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

This is a post for real COMMERCIAL PILOTS.

Philipp Marshall was a REAL commercial airlines pilot and also had experience in flying black projects for the agencies earlier in his career.
He and his 2 children and his dogs were murdered over this book's coming up revalations who really did 9/11, which final revelations he could not ad to it anymore, before he got shot dead.
It's a one hour video, well used time if you want to hear it from a colleagues mouth :

THE BIG BAMBOOZLE: 9/11 and the War on Terror by Philip Marshall.
www.youtube.com...

All of the solid evidence points to a dark collaboration between members of the Bush Administration and a covert group of Saudi government officials.

Then view the video of Captain Aimer in the following post, written by me, where I once asked commercial pilots that are readers or members here at ATS, to tell us if they think its feasable to fly that 330 degrees descending turn as was done by AA77, WITHOUT the aid of the usual 3 autopilot functions, as can be seen in the NTSB animation of Flight 77 :

Thread title : The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11, page 28.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'll try it again, especially for Captain Ivar_Karlsen : Is it possible at all?

Since pilots in my western country have told me it would perhaps be feasible for a pilot with thousands of flight hours in his books, to fly that descending curve at those speeds without autopilot functions for the first time, and not come out of it in a Dutch Roll.
Wheedwacker nor the lately banned other real pilot ever answered that question....

Please watch the above video first, I suppose you will be amazed by what murdered Phillip Marshall tells you. He had a headshot to his left temple, but he was right handed, they want us to believe he murdered his 2 children and his dogs, and then suicided himself, what a crock story they always com up with.

Then also view the last minutes of that NTSB animation, before you give your valuable professional opinion.
Much obliged in advance, LT.

a reply to: LaBTop

Not one of the airline pilots here, such as Captain Ivan_Karlsen, has yet told us that such a NoC flight path would be impossible. I don't count remarks by skyeagle409, he has no flight hours in a Boeing 757. And I don't take him serious at all anymore, after his earlier and especially his following remark.

I will say it again from my own flight experience, there was no way a B-757 passed north of the gas station because the physical evidence does not support such a flight path and there was no way a B-757 could have conducted that tight radius as drawn on certain photos at its recorded airspeed just prior to its collision with the Pentagon.

BTW, as a pilot of 46 years with relatives who are commercial pilots, one of whom a B-757 captain, there are other very good reasons why I was elected president of two aviation-related chapters consisting of military and commercial pilots, Instructor pilots, private pilots, student pilots, sport pilots, military and FAA-certified technicians, military officers, enlisted personnel, DoD civilians and retirees, not to mention that I am historian for one of those chapters. My aeronautical knowledge and long career in the world of aviation has a lot to do with it.

You can also look me up on the Internet. Here is an example.

USAF News

As I have mentioned before, my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 slammed into the building.

Then view the video of Captain Aimer in the following post, written by me, where I once asked commercial pilots that are readers or members here at ATS, to tell us if they think its feasable to fly that 330 degrees descending turn as was done by AA77, WITHOUT the aid of the usual 3 autopilot functions, as can be seen in the NTSB animation of Flight 77 :

Perhaps, he should come to Travis AFB to see how its done with our giant C-5, KC-10, and C-17 transports as they conduct their tactical 360-degree to-a-landing maneuver from altitudes as high as 10,000 feet and on the ground in 4 minutes. I might add that even "Air Force One" has conducted such a maneuver.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

Fantastic piloting skills by someone who didnt have a PPL.

No he lost his PPL when he gained his COMMERCIAL pilots license.
Here is a copy.

Why does this stupid BS still come up?
It's too easy to find the truth just by using GOOGLE.

funny how this link went to....403...forbidden

a reply to: jimmyx

Hani's Commercial Pilot License

Hani's Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application

Readers should read this post by me about William Lagasse his position while he was filling up his Pentagon Police cruiser's gas tank in the northern pumps area of the CITGO gas station :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He was in the perfect position, eyeballing that gas pump, while looking to the NORTHERN area outside the CITGO gas station's northern pump area, to see a NoC flying plane passing just a few tens of meters in front of his amazed eyes.

