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

a reply to: wildb

American 77 at the Pentagon 1

American 77 at the Pentagon 2

a reply to: wildb

Let me tell you what I have evidence of, which you have just provided to me, that evidence is you don't know who or what your talking about..

I provided ten minutes of photos that show no wreckage, that proves you wrong..

Take it up with American Airlines. After all, it reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, which proves that you video is bogus. I might add that I posted photos of American 77 wreckage at the Pentagon. People saw American 77 strike the Pentagon and radar tracked American 77 to the Pentagon. ATC personnel at National Airport saw American 77 as well.

a reply to: skyeagle409

i agree, but i don't see how this explains the 20secs collapses. Or any of my previous points. Could these men separate the beam? Or gravity? It is a very ductile material. Easy to bend, not so easy to break.

a reply to: Kadagraks

The steel columns were under structure loads and after the aircraft impacts, those structural loads were redistributed whereas, the remaining structural steel columns were supporting even heavier structural loads, which were exposed directly to the effects of the fires due to the fact their fire protection was stripped from the impacts.

Here is another example just how easy fire can weaken steel.

Overpass Near San Francisco Collapses After Fire

OAKLAND, Calif., April 29 — A fiery pre-dawn tanker truck accident caused the collapse of a heavily trafficked freeway overpass near downtown today, sending hundreds of feet of concrete crashing onto a highway below and hobbling a vital Bay Area interchange.

Mr. Kempton said the heat from the fireball had likely melted the steel girders and bolts that support the concrete roadway. “If you have that kind of heat, you’re going to have this kind of reaction,” he said. “We’re not surprised this happened.”

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: wildb

Allyn E. Kilsheimer: American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon

: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

www.popularmechanics.com...

Take it up with American Airlines. After all, it reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, which proves that you video is bogus.

I saw this coming, so I post real photos of the building and you tell me it's bogus? Really, tell me how simple photos of the building is bogus. It is what it is and no more, so please tell me how it is bogus?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Allyn E. Kilsheimer: American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon

: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

www.popularmechanics.com...

He He HE , posting from popular mechanics? are you kidding me, a government mouth piece... your going to have to do better than that.

But before you do I am waiting for you to point out the wreckage in the video I posted, tick toc, you can't because there was none, posting close up photos and photos taken two days later won't work, the video shows what was there minutes later not days.. do you understand that..

And again, the five frames show nothing, if anything a doctored video, fire balls don't dissolve into a frame...

a reply to: wildb

I saw this coming, so I post real photos of the building and you tell me it's bogus?

Do a search on google and ascertain the rest of the story and figure out why conspiracy websites failed the tell the rest of the story.

a reply to: wildb

He He HE , posting from popular mechanics? are you kidding me, a government mouth piece... your going to have to do better than that.

Well, haven't you figured out why American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon? I am very sure that American Airlines is not a government agency.

Sigh...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Skyeagle409 : I have already posted a segment of the video depicting American 77 in the background.

That's not a video with 23 to 27 pictures per second. What you reposted already so many times, is an animated GIF, which consists of a few screenshots that are constantly recycled.

That Wikipedia link of you shows a strongly minimized 757. A quickly made up one.
The yellow contours of a plane, from that Wikipedia link, are 50% too small.
The length of a B-757 is 2 times wider than the height of the Pentagon west wall (47.36 meters against 24 meters).

That means that yellow contour is not 47.36 meter or 155.38 feet long, but HALF of that, about 24 meters, while here on top of page 9, you answered on this remark : " Sorry, no 757 in that video.. " with your remark : " I say it is, I know my aircraft."
But you still posted it, and still repeatedly do so, without checking your posted Wikipedia link's validity.

It's of course not so easy as pie, to check its length against the height of the Pentagon's west wall, since you must check it at the point of impact, column 14, which is difficult to find at first sight, since the roof line and base line in those few grainy security-cam pictures (rate was 4 per second) are very stretched out by perspective, but it can be done, as I will show you in my next posts.
This is your repeatedly posted, dimensionally wrong animated GIF :



Hint : Your above GIF shows a yellow outlined plane that is far too small in length, and it's the black line drawn-in in the foreground of the curly smoke trail, extending to the left and right of the drawn-in yellow airplane contours that immediately indicates a wrong interpretation of a B-757.
That full black line plus the yellow plane disappear together in the next GIF with the explosion in it.

