Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 :

page: 9
116
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
If your bank angle of 53° is about right, than I do agree that I never ever heard one eyewitness mentioning such an extreme bank angle for AA77.


It is correct even at such a slow speed. The aircraft as described by all witnesses was likely much faster which would make the bank angle required in the 60-70 degree range as I initially stated.


Originally posted by LaBTop
I like simple evidence, and this seems to me such simple proof.


It doesn't get much simpler.


Originally posted by LaBTop
I am still confused about the two Pentagon Police men.
How on earth could they have seen that plane flying so damn low, NORTH of their positions?
Especially Lagasse, who stood filling up his gas tank at the furthest northern gas pump, under the northern canopy!
He could not ever have seen a SoC flying plane and describe the window shades down, so close he must have been.


All one needs to understand is that witnesses are notoriously unreliable. We have never seen the entire footage of film from CIT. Who knows what went on before and after the footage they have released. LaGasse was confused on exactly where he was located until Ranke reminded him. Facing in a direction opposite to what he thought could be confusing to him years after the event. Also, there were other witnesses, so why obsess about just two of them that fit the CIT delusion. I suspect you know what LaGasse thinks about conspiracy theorists, don't you? He got other things wrong in his interview, so there is no particular reason to believe he is correct about which side of the station the aircraft was on. Especially, in view of the other overwhelming evidence. I think you've seen the dictatorial aberrant behavior of "Ballswallow" now. He and CIT are two peas in a pod. Both are blatant outright frauds perpetuating a delusion for the gullible.

Added: I suppose you've seen Farmer's analysis of the Citgo video which shows Tucois running INSIDE the building instead of where he said he was in the CIT interview. Also, Farmer has determined that Paik was NOT where CIT said he was. He was actually inside his shop, but CIT pretended he was outside. He could not have seen what they claim he saw. CIT is a cult of lying frauds....
edit on 3-10-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Refined calculation based on turn radius of 2.7 km :

At 528 km/hr (328.035 MPH, 285 KTS) as the speed entering the turn, and a rated stall speed of 296.38 km/hr (184.160 MPH, 160 KTS) and a bank angle of 40°, the turn diameter is 3.3 miles.

3.3 miles = 5.4 km, divided by 2 to get the radius =2.7 kilometer.

That is still a constant steep bank angle of 40 degrees needed to perform that whole constant right bank from Paik to impact point.
That is still far too steep, over that whole trajectory, and that was not at all seen by any witness at all.

I think reheat has a point. A strong one.
Any one finding any miscalculations in there?
If not, I can go to sleep a lot easier than the past 10 years. At last.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Refined calculation based on turn radius of 2.7 km :

At 528 km/hr (328.035 MPH, 285 KTS) as the speed entering the turn, and a rated stall speed of 296.38 km/hr (184.160 MPH, 160 KTS) and a bank angle of 40°, the turn diameter is 3.3 miles.

3.3 miles = 5.4 km, divided by 2 to get the radius =2.7 kilometer.

That is still a constant steep bank angle of 40 degrees needed to perform that whole constant right bank from Paik to impact point.
That is still far too steep, over that whole trajectory, and that was not at all seen by any witness at all.

I think reheat has a point. A strong one.

Any one finding any miscalculations in there?
If not, I can go to sleep a lot easier than the past 10 years. At last.


The is a major problem with the 185 MPH speed at 40 degrees of bank. The stall speed becomes 183 MPH. That is too close as the aircraft would be entering an accelerated stall. No one in their right mind would do that.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I think it was bedtime for you, for me sure it was.
I sleep short periods nowadays.

The speed entered by me is 285 KTS, not 185 MPH. Was that a typo of you?
Or do you mean the 184.160 MPH = 160 KTS rated stall speed? And rounded it off to 185?

And another typo ? :


The(re) is a major problem with the 185 MPH (LT : no, 285 KTS) speed at 40 degrees of bank. The stall speed becomes 183 MPH. That is too close as the aircraft would be entering an accelerated stall. No one in their right mind would do that.


Because I only see that the stall speed increased to 183 KTS, not 183 MPH.
And 183 KTS = 210 MPH increased stall speed.