He never retracted his remark at the end of his CIT interview :
Ranke : Do you think it's possible that the plane flew to the southern side of this gas station ?
Lagasse : Totally impossible, I bet my life on it.

PS : And don't start to get strange ideas about me advertising for CIT and Balsamo's crooked idea that that plane overflew the Pentagon.
They are very hostile towards me since I told them in the one thread at their 911PilotsForTruth forum that I was allowed to post in there, that their fly-over theory was not based on any true eyewitness accounts.

However, I'm convinced that what CIT video taped in 2006 was the true recollection of those 6 eyewitnesses.
It's a pity that Balsamo got at them, after they were so vicious attacked by about every OS story defender on the Net.
They should have left it by that interview, and wait on the storm of OS-doubters, posting their questions and ideas about that shocking revelation. But they HAD to go for the Hall of Fame direction.... as I said, a pity.
Balsamo is a prick and he adheres to spreading proven disinformation. Do not trust HIS theories, however, some members at his forum have posted very informative aeronautical information he could not muddy with his usual ego trips.

In short, they are no friends of mine, but 9/11 Truth is.

a reply to: LaBTop

He was in the perfect position, eyeballing that gas pump, while looking to the NORTHERN area outside the CITGO gas station's northern pump area, to see a NoC flying plane passing just a few tens of meters in front of his amazed eyes.

Apparently, these photos depict physical evidence that debunks a NoC flight path.

Depiction 1

Depiction 2

Depiction 3

Depiction 4

a reply to: skyeagle409

You are trying to debunk a religion with facts.
Facts have no bearing in religion because it's all based on faith.

a reply to: LaBTop

PS : And don't start to get strange ideas about me advertising for CIT and Balsamo's crooked idea that that plane overflew the Pentagon.

Balsamo is a prick and he adheres to spreading proven disinformation.

Rob, and I, have gone head-to-head in another forum when I caught him posting disinformation and lies and he wasn't shy about doing so either, and yet, conspiracy theorist continued to use him as a reference in their arguments against me despite the fact that I had warned them that Rob was duping them with false information.

In regard to the witnesses who've claimed that American 77 passed north of the gas station, I will be blunt and simply say that they are all incorrect because it didn't happen and the physical evidence proves it. It is just a matter of drawing a straight line from light pole #1 to the C-ring hole. Physical evidence

In the following depiction, there is not a single downed light pole that would have indicated a flight path north of the gas station. However, the downed light poles prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the flight path American 77 was south of the gas station.

Flight Path Depiction 1

Flight Path Depiction 2

Flight Path Depiction 3

About those eyewitnesses accounts that American 77 passed north of the gas station, this is why physical evidence overrides eyewitness accounts.

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing
By MATTHEW L. WALD

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.

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.)

The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.

None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. "Eyewitness memory is reconstructive," said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. "The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there."

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.

Benjamin A. Berman, a former chief of major aviation investigations at the safety board, said pilots actually make the worst witnesses, because their technical knowledge can lead them too quickly to identify a mechanical problem that may not have occurred. "Children make among the best witnesses," he added, "because they don't tend to place an interpretation on what they've seen."

The safety board's skepticism of eyewitness accounts was deepened by the explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island six years ago: hundreds of people saw an upward streak that they assumed was a missile, although investigators said it was the body of the plane itself, streaking upward after the forward portion had fallen off following a fuel tank explosion.

THAT disaster highlighted another pitfall for investigators, Mr. Berman and others say: F.B.I. agents asked witnesses where the missile came from, presupposing the presence of a weapon. "It wasn't good aircraft accident investigation," Mr. Berman said.

There are other well-known cases of witness error, including the crash of a Lauda Air Boeing 767 near Bangkok in May 1991. Witnesses said they heard a bomb and saw the plane fall in flames, but it turned out to be a mechanical problem.

