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

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Here it is again.

American 77 Video

Sorry, no 757 in that video..

a reply to: wildb

I say it is, I know my aircraft.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I say it is, I know my aircraft.

Then post it...

a reply to: wildb

American 77

American 77 Wheel 1

American 77 Wheel 2

American 77 Wing Tip

Check your path.


m.youtube.com...#

a reply to: Kadagraks

Did you really think that anyone would plant light poles on busy roadways in broad daylight? For what reason what anyone do so?

Your blunder in posting that video lies in the fact that "Pilots For 911 Truth" is notorious for posting disinformation. In fact, I have gone head-to-head with founder, Rob Balsamo, after I caught him posting disinformation on his website. What he was posting was false and I knew that from my own experience as a pilot.

In case you missed it, my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck and he saw no such thing as a staged event that day. Perhaps, you should have done a background check on "Pilots For 911 Truth" before you posted that flawed video.

Just to let you know that a B-757 was not capable of conducting that north-of-the-gas station banking maneuver at over 400 knots as depicted by the blue line at time line 14:49. The law of physics speaks loudly against such a maneuver in this case and the documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon doesn't support a north-of-the-gas station flight path.

It is very easy to debunk a north-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77 and all you have to do is to draw a straight line from the huge entry hole on the Pentagon's west wall to the punch out hole on the inner C-ring wall.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Kadagraks

Did you really think that anyone would plant light poles on busy roadways in broad daylight? For what reason what anyone do so?

The law of physics speaks loudly in this case

To fabricate a story.

The same physics where debris and fire can collapse a 50 store STEEL framed building in under 20 sec., without so much as a wobble before sequence begins?

No, no, steel is good. You sound desperate. Check your path.

a reply to: Kadagraks

To fabricate a story.

Prove it, and do so for all to see. Damage inside the Pentagon didn't require an external cover story explanation.

The challenge for you is to prove me wrong with G-force evidence for the airframe of a B-757 at near-gross weight at over 400 knots for a north-of-the-gas station maneuver you support. Short of that, it will be clearly evident that you have no case.

Now, are you up to the challenge?

The same physics where debris and fire can collapse a 50 store STEEL framed building in under 20 sec., without so much as a wobble before sequence begins?

You mean, like fire collapsing the steel frame buildings in Thailand?

Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's take a look at what fire can do to steel.

What Fire Can Do to Steel Beams

No, no, steel is good. You sound desperate.

Ever wondered why fire protection is applied to steel columns of buildings?

Check your path.

I am waiting for you to provide the evidence that proves me wrong. Once again, if you are unable to provide the evidence, you have no case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Not really, sorry, i believe there was no plane.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I believe few frames released from the well guarded pentagon already prove a cover story.

a reply to: Kadagraks

Not really, sorry, i believe there was no plane.

Okay! Now, the challenge for you is to prove that no aircraft struck the Pentagon. You might also convey that message to American Airlines.

a reply to: Kadagraks

I believe few frames released from the well guarded pentagon already prove a cover story.

My Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77 and I have identified wreckage of American 77 inside and outside the Pentagon. Have you ever wondered how most air disasters are solved without the aid of videos?

To sum it up, you have no case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Please stop heavy editing your posts. It gets confusing and misleading. Yet i'll check it.

a reply to: Kadagraks

You are stalling. How about coming up with the evidence that I am asking for?

a reply to: skyeagle409

The thai building: acording to wiki, 34 minutes collapsing. Not quite 20 secs, right?

That wobbled beam: actually it proves my point, where's the wobbled wtc, the deformed dying structure?

the media vs physics: i'll stick with physics.

I know, i have no case, i'm no layer, i might be wrong, perhaps you shouldn't trust your wing commander, perhaps you should quit your cult. I don't think this here is about proving, i believe it is about creating awareness.

a reply to: Kadagraks

The thai building: acording to wiki, 34 minutes collapsing. Not quite 20 secs, right?

How long were the WTC buildings on fire before they collapsed?

That wobbled beam: actually it proves my point, where's the wobbled wtc, the deformed dying structure?

You can find them in the following photos.

Photo 1: Fire Weakened WTC Steel Beam

Photo 2: Fire Weakened WTC Steel Beams

Photo 3: Fire Weakened WTC Steel Beams

Photo 4: Fire Weakened WTC Steel Beams

a reply to: Kadagraks

I know, i have no case, i'm no layer, i might be wrong, perhaps you shouldn't trust your wing commander, perhaps you should quit your cult.

Why? I have already identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon and add to the fact that American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon. Since each engine of American 77 have their own unique maintenance histories as unique as a fingerprint, you can call "Rolls-Royce" so they can confirme the loss of their engines at the Pentagon.

I don't think this here is about proving, i believe it is about creating awareness.

Awareness of what? Please elaborate. It is about documented physical evidence.

a reply to: skyeagle409

It's not how long it was on fire, it is the speed of collapse. Do you really think that even the undamaged floors couldn't hold up a second? Have you ever seen a phase diagram? Steel is good.

Okay, this bothers me a bit. Why would a very well planned out false flag event forget somethings like the radio tower in the flight path they wanted as the official story? Sorry, just not seeing that make much sense, unless that got covered already and the head ache I got from reading this thread is block/distorting the memory of it.