Does that change your opinion of being too close to entering an accelerated stall?


It looks to me that your only typo was the 185 MPH instead of the 285 KTS I mentioned as the initial speed entered in the calculator, and then your eyes were so tired that you read in the online calculator the value of 183 as MPH, while it shows it as KTS.

And 183 KTS is quite a bit higher than the rated stall speed for a clean Boeing 757-200, of 160 KTS.

I looked at my model airplane's nose while holding it in my hand in front of my eyes at a bank angle of 180° - 40° = 140° (its nose against a plastic utility in my other hand, divided in 180° angles, a graduated arc), with its left wing (for the pilot) tilted 40° up.

That definitely does not look as impressive as a 60° tilt.
But it still is a remarkable wing tilt. (Bank angle).

In the Arlington Cemetary workers interviews by the CIT crew, I saw these workers indicated something like a 40° left wing tilt, when they showed with their hand how the plane came diving towards them.
edit on 4/10/11 by LaBTop because: Changed 285 MPH to 285 KTS in two places, and added a few words.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Yes, I misread your post. I was preparing to shutdown and go out with a wife waiting, so it was a quick post done in a hurry. I'll try to do better...


Bear in mind that the bank angle must be maintained for the entire distance with little margin for error. 40 degrees of bank is still an airshow type bank angle very low to the ground. All of the witnesses would have been awed by this type of flying not just the one Cemetery worker who mentioned the aircraft entering some kind of bank. It should have already been in the bank when it came into view in order to make the turn.

Apparently, you're still trying to make this crap true. If so, go ahead. I have little interest in it anymore because it's all been proven so ridiculous and absurd it is not even worthy of further discussion.

CIT has been proven wrong multiple times in numerous different areas. If you want to continue to buy it, be my guest. I've better things to do with my time than trying to convince someone who wants to believe that it is total poppycock... If you have further technical questions I'll try to help, but I'm finished arguing whether this whole CIT invented garbage is valid. It isn't in any way shape or form....



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Yes, I already mentioned that the plane had to stay in a steady 40° turn to fulfill the online calculator demands.

OK, let's concentrate on the aviation subjects.
I got a few questions left.


Do you think that the plane could have flown nearly level/horizontal over Paik and Morin's heads and thereafter started a right bank?
Something like this :
1024 px x 749 px : files.abovetopsecret.com...




Like the Helipad Tower operator Sean Boger said, who saw the plane descending towards him from right over the Y-shaped antenna on the 8th Annex-wing roof's center position, while slightly banking to the right (its pilot's right! ), thus come banking toward the left side of his Tower.
What boundaries in speed and turn radius is that plane then held to? What angle of bank must it come up with to fit that description? And how long takes the roll maneuver to execute it?

And yes, Edward Paik was sitting behind his desk inside his office and looked up through his front office window to see the BELLY and the RIGHT wing of the plane passing low over his repair shop's roof with its LEFT wing (which he could not see at all).

And Morin says he stood 10 feet (3 meter) inside the space between Annex wing 4 and 5, when the BELLY of the plane flew over his head, about 100 feet high up.
To be clear, NOT on the other side of the street while just missing that tall radio mast in the parking lot at the other side of Columbia Pike, like we were told so many times, during so many years.
And so to hear in his words, the plane flew as good as leveled out.


And can such a plane then change attitude to switch to a circa 40° right bank, leading over the north side of the CITGO, and towards Route 27?
And then correct that circa 40° right bank again, back to level flight crossing Route 27?

I know now, it sounds a bit far fetched, knowing now how turn radius and bank angle depends on the initial speed, before entering a turn maneuver.

If we however enter a slow enough speed (without nearing stall conditions) into the online calculator, would it be possible at all, in your opinion?
And thus introducing two rolls, at start and end of the turn, the first one to the right, and the second one back to level, to the left.


Second question : If the pilot solely engages the tail rudder, does the plane drift too far away from where he aims at? And are there any more hidden effects with such a single maneuver, using no ailerons at all? Like excessive height loss?
Or can use of the tail rudder minimize to a certain degree, the subsequent use of the ailerons?
Or is drift then again a too big effect?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Yes, I already mentioned that the plane had to stay in a steady 40° turn to fulfill the online calculator demands.


