It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:12 PM
Based on the discrepancy between the official SoC impact trajectory theory, and the alternative but factual NoC trajectory as a logical consequence of the now more than 20 witnesses who all saw AA 77 at a spot that can't be duplicated in any way on the official SoC impact course, one may conclude that at least the last FOUR seconds of the recovered FDR from flight AA 77 contain questionable and false positional data, which do not fit these 20 witnesses their descriptions of their sighting of AA 77.

In that view, it is especially disturbing, that for many years the last official position of flight AA 77 from the FDR was given to us as being somewhere near the Sheraton Hotel, and that the further, last four seconds of data of its flight, registered in its FDR, were too damaged to use for a flight path computation.
Then Warren Stutt arrived at the scene and found those extra 4 seconds, still filled with enough usable data to construct positional data for AA 77.
Albeit that the data contained more and more damaged data blocks, the nearer those extra seconds in its frames came to the moment of the impact.
Which last-seconds illogical data-mining by that FDR was explained away as caused by the airframe losing consistency because of the excessive speed in that dense air.

Which is of course too illogical to take serious at all. That plane did not touch anything on its last 4 seconds NoC trajectory what could have caused the FDR, situated in the tail section, to massively fail streams of data.
The only time that that FDR logically will start losing consistency, is when the nose of the plane touches a hard object such as the JUST RECENTLY RE-ENFORCED west wall of the Pentagon, and then 30+ and more of G-deceleration forces will ruin the whole FDR its data-mining within milliseconds.

The longitudinal beams and all the rest of the plane will fold as an harmonica within those milliseconds, and the whole plane will deteriorate to essentially aluminum-confetti and a few broken up very sturdy parts that will continue on, as more or less massive parts with enough momentum to get as far into the building as the original length of the plane, as the ASCE report wrote that it is quite sure of. What indeed happened. The very strong rebar-filled concrete columns inside the E-ring will have stopped all heavy parts before they could enter the D-ring.
In effect the plane remnants were then buried a bit later under the collapsed E-ring rubble mountain.

And the rest of the heavy damage inside the E-ring could have only come from lumps of jet fuel that shot inside the building starting with the original speed at impact, jet fuel that could have escaped the instantly wrecked wings and center fuel tanks, as solid blobs of fuel. The majority of the fuel will vaporize immediately at the moment of impact and got ignited, to end up as a huge burning ball of fire in front of the wall.

The garbling up of the FDR data in these last 4 seconds as Warren Stutt showed us, is totally illogical seen from both aeronautical and physics standpoints.
And that's the second reason why I suspect those 4 seconds to be the only falsificated seconds, the only seconds containing fraudulent data, put in there by faction "X".

I am firmly convinced that Warren really found those extra 4 secs of data, but that these were planted in that FDR, switched for the original, real existing data in the real 4 seconds, that were still there before the falsificator(s) got their hands on that recovered FDR and falsificated those last 4 seconds.
To falsely show a SoC instead of a NoC trajectory flown in those last 4 seconds from its flight path.
Such so, that it covered for the 5 downed light poles.

They had to alter those last 4 seconds of FDR-data, otherwise the real positional data that were in accordance with the NoC-witnesses their observed positions of that plane in its, in reality flown North of CITGO arc, would have immediately exposed those 5 cut poles as fraudulent and part of an earlier than impact, secret military operation.

And those original last 4 secs of data must have shown a slight diversion to the north, and AA 77 passing north of the CITGO gas station on its way back to the Pentagon's west wall. Covering all the plane-sighting points of the now more than 20 NoC eyewitnesses.
And since those sightings immediately nullified the believability of the 5 downed light poles as caused by an incoming plane, the official story tellers had to falsify those last 4 seconds.

And they knew about those last 4 seconds of the FDR already shortly after 9-11-2001, after they found that FDR in the black box at the Pentagon but kept those last crucial 4 seconds back, since these showed the deviation from that 070° direction.

Until the utter need arose to come up with those last 4 seconds.
There was no other choice for them to falsify them, at least the directional and accompanying instrument input data in them.

They had many long years time to prepare for that, since the need to enter into play those "lost" 4 seconds, but now falsified, came only up after the first NoC witnesses were interviewed by CIT.
Pentagon Police sergeants William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks were the first ones to tell online, in a CIT interview, that they saw AA 77 fly north of the CITGO gas station's canopy, very low and fast.
And their story broke the whole officially pushed story of the, downed by AA 77, five light poles in the now impossible straight SoC flight path trajectory suddenly wide open.
If that plane was sighted north of the CITGO canopy, it could have never cut those 5 light poles which were situated south of that CITGO canopy. PERIOD !
Damage control at falsification level had to be used and introduced from then on. Just using the old adagio "National Security" could not stop the flood of questions anymore.