If it was a genuine part of that most northern security boot camera housing box its camera screen-shot, certainly the black line trailing that yellow drawn-in plane, and probably the other black line drawn in front of that yellow drawn-in plane too, would both be still there, since the vague yellow plane contours in the center of that long black line were then gone, towards or in the explosion screen-shot.
So, did AA77 tow a thick black banner and was towed by another black "cable".?
Of course not.

That thick black line was drawn in by the original unknown Wikipedia up-loader, we don't know from where, since a link to it's originating page is missing. It's a very bad and quickly drawn-in, far too short plane-interpretation overlapping contour.

Which wrong contours are surprisingly (to you perhaps) not needed at all, since there are much better and really convincing ones out there, like the following ones I will post next.

This is the original security boot camera picture with the real plane contours visible :




It's cockpit is in reality at the front part of that reddish/purple colored smeared out band in front of the top of the northern camera housing box, to its left top-side in my above posted original picture.
The dark triangular shape, the supposed upper tail fin part, also disappears in the explosion picture.

There is another animated GIF, or JPEG picture out there, with a more realistic two times longer B-757 plane drawn in it, and its photo taken by the camera in the more northern camera housing box, the one in the security boot, shows the same dark triangular upper tail fin part above the right side of the second, southern traffic-camera housing box, but its length extends far further in front of that camera housing box, towards where its cockpit is situated. That plane is drawn out a lot longer (2x) than this yellow plane outline in the skyeagle409 posted one from Wikipedia :

But this next one is far more convincing and shows much better, that the Wikipedia uploaded one is a clear misinterpretation, because its plane contours are drawn 50% too short in length in that link.

Its intention was probably to fortify the feeling for a casual viewer, that a SoC attack plane under an angle of 42° to the normal on the west wall was approaching that wall, which sharp +/- 45 degrees angle to the center viewing line of the camera, would shorten its real length in the pictures taken by that camera by about 1/4.

As a result of the strong perspective plane length distortions appearing in pictures of such a sharp angled approach path, a sharp angled SoC plane would appear about 1/4 shorter (35.52 m) than a perpendicular approaching NoC plane, which would show its real length of 47.36 meters :

files.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the real length as can be seen outlined by me in red in that security boot camera picture above :


And this is the length of a B-757-200 (47.36 meter = 155.38 feet) from nose to tail-end :


The height of the Pentagon its Wedge-I was 77 feet 3.5 inches (24 meters).
That means that the length of the shown plane has to be nearly exactly 2 times longer than the height of the Pentagon walls, when photographed by the camera under an ideal angle of 90° to the body of the passing plane.
Which 2L on 1H ratio is of course only the case for a NORTH of CITGO under a 90° attack angle incoming PLANE. !

A South of CITGO incoming plane flying under an attack angle on the west wall of about 45° has a ratio of 1.5L on 1H. Note also that 2NoC : 1.5SoC = 4 : 3
Which means that the length of an eventually shown officially endorsed SoC plane has to be only 1.5 times longer than the height of the Pentagon at its column 14 position, photographed with the same security camera that delivers pictures with distorted perspective roof lines, that disappear in the distance.
However, you see that these plane outlines in the above original security cam screen shot posted by me depicts a 2 times longer plane, passing NoC and flying towards the Pentagon west wall at a near to 90° attack angle, which thus shows the real length of a B-757, which is 47.36 meters.

The photographed lengths for a NoC flying plane and a SoC flying one have a ratio of exactly 4:3, when we assume the attack angles along the Pentagon's West Wall as being 45° with that wall, for a SoC incoming plane (rounded off), and 90° for a NoC incoming plane (rounded off).