I see what you did now. You CAN NOT use 40 degrees of bank because the aircraft can not make the turn radius between the points. Online calc doesn't matter within itself. You have to make the turn radius and that requires over 50 degrees of bank no matter how you calculate it. This tells me you still don't understand what you're doing....


Originally posted by LaBTop
Do you think that the plane could have flown nearly level/horizontal over Paik and Morin's heads and thereafter started a right bank?


NO. Now, we're getting into the range of a 60-70+ degree banked turn.


Originally posted by LaBTop
Like the Helipad Tower operator Sean Boger said, who saw the plane descending towards him from right over the Y-shaped antenna on the 8th Annex-wing roof's center position, while slightly banking to the right (its pilot's right! ), thus come banking toward the left side of his Tower. What boundaries in speed and turn radius is that plane then held to? What angle of bank must it come up with to fit that description? And how long takes the roll maneuver to execute it?


We've already looked at the bank angle required. How does what Boger says change that? It doesn't. Boger also vividly described the aircraft as it entered and passed through the building.

The angle from Citgo to the Helipad tower is difficult to judge. One would need to actually go there to understand that. Again, we haven't ever seen the raw video. We've only seen the edited parts by a cult of liars. Does Boger think an aircraft did not strike the Pentagon? I guess the CIT idiots are smarter than he is.


Originally posted by LaBTop
And yes, Edward Paik was sitting behind his desk inside his office and looked up through his front office window to see the BELLY and the RIGHT wing of the plane passing low over his repair shop's roof with its LEFT wing (which he could not see at all).


So, essentially Edward Paik described the FDR flight path, not CIT's imagined one.


Originally posted by LaBTop
And Morin says he stood 10 feet (3 meter) inside the space between Annex wing 4 and 5, when the BELLY of the plane flew over his head, about 100 feet high up.
To be clear, NOT on the other side of the street while just missing that tall radio mast in the parking lot at the other side of Columbia Pike, like we were told so many times, during so many years.
And so to hear in his words, the plane flew as good as leveled out.


So, you're going with Morin's second recorded interview, not what he said for the CMH and the initial interview. Do you actually know if that's Morin's voice being recorded for the second interview after CIT got into trouble with what Morin initially said. And what about what Morin said regarding watching the tail all the way to impact. If he was in your position, how did he see through a building? Does he, like superman, have x-ray vision?


Originally posted by LaBTop
And can such a plane then change attitude to switch to a circa 40° right bank, leading over the north side of the CITGO, and towards Route 27? And then correct that circa 40° right bank again, back to level flight crossing Route 27?


No. 40 Degrees won't hack it.


Originally posted by LaBTop
I know now, it sounds a bit far fetched, knowing now how turn radius and bank angle depends on the initial speed, before entering a turn maneuver. If we however enter a slow enough speed (without nearing stall conditions) into the online calculator, would it be possible at all, in your opinion? And thus introducing two rolls, at start and end of the turn, the first one to the right, and the second one back to level, to the left.


What you're describing is what I essentially did in the article at 911 Myths. Over Morin, left turn to pass North of the Citgo and then a right turn to head toward the impact point. See that article for the answer.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Second question : If the pilot solely engages the tail rudder, does the plane drift too far away from where he aims at? And are there any more hidden effects with such a single maneuver, using no ailerons at all? Like excessive height loss? Or can use of the tail rudder minimize to a certain degree, the subsequent use of the ailerons? Or is drift then again a too big effect?


Using rudder alone would mostly cause the aircraft to skid. If held long enough the aircraft would turn SLIGHTLY. There is also a maneuver called a slip. Look up those terms for a better understanding.
I do not know the roll rate of a 757. However, I can assure you that a 50-60 banked turn would require seconds to roll in and seconds to roll out, not milliseconds. It is not a stubby wing fighter.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I try again, and make myself clearer.

I am looking for ( see my above two viable proposals on my two maps) a long, slow and smooth, nearly constant right bank descend with just one correction to level the plane off, near Route 27, to pass over that one as low as reported by f.ex. Steve Riskus, but already in near level flight then, to slam into the west wall, after crossing over that road.
In my OP I showed a photo of what Riskus has seen, and has agreed with in email.
And definitely not an S-shaped maneuver, like you proposed in your signature.

