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: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


You only think that "OS" is false.


Not just me, millions of people think the OS is false, I bet if I did a poll on it you will sadly lose.

edit on 12-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop

Rob Balsamo


Very credible guy


I guess he never grew out of small turboprops.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Where's the evidence? After all, it has been 14 years and counting and still no evidence in sight. At least this thread shows just how ridicules the missile claim is.

About the maneuver of American 77, we can take a look here.



Letter of Danielle (O'Brien) Howell: American 77 Witnesses

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...



edit on 12-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

I was so surprised at the huge amount of disinformation, misinformation, missteps, and lies that Rob Balsamo was spewing, I questioned whether he was actually a real pilot, but another poster later confirmed to me that he was a pilot.

Simply amazing!!



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Had some OS problems. (The Operating System of my box. Official stories I have most of the time constant problems with. Luckily I can always solve my box problems myself)

Can we at last address the meat of the matter?

Is there anybody reading this topic, that thinks that the video interviews of the four ANC-grounds workers and the two Pentagon Police agents, done by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, forming the CIT-team, are falsificated, or steered in a wishfull outcome direction, or, more chilling, does anybody here thinks that those 6 men were CIA instructed plants to disrupt the unearthing of the 9/11 true historic events.?
www.youtube.com...



You can't mistake in the case of the two Police men, a right in front of your eyes flying plane for another one, which is supposedly flying at your back.
As the official story so stubbornly wants us to believe is the case.

I personally can only believe in one heinous scenario, to ever seriously start doubting the NoC witnesses.
That of hard evidence laid on the table, for brainwashed, or hypnotised, or paid, FALSE witnesses.

However, after watching those video interviews, can you seriously belief in such unrealistic scenarios.?

To me, and to most of you I suppose also, these are hardworking, reliable witnesses.
Who all six, saw a huge commercial airliner clearly flying at the north side of the CITGO gas station.
Which reports immediately make all claims of an airplane flying at the southern side of that same gas station, totally unacceptable.
And thus logically lead to only one firm conclusion, that all officially proposed "evidence" offered by government institutions, must have been falsified in some prepared way by 9/11 Planners.

The NoC and the SoC flightpats mutally exclude eachother. ONLY ONE CAN BE TRUE.

And for me, you can't falsify so many eyewitness statements (23), surely not if they were in such early stages already recorded on tape by the Military History units and the people of the Library of Congress, in 2001 and early 2002 already. Links to these are at the CIT website.
All that Ranke and Marquis did was filming them again in 2006, now on the spots where they stood on 9/11, and let them tell their stories again, asking them thereafter some more indepth questions, such as speeds, bank angles and positions of the plane they saw flying before their own eyes, at the northern side of that CITGO (now NEX) gas station.

5 Light poles can be simply prepared in broken pieces, calculated to be broken at certain heights to fit a pre-calculated SoC flightpath, and laid in the grass the night or early morning before 9:38 a.m.

The deeper inner part of the 61.25° true north leading debris trail inside the D and C ring areas of Wedge 1 of the just fully renewed part of the Pentagon could have been prepared with military grade explosives to be sure that the line through the light poles would fit the flight path, the entry hole at column 14 of the west wall, and the "exit" hole in the C-Ring wall.
Here is a photo taken by Steve Riskus of a white hot explosion spitting out of the entry hole a minute or so after AA77 hit. And jet fuel does not explode white hot like that, RDX or such explosives does however.
Btw, that's a cut lamp pole piece LAYING on that side rail.... strange place to end exactly there? :




The entrance hole around column 14 in the west wall would of course show inward bowed parts and the imprint of a huge 757, since a 757, Flight AA77, really flew into that west wall, no doubt about that.

Only, it must have hit at some very near to the perpendicular on that wall, angle. More like a 70° to 88° angle.
And then its strongly compressed debris came to rest near the back of the E-Ring already.
And here is my diagram of AA77 hitting the west wall at such a near perpendicular angle:




It just doesn't ""fly with me"", that 23 eyewitnesses can all be so totally wrong in remembering exact plane positions during probably THE most shocking moments of their lifes.
And they were most of them, already interviewed on 9/11 or very shortly afterwards, leaving not that much time to prepare them for telling false stories.
And why would 9/11 Planners insist to introduce such a group of people, so devastating to their original Plan ?
That really makes no sense at all.!

PS : Reheat is still posting at other forums, 9/11Blogger I think to remember, and some others too.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



The NoC and the SoC flightpats mutally exclude eachother. ONLY ONE CAN BE TRUE.


The path of destruction leading to the Pentagon proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Flight Path of American 77



American 77 Video



It just doesn't ""fly with me"", that 23 eyewitnesses can all be so totally wrong in remembering exact plane positions during probably THE most shocking moments of their lifes.


There are usually conflicts between eyewitness accounts regarding accidents and that is why physical evidence is used to make a final determination.
edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   


The path of destruction leading to the Pentagon proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.


NO, if anything it proves it did not..



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



NO, if anything it proves it did not..