Those readers of this text, who are already aware of the tendency of governments and their militarist to conceal the historical truth for their populations, will ask themselves why it looks so convenient that these lost 4 seconds were in first instance, for a few years, kept back, and then were suddenly introduced in the 9/11 discussions players field, just as the first definitive NoC witness statements gained more momentum.
The FOIA applications were already long filed for Flight AA 77 its recovered FDR data, but they were only granted and finally thrown at us, after CIT came out with their first long NoC witnesses video. The 9/11 planners had to do that at that specific moment, since they needed the introduction of those false 4 seconds.
To offer discussion-counterweight to be available for all these official-9/11-theory followers so busy in all these 9/11 online forums, against the definitive north of CITGO gas station placement of AA 77 by the two Police sergeants.
And the rest of the increasing amount of NoC witnesses.
Twenty three by now.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:23 PM

Originally posted by homervb
Well it seems the OSers like to call any theory ludicrous/insane. I'm sorry but that's not having an open mind nor is it welcoming to people who are skeptics.

That's because there's a difference between being open-minded, and accepting everything that you're told by an anonymous internet user. When many of these so-called "OSers" see the evidence, for example, of bowing in the wall of the tower before the collapse, and people reporting that it's leaning, and then see a "truther" claim that the tower was holding itself perfectly before the collapse initiated, who are we going to believe?

Clearly, someone is having a lapse in judgement, and it probably wasn't the firefighters and professional engineers who reviewed 9/11. Only laymen who think they know everything on a conspiracy forum contest their results. The only professionals I know who agree with the "truth movement" simply rehash the same stuff that gets reposted on this site day after day. There is no original thought to their beliefs. They simply have faith that the conspiracy is real.

Edit: As for the topic at hand, I just don't see how NoC is possible, because of the lamposts, tree damage, car damage, lawn damage, and dozens of other eyewitnesses. It just doesn't make sense unless you accuse a great number of people of lying.
edit on 13-6-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by huh2142

Thanks for the compliments. That is rare here where the prevailing attitude seems to be the question credentials based on the flimsiest of reasons in order to support fantasies.

This one doesn't take a lot of technical expertise at all. All one has to do is process all of the information available and then ask some very logical questions...

For Example:

If the aircraft impacted the building (it did), why would anyone want to fake the flight path? What could possibly be the motivation to do that? Hundreds of people were involved in the analysis and clean-up operation and all of it was documented as they did it. Much of that is well documented in the ASCE Building Performance Report. Labtop and others apparently think that military folks are dumb and don't question things they might find that doesn't fit. If any of them thought this was an inside job, they would be likely to march in force to Rumsfield's office and lynch him on the spot.

Who in the heck would trim a tree on the approach in the shape of a engine nacelle in order to fake a flight path? It would have taken a "cherry picker" at minimum and it still would have been difficult. Perhaps a monkey on a skyhook was used instead!

Who in the heck would sprinkle glass, tree and leaf debris all over the roadway in full view of hundreds of folks stalled in their vehicles in order to prove a false path to the building?

These are just some of the questions that should be asked to arrive at a reasoned conclusion... There are many others...

There is hope tho'. Labtop is now looking for a piece of tail, so maybe he'll be distracted by that and forget about this obsession with other minutia!

Hey Labtop, the tail is mostly composite material, so maybe if you look closely enough at the helipad and adjacent area that's covered with thousands of small pieces of debris you'll find it there. You'll need good resolution tho', not the typical "truther" low res photograph taken from a distance to show he lack of debris. Then after you find the thousands of pieces you'll need to glue it all back together again and won't need to continue searching for a piece of tail. Or you could go down the your local pub on a Saturday night to make it easier! I suspect there will be plenty of pieces of tail there if you find the right pub.

The flight path problem of a large bank angle that NO WITNESS described still remains as a huge problem. We'll ignore that tho' in pursuit of more minutia to satisfy an obsession to apparently impress imaginary followers of this mess of horse hockey.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:38 PM
When you want to determine the time-accuracy of the radar data released by the U.S. Air Force’s 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this publication by John Farmer is a very good read :

Radar and NTSB Time Normalization :
In his review of the 84 RADES data, a 911 Commission professional staffer Miles Kara noted a significant time difference between the 84 RADES radar and other sources. This was an issue for him in his discussions with the NTSB and developing a timeline for the various flights.
Ultimately, he settled upon assigning a 25.3 second offset which simplified his work. Due to time constrains, the issue was not developed further by his team.