That would mean a slight correction to bring it into level position, like a slight left roll-up.
I.o.w., a slight right wing tilting up, which right wing was all the time before in a slight down attitude, while executing that long SLIGHT right bank.
The way all witnesses in their cars on Route 27 saw it coming towards them.
That would fit all these Route 27 NoC witnesses descriptions (I described their statements of the plane's attitude in my linked-to 9 pages long thread at PfT, in my O.P.) of what they saw as the attitude of the attack plane.

Which attack plane I am sure now, was the original Flight AA77 that departed at Dulles from gate D26.
Its FDR data from that Dulles departure, now corrected for the accumulated positional drift effects over at least one week; and the Dulles ramp personnel and AA flight attendants reports by the FBI, do corroborate my firm belief.

It would not fit however, the speeds recorded in the end of that same FDR, which were 2.5 times as fast. If it flew so fast in reality, why are there so many witnesses who describe a much slower flying plane?

Terry Morin must have ran first 3 meter out and then at least 5 meter further on to the parking lot, to be able to still see the tail dip behind those trees in between the Annex wing 8 and the CITGO station. If the plane would have flown with nearly 800 km per hour as the FDR data depict, he would not have been able to see the plane at all anymore. That distance is too small, from Annex wing 5 up to the tall trees line at the bottom of Columbia Pike.
Btw, that speed in that dense air, would cause severe vibrations in the air frame and especially the thinner wing and tail ends.
The plane would cover 222 meters in one second, if it flew 800 km/hr.!
Two times the width of the Pentagon lawn, from wall to road.
It flies those speeds in far much thinner air, at 8 to 11 km heights.

Sean Boger, a NAVY Helipad Tower operator with long enough aviation experience, also described a much slower flying plane, descending towards his tower windows, near the Pentagon's west wall. He estimated about 10 to 12 seconds from the moment he saw the plane above the 8th Annex-wing its roof antenna, till it slammed to the left of him, into the Pentagon's west wall.


I know now, that the plane must have flown near landing speeds to fulfill all the descriptions of ALL the witnesses, while we allow just slight alterations of their remarks, otherwise they don't fit in the possible flightpath and observed ATTITUDE of the plane by ALL anymore.

I was trying to find a speed to feed the online calculator with, at which the bank angle is so small, that it would not trigger the aw-effect I know now, that would have occurred, when flown with a 40° or more, bank angle.


The one I found after many tries, with a turn diameter of 3.3 miles (which means a turn radius of 2.7 kilometer, as shown in my earlier post and in my viable arc), has a bank angle of 22° and an initial speed of 200 KTS (230.200 MPH) at its known stall speed of 160 KTS (184.160 MPH).

That 22° bank angle is for the observing lay-men, a near level flight.

In my OP I showed a photo of what Sean Boger would have seen, that's about this bank angle.

There's a G-Load of 1.1 Gs then, and an Increased Stall Speed of 166 KTS (191 MPH). That's pretty near the rated stall speed of 160 KTS, but still possible I think.
But we must not forget that the plane was in a descending attitude, thus a slight acceleration must have naturally occurred, which will compensate for the danger of near accelerated stall effects.

The 90° Turn Time is 40.9 seconds, and the turn I drew is about 1/4th of a 90° turn.
That's about 10 seconds to cover that distance. Which corroborates Morin's and Boger's statements.

PS: your proposal in your signature-link, still is a sharp IMPOSSIBLE to fly, S-shaped maneuver.
I think it is clear from my two proposals, that mine is a long slightly right wing down one.
Ending in level flight over Route 27.
edit on 5/10/11 by LaBTop because: Made text into bolded.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
This is what Steve Riskus saw :




And this is what Sean Boger saw, one way or the other, you decide :




It's the estimated north side approach jet that flies at about 10° bank angle there. Imagine a 12° more angle, a 22° bank angle.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
REFERENCES :

1. 757 Flight Crew Training Manual - 328 pages.
dream-air.ucoz.ru...
Descent : page 144-150 / 328

2. Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM).
www.biggles-software.com...
Click on the 757-200/300 link, then agree with their terms. You can not copy from them, but a screen shot works always.

3. Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.
www.faa.gov...

4. SmartCockpit-Boeing 757.
www.smartcockpit.com...

5. Boeing 757/767 Simulator Checkride Procedures Manual.
flightsimulatorgamesnow.com...

6. Courses from -"The Air Transportation Systems Lab" (ATSL)- :
128.173.204.63...

7. Main Source, the Syllabus files.
128.173.204.63...

8. Aircraft_perf_notes1.
128.173.204.63...
All definitions and calcs : Page 1 to 40 / 130
Functional Forms of the Forces : page 28 / 130
Stalling speed calcs : page 40 / 130
Integration of Acceleration Equation : page 44 / 130
Basic Climb Performance Analysis : page 117 / 130
Incorporation of a Parabolic Drag Polar Model : 119 / 130

9. Aircraft_perf_notes2.
128.173.204.63...
Example of Aircraft Climb Performance : page 2-15 / 93
Cruise Analysis : page 17-19 / 93
Descent flight calculations : page 32 / 93
Turning Calculations : page 36-42 / 93
BADA performance model : page 66-70 / 93.

10. Aircraft_perf_notes3.
128.173.204.63...

11. Descent Analysis.
128.173.204.63...

Hope this helps others, just as it did help me.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I'll show you why I introduced at first the 258 KTS initiating turn speed.

We have to introduce a point on that viable turn arc, at which the pilot had to LEVEL the plane again, to safely pass over Route 27 its road side obstacles (lamp-poles, traffic boards), and impact at the second floors floor slab.


At about 258 knots, the plane is descending 600 m/min which equals 10 meter/sec :
At 200 knots, it's about 235 m/min.




The distance from the light poles to the west wall is 110 meters, near the Helipad.
The height of a VDOT light pole was and is 12.2 meters (40 feet).
The impact point of the plane's bottom at the west wall was at the second floor slab, that's 3 meters high. Pentagon ground level and Route 27 level are nearly equal near the Helipad.

The plane thus had to descent 10 meters during 110 meters, to clear the light poles at 13 meters high and to impact at 3 meters high.
That's a 10 / 1.1 = 9.09 % shallow descent percentage.
One percent of 90° is 0.9°, then 9.09% of 0.9° = a 8.18° shallow angle of attack.

If you have faith in the last, near impact part of AA77's FDR, then you believe that the plane's angle of attack as shown by its data, was about 23°, a lot steeper than needed to cover that 110 meters lawn.
We can therefore simply state that an 8.18° angle of attack from light poles to impact is easily within the performance envelope of a 757.

To construct a viable leveling off before the plane reached Route 27, we have to calculate the necessary data. We can use the BADA performance model from Professor Trani's Aircraft_perf_notes2.pdf, since we only need a simplified version, instead of the more complex exact performance calculations where all data are implemented in the lectures of Professor Trani, in his Aircraft_perf_notes1.pdf, his integral calcs.
Since the air density and the heights involved are nearing equality over the distance we have to calculate a viable flight path, we use the simplified BADA calculation :

mg(dh/dt) + mV(dV/dt) = V[T – D]

dh/dt is the rate of climb (m/s)
dV/dt is the acceleration along the flight path (m/s²)
h is the aircraft altitude (m)
m is the aircraft mass (kg)
V is the aircraft true airspeed (m/s)
g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s²)
T is the aircraft thrust (Newton)
D is the aircraft drag (Newton)

In the last 110 meters, where we hear all witnesses report a nearly level flying plane, the rate of descent -(dh/dt) can be defined as -10 m/s as we found out above, and the acceleration dV/dt as somewhere near the maximum possible for a 757.
If, we may believe all witnesses near the road-crossing AA 77 plane, who all said it was accelerating at maximum thrust, according to the high wining sound of its two jet engines.