Btw, in this ASCE Pentagon report diagram of the damage path, the main destruction path has an angle of 52° with the west wall :


But in this one, it has an angle of 48° (90° - 42° on the normal) with the west wall :


Thus, a 45° SoC incoming plane will be depicted by a camera that's taking pictures perpendicular on the normal on the west wall, i.o.w. along-side that wall, as having a virtual length of 3 x 47.36 / 4 = 35.52 meter.
And a 90° NoC incoming plane would be depicted by that camera as having its real, full length of 47.36 meter.


Since we know that the height of the Pentagon is exactly 24 meters, that means that a SoC plane's length in that security boot's camera's pictures of it, would have a ratio of 1.48 times the visible MEASURABLE height of the Pentagon.
And the length of the NoC incoming plane would have a ratio of 1.97 times the Pentagon's MEASURABLE height in those security boot its cam pictures.

Let's check that out....in this picture of the camera in the closest to the lawn camera housing.
And NOTE that these are the OFFICIALLY released pictures of the two cameras from the security boot at the northern corner of the Pentagon's west wall.

THUS, if we can prove that the plane in those pictures is two times as long as the height of the Pentagon, then the NEXT CONCLUSION is, that it is a picture from a North of CITGO trajectory flying, incoming plane.!

Let's WORK on THAT, and keep it simple.
An incoming attack plane must have a length / height ratio as compared to the length of a 757 and the height of the Pentagon, in photos from an installed security camera which is viewing alongside the west wall, for a :

NoC plane, the length ratio to west wall height L : H = 2 : 1
SoC 45°, plane length ratio to west wall height L : H = 1.5 : 1 (3 : 2)
NoC 90°, plane length ratio to SoC 45° plane length = 4 : 3

Let's measure that in this genuine, officially posted screen shot of that security boot's closest to the plane, camera ( "Pent3Full" ) :


Or, this one, which was also officially released earlier :


With my additional height to length ratios, see my 2 vertical thin red lines, where the highest one has the 2L : 1H ratio, the NoC 90° incoming plane ratio, and also indicates a position ending at the bottom of the column 14 impact spot on the west wall :


And the shortest one has the 1.5L : 1H ratio, which indicates the SoC 45° incoming plane ratio, and also indicates a spot much further south than column 14, in fact on the corner of the part of the wall that was build a few meter outwards, a corner where the plane surely has not impacted.

Column 14 was situated at least 30 meters further north.

In this video, the first 5 released security boot camera screenshots with those incorrect dates and times inserted, are shown at video time 2:30 of 9:59. Note that those cameras shot 4 pictures per second, every 1/4 of a sec it took a picture, to save disk or video tape space.
They did not record constantly, like at 24 to 27 pictures per second, in video recordings :
www.youtube.com...
youtu.be...


I took the base line of the West wall's facade, fading in the distance, from the, by the flash of the explosion, overexposed photo with that white line at that base clearly visible.
It's starting from the base of the northern corner, extends and is passing behind the Heliport tower, it's the only photo from the five, that reasonably clear shows that base line.
Then I super-imposed that white line on this below photo, to find out if my reddish dotted vertical line extending from the plane's diagonal through its fuselage would end up at the column 14 impact point, just above that white facade-base line.
And that's the spot on the longest vertical red line (NoC 2L:1H), which is nearly exactly half as long as the vaguely visible plane's length, meaning that the plane which is visible above the second camera housing box, is a B-757 which is nearly exactly 2 x as long (47.36 m) as the west wall's height (24 m).

Because the strong perspective distortion makes it so difficult to pinpoint the exact impact point at column 14, this fairly raw method was chosen. Perhaps anybody else could make it all having somewhat more finesse, however, I expect that it even will become more convincing, that we see here the vague outline of a NoC incoming plane, at an angle between 80 and 90 degrees to the west wall.
SINCE IT IS TWO TIMES LONGER than THE HEIGHT OF THE PENTAGON'S WEST WALL.!