The author began a more detailed examination of the time offset in 2008. Fortunately, the data included regular interval ‘quality control’ (BRTQC) returns for each of the reported 84 RADES radar sites. These sites utilized Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) systems with 200 – 250 nautical mile ranges and antenna sweep intervals (one full rotation) of ~ 12 seconds.
Another stroke of luck was that the data provided by 84 RADES included the Southeast Air Defense Sector (SEADS) radar data as well. An ARSR-4 (a newer version) site with a 250 nautical mile range located at Oceana, Virginia (OCA) fed its data into both sectors radar systems. Upon examination of the BRTQC signals for both sectors, the SEADS system exhibited a normal Gaussian distribution for the sweep intervals of the OCA site, while the NEADS site exhibited a clear non-Gaussian distribution. In layman’s terms, the SEADS data looked quite normal while the NEADS data did not.
(2 charts)

When compared one-to-one with another (NEADS/SEADS), the graph revealed a much more complex scenario than a simple 25.3 second offset.
(2 charts)

The time difference is segregated into a step-function waveform which increases by ~ 0.1 seconds every ~ 27 minutes. Making matters worse, the offset itself is unstable and produces a ± 0.09 second uncertainty across the affected interval. Although for the entire data set the difference averaged to 25.3 seconds, at the time of the Pentagon event, the time difference was only 25.1 seconds!

I spent quite some time with ProudBird contemplating if the Captains Clock functioned correctly on board AA 77. (ATS Search: LaBTop CaptainsClock Captains Clock )
Conclusion :it did. There was no significant discrepancy between onboard and ground based time measurement equipment, the maximum error found was less than 1 second, due to FAA methods.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:39 PM
Labtop. You must understand that it's incredibly hard to read pages upon pages of posts with often the same information repeated many times in different fashions. I have spotted a number of mistakes but they are so mixed in and so interwoven I cannot address them individually.

Please let us start with a very simple premise, we will slowly examine the flight path of the plane from the last agreeable point on the FDR, and determine the potential manoeuvres that could have been carried out.

For example, I propose that there will be an initial dive towards target, a 'roll in' phase where the aircraft reaches maximum bank, then a turn and a 'roll out' phase.

From you I need this information:
  • What is the last agreeable position AA77 occupied? You must agree with all flight parameters at this point or give reasons for exception
  • What is the extent of the curve over the citgo? I aimed my curve to meet the middle of the navy annex and around 4-6 feet to the north of the citgo. This is consistent with my interpretation of CIT's claims
  • What is the maximum roll rate of a 757 that could be achieved in a short burst?
  • What is the maximum deceleration possible in cruise configuration for a 757 at ground level?

If we can agree on these points, then we can look at the actual flight path needed that day, and the forces involved / eyewitness accounts.

Please post with more regularity with much shorter posts, because I have little motivation to read 15,000 characters that mostly repeat what I have seen. Thank you.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 06:40 PM
When else fails.....

Originally posted by LaBTop

And that's the second reason why I suspect those 4 seconds to be the only falsificated seconds, the only seconds containing fraudulent data, put in there by faction "X".

I am firmly convinced that Warren really found those extra 4 secs of data, but that these were planted in that FDR, switched for the original, real existing data in the real 4 seconds, that were still there before the falsificator(s) got their hands on that recovered FDR and falsificated those last 4 seconds.
To falsely show a SoC instead of a NoC trajectory flown in those last 4 seconds from its flight path.
Such so, that it covered for the 5 downed light poles.

I spit out my beer at this one... not because of the predicted "they planted 4 seconds" but the new term .... falsificated! Is that a new truther term like "dustified?"

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by exponent

A breath of fresh air.
I first have to post a long post with eyewitness positions on Route 27, which were definitely not under the SoC proposal flight path. I am busy with uploading the last few photo's to my repository, then I will post that, and after that I will address your post.

You seem not to understand what drives my type of posting.
I am old, and don't know how much time I have left.
Thus I prepare my posts in advance, without reading this forum, that distracts me enormously.
And then I post them in a row. Also to try to keep the one liners out, for readers it is distracting and irritating.
I learned to make ones thoughts as one full thesis and publicize it.
And this endless page long bickering in between my posts, stops most fresh members to further read than page 1 or 2.
I also think that I should be allowed to post in this fashion, I try to follow common writers rules.
Offer your thoughts and facts, and then wait for peer review.
Here every one wants to hop in and start their private sub-thread.
As you can see, I offer lots of my time up, to make my thoughts as clear as can be, and can't be misinterpreted.