The height h at 110 meters from impact is minimum 13 meters and at impact maximum 3 meters, and we already established the rate of climb being -10 m/s.
The 757 mass m at that 110 meters point was the max. fuel needed for a LAX route, minus used fuel over the flight path flown from departure to the Pentagon, plus the known mass of a 757-223 and the eventual mass of the passengers and freight.
The 757's true airspeed V at 110 meters we defined from the above graph as being 258 knots, at which speed its rate of descent was about 10 m/s.
The 757 thrust coefficient T in Newton is at that point defined as the maximum possible, and can be retrieved from the 757 data sheets.
The same goes for the 757 drag coefficient D in Newton.

Note that drag generated by the aircraft and the thrust supplied by the engine are equal for steady and level flight. Similarly, the lift and weight are then also equal.
Since we are looking at a slight descent angle of 8.18°, the rate of descent can be filled in as -10 m/s. The acceleration could be computed, since all other data are knowns or approximated.

The same calculation can be used for a trajectory (X - 110) meters long, from somewhere north of the CITGO, where the pilot started to level the plane off, to be able to clear the light poles at Route 27 in level flight, and then descent the last 110 meters in level flight over the Pentagon lawn with an angle of attack of 8.18°.

All we have to do now, is to adjust the viable G-load arc in my altered drawing of Rob Balsamo, in such a way, that the new arc ends north of the CITGO station, but is aiming a tiny bit north of the impact point (since the NNW wind-drift will move the plane south, but is slightly compensated by more lift for the plane in a near level flight, instead of less lift at a 28° right bank angle). Then we only have to construct the arc in such a way, that it ends at a certain height (Y + 13) meters at that point NoC (clearing all obstacles), and connect our straight trajectory to that point, by defining the same height Y + 13 meters as the starting point of that trajectory, towards Route 27.


PS :
This was posted in my thread at PfT, page 6, Post #116 :
The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

My option was the NoC 90° impact.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

The one I found after many tries, with a turn diameter of 3.3 miles (which means a turn radius of 2.7 kilometer, as shown in my earlier post and in my viable arc), has a bank angle of 22° and an initial speed of 200 KTS (230.200 MPH) at its known stall speed of 160 KTS (184.160 MPH).

That 22° bank angle is for the observing lay-men, a near level flight.
In my OP I showed a photo of what Sean Boger would have seen, that's about this bank angle.


Look at those numbers again. You still don't get it. Go back and read my previous posts. The turn radius REQUIRED from point A to B to C does not change. Your 200 Kts 22 Degrees of bank results in a turn radius of 8806.9'. From Paik's observation of the A/C position that radius would result in the A/C passing well north of the entire Pentagon building. You are simply trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and you need to stop.

Another point... I have spent thousands of hours watching aircraft. Many of them very fast aircraft in every conceivable position and in all configurations and I can not determine an aircraft's speed by eyeball estimation. Now, considering that how in the hell do you expect a layman to estimate speed when the object is in view for a matter of a few seconds?

Another point... Witnesses are notoriously unreliable when witnessing a traumatic event. Trained investigators know how to interpret what witnesses say and what they say must fit the physical evidence. The terrorists pilot was fighting the controls of AA 77 all of the way to impact with the building. In that he was flying erratically it might appear that it was banking for a split second. A split second of bank results in no appreciable turn.

AA 77 flew basically a straight path into the building. The erratic over control would appear to be a shallow bank, but results in no appreciable turn.

It's truly a shame that you've obviously spent quite some time studying these issue, but your conspiracy mindset is not allowing you to think logically and understand the issues.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

It's truly a shame that you've obviously spent quite some time studying these issue, but your conspiracy mindset is not allowing you to think logically and understand the issues.


There you mis-understand me.
You missed my sleep problem.
If 9/11 really was a staged event, my children and yours and all of their offspring have an immense problem, for generations to come.

I am trying all I can to work backwards. From effect to cause.
And I lean heavily on eyewitnesses, recorded as soon as possible after the events.

There was an impact, there were witnesses, what did they say they saw? Does that fit the last 20 seconds of that FDR?
No.
Most of the ones I found and noted in my threads here and the one at PfT, describe different behavior from the plane then what the last 20 seconds of that FDR describe.

If there was a conspiracy, it wasn't a very complicated one, i.m.h.o.
Too dangerous to complicate it with too many humans.
If there was a conspiracy, it was as simple as can be thought out :

1. Far on top of possible scenarios : Steer real terrorists and facilitate their plans, very subtle. Nearly no proof ever.