So why do investigators bother asking witnesses at all? Dr. Bernard S. Loeb, who retired as the safety board's director of aviation safety last year, said, "In the case of 587, it's unlikely that the witnesses will provide much to help the investigation, but you never know that when you begin an investigation where you're going to get important leads, from the recorders, from witnesses, from the structure itself."

And in any crash, he said, conflicting witness statements can still be useful. "What was very clear from the Flight 800 witnesses was that many did see something up in the sky," he said.

Even if the accounts are likely to be wrong, they are still routinely gathered and evaluated by both the board and police agencies. "Can you imagine if we didn't interview the witnesses?" said one current board official.

Mr. Berman, who left the board last year, said investigators may have released the summary of what the Flight 587 witnesses saw just to show publicly that the statements showed "scatter" an engineering term for plotted data that does not fit a pattern. A release at this late date is unusual, but a spokesman for the board, Ted Lopatkiewicz, said it was done because it was ready. But, he added, "I don't think I'm making any news by saying that eyewitness testimony at a plane crash and probably at many traumatic events is unreliable."

Witness statements can be more valuable in crashes of small planes that don't have flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders, Mr. Berman said.

Mr. Loeb said his experience with witnesses had led him to question the reliability of criminal convictions based on eyewitness identifications. In Illinois, he noted, a commission appointed by the governor recommended in April that the death penalty not be applied to murder convictions based on a single eyewitness identification.

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-psych.stanford.edu...

Sigh. One can't avoid these smokescreens.

I am proposing other scenarios now, while you are posting years old links to "light poles evidence" that has been discussed to death already years ago.
"Light poles evidence" that was NEEDED for the 9/11 Planners to "prove" a pre-planned destructive trajectory inside the Pentagon, that can easily be prepared in advance and prepositioned the night before. And inside that trajectory were the reasons to eradicate that space.

Don't come up with such lies again, that someone you know remembered those 5 light-poles still standing as he went to work. PROOF IT. You can't, you don't have the photos to proof it, just as I don't have the photos to proof a NoC flying plane.

I have however shown a peculiar flash of reflected light in the FOIA freed CITGO video, that fits to the tee a north of CITGO low passing, reflective aluminum plane, at the exact correct time and height.
Just as I showed you that Sergeant Lagasse and Sergeant Brooks also said it passed north of them. I showed you Lagasse's position at the northern pump area in that CITGO video, and that he is filling his tank at that pump there, looking at it.
He bets his life, just as Sergeant Brooks, on the fact that they both saw a huge plane flying NORTH of the northern canopy of that CITGO station.

And they can be mistaken in small details perhaps, but not in seeing a huge plane right in front of them, that however must have been officially flying in airspace south of them, i.o.w. at their backs. Especially in Lagasse's position, that's physically impossible, the whole gas station's walls and its canopy roof would have blocked him from seeing a south of that roof, low flying plane.

It's comparable to your quoted text its last remark from that psychologist Loeb, not remembering anymore if the car he saw was a SUV or a truck.
One thing however is 100% for sure : Loeb remembered an accident.
Just as those two Sergeants remembered a huge airplane right in front of them, and that front was situated north of them.

You also post a years old theory from CausticSoda/FrustratingFraud as expressed in your posted photo-diagram Depiction 4, in which he "saw" a shadow on the west side of the southern CITGO pump area.
I proved him wrong years ago already, in thinking that it could be the shadow of a south of CITGO flying plane, since the timestamps in the CITGO cameras windows at the moment he "saw" that "shadow" were about 4 to 6 seconds out of sync with the impact time and the distance flown to impact. He conceded to that fact.

skyeagle409 : I will say it again from my own flight experience, there was no way a B-757 passed north of the gas station because the physical evidence does not support such a flight path and there was no way a B-757 could have conducted that tight radius as drawn on certain photos at its recorded airspeed just prior to its collision with the Pentagon.