I have a few things left to post that are very important for my view on 9/11.
After that, I advice anyone to study all my posts (about 1500) and use everything as basis for building their own reasoning for 9/11. And I will try to communicate as long as I can with all of you, to explain my posts and thoughts behind it. And if you convince me of glaring mistakes, as you did now once, I will gladly admit it.

To the poster who wants to make fun of a foreigner (yes, I knew it was "falsified", instead of falsificated, but if I corrected that manually since my spell-checker only offered "falsification", my posting window cuts most of my post off, to enforce the 5000 characters forum rule), learn some dignity and foreign languages first, before trying to be funny.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by exponent

  • What is the maximum roll rate of a 757 that could be achieved in a short burst?

  • exponent, beachnut and I both researched and discussed this several years ago, but could find no published figures. The problem with max deflection is roll authority and wing flexing. IIRC, we came up with a conservative 2-3 seconds to reach 45 degrees at normal speeds. So, a reasonable conservative estimate would be to add around 5-6 seconds to the turn time in the event Labtop can not provide published figures, It is significant and would be even more so at the speed he wants to fly. You could justify adding more, but it won't really be necessary.

    Originally posted by exponent
    *]What is the maximum deceleration possible in cruise configuration for a 757 at ground level?

    Again, he won't be able to find a published number for this... The 7x7 is very clean and it seemly takes forever to slow down. It is a significant issue that is going to add time and distance to the numbers...

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:14 PM
    Exponent, does it makes you wonder why the angles in this picture of mine are ringing a bell?
    Where else have you seen them so much mentioned?

    The about 42° angle to the wall of the ASCE internal damage path is about an 51.8° angle true north.
    The about 51.8° angle to the wall of the FDR path is about an 60.25° angle true north.
    The about 60° gouge-angle I determined in my former posts in here is measured to the wall, not to true north.
    Can't be made by an FDR-path following plane.

    The about 74° angle to the wall of the by me drawn proposed NoC path is about 85° to true north.(no bell)

    Does it also make you wonder, if perhaps some end editors of some publications like the ASCE report and the NTSB reports, mixed up true north angles and wall angles, while working to conform to the officially wanted SoC outcome?.

    And what explanation do you have for the difference between the ASCE internal damage angle of 42° when extrapolated to outside of the building, and which resulting path does not go through a center line in between the 5 downed light poles, but leads to the south of that line, and the official FDR path?

    EDIT : I found a severe problem.
    If I hold a ruler over my graduated arc at a 60° (gouge imitating) angle to the wall, its straight line goes just over the southern part of the CITGO canopy, and that's not where the NoC witnesses have seen the plane flying.
    It's getting more and more complicated. Since if this is true, the plane must have come from much further south if in an arc. That's out of the question.

    I still have to post my Route 27 witnesses, I'll do that now, but we have to take this problem into the equations.

    EDIT II.
    I realize something. When my first determination of the gouge angle of 52° is based on the true dimensions of that trailer, then the 52° gouge-angle fits the FDR flight path perfectly.
    And I already proved that the first part of that FDR is at least correct, AA 77 indeed departed from Gate D26 at Dulles as always when it flew from Dulles.
    I have to show you my Route 27 witnesses a s soon as can be now, since if we can determine where I could be wrong with their placements, I am only left with two strong NoC witnesses, the two Pentagon Police witnesses.
    Why on earth would these two play a prank like that on us all? Not logical.
    edit on 13/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

    edit on 13/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM

    Originally posted by LaBTop
    You seem not to understand what drives my type of posting.
    I am old, and don't know how much time I have left.

    I'll give you my honest thoughts here at the risk of alienating you. If you are old and have not much time left, I suggest spending it with your friends and family. This issue is not something I think will ever be resolved to many people's satisfaction, and it is unlikely to affect you in your lifetime unless some truly unbelievable evidence surfaces.

    I would focus your remaining time on those who are most dear to you. I often regret that I didn't take the time to bond more closely with family members I've lost, and it's not something I wish upon anyone. I don't intend to dissuade you from posting, and even though I may have been harsh to you in the past I bear no animosity. Take care of yourself.

    Does it also make you wonder, if perhaps some end editors of some publications like the ASCE report and the NTSB reports, mixed up true north angles and wall angles, while working to conform to the officially wanted SoC outcome?.