This is that security boot photo with my additional lines and texts :

This next one is a good aerial photo where you can imagine both a SoC and a NoC flightpath flown there. You can imagine that there is not so much difference in length between both. The NoC curvature is not too tasking (1.2 G) on AA77's airframe, while flown at the calculated speed for a 2054 meter Radius, of 230 to 250 KTS, and at a slight bank angle of 35°, all perfectly feasible in a B-757 at 230-250 KTS.

And the NoC witnesses who also vividly showed the 35 bank angle degrees they saw with the help of a model plane in their CIT interviews, all described a much slower than 450 KTS flying plane. And Hemphill and Boger said the same.
That NoC seen plane, definitely flew NOT at the DFDR speed of 450 KTS, copied from an officially pushed SoC flight path, as Reheat and skyeagle409 keep repeating, they must know very well by now, after my OpeningPosts EXPLANATIONS, that what they try to do is called mixing airspeed-data (450 KTS)from a straight flight path proposal (SoC), with that (230-250 KTS) from a curved flightpath proposal (NoC). And is frowned upon in science as very, very bad science, in fact always impossible to defend.



Here are some screenshots from the camera adjacent to the lawn, inside the second camera-box at the security boot, it does show much better an outline and shape of a 757.
This picture is a zoomed-in one from the original one, which makes it a lot clearer :
Pent3Close-1.jpg


These ones explain it in its added text and much sharper details :
77-1.jpg

77-3.jpg


And this one shows the last milliseconds before AA77's nose cone impacted at the second floor slab's column 14, and the two jet engines slammed into the first floor, right and then left of column 14 at the first floor :
Pent2_zpsc70e3f86.jpg


When you imagine the yellow circle from the left jet engine a tad bit more to the right, then that's the imprint of a NoC impacting plane, approaching at an angle of about 80° to 90° to the west wall.



Conclusion : Of course I hope there will be other persistent 9/11 researchers who will meticulously re-calculate my figures, and use all the exact measures I mostly already provided.
In my opinion, they will have to come to the same conclusion, that the chance that the proportions of that vaguely but UNMISTAKABLY VISIBLE AA77 B-757 in the screenshots of the original Pentagon security boot cameras, fit the shown length of a NoC flying plane FAR BETTER than a SoC flying, officially endorsed plane.

It's quite simple in fact :
The length of a nearly perpendicular impacting NoC plane must be 2 times that of the height of the Pentagon at the point of impact. That way we can exclude perspective disorders in the security camera pictures.

And Lo & behold, IT IS 2 times that of the Pentagon's height.!

The high, red and white painted steel-beams of the VDOT radio tower :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


That's why the plane veered slightly to the left, and then corrected itself again by banking slightly to the right, and in front of the ANC south parking lot, which is situated outside of its stone/steel-bars southern fence, it then banked further right to aim at the Pentagon's west wall.
All according to the composition of all oral accounts of the 25 NoC witnesses.
View the CIT video again that I posted in the last post of page 7, and listen very concentrated now to the 4 interviews from the ANC personnel in there :
www.youtube.com...



For those of you starting to read at ATS, just hold the CTRL knob, then push several times the plus-sign on your keyboard, then you can zoom in about 7 times to all my pictures, and can see the intriguing details. At least in Mozilla Firefox.

Parts of the lamp on top of the light pole, plus the cut off bended piece of that light pole nr 1, that speared Lloyde England's taxi cab front screen, laid to rest at the road side.
Where did all this brown dry grass come from.?
files.abovetopsecret.com...


It was not present in such abundance in that already by me posted photo with the 3 men, the white car and Lloyde's cab in it, still on the overpass bridge on Route 27. With that yellow flatbed trailer visible in the picture's left side, parked on the side of that underpass entering road :



Was that load of dry grass perhaps used to camouflage those pre-cut pole parts against that cobblestone wall, during the few daylight hours up to 09:38, before the plane impacted?

View Lloyde's above interview again (from 1:10 on), to understand that what he was hinting at in that nightly tour with CIT, was him meeting these 2 guys seemingly first on that bridge, and then he insinuates that something secret happened.
The manually spearing there by these two of his cab's windshield perhaps?
Or was his cab speared further North, and then driven by him to the overpass bridge?
Difficult to prove without another statement of Lloyde England, in an interview with better prepared interviewers.