You just did exactly the same as Reheat. And I challenge you again, to PROVE what you just wrote. A NoC flown flight path at 230 knots airspeed can not be exchanged for a totally different SoC flight path, flown at 450 knots airspeed derived from a possible DFDR falsification.
And I gave a NoC radius of 2054 meters, that's 4 KM diameter, that's no "tight" radius at all at 230 knots.
PERIOD.
Your opinions are just words, mine are correct calculations.

Readers should for just this time, avoid the 5 light poles evidence, that evidence could have been prepared in advance, to minimize eventual doubts of casual readers of news.
Such extra prepared securities can be expected from 9/11 Planners, to successfully imprint the financially most advantageous biggest False Flag operation of the Century in the minds of the masses. It's making such a psychological operation even more "trustworthy".

My question in my opening post has not been touched upon :
Why does 9/11Myths promote a clearly false, far too high NoC banking angle theory?
You can't exchange airspeeds from different theories.
My calculations are easily verifiable, why do you avoid to agree with them.?

My question to Captain Ivar_Karlsen and other real pilots here has not been answered too :
Is it possible for a first time 757 pilot with no experience in a 757, to fly that 330 degrees AA77 circling turn at the NTSB airspeeds, WITHOUT all 3 autopilot functions, and without ending in a Dutch Roll.?
This important subject is unanswered for years in a row already.

And skyeagle409 avoids that same question :

Perhaps, he should come to Travis AFB to see how its done with our giant C-5, KC-10, and C-17 transports as they conduct their tactical 360-degree to-a-landing maneuver from altitudes as high as 10,000 feet and on the ground in 4 minutes. I might add that even "Air Force One" has conducted such a maneuver.

Do these military pilots do that downward circling WITHOUT any autopilot functions, as can be seen for AA77's animation made by the NTSB based on the DFDR.? And at the same airspeeds?
I strongly doubt it, the military doesn't like costly risks in peace time.

a reply to: LaBTop

I am proposing other scenarios now, while you are posting years old links to "light poles evidence" that has been discussed to death already years ago.

The downed light poles are history already and the fact of the matter is, they were knocked down by American 77. The generator was damaged by the right engine of American 77, and the internal damage proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the flight path of American 77 was south of the gas station, which is underlined when a straight line is drawn from the first light pole to the damage generator and damaged columns inside the Pentagon, and finally, to the hole in the C-ring wall.

The B-757 is not capable of conducting a tight banking maneuver as depicted on some photos, especially at well over 400 knots. The official flight path is accurate and once again, the physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon overrides any witness accounts that American 77 passed north of the gas station, but why would Hani conduct such a banking maneuver in the final seconds when he was already on a straight line course toward the Pentagon?

Frankly, a final right-hand banking maneuver doesn't any sense from a pilots standpoint because had he done so, he would have either cartwheeled or miss the Pentagon completely, but looking at the facts, there's no damage whatsoever that would suggest a flight path north of the gas station because all of the documented physical evidence supports only a flight path south of the gas station and nowhere else.

After Hani rolled out of the descending banking maneuver, he was headed straight for the Pentagon and all he had to do was the keep the his target on a certain point of the Pentagon on the windscreen, so why would he deviate from a course that is already in line with the Pentagon in order to past north of the gas station? Frankly speaking, it doesn't make any logical sense at all..

a reply to: LaBTop

Don't come up with such lies again, that someone you know remembered those 5 light-poles still standing as he went to work. PROOF IT.

It is very simple. We can take a look at these photos once again and I am very sure these light poles were not lying on the roads when he arrived at the Pentagon that day.

Photos: Downed Light Poles

In addition, you can draw a straight line from the Pentagon's west wall entry hole to the C-ring hole in order to understand that the flight path of American 77 was south of the gas station because it would have been impossible for American 77 to have created path of damage inside the Pentagon from a north-of-the-gas station flight path. There was simply no way possible.

The following imagery also supports a south-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77.

Documented Internal Damage

I have however shown a peculiar flash of reflected light in the FOIA freed CITGO video, that fits to the tee a north of CITGO low passing, reflective aluminum plane, at the exact correct time and height.