    And what explanation do you have for the difference between the ASCE internal damage angle of 42° when extrapolated to outside of the building, and which resulting path does not go through a center line in between the 5 downed light poles, but leads to the south of that line, and the official FDR path?

    It's been some time since I have dealt with these issues, so I will obviously have to go over and confirm the figures for myself. For now let us focus on the flight path issue as that is the first hurdle to be crossed.

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:44 PM
    Thank you, wise words. I have to solve these problems I still have with the 9/11 issue, to come to peace with a lot of things.

    Please review my two EDITS in my last post !

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:52 PM

    Originally posted by Reheat
    exponent, beachnut and I both researched and discussed this several years ago, but could find no published figures. The problem with max deflection is roll authority and wing flexing.

    I absolutely agree. I also researched this some time ago and I believe PMd you about it. I found a couple of potential sources but both of them told me that it's not a published figure and they would not be able to release any 'internal' documentation.

    However, I disagree with '2-3 seconds' being a conservative figure. Obviously a regular airliner won't be rolling in to 45 degrees any time soon, but I feel that for an expert level pilot in a plane they are intimately familiar with, we could cut down the time to around 20°/second. This is extremely fast of course, but would provide a limiting case which is after all the intention here. We should probably set G limits of 2.5-3 too you think?

    Again, he won't be able to find a published number for this... The 7x7 is very clean and it seemly takes forever to slow down. It is a significant issue that is going to add time and distance to the numbers...

    Yeah this is the most contentious issue in my mind. Airliners are literally designed to be as low drag as possible in almost every possible scenario, and there's no change of deploying flaps or gear or anything more than a RAT. What would you consider a reasonable rate? A drag coefficient of around 0.03 seems about reasonable to me, and 40-45m² for the cross sectional area. That would give us a drag force of around 35KN at 400 KIA. This seems intuitively fairly reasonable. If we then take a fairly light mass of around 60 tons we get an instantaneous deceleration of 0.6m/s/s.

    This is a very slow rate of deceleration, but would be consistent with an airliner being an extremely clean aircraft, and obviously I'm only providing an instantaneous measurement because I am lazy and calculus is tedious. Lets see what Labtop has to say about these figures, and we'll see where some agreement can be reached.

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:11 PM
    Here below is a sharp photo of the side of that roof-impacted trailer. Notice that this one had 3 rear axles with 6 big tires which do form quite a resistance against pivoting around these 3 axles.

    And still the trailer is crashed down from its front standers and its front part was pushed around for about 30 degrees. The whitish spot on the back end side is a result of the short but hot fire inside the back of the trailer, which fire can be seen in other photos.
    If the hole in the fence was caused by a then already very low flying right-wing jet engine housing nacelle, just 80 centimeter above the grass, how could the cable-spools in its path then not be obliterated? They are clearly higher than the at 80 cm broken off wooden stander beside the right fence pole without barb wire guiding-pin on top.
    And one of them is laying on its side right in the path of that presumed jet engine nacelle.
    Another intriguing point is that there is no observable gouge in the grass of the lawn behind the hole in the fence, where we should expect a whole lot of jet engine parts shrapnel having exploded into that grass.
    We also know from former investigations, that a jet engine is hung under the wing with a device that has three or more huge break-off bolds, that snap when the engine hits a massive object, like in this presumed case, the diesel tank. In such case, the construction is such, that the engine breaks off in a downward arc, to prevent the wing to get hit by it, when in free flight, like in this case. Thus, the engine should have broken off in those last 80 meters and shot downwards into the grass of the lawn and then catapulted forwards and up again into the Pentagon facade.

    Note also the yellow police line attached already to the corner poles, but still the photographer could take a picture of the crime scene.
    We should count in the possible cause of that fence hole as done by a fire truck, which driver wanted to make room for its firemen to fight the heavy fire in that diesel tank and the one behind it. Two tanks were burning and made that huge black and gray smoke column rising just after the impact. Shock and awe effect...
    It's also strange that the whole east-leading part of that fence is gone. With poles and all.
    Only the corner pole and one next pole are still standing.
    I also ask myself why the fire department chief did not order his men to rip down at least the whole fence down around those two heavy burning diesel tanks. To allow his men better access to that source of danger of exploding fuel and start of more fires. So to see the northern part of the fence was taken down by firemen.
    Also, the top barb wire is cut but we see no slicing of the wire that must have been taken away by the jet engine, through that standing wood from the access stair.
    There is however a horizontal piece hanging down from them, that is clearly broken.
    All in all, the fence hole could have been made by a fire truck or police cruiser that wanted to create access to that burning diesel.