2. Let the CIA and FBI steer a bunch of patsies into believing they were participating in the many war games planned for 9/11. (The terrorists were partying too much, to be real fundamental Muslim terrorists)
Then build a simple mechanical remote control in each plane, which steers the plane into the planned objects, only in the last seconds. No pilot interrupt possible in such a small time segment.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

PS: your proposal in your signature-link, still is a sharp IMPOSSIBLE to fly, S-shaped maneuver.
I think it is clear from my two proposals, that mine is a long slightly right wing down one.
Ending in level flight over Route 27.


No kidding Sherlock. That was the point of the article.

It should be very obvious to you by now that the aircraft CAN NOT fly from where Paik said it was to over where you think Morin was to pass North of the Citgo, thence to the impact point without an enormously spectacular bank angle at an extremely low altitude that would have awed all who saw it. Once you get that aerodynamically established FACT through your head maybe you'll understand.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
If there was a conspiracy, it wasn't a very complicated one, i.m.h.o.
Too dangerous to complicate it with too many humans.
If there was a conspiracy, it was as simple as can be thought out :

1. Far on top of possible scenarios : Steer real terrorists and facilitate their plans, very subtle. Nearly no proof ever.

2. Let the CIA and FBI steer a bunch of patsies into believing they were participating in the many war games planned for 9/11. (The terrorists were partying too much, to be real fundamental Muslim terrorists)
Then build a simple mechanical remote control in each plane, which steers the plane into the planned objects, only in the last seconds. No pilot interrupt possible in such a small time segment.


I don't address fantasies any more. I've better things to do with my time.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
As you see, my Flight AA77 conspiracy problems are now compartmented to the last 20 seconds of its flight, registered in its FDR.
That would be the easiest and simplistic method to falsify data in that FDR.
Why falsify the rest?

If the pilots thought they were acting inside the executed war games of that day, and they did not know that a simple mechanical remote-control was build-in their plane, why would they not go along the "hijack" scenario given to them, to fly-over the Pentagon roof, to simulate a Pentagon attack?

They simply were perhaps duped, when the remote was switched on a few seconds before the target, and its servos forced all mechanic steerings to dive into their preprogrammed targets.

I am still not sure if parts or the whole of 9/11 were staged.
But luckily with all of you helping me, I could eliminate one of the biggest hurdles, the Gate D26 misconception.
I still have my doubts about the WTC's, especially 7.
My seismic evidence shows a huge additional energy impulse a few seconds before that building showed any signs of movement or change in any video or photo. That impulse was 3 times bigger than the whole following global collapse of that 47 story building. That's never ever a natural cause. PERIOD.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
star and flagged there are some very good points here



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


You say the pilot struggled all the way towards impact with the plane's inputs.
Thus, is it so far fetched to think that erratic behavior is the cause that the plane's body flew in front of Edward Paik's office, so on the far left side of the road there, Columbia Pike.
Then he struggled again, and the plane's body flew over the southern/right ends of the Annex-Wings 4 and 5 (so NOT over Columbia Pike! ).
But it never executed a left bank/turn towards the CITGO, as you proposed.
It followed as good as can be my proposed 2.7 Km turn radius.
And showed up exactly where all my witnesses said they saw it.
In the right configuration.
Within the possibilities of its flight envelope boundaries.
And did not show up north of the northern Pentagon wall, as you say now.

In other words, the plane followed my arc with a radius of 2.7 Km, but in a somewhat wobbly fashion.
Still the best fit for ALL witness statements.
Never saw a better one proposed.

You say it flew in a straight line into that Pentagon west wall.
I say that does not fit Morin's statements, and Lagasse/Brooks ones.
It must have been an arced turn.
I do agree it flew into that west wall's second floor slab.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I can clear up a few things.......


That would be the easiest and simplistic method to falsify data in that FDR.


Not following this logic. The last 20 seconds (I neglected to add that to your quote, that is the reference) would be "easiest ....to falsify"? That defies the facts of the entirety of the SSFDR. And, is a back-handed "insult" to those at the NTSB, since there would have been collusion for such a thing to occur. Not that it's even possible....



