially endorsed 9/11 video collection from the NIST FOIA freed repository :
Title : WTC 2 collapsing - WABC Dub1 87.avi :

www.youtube.com...


4. The NYFD witnesses about WTC 1 and 2 explosions heard and seen by them :
Title : WTC - 911 NYFD Explosions - NIST FOIA - ABC Dub5 09.avi

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
In this thread (read my opening post again) : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Titled : ""WTC7 phoneboot explosion sound pinned to corner Murray Str-W.Broadway, 2 blocks from WTC7"", (north of WTC-7) member Joey Canoli wrote that he thought the Trinity Church explosions sounds were inserted later, just as he and the 9/11Myths website owner think that the, from a phone-boot filmed explosion-sound, coming from the direction of WTC-7, was also inserted later :

www.abovetopsecret.com... (Phone-boot video altered, Canoli thinks).
www.abovetopsecret.com... (Trinity Church video altered, Canoli thinks).

Five pages later, on page 5, after page after page and post after post of bickering, PersonalChoice (former member stillresearchn) offers this :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


PersonalChoice : Yet here we are on the fifth page of this thread and the only thing you (Joey Canoli) have offered us is your word. No offense, but your argument isn't even that convincing, not only do the majority of people that watch (the video) believe that there was a large explosion but their collective actions all seem to lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that there was a large explosion somewhere off camera.


And PersonalChoice already hinted on page 1 of that above thread at the time of that phone-boot video blast as being 18 minutes earlier than the North Tower collapse :


PersonalChoice : Anyways, there was a PDF where this guy basically analyzed the entire video simply looking to pinpoint the time of the blast and his location.

He said (laying out how he came to these conclusions) that the time of the blast was 10:10 a.m. He did this by shadow analysis, the time on the wrist watch, and the fact there had already been a collapse.

He also came up with the exact location that the OP shows as being where this phone-booth was (he had photos).

If I remember correctly, he agreed with the fire fighter who said "seven's exploding", based off of the location of the phone booth, and the fact that it had the easiest path for the sound to travel and still be as loud as it was.

That being said, this explosion took place 18 minutes before the north tower collapsed. You think about how far away the phone booth was from just seven alone and that would have had to be one incredibly loud blast. Anything the south tower had crushed was such a far distance away that the sound never would have been that loud. And the north tower was behind seven.


And on that same page 5, I offered the quite precise but still estimated 9/11 time of 10:18 to 10:20 a.m. for that huge explosion sound in the phone-boot video, based on two things :
1. The wristwatch of the INS guy with the knotted handkerchief on his head, standing near the phone-boot, holding the phone,
2. And more precise, based on the sun shadows visible in that phone-boot video :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Note that at 10:20 a.m., the North Tower its top portion, above the 98th floor, was reported as starting to lean, by a NYPD chopper pilot. See the NIST report.
And at 10:28:31 a.m., the North Tower started to collapse. That's still 8 minutes later than the time of that huge blast, indicated by the sun shadows in the famous phone-boot video.

This is another post of mine, with the VERY FIRST phone interview with Michael Hess linked in it, who was trapped together with Barry Jennings in the eastern stairwell of WTC-7 by an EXPLOSION, as he clearly said himself at that very early moment in time in that interview.
It is quite possible and reasonable to suppose that this was the same WTC-7 explosion, detonating at the same time as in the famous phone-boot video.
Read my full text about Hess, especially how he totally changed his earliest interview-words, AFTER he became a well paid associate in (then) former New York mayor Giuliani's Law firm, years later :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then read this post of mine about the time of the blast in the stairwell of WTC-7, as reported by Barry Jennings in his world exclusive WTC-7 Survivor Barry Jennings account interview :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He mentions in this interview 2 times explicitly, that the explosions by which he was thrown from the 6th to the 8th floor stairwell landing in WTC7, occurred while the 2 Towers were still standing.
He and Hess both could easily see those two towers still standing through the windows in the north side's eastern corner on the 8th floor, where they both ended up after being blocked by that explosion from further descending that WTC-7 eastern stairwell, that was now blown away under them.
They just had to look at that picture of the two HUGE Towers still standing, as reflected in the glass facades of the buildings situated behind the north facade of WTC-7.