    It looks to the casual observer as if the bottom of the huge jet engine housing nacelle could have cut through the fence poles and its wire-netting and ripped it down, and that the right side of the jet engine nacelle just barely impacted the front side part of that trailer which was in fact a small square diesel tank, and that could have caused the swinging around of the whole trailer front.
    But how could the flap-guard rail sitting under that plane's wing, the next one directly to the right of the jet engine, then cut that 60° angled gouge, when the underside of that flap-guard rail was situated much higher than the engine? About 2.6 meters or more above that huge engine nacelle's bottom. Note however that the front side roof of the trailer still stood in its original, higher than in the photo, position. And that the fence poles are quite higher than the mean length of a fireman, as can be seen in this photo :

    PHOTO of firemen walking in front of the fence.

    Note the broken-off wooden stander pole just left of the right fence pole, it's height must indicate the underside of that engine nacelle, when the engine has caused that hole in the fence.
    The two bended backwards broken-off fence poles are also far too high broken-off to make it possible that a guard rail cut that roof's gouge. Much higher than the left-over piece of that broken-off wooden stander pole.
    Those two broken fence poles are also bended back towards the plane path, which is not logical.

    And that 60° gouge angle path in the roof does not fit any SoC flight path direction, and certainly not the 42° internal damage path.
    When the underside of the jet engine housing nacelle would have punched-out that curious top form in that reddish oxidized dis-colored sheet metal front part, which was the diesel tank, as many people think it did, then the guard rail could never have cut a gouge in the roof in the same time, it was sim

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:15 PM
    The strongest reason for my NoC plus impact conviction is the fact that too many real persons are still convinced that they saw a NoC flying plane. And that fact alone, makes the SoC flying plane just illogical and unbelievable.

    William Lagasse stands in this screenshot from his interview by CIT at the CITGO gas station pump where he was filling up his Pentagon Police cruiser on the morning of 9/11 around 09:25 to 09:40. He points at the spot where he first saw AA 77.
    We have solid evidence that he really was at that pump, we have a FOIA freed CITGO security video that shows Bill at that exact pump.
    It also shows a bright flash at the moment that AA 77, made from a shiny metal fuselage and wings that reflects a lot of sunlight, passed at the north of the CITGO canopy. That is also the exact moment that all clients inside the pay counter ran outside as can be seen in that video, and that Bill jumped in his drivers seat and sped out of the gas station grounds towards Columbia Pike and the Pentagon South Parking Lot.
    Bill is a NoC witness.

    His colleague Chadwick Brooks stood parked with his Pentagon Police cruiser on the opposite side of the road you just can see behind Bill's right shoulder, and you also see the last trees of the long row of trees. He stood parked in the long small parking lot that lays behind the long row of trees at the bottom of the Navy Annex hill side. He also saw AA 77 coming low over the northern end of that row of trees ( ""the leaves were moving in the wake of the slipstream of its jet engines"" ) on its slightly curved path back towards the Pentagon's west wall facade impact point at column 14. Chadwick is a NoC witness.

    Robert Turcios who was a CITGO station manager said he saw the plane's wing crossing low over the big tree that stood just beside but more north of the pay counter part of the CITGO, which is a NoC path. He indicates in this CIT picture that he saw how the plane's tail went down a bit, just before it reached Route 27. That was the leveling off to avoid crashing in the lawn. Robert is a NoC witness :

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:18 PM
    Another reason are the lately discovered by me, obvious indications of real Route 27 positions of at least 10 new NoC witnesses.
    One of the strongest indications is Christine Peterson, who multiple times declared that she was stopped in traffic jam "in front of the Pentagon's Heli Pad" when the plane came straight over her car and impacted.
    Thus, AA 77 crossed Route 27 in front of the Heli Pad or just south of it.
    This is a photo of Christine Peterson at her inauguration ceremony at the Northern Arizona University :

    Penny Elgas who said she stood no more than a few cars behind that spot where the plane crossed over Route 27 that lays along the west wall at 110 meters in front of the Pentagon. By the way, you have to get rid of the myth that Penny found a piece of the plane's wing on her back seats, that would have come in her car through her open sun roof, since she herself corrected that incorrect news story by saying that she picked up that piece from the road when she was stepping out of her car. She tells it in the phone interview with the owner of the Pumpitout website, it's linked there. It laid just beside the guard rail on the ground.
    Penny is a NoC witness because she stood a few cars behind Christine.