Reflected light is not evidence if that is all you have. Could it have been this B-757? If so, then that is proof that American 77 passed south of the gas station. Here is the video.

American 77 Strikes the Pentagon

Then view the video of Captain Aimer in the following post, written by me, where I once asked commercial pilots that are readers or members here at ATS, to tell us if they think its feasable to fly that 330 degrees descending turn as was done by AA77, WITHOUT the aid of the usual 3 autopilot functions, as can be seen in the NTSB animation of Flight 77 :

Thread title : The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11, page 28.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'll try it again, especially for Captain Ivar_Karlsen : Is it possible at all?

Since pilots in my western country have told me it would perhaps be feasible for a pilot with thousands of flight hours in his books, to fly that descending curve at those speeds without autopilot functions for the first time, and not come out of it in a Dutch Roll.
Wheedwacker nor the lately banned other real pilot ever answered that question....

If he can't do it, I can teach this little girl how to do it. After all, I've conducted similar maneuvers during student pilot training with less than 30 flight hours.

a reply to: LaBTop

Do these military pilots do that downward circling WITHOUT any autopilot functions as can be seen for AA77's animation made by the NTSB based on the DFDR.?

That is correct. In regard to the C-5, at no time are the pilots allowed to deploy the thrust reversers on #2 and #3 engines during the descent otherwise, the could lose control of the aircraft.

Here is a video of a similar maneuver from the cockpit of a C-17.



Here is a very low, high speed pass by a KC-135



Now, let's see what a B-707 can do, or any large airliner can do for that matter.



Photo: B-707 Conducting a Barrel Roll

Now, let's take a look at the DC-8.

DC-8 Breaks the Sound Barrier

Photo: DC-8

On this date in 1961, a jet designed for commercial use became the first civilian craft to go supersonic. It wasn't the famous Concorde, which wouldn't break the sound barrier until an October '69 test flight, or the Soviet-built Tupolev Tu-144, but rather a humble DC-8—no. N9604Z, to be specific.

was all part of an August 21, 1961 test flight from Edwards Air Force Base thought up by Douglas pilot William Magruder. According to flight test engineer Richard Edwards, who spoke with Air & Space Magazine, the idea was to "get it out there, show the airplane can survive this and not fall apart." At the time, DC-8s had been used by commercial carriers for about three years and were competing with the Boeing 707. While DC-8s weren't designed to go supersonic, the bragging rights of being the first to do so were worth making the attempt.

In order to reach Mach 1, the jet had to be in a dive. This meant taking it up to 52,000 feet, which was also a record for altitude. As Edwards tells Air & Space Magazine:

mentalfloss.com...

Many people didn't think that airliners were capable of such things.

On a quick side note, this are the 4 Popular Mechanics seismograms, as it truly should have been published by them, now made by myself, somewhat at scale with each other, the scale difference is so big, it will not fit in an ATS posting's windowspace :



And not like PM's clearly misleading piece of yellow journalism :
pop.h-cdn.co...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The B-757 is not capable of conducting a tight banking maneuver as depicted on some photos, especially at well over 400 knots.

You did it AGAIN, just as Reheat does. Is it something the military teaches you guys, that kind of illogical stubbornness? I know and the readers too, it's tactics, constantly playing the innocent official story follower, as if it's totally clear what you keep repeating, and I keep reminding you what crazy "mistake" you make. However, you must know very well what you are doing, nobody with a pilot license is that dull.

In a NoC flight path, that plane is dictated by math; so it can only fly between 230 and 250 knots at a 35 degrees bank angle in a 2054 meters wide radius turn that COVERED all exactly known witness positions.
And ALL these parameters have to be precise, otherwise it isn't the plane as described by ALL witnesses.





And they all described thus a much slower flying plane than the SoC officially endorsed one.
Don't forget it then still flies faster than a Formula I race car on a slightly curved track.
If you ever sat on a tribune near a straight race track, these race cars pass at such high speeds (+300 km/hr) that you have to move your neck very fast to keep them in focus.