Barry broke the glass of that WTC-7's north side 8th floor eastern corner window, with a fire extinguisher, as he later mentioned in an interview, to get some fresh air since that whole corridor was filled with thick black smoke after that explosion.
And we have a YouTube video where we see Hess leaning out from that same 8th floor corner window while he is shouting down to some firefighters in Barclay Street for help.
You see in that video that that street is covered already with papers and light debris from the first collapse, the South Tower collapse, that were blown by its collapse clouds there.

These same firefighters ran away to save their life shortly after that video was taped, when the second tower collapsed, the North Tower, but came back half an hour later, and then found their way inside WTC-7's western stairwell, to rescue Jennings and Hess.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
This 9/11 stuff is an interesting subject, but so much wrong headedness prevails that it's fascinating to watch.

For instance, I've read that the truther camp has always been requesting videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Apparently, there's a guy named David Chandler, a truther with some actual qualifications, and he recently had this to say on the subject:

"Recently, while searching online for Pentagon images for his new film, Ken Jenkins discovered images of the plane in a frame from a higher quality version of the Camera 2 video. The plane had not previously been noticed by any of us. Ken did further testing to confirm the legitimacy of what was seen in that frame, ....... Given the clarity of what we were now seeing it was hard to understand why most people (ourselves included) had initially failed to see the plane"

IOW, everything is as the socalled debunkers have been saying all along. The plane is there, always was, but those in the truther camp were never ready to admit it.

Now you all can, and with pride in the fact that you have an open mind and can assimilate new information.

Oops, forgot the link : 911blogger.com...
edit on 18-3-2016 by MrBig2430 because: added link



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

Speaking of wrongheadedness, I wonder what word best describes behavior in which great faith is placed in the statements of known liars?

Congress cannot even audit the Pentagon we're finding out, and yet I'm supposed to take every statement from that outfit at face value? No way.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

Better video of the Pentagon plane makes no difference.
We have good video of the NYC strikes and they don't believe it.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
A reply to: MrBig2430

David S. Chandler publicized this at 911Blogger.com on last Sunday, 13 March, 2016 at 10:45pm :


David : "Recently, while searching online for Pentagon images for his new film, Ken Jenkins discovered images of the plane in a frame from a higher quality version of the Camera 2 video. The plane had not previously been noticed by any of us. Ken did further testing to confirm the legitimacy of what was seen in that frame, ....... Given the clarity of what we were now seeing it was hard to understand why most people (ourselves included) had initially failed to see the plane."
.
I posted this already 5 MONTHS ago, on Oct 25, 2015 on page 19 in this same thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I advice you to meticulously read its text and study its pictures.
Did David Chandler or Ken Jenkins read my October 2015 posts?
The longtime readers know quite well by now, that I am a proponent of the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon west wall at column 14 since 10 years ago already.
The only difference with the bulk of the 9/11-truth seeking masses is, that I, just as the CIT team, am strongly opposed against the official South of CITGO flight path, since there are far too many EARLY reliable eyewitness accounts registered already on the day of 9/11/2001, that place that plane on a distinctive NORTH of CITGO flight path.

And they all saw it fly with a far lower flight speed. Indicated by their witnessed bank angles in that curve around the north side of the CITGO gas station. Indicating about half of the official end-speed as deducted from a "recovered" DFDR from AA77.

They witnessed a standard 30 to 35 degrees bank angle in that curve, observed by all NoC eyewitnesses who saw it flying there, on the north side of the CITGO gas station, which BANK-ANGLE DICTATES without a shimmer of a doubt, an airspeed as low as half of the officially endorsed crazy high end-speed, PERIOD.!
See for proof of that all my former posts about that in this same thread, especially my opening posts.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Speaking of wrongheadedness, I wonder what word best describes behavior in which great faith is placed in the statements of known liars?

Congress cannot even audit the Pentagon we're finding out, and yet I'm supposed to take every statement from that outfit at face value? No way.