    Here she donates that white piece of a wing tip or tail tip to the Smithsonian Institute, and note especially that her car stood also in the traffic jam in the north going HOV lane, where she is photographed by Steve Riskus :

    Just as Christine Peterson who is the strongest NoC witness and stood near her car on the 1 meter high thick concrete divider between the POV lanes and the other lanes when Riskus took this next photo.
    Note that she said the plane flew straight over her head while she was sitting in the traffic jam caused by an accident further on north in FRONT OF THE HELI-PAD. That proves that the plane flew not a SoC flight path, but some sort of NoC flight path :

    Penny Elgas, Christine Peterson, Vin Nayaranan, Don Mason are so to see all in this picture taken by Steve Riskus, who after seeing AA 77 crossing in front of him, parked his car in the grassy shoulder of the South going lane of Route 27 and began taking pictures.
    That's why he took this white hot explosion picture just 3 minutes after impact.
    A possible sign of internal explosions, or jet fuel that exploded 3 minutes later, which is a bit far fetched to believe. They are all NoC witnesses.

    PHOTO Riskus white hot explosion

    Penny also said in the same phone interview that you can listen to on the PumpItOut website, that she saw the plane coming over the roof rim of the CITGO gas station.
    That's on a NoC flight path. Anything that flew over a part of that roof did not fly along a SoC flight path. Penny is a definite NoC witness.

    Steve Riskus said he was driving from north to south on Route 27 near the first big traffic sign spanning the full road and beside the Arlington National Cemetery grounds when he suddenly saw AA 77 cross low and perpendicular over Route 27, just behind that first huge traffic board and just behind those two trees growing then in front of the Heli Pad.
    Now not in the same spot anymore but further north, two new trees were planted.
    An Italian blogger had some email exchange with him, and send him this photo, and Steve emailed him back that that was exactly what he saw on 9/11 :

    Note that in this above composition photo by that Italian blogger the next huge Route 27 spanning traffic board lays in the far southern distance. The official SoC theory wants us to believe that AA 77 in fact crossed Route 27 diagonally there, just beside that far away traffic board and cut 2 lamp poles along that road first, then 3 others on the Pentagon lawn.
    Steve would not have recognized a composition photo of the same plane crossing Route 27 diagonally much further south, beside that faintly visible traffic board. Then the plane would have been about 4 times smaller in length in such a photo, which he would have remembered as so small, when it really would have flown along a SoC flight path.
    Steve is definitely a NoC witness.

    Don Mason, a colleague of Frank Probst was late for work at the Pentagon Renovation Program contractor group, when he also became stuck in the HOV lanes traffic jam caused by an accident further north.
    He said that the plane came flying straight over his car, he stood near to Penny and Christine with his car. He is thus a NoC witness.

    Vin Narayanan, an editor of USA Today, said he stood just in front of the spot where the plane crossed. Thus he must have halted in that same traffic jam of the HOV lanes just in front of the Heli Pad.
    He even thought the plane's tail section clipped the small square green exit sign on a pole that stood in front and beside of him on the right side of Route 27, just in front of the southern tree that grew in front of the Heli Pad. That sign indicated the start of the exit lane towards the Mall Entrance North Parking Lot and the connection there to Route 110 that ran along the River Entrance side of the Pentagon to the north.
    You can see Vin, a former Indian from India, sitting in his dark green pick-up van in front of that green exit sign he thought was clipped, but is still standing. Perhaps there was an upper part that was clipped? Vin is, together with Christine Peterson, a prime NoC witness.
    Penny must be one of the women in this picture. And a NoC witness.

    Don Mason who was a colleague of Frank Probst who also stood jammed very near where the plane crossed, he also said it went over his car. He must be a NoC witness.
    See his full report in the ASCE Pentagon Building Report. Just as that of Frank Probst.

    Frank Probst who worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program was walking along the white foot path that ran aside the guard rails along Route 27, on his way to a meeting at the Mall Entrance area, when the plane came straight over his head. He said he was near the Heli Pad when he saw the plane come diving towards him.
    If he stood under the SoC flight path, then that is definitely not near the Heli Pad.
    He's a NoC witness.

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:25 PM
    I now have posted all my prepared in advance, posts.
    So now I am open for further discussion, if you both are still online.
    Otherwise I'll wait until you are back.

    One thing I still find extremely strange, that NTSB handed to the public, Flight AA77 animation full flight time video.
    If you have read the other crash reports these professionals have made, it's perfect research, any better you seldom find.
    So why should they leave the most important research in their life times to a rookie ?

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:27 PM
    The OP's estimated turn radius is wrong because it is based on a 1g bank.