Not like that "very low, high speed pass by a KC-135 " as you typed. That plane flew not at high speed. At about or under the max speed of a race car or bike, about 300 km/hr.
It glided in front of the camera aided by the ground effect, which would be a lot less at high speed.
I wouldn't advice that same pilot to do that exact same low pass at a really high speed...that would result in a dangerous ride, bumpy as hell if the pilot tried to keep the plane straight along the ground, just like Hani Hanjoor had to do to keep column 14 in his point of aim on his cockpit screen divider.
This KC-135 pilot just has to level off from his dive down, then keep his stick level at real high speeds and the plane will automatically be pushed slightly up by the diminished ground effect at those speeds.
As you can see in that video, the pilot only took the slower flying plane as low as that, over just 100 meters or so, then he pulled his stick up already and then pushed full throttle.

--but why would Hani conduct such a banking maneuver in the final seconds when he was already on a straight line course toward the Pentagon?

And repeated again :

--so why would he deviate from a course that is already in line with the Pentagon in order to past north of the gas station? Frankly speaking, it doesn't make any logical sense at all..

Told you that already. To avoid flying head-on with its right wing at 230 knots into the high, steel-beamed VDOT radio tower, just 20 to 30 meters tot the right of the Pike and Navy Annex. Hani Hanjoor (or the remotely flying pilot) panicked and banked slightly to the left to avoid that radio tower he saw coming up in his front screen (or camera), just as a keen observer at the ANC grounds said already (Darrell Stafford : it wobbled above the Annex, as if the plane had just seemed to avoid something), then he corrected that by slightly banking to the right again, leveling off in front of Washington Boulevard and fly into the Pentagon at about 300 to 350 knots, after he pushed full throttle when he passed just beside the ANC parking, as William Middleton noted. With one wing tip over it, as Darius Prather noted.

--there's no damage whatsoever that would suggest a flight path north of the gas station because all of the documented physical evidence supports only a flight path south of the gas station and nowhere else.

Of course not. This was a meticulously planned false flag operation, the Planners had multiple layers of aftermath damage-control indoctrination applied. They only didn't calculate the sudden appearance of that VDOT radio tower to the near right of the Pike.

When does it get to you, that simply the vividly described NoC bank angle of 35 degrees, by ALL 4 ANC workers, and Albert Hemphill, Sean Boger and several more witnesses, dictates that specific NoC trajectory I drew, with a 2054 meters radius at 230 knots.?
Calculated with Reheat's own online turn calculator.

And not, as Reheat wanted us to believe, these sort of large bank angles for a NoC flying plane, as seen as the large bottom one, in this diagram :


He makes the same intentional "mistake" as you already made two times by now, by suddenly introducing the same idiotic high and straight flown SoC proposed airspeed of 450 knots, into that by online math dictated, at 230 knots flown NoC at a 35 degrees bank and curved flown bank calculation.
Of course you end up with steeper than 73 degrees bank angles for Reheat's impossible high speed flying proposed NoC plane. He deliberately did so, and hoped no one would notice what disinformation method he used.

I have a hunch that Reheat at last in 2012 followed my advice to contact William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks, fellow US guardsmen, and asked them if they really saw a plane flying north of that CITGO canopy.



You should try the same, as you said you're not shy of doing your own research. You would arrive at idol status if you could let them change their words.
If you don't do that, I will conclude that you shy away of really delving deep into the real historic truth of that day.
Since if you can get a new audio interview, but better a video interview, with those two Pentagon Police Force members, who you can't accuse of being misled by perspective disorders, as many before you, have tried with those ANC witnesses, and Boger and Hemphill who both report the same banking by AA77, and let these two policemen retreat from their words in their 2006 interview by CIT, I will immediately surrender and stop any further pushing of a NoC flight path.

HOW ABOUT THAT....Fair enough of a chance to get instant hero status within OS defender circles, in my opinion. You'll probably also get a medal of Congress too.
And you would make me a very happy old man again, since this NoC problem has darkened my leftover days considerably.