I'm wondering if you accept that the video shows a plane hitting the Pentagon?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: MrBig2430

David S. Chandler publicized this at 911Blogger.com on last Sunday, 13 March, 2016 at 10:45pm :


David : "Recently, while searching online for Pentagon images for his new film, Ken Jenkins discovered images of the plane in a frame from a higher quality version of the Camera 2 video. The plane had not previously been noticed by any of us. Ken did further testing to confirm the legitimacy of what was seen in that frame, ....... Given the clarity of what we were now seeing it was hard to understand why most people (ourselves included) had initially failed to see the plane."
.
I posted this already 5 MONTHS ago, on Oct 25, 2015 on page 19 in this same thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I advice you to meticulously read its text and study its pictures.
Did David Chandler or Ken Jenkins read my October 2015 posts?
The longtime readers know quite well by now, that I am a proponent of the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon west wall at column 14 since 10 years ago already.
The only difference with the bulk of the 9/11-truth seeking masses is, that I, just as the CIT team, am strongly opposed against the official South of CITGO flight path, since there are far too many EARLY reliable eyewitness accounts registered already on the day of 9/11/2001, that place that plane on a distinctive NORTH of CITGO flight path.

And they all saw it fly with a far lower flight speed. Indicated by their witnessed bank angles in that curve around the north side of the CITGO gas station. Indicating about half of the official end-speed as deducted from a "recovered" DFDR from AA77.

They witnessed a standard 30 to 35 degrees bank angle in that curve, observed by all NoC eyewitnesses who saw it flying there, on the north side of the CITGO gas station, which BANK-ANGLE DICTATES without a shimmer of a doubt, an airspeed as low as half of the officially endorsed crazy high end-speed, PERIOD.!
See for proof of that all my former posts about that in this same thread, especially my opening posts.


IOW, you believe that evidence was faked?

Why would anyone do that if they actually intended to crash a plane?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Because these 9/11-planners were perfectionists, and had already made sure that their PLANNED south of CITGO flightpath would be undoubtedly "evidenced" by the, by left and right wing tips impacted and thus "unmistakably cut", five "downed" light poles, laying already perfectly right in their planned in advance, straight as a ruler, south of CITGO gas station flight path.

In other words, they must have laid down (planted in advance) those (cut also in advance) pieces of light poles in the grass of the Pentagon lawn in the early, still dark hours of 9/11/2001.

When you unwillingly but slowly start to believe some or all of the evidence for a north of CITGO flight path, there's no other logical, all the unearthed facts fitting explanation, than the above one.

However, when you firmly reject the NoC flight path evidence, based on perhaps some kind of still present, partially misplaced patriotism, mixed with unconditional trust in your chosen leaders and superiors decisions and deeds, then you will continue to just smile about it, and proceed with your protected lifestyle.

It is however the lesser choice for some honest peace of mind. People roaming this 9/11 forum, still reading and then asking questions indicate to me that there is at least some doubt about 9/11 in their minds, and they seem to be still searching for answers for their still nagging questions.

Again, the laws of aerodynamics prescribe a certain airspeed in a calculated curved turn when a certain bank angle is observed. When the type of airplane is known and thus its flight characteristics.
All these facts inserted in the online available bank and turn calculators deliver a very distinct airspeed.
Which in the case of the NoC witnesses lead to the conclusion that the official theory its more as double as high end and impact airspeed must be based on some kind of falsification of their processed "facts".



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
A reply to: LaBTop

The evidence is staring you in the eyes...

When an airplane is filmed by a security camera at the Pentagon, it will appear in its video as 0.7 times its real length, when approaching a FIXED point on the west wall of the Pentagon (column 14) under an angle of about 45 degrees to that wall. Which is roughly the officially endorsed angle.

It will however appear as having its true full length when approaching at roughly 90 degrees to that exact point on that west wall. And since we knew the exact height of that west wall AND the exact length of that plane, it's obvious that the camera filmed a roughly 90 degrees to the west wall approaching B757, THUS on a NoC flight path.

Re-read my thesis about it in the link I provided in my above post, ENLARGE and then study my pictures with my thin red lines :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quod erat demonstrandum :
Used to convey that a fact or situation demonstrates the truth of one's theory or claim (thesis), especially to mark the conclusion of a formal proof; the Latin phrase, meaning literally ‘which was to be demonstrated’, is a translation of the Greek phrase used in a number of Euclid's propositions. It is frequently abbreviated to QED.

edit on 30/3/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
Because these 9/11-planners were perfectionists,


So these "perfectionists" weren't so perfect then.

It seems to me that a "perfect" plan would be to simply fly a plane into the Pentagon and let whatever naturally occurring evidence occurs to persuade the steeple.

I'm sorry, but it is not logical to fake any evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join