    Change the value to 2 or 3 g's and see what happens.

    posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:31 PM
    reply to post by exponent

    Perhaps an expert pilot with lots of time in type would know how fast to input the roll and avoid the wing flex issue, but I don't believe we are dealing with an expert and I trust you'll agree with this. The pilot apparently scared himself at altitude when the descending turn began. He initially rolled to about 35 degrees of bank or so, but immediately shallowed it out. It was never constant but varied by several degrees. A fairly steep turn at low altitude would likely scare the bejesus out of a neophyte, which he obviously was. We also note on the FDR that he was erratic, overcontrolled and was in a virtual PIO at some points. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the input was jerky and would have induced wing flexing and erratic control. This in turn would likely result in increased time to establish a bank, but there is no way to measure that. All of this is speculation based on a best guess and is to be taken as such.

    The FAA G limit for the Category is 2.5. Realizing that he probably didn't know that you could use whatever you want and just post the result. The wings wouldn't likely break until well beyond 5 g's depending on how smoothly it was handled, time on airframe, etc. We don't have much empirical evidence on this issue, but the 787 wing failed at about 7 g's in Boeing tests. That's about all we have in terms of proof of durability.

    I'm not going to be much help on deceleration rate. I know of no one who has ever measured it. I have never even thought about it in specific terms. I simply know it's very, very difficult to slow down rapidly. It takes lots of advance planning and even then very experienced pilots can easily misjudge it. About the only thing one can do is skid the aircraft (with no passengers on board) and that helps a little. S turns are also an option (again, if no passengers are on board). Any other drag devices are of no help at the speeds we're talking about as that is well above their activation limits.. I don't think you'll need to go into this much detail at all. I would just add some time as it's going to be a steep turn no matter how it's calculated. You won't need any more overkill...

    posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM
    I think it's a good idea to read these pages about Hemphill's real observations.
    He consistently says that he saw the plane coming from over the Navy Annex. On his right hand sight.
    His office was in the top floor of the then 8th Annex Wing, 10 windows from the northern corner.
    It is thus very normal for him to describe it in that fashion, and not beside the Annex flying on a SoC trajectory.
    He also repeats explicitly that he also saw the plane fly over the CITGO station's roof. And over the Pike-overpass bridge in Route 27.

    Eugene Debbs typed out part of Jeff Hill's phone interview with Albert Hemphill, you can listen to Albert's own words here :

    The interesting discussion goes on for several pages : and 8 and 9.

    Note that "shure" is Jeff Hill's screen name there.
    KP is the administrator at the PfT forums.
    Onesliceshort is an intelligent member at PfT forums, I think he still believes in a fly-over theory, sadly enough. He still thinks Roosevelt Roberts was a fly-over witness.

    Avenger posted this phone interview from CIT 's Craig Ranke with Hemphill :
    in his post #61 :

    Onesliceshort's post nr 63 is difficult to counter by any OS follower :

    I have one question regarding the last posted picture :
    Why is the FDR path in that picture, that leads exactly through the 5 lamp poles, not following a 60.25° angle true north?

    Check it out with your own 30/60/90° triangle. It's damn easy, just put your triangle with its 90°/30° side on the bottom of your screen, then scroll that post up/down with its 90°/60° side exactly following the right side of that multiple NoC flight paths drawing. Until its hypotenuse crosses exactly the impact point they choose (I'm not so sure that it is the exact impact point, btw). Then you see that a 60.25° true north line from the impact point down to south of the Annex is running lower than their FDR line.

    NoC multiple witnesses their own idea of a AA77 flight path drawings in one picture :

    My checked with a triangle, real FDR 60.25° angled line goes south of the VDOT mast and clears it completely, no wing could have touched it. But it is a totally unrealistic line, it does not fit any witness.

    Note that all Google Maps are automatically placed exactly north, only when you yourself change the north viewing setting, that can change.
    It does not look as if this picture is manipulated away from its Google -Earth or -Maps standard north view.

    posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:29 AM
    This post #84 in the same site by "onesliceshort" from PfT fame :
    addresses a few important facts from the Hemphill interviews, which can not be countered by a fair OS supporter.

    You should read the few next last posts on this last page 9 of that thread :
    because "Hemphill totally contradicts the FDR data as does every North of Citgo witness and as do many other witnesses elsewhere on the flightpath."

    The OS supporter Eugene Debbs stopped posting after these above linked-to perspective drawings were posted by "onesliceshort" in that thread.
    An indication of any further lack of counter arguments by the OS supporters.
    (OS = official story)

    new topics

    top topics

    << 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

    log in