CIT's Ranke & Marquis made that a quite difficult task, after their stubborn mistrust of him.

OF COURSE it sounds far fetched, that unknown 9/11 planners could have prepared in advance all this so sound looking evidence for a SoC flight path :

1. The 5 downed light poles :


2. The gash in the roof of the generator trailer and the right jet engine damage to the fence has fascinated me to no end, as you can see :

















3. A small cut-out in the underground utility stairwell access structure its very thin white colored wall which could have easily been made after the impact by a foot in a boot, or a fire truck wheel.
It looks more like Styrofoam plates in this picture which text seems a bit far fetched to me :

Note the undamaged cable spools too.

4. The internal damage trajectory :


5. The "exit" hole :
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

A wall breaching unit effect, it crumbles the outer bricks, just as seen in the 2 above videos at the Pentagon's C-Ring hole :


Now those were the 5 indicators for a SoC flight trajectory for AA77. Which can be easily prepared in advance. In the NIGHT, and not in bright daylight, as a stubborn member here keeps trying to imprint in your minds. Of course there is not much traffic in the early morning hours, between 3 and 4 o'clock. And dimming the lights is also easily done by Planners of an event of such a magnitude. Money in abundance, a few trillions of unaccounted for, or bluntly missing invoices.


HOWEVER, when compared to all these 25 NoC flight path witnesses, and especially the two Pentagon Police officers, Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, the honest observer will scratch his or her head, and start looking for controversies in both stories, while remembering all the extra securities planned for the 1960ties Northwood deception, the planned invasion of Cuba (Google it), and the Tonkin Incident its layer after layer of deception, to start a full-out Vietnam War in the 1970ties :



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


The Lloyde England interviews, the very last part of the above full video, this is only 14:53 :
www.youtube.com...


He clearly says multiple times that he did not see AA77 on the Pike-overpass bridge, but 300 meters northwards, in front of the half-spanning street-sign, and beside where the Pike-exit is, and that exit curves away from Route 27 and curves towards the Pike's westwards lanes.

Examples : ""Lloyde (9:14) : The only thing I can say, it did not happen on that bridge.""
""Lloyde (12:52) : We came across the Highway together. Ranke : You were there with them? Lloyde : It was planned.! One thing about it, you gotta understand something, when people do something and get away with it, you... and when it comes to me, it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it. So it has to be stopped in the beginning when its small. You see, to keep it from spreading."".

911 In Plane Sight Part 2
www.youtube.com...


So what's it, NoC or SoC ? :





This white car in the far right bottom position in this above, last posted aerial photo is the position on that short stretch of the southbound lane of Route 27 that Lloyde England, the cab driver with his speared windscreen, said he was about in, when he was driving from Roslyn southbound and there he saw the huge plane crossing low in front of him.
He repeats it again in his nightly drive with the CIT team on the same spot, and then indicates the halfway spanning street-sign you clearly see in this last above picture as where he was in front of, not the other one further on, behind the Pike-overpass bridge, that one spans the full Route 27.
But that full spanning one is the one the official SoC flight path story tells us where that SoC plane flew past, just a few meters to its left/west side, on its way through the 5 light poles, touching the roof of the generator trailer and chopping a piece out from a low white brick wall before hitting nose-on at the Pentagon west wall's column 14.

a reply to: LaBTop

This is your repeatedly posted, dimensionally wrong animated GIF :

Hint : Your above GIF shows a yellow outlined plane that is far too small in length, and it's the black line drawn-in in the foreground of the curly smoke trail, extending to the left and right of the drawn-in yellow airplane contours that immediately indicates a wrong interpretation of a B-757.

The dimension is right on the money. You have to understand the B-757 is airborne as evident by the trailing smoke from its right engine. Yes indeed, that is a B-757.

a reply to: LaBTop

This depictions proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Flight Path Depiction

And, it is all very simple to understand, because a north-of-the-gas station flight path could not have created that path of destruction, in fact, it would have been impossible.