To put it bluntly, it would have been impossible for American 77 to create that path of destruction leading to the Pentagon if it passed north of the gas station.

American 77 Flight Path
edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   


To put it bluntly, it would have been impossible for American 77 to create that path of destruction leading to the Pentagon if it passed north of the gas station.



Thats correct, it did not create the destruction.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Thats correct, it did not create the destruction.


Of course it did, and confirmed by my Wing Commander who was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Of course it did, and confirmed by my Wing Commander who was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck.



The fact is your wing commander is as fictional as the OS.

There is enough evidence that proves flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. The OS is a BIG FAT LIE.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Darrell Stafford, his interview starts at 8 minutes into the CIT video.
How on earth can this honest man mistake a huge plane he saw coming at him from a direction above or just south of the Sheraton Hotel, then passing over the northern corner of the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex and coming straight at him at his position just in front of BLDG 123C on the ANC Maintenance buildings grounds, for a south of the gas station flying plane.?
He says it banked slightly to the right after he and a co-worker ran to the stop sign some 40 meters further towards the plane's direction, since they thought the plane would crash into those ANC buildings, and it would be best to ran towards the still 150 feet high or so flying plane, to get under it, so it would pass over them.... Luckily it banked away a bit, when it flew over the parking behind the stone and steel barred fence of the ANC that was the border of their ANC buildings.
It banked away in the direction of the west wall of the Pentagon.

That's already totally impossible for a south of the gas station flying plane, since the last unofficially decoded 4 to 6 seconds of the last part of the DFDR (that was officially decoded by the NTSB only up to the Sheraton Hotel), show no banks at all, says Warren Stutt. And points at a SoC trajectory, says the same Warren Stutt and his co-author, Frank Legge.
So, if you firmly believe all those 23 NoC witnesses, that last DFDR part decode is also based on false data. Fed to these two gullible investigators. Garbage in, garbage out.

Then the other 3 ANC witnesses,
--Darius Prather (20:33 : one of its wings passed over the parking place in front of us (LT : just behind the ANC's stone&steel bars fence). 20:48 : we did see the damage to the two street lamp posts that's out there (LT : On Columbia Pike.! NOT on Route 27.! )),
--Donald Carter, (29:20 : and then a split second after the second plane veered to the north, 2 jet fighter planes came in and went straight to the north as if they went after that second plane), and
--William Middleton (38:10 : it came over Southgate Rd, inbetween the Navy Annex and this fence, and when it passed me, I could feel the heat, from the plane itself).

They also all three firmly declare a slightly, 35° banking plane flying in the airspace just in front of them.

After viewing this interview with those 4 honestly reporting ANC Maintenance workers, there's only one sane conclusion :
You can't surpress the TRUTH.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The fact is your wing commander is as fictional as the OS.


Amusing considering that you cannot change reality from the comfort of your keyboard. Did you really think that I was born yesterday?!



There is enough evidence that proves flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. The OS is a BIG FAT LIE.


Taking your logic of thinking into consideration, there is no such thing as automobiles.
edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



That's already totally impossible for a south of the gas station flying plane,...


False! The physical evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station. There is no damage anywhere near the Pentagon that remotely suggest that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

American 77 Passed South of the Gas Station

The physical evidence overrides the witnesses accounts in this case because the path of destruction does not align with a north-of-the-gas station approach as indicated by the alignment of the downed light poles, the damaged generator, and the C-ring wall.

Light Pole Alignment with Punch Out Hole on C-ring Wall

I might add that a B-757 was not capable of making that tight of a radius before striking the Pentagon, which is further proof that the claim that American 77 passed north of the gas station is false.

edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   


Of course it did, and confirmed by my Wing Commander who was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck.


WOW, he confirmed the plane hit the polls but yet he was inside when it happened? If he was inside he saw nothing..


(post by Informer1958 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



OL, what amuses me is, you really believe you can change history from your keyboard, I understand it is your job.


Well, after 14 years, conspiracy theorist have failed to provide a shred of evidence that refutes what I have presented.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



WOW, he confirmed the plane hit the polls but yet he was inside when it happened? If he was inside he saw nothing..


The light poles were standing when he went to work that morning and were lying on the ground when he came out after American 77 slammed into the Pentagon.

We can take a look here as well.



Mark Bright:

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "

Afework Hagos:

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

D. S. Khavkin:

Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle. First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke.

Stephen McGraw:

"I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. ... There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows."

Kirk Milburn:

I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Mare Ann Owens

Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard. Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.

edit on 13-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Well, after 14 years, conspiracy theorist have failed to provide a shred of evidence that refutes what I have presented.


Again, I could do a poll on your comment and I can assure you, that you will lose and most ATS poster will disagree with you.

There is plenty of evidence that has been uncovered after 14 years.

You are the only ATS poster who still believes in the OS.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb


WOW, he confirmed the plane hit the polls but yet he was inside when it happened? If he was inside he saw nothing..


Thank you.

You caught that to.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join