--It is very simple. We can take a look at these photos once again and I am very sure these light poles were not lying on the roads when he arrived at the Pentagon that day.

Four light poles were laying low in the grass beside the roads.
Two yellow VDOT flatbed trailers were photographed near some of them :


Easy to transport those already pre-cut pieces of light poles with them at night. And who would notice (or report) from inside a speeding car in the morning before 9:30 that there are poles missing and pieces of them laying in the grass. That's the work of the VDOT road-maintenance personnel.

The exception was this fifth one in front of that taxi. Lots of past posts are spend on this one.
Note the circular scratch mark on the tarmac, as if someone pulled its end around from its original spot behind the brick wall of the overpass bridge.
Do also a You Tube search for " 9/11 taxi driver CIT " and you will find the last part of CIT's interview with him, when they were driving at night along the southbound lane of Route 27 with him in their car, where he says that "it was here where the plane flew over", and that's just at the end of the brick wall that holds the ANC ground from falling on the southbound lanes of Route 27, Washington Boulevard. Exactly where a NoC flying plane would pass over.

--because it would have been impossible for American 77 to have created path of damage inside the Pentagon from a north-of-the-gas station flight path. There was simply no way possible.

There is a simple explanation. Instead of AA77, think about some shaped charges inside, planted already during the last renovation days or weeks in these specific renovated ONI rooms with their top secret mainframes that the PLANNERS needed to shred to thousand pieces. The ones with all the incriminating evidence from decades past, about THEM and their wealthy co-conspirators.

Look at the strange victims pattern in the far right (blue here) NAVY offices corner of the official damage path. To be found in the Pentagon Aftermath Report. I have it saved :


It does "not fly" with the official 61.25 degrees true north plane debris entrance path at all.
That debris must have made a sudden 30 to 60 degrees deviation, to have been able to make that deadly damage in that far right corner of the C and D Ring in Wedge I.
The Navy and ONI offices were also situated there, and also look at the casualties found ALL flocked in front of closed doors there...They couldn't escape, the electrical safety door locks must have been locked...intentionally.? They died from smoke inhalation, I suppose.
Were there any death certificates for these specific victims? Smoke in their lungs as the cause of death, or brain and internal organs concussions?

This is my internal damage pattern, some strange yellow columns damage too there :


This was your posted, less precise internal damage pattern :


This I also posted, a proposal for a NoC impact :



That 7 year old girl in a 737 simulator is flying on autopilot functions, you see the thrust levers move without her or the instructor handling them. The instructor pushes the autopilot knobs on and off for her.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do these military pilots do that downward circling WITHOUT any autopilot functions as can be seen for AA77's animation made by the NTSB based on the DFDR.?

skyeagle409 : That is correct. In regard to the C-5, at no time are the pilots allowed to deploy the thrust reversers on #2 and #3 engines during the descent, otherwise, they could lose control of the aircraft.
Here is a video of a similar maneuver from the cockpit of a C-17.

I can find many of these in-flight filmed ones, but none can conclusively show me that ALL the 3 autopilot knobs are set in the OFF positions.
As however can be seen in the NTSB simulation of Flight AA77.
Watch the speeds during descend in the turning circle in KTS, on the left side of that NTSB simulation (posted page 1 or 2? ).

I still think and hope that Capt. Ivar_Karlsen, as seemingly the only left over 757 pilot here, could inform us conclusively.

Here is a very low, high speed pass by a KC-135

I repeat, that's not a high speed pass.

The barrel rolling B-707 is flown without autopilot functions? How do we know that?
In modern planes, the flight computers will stop such behavior, I thought.
So, did that pilot have to dismantle (pull the fuse) or simply flip off these safety measures?

Many people didn't think that airliners were capable of such things.

I know they are capable of much more stress in a straight flight line for a short time, before fluttering will occur, than their safety specs describe.
The wing stress test by Boeing comes to mind, and quite a lot of other videos, those however about flutter.
Never mind, when will we get a conclusive video or an answer from a 757 captain on my question about flying that descending circle by AA77, without any of the three auto pilot functions, by a first time pilot in a 757?