Why falsify the rest?


I think you just succeeded in invalidating the previous suggestion you posed.


Next, this:


If the pilots thought they were acting inside the executed war games of that day.....


What citations are there of this? Or, is it just a bit of imaginative thinking? Can you point to any indications in the activities, behaviour, and radio communications to ATC that would lend credence to this presumption?



....(t)hey did not know that a simple mechanical remote-control was build-in their plane....


?

This is even worse speculation, to tell the truth. You have learnt a lot about the INUs and IRS units (though, as I read, I still see a few misconceptions that could use some clarifications) but, in order to fully educate you (and the audience) about the implausibility of a "remote-control" aspect that implies some "take-over" form ground sources, well......suffice to say, emphatically NO!

Short-hand reason is, any such device (that was not installed, mind you) would of necessity require electrical power in order to function. There isn't a trained and qualified B757/767 pilot out there who wouldn't know how to remove ALL electrics from the systems, and thereby disable any such device (that was not installed, anyhow). The B-757/767 can fly just fine without electrical systems energized. No pilot would allow the airplane to "fly him".



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

It should be very obvious to you by now that the aircraft CAN NOT fly from where Paik said it was to over where you think Morin was to pass North of the Citgo, thence to the impact point without an enormously spectacular bank angle at an extremely low altitude that would have awed all who saw it. Once you get that aerodynamically established FACT through your head maybe you'll understand.


I do agree with that, if you hold on vigorously to the meter exact to what both people said.
I agree, then you are right.
But, you forget that that plane was observed by far many more people, and when we try to construct a flight path, we must consider them all.
One thing we agree about, that plane slammed in the second floor slab at the west wall.

So, working backwards, from wall to CITGO's north side (Lagasse and Brooks, Turcios), to the antenna on the 8th Annex-Wing and Terry Morin and Paik, I can not ever construct a straight line, as you hold on to.

Morin's two interviews both have it in the wrong place to be able to fly in a straight line.
Paik and Morin both can be a few meters off. That repairs my viable arc proposal.
But the strongest witnesses are the next four ones.

Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios and Boger.
Lagasse can be seen in the famous CITGO video (where I spend a lot of time at), filling up his gastank under the far northern end of the northern canopy of the CITGO.
He could not see a southern passing by plane. He was standing looking towards the pump!
In between his car's left/byrider side and that pump.
With his back to the southern end of the CITGO. You can see him running around his car, jump in, drive backwards, turn around and speed off towards the exit and on the road to Columbia Pike. Directly after you see that huge flash in that video.
I am sure that flash is the reflection of the sun on that plane, passing by the northern side of the CITGO, because the sun stood at that time at the southern side.
So it could not have been the flash of an impact, because the direction where the flash comes from, is a straight north one. And the Pentagon is straight east.
He's a Pentagon Police Force member, and he swears on video, that he is 100% sure that the plane flew in front of him, on the northern side of the CITGO canopy he stood under.
I believe him, and that makes your straight line impossible.

Brooks stood on the parking next to the corner of Columbia Pike, which is winding around the CITGO there. Behind that tall tree line Morin indicated as where he saw the tail dipping behind it.
Brooks also is a Pentagon Police sergeant, and he also swears that he saw the plane to the northern side of that tree line he stood behind.
I believe him, and that makes your straight line impossible.

Turcios said he saw the plane crossing over the tree that stands just north beside the CITGO station. That's a few meters north of where Lagasse stood. Turcios stood on the south side of the CITGO, at the newspaper stand which is leaning against the southern wall of its office space. So he had to look northeast to see the plane passing over that tree beside the northern canopy.
I believe him, and that makes your straight line impossible.

Sean Boger is an experienced flight controller, working in the Helipad tower.
He saw the plane as it flew low over the Y-shaped antenna in the middle of the roof of the now deconstructed 8th Annex-Wing building.
I believe him, and that makes your straight line impossible.

He also indicated that the plane made a slight right bank while descending towards him.
That's not a straight line.

I have many more witnesses who did not see that plane where you want it to be.
See my PfT nine pages long thread.






top topics



 
116
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join