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

a reply to: LaBTop

Ehh, DC-9-11 rings a bell in your own conscious.?

The mention of the DC-9-11 was from the video that you'd posted.

a reply to: LaBTop

An Airbus? The aircraft that crashed at the Pentagon was not an Airbus.

a reply to: LaBTop

Was it ever clear to you, that the OFFICIALLY decoded DFDR was ended about 4 to 6 seconds before impact?

You might want to take that up with American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. After all, they supplied the conversions formulas for the FDR of American 77.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop

Was it ever clear to you, that the OFFICIALLY decoded DFDR was ended about 4 to 6 seconds before impact?

You might want to take that up with American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. After all, they supplied the conversions formulas for the FDR of American 77.

What on earth has that to do with my remark?
The FBI has lost track of that recovered DFDR for about one and a half day. Specialists can alter a DFDR in about 2 hours. And you wouldn't notice it, ever.

a reply to: LaBTop

SO, destroy my posted online bank angle calculator evidence, please.

I can do better than that and keep it simple by simply drawing a straight line from the damaged generator to the C-ring hole, which easily proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

In regard to your bank angle calculator, did American 77 have its flaps deployed?

a reply to: LaBTop

The FBI has lost track of that recovered DFDR for about one and a half day. Specialists can alter a DFDR in about 2 hours. And you wouldn't notice it, ever.

What does that have to do with the fact that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. supplied the conversion formulas that applied only to the airframe of American 77?

I look for little keywords to determine where you are going.

We were discussing an Airbus disaster, where they falsified its DFDR, i.o.w. they cut the tapes last 4 seconds, to frame the pilot. If you find my posts about it, you will read the verdict the Swiss court reached, after viewing the photographic evidence. The test pilot was rehabilitated, far too late, his career smashed to pieces, and he was left with huge defense lawyer expenses, that had to be paid back since he won his case, at last, after 10 years.


On a side note, I just see a blank quote in SE409's post.
With only two of these "" in the upper left corner of the quoted windoww .
Another ATS software glitch

If you post that word windoww with one w, this happens : window
The word window disappears. I see it however in my Preview window.
All in Mozilla Firefox browser, latest edition. Every driver up to date. I told that already a few times. Nobody noticed.?
Well, now it butchers window with a dot directly after it : Preview window.

a reply to: LaBTop

We were discussing an Airbus disaster, where they falsified its DFDR, i.o.w. they cut the tapes last 4 seconds, to frame the pilot.

You can take the FDR out of the loop and still, documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon will point to a south-of-the-gas station flight path. There is no such physical evidence that point to a north-of-the gas station flight path.

Now, prove that the FDR of American 77 was tampered with.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Are you now insinuating that I do not condone Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon.?
Sigh...

a reply to: LaBTop

No, what I am saying is that documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon proved that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop

Now, prove that the FDR of American 77 was tampered with.

You can neither prove, that its DFDR was NOT tampered with.
I have 25 eyewitnesses, you have 5 SoC indicators, which are fabricated, when one believes in those interviews. I do.

I realize at last, that someone is on a mission to get me banned indefinitely, see why :

LT : AHA, AT LAST WE ARRIVE AT ADDRESSING MY OPENING POSTS. After 12 pages of running around the real thread subject.
SO, destroy my posted online bank angle calculator evidence, please.

SE409 : I can do better than that and keep it simple by simply drawing a straight line from the damaged generator to the C-ring hole, which easily proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Well, at last you show your forum tactics.
DODGING.
A real man would have taken the challenge, and tried to prove me wrong.
What did you do? Engage in circulating argumentation techniques, and totally avoid my challenge.
And WHY ?
You can't prove my OP posts calculations wrong, since they are 100 % true, but you are hell-bound to defend a military brother. Good for you, but not for your net-respect.

SE409 : In regard to your bank angle calculator, did American 77 have its flaps deployed?

No, as all the witnesses said so too.
It was flying in a clean configuration. Ask Albert Hemphill, he had the best position high up in his office in the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex to see the plane's clean configuration, as he said so.

Extract from the text above my OP posted online turn calculator, from Reheat's link :

This calculator requires the use of Javascript enabled and capable browsers. This calculator is designed to give calculated but still approximate information about the turn that an aircraft makes under given circumstances. This calculator DOES NOT take into consideration wind speed or direction, temperature, air density or aircraft performance and assumes LEVEL flight and turns. It is for general information only. Enter the speed of the aircraft in MPH, miles per hour, or Knots (KTS), nautical miles per hour, (the other will be calculated) as it enters the turn. Enter the rated clean level flight stall speed of the aircraft in the same way; finally, also enter the angle of the level turn in degrees. Click on Calculate to determine the radius of the turn and the diameter of the turn in feet, in miles and in nautical miles, as well as the turning times for a 360, 180 or 90 degree turn. It also returns the G loads and the increase in stall speed values and percentage. This does NOT attempt to calculate an accelerated stall. All calculated values should be considered as approximate. Consult your aircraft manual for specific values for YOUR aircraft.