The Curious Case of Phillip Marshall (26:06)
www.youtube.com...

Philip Marshall, a veteran airline captain and former government "special activities" contract pilot, had authored three books on Top Secret America, a group presently conducting business as the United States Intelligence Community. Marshall is the leading aviation expert on the September 11th attack, as well as a masterful storyteller. In his final book "The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror," a 2012 publication Marshall theorized it wasn't al-Qaida but rather U.S. and Saudi government officials who orchestrated 9/11. In February 2013, he was found dead along with his two children in their home in California. Reports indicate all 3 died of gunshot wounds. Police regarded the case as a double murder- suicide case. But many pieces do not add up. Simply, a loving father and devoted husband would kill his children before turning the gun on himself. Besides, prior to his death, he had confided to his closest that he was terrified of his family being targeted by secret agents.
This movie looks into this whistleblower's investigations and tries to find out what he could have possibly found that cost his life and that of his loved ones.

They are trying to find out what this pilot's third book, that is never published, was all about.
He was murdered before he could publish.

'CIA killed 9/11 author in black ops hit' (24:32)
www.youtube.com...


Wayne Madsen about Philip Marshall at the National Press (32:50)
www.youtube.com...


The UNKNOWN Behind 9 11 with Philip Marshall and Susan Lindauer part 1. (1:20:01)
www.youtube.com...


The UNKNOWN Behind 9 11 with Philip Marshall and Susan Lindauer part 2. (1:13:35)
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: LaBTop

There is a simple explanation. Instead of AA77, think about some shaped charges inside, planted already during the last renovation days or weeks in these specific renovated ONI rooms with their top secret mainframes that the PLANNERS needed to shred to thousand pieces.

Shaped charges at the Pentagon.
Thermite planted at the WTC's.
Carrying and planting the light poles.

Isn't the choreography of this conspiracy getting a bit too complex to be believable?
A bit too complex in the planning stage to believe ALL of it could be kept a secret.

Videos by CIT, the Citizen Investigation Team, important to this discussion.
Please do not believe their fly-over theory, they really think that it is impossible for a NoC flying plane, to be able to impact the west wall of the Pentagon. This strange idea is put in their heads by a megalomaniac, Rob Balsamo, the owner of a website called PilotsFor911Truth, who dished up that impossible fly-over theory, and these two young men swallowed it, hook line and sinker. As said before, a real pity for the 9/11 historical truth.

National Security Alert - The 9/11 Pentagon Event (1:21:48) Nov 4, 2012, by CIT.
www.youtube.com...


At 59:40 taxicab driver Lloyde England's interview by CIT begins.
At 1:05:50 Lloyde points with his finger to where he says he really was when the plane struck.
And that's in the southbound lane of Route 27, at the end of the ANC's eastern boundary brick wall that is build against its eastern dirt wall, adjacent to the southbound lane of Route 27. And just in front of the northern side of the concrete of the Helipad.
So, he says he was NOT on the overpass bridge over the Pike, with a bend light pole in his windscreen.....he was 300 meters northwards.! And he says he came from Rosslyn and at 1:06:00 you see him point his finger to that spot near where H Road enters Route 27, also called Jefferson Davis Hwy, or also 110, where he says he was when the plane passed by all the ANC workers and himself.
That's not where it happened, says Lloyde at 1:08:00, while looking at a laptop screen with a photo of his cab's hood facing southbound, on the Pike's overpass bridge with the low cobblestone wall, and another smaller white car in front of his cab, and in front of that car, the bended light pole nr 1 on the road's surface.
But he says "that's not where it happened".

Aren't you confused yet?

At 1:08:24, Lloyde says "Where the plane went across, and where the pole came in, there was NO BRIDGE ".
At 1:08 47, Lloyde repeats after seeing another photo of his cab on that overpass, "that's not where it happened", "it" being the spearing of his windshield by a piece of a light pole, or the passing of the NoC plane.