That's cleared.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop

SE409 : No, what I am saying is that documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon proved that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

No, you just said ONLY this :

SE409 : What does that have to do with the fact that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. supplied the conversion formulas that applied only to the airframe of American 77?
I look for little keywords to determine where you are going.

No prove at all that American 77 passed south of the gas station...in that sentence.
All it does is quoting a simple fact, on which we both don't disagree.

It's time you ask a real, neutral DFDR decoder, what can be done, and what not.
There is an abundance of it on a certain "pilots" website, but the poor man was also banned there, after he disagreed with the local honcho on certain critical details of his explanations. As were you and me, and all the other critical thinkers.
It's disgusting behavior for a 9/11 site owner.

SE409 : Since you've confirmed that the right engine of American 77 struck the generator, why did you post a video that claimed that a DC-9-11 struck the Pentagon?

And you did it again at the top of this page 13 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The mention of the DC-9-11 was from the video that you'd posted.

The Title of that video : Witness DC 9-11 airplane parts, etc.

NOT : DC-9-11 what you made of it. The difference is in the first -
Its a video about a witness in Washington DC that photographed 9-11 plane parts. Simple as that.

Why do you have such difficulty, to admit a simple mistake?
I don't, see my own long admittance about my years ago made mistake (3200 m) in calculating precisely the radius of my drawn NoC flight path curve, I spend a whole long post on it in this thread. The real radius was 2054 m, as a Truster proved and told me.

Why can't you spend one simple line to your funny mistake, so we can both smile about it and forget about it.?

And then you can concentrate on my post about the 2 x longer length of that vague outline of a B-757, compared to the drawn out by me height of the Pentagon's west wall in that officially released security camera picture.

Which, if peer reviewed and found correct, proves beyond doubt, that what we see there, is hard evidence of a :

NORTH OF CITGO GAS STATION FLIGHTPATH OF AA77.

Which instantly makes all your efforts to defend the officially endorsed SoC flightpath, null and void.

I forgot to add this security cam photo, overexposed by the light of the explosion, it shows the best outline of the base-line of the Pentagon's west wall :


It's video time stamp (2:33 / 9:59) is in this above screen-shot, so a genuine peer reviewer of my evidence for a 2 times longer NoC flying B-757 length, when compared to the height of the west wall at the column 14 impact point, can look that video frame up, to use it to check my thin red lines drawings, without being bothered by my added-in blue wall-base line :
www.youtube.com...



To keep the playing field as clean as possible, for peer reviewers here, and from other sites.

Everything I post, is for seeking for the real, historical true events of 9/11/2001, and of course some educational value and purposes. It may be used by all 9/11 interested readers, free of charge.
You don't even have to mention me as the originator, the message is more important than the messenger.

Last post for now.

a reply to: LaBTop

I don't see any plane wreckage in that video...

a reply to: LaBTop

I forgot to add this security cam photo, overexposed by the light of the explosion, it shows the best outline of the base-line of the Pentagon's west wall

That doesn't change the fact that American 77 struck the Pentagon. We have videos of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings and yet, there are conspiracy theorist claiming that no aircraft struck those buildings.

On another note, how many air disasters are solved without the aid of video cameras?

It's video time stamp (2:33 / 9:59) is in this above screen-shot, so a genuine peer reviewer of my evidence for a 2 times longer NoC flying B-757 length, when compared to the height of the west wall at the column 14 impact point, can look that video frame up, to use it to check my thin red lines drawings, without being bothered by my added-in blue wall-base line :

Actually, the dimensions are right on the money when the flight path and distance are taken into consideration. A point that conspiracy theorist seem to overlook.

a reply to: wildb

I don't see any plane wreckage in that video...

You didn't look in the right place. Do you see the wheel hub of a B-757 in the following photo?

C-ring Photo: B-757 Wheel Hub

Now, do you see remains of a tire from a B-757 in this photo?

C-ring Photo: Tire

I see all kinds of wreckage in this photo.

Photo: B-757 Wreckage

Do you see B-757 wing flaps in the following photo?

Photo: American 77 Wing Flaps

I might add that those flaps are not from a cruise missile. Now, let's take a look here.

Allyn E. Kilsheimer

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...

It seems that you missed this video.

I see all kinds of wreckage in this photo.

Then why is it not there in the very first photos taken... and all kinds is a bit of a stretch..

I don't see any airplane parts that resembles flight 77 in all those photos.

What I do see are arrows pointing at something and someone's "opinions" in the photos.

The tire photo doesn't look like any tire that I have seen, it looks like a black smudge, it could be anything.

Of course the media said it is flight 77, that is their job.

The mainstream media has no credibility, they are paid propaganda.