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

a reply to: wildb

Apparently, the wreckage was there all along.

a reply to: Informer1958

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

The reason being, you are not an expert, I am, and that is what set us apart and why I see B-757 wreckage and you don't even though the B-757 wreckage you don't see, still remains B-757 wreckage in reality.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The reason being, you are not an expert, I am, and that is what set us apart and why I see B-757 wreckage and you don't.

I see, I was not aware that people had to be experts to view a plane crash. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

a reply to: Informer1958

see, I was not aware that people had to be experts to view a plane crash. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Well, the wheel hubs, engine wreckage, and flaps of a B-757 were right there for all to see. It would have been no problem finding part and serial numbers since aircraft parts are labeled. Each rivet and bolt have their own unique identifications as well. Even Hi-lock collars are color-coded. I might add that a cruise missile is incapable of causing the kind of physical damaged that has been documented at the Pentagon. Do you know who fabricated the Pentagon missile story? How many people reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon?

Since the airframe, engines and the APU of American 77 have their own unique histories that can be easily traced, it would have been no problem tracing each engine and the APU of American 77 to the Pentagon.

That is why there was no way the government could have acquired a B-757 that could not have been traced nor modified to fly under remote control without leaving paper trails across the country and the Atlantic Ocean that would have identified the people involved.

I forgot to add that there was a prime reason why American Airlines reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Well, the wheel hubs, engine wreckage, and flaps of a B-757 were right there for all to see. It would have been no problem finding part and serial numbers since aircraft parts are labeled.

Funny you say serial numbers.

Where are they?

Why are the crash debris serial numbers never been given to the public like all airplane crashes are during an investigation?

a reply to: Informer1958

Funny you say serial numbers.

Where are they?

Let's take a look here.

American 77

I want to also add that part numbers can be found on inner skin panels.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I want to also add that part numbers can be found on inner skin panels.

Has anyone been able to confirm those part numbers belong to said plane?

a reply to: Informer1958

Has anyone been able to confirm those part numbers belong to said plane?

Why would they since American 77 was tracked on radar to the Pentagon crash site? I am very sure the photo of those flaps belong to American 77, and let's not forget, American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Why would they since American 77 was tracked on radar to the Pentagon crash site? I am very sure the photo of those flaps belong to American 77, and let's not forget, American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.

Thank you for answering my question and the answer you gave me is no.

So there is "no evidence" on record, that crash debris were from said planes.

So all we get are some photos taken by? where? when?
As far as I am concern, those photos that are all over the internet could be airplane parts from any bone yard.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: LaBTop

LT :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

LT : 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 :

SE409 : 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.

Which flight path? Try to be more precise.
Knowing you only condone a SoC flight path, that above statement is pertinently wrong, regarding a SoC path.
PROVE IT right, if you can. Here, I'll help you on your endeavor to do so :

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This below picture is the crucial one, tell me if my dotted red line along the fuselage's longitudinal center beam, in the vague outline of a B-757, is ending at my 1.5L : 1H height ratio (the SoC one), or at the 2L : 1H height ratio from the thus HERE DEPICTED 80 to 90 degrees to the wall, North of CITGO incoming B-757. As you see, no distance from camera to plane needed, I circumvented that problem by using this Length : Height RATIO method. :



I already PROVED it to be a NoC incoming B-757, based on its clearly visible 2L to 1H ratio, and asked for genuine peer reviews, not baseless words.
And I used a systematic approach where the distance is not part of the argumentation nor calculation, only the plane length to west wall height RATIO = L : H.

And since my red dotted fuselage line clearly ends at my HIGHEST vertical drawn red line, which depicts the perpendicular on the camera view, NoC 2L:1H line, its solid evidence for a NoC incoming plane, since the plane (with THAT length) we see in that screen-shot, certainly did not come in under a 45 to 52 degrees angle with the west wall, but for sure at a 80 to 90 degrees angle to that wall.
A SoC plane to height ratio its vertical red line would be 3/4 less high than the NoC plane's vertical red line.
When compared to my other vertical drawn red line, which depicts the 45 degrees angle on the camera view, the SoC ratio vertical red line of 1.5L to 1H.

Which would need that dotted red line to end on the west wall, where the height would fit a plane length that makes up 3/4 of the height of my NoC 2L to 1H vertical red line.
That point, visible in my above diagram picture, ends however at a vertical red line that projects on a piece of west wall that's at the southern corner of the extended part of that wall, while AA77 impacted a lot further north, at a point on my drawn vertical 4/4 NoC red line, its nose cone hitting column 14.

What you posted above, is an empty answer, without any calculations nor diagrams. No serious peer review at all, but baseless words. I await your serious arguments. Made up by your own diagrams or calculations, not those you lend from the Net. No dodging. Use original, own work.

Btw, an OS Truster is considered a conspiracy theorist, by the majority of this ATS conspiracy site its visitors, the OS Doubters.
Examples of serious peer-reviewers are members waypastvne, or Pteridine, or Zaphod, or -BoneZ_ , etc.
They put some serious effort in their arguments. Try to do that too. I always know, that after some time passes in which I see no rebuttals of these kind of peers, that I came up with solid arguments. We reached a state of mutual respect, while still differing in opinions. History will in the end always solve those differences, however, I am afraid I will not see the JFK murder nor 9/11 solved conclusively in my granted time.


If it was a SoC plane, its virtual length measured in the screen-shot, would be 1.5 times that of the height of the Pentagon's west wall, when its longitudinal center beam would be extended to a vertical line on the wall between base and roof, that would have a plane-length to wall-height ratio of 1.5

Some more picture details :

a reply to: LaBTop

That won't work because the angle and dimensions I referred to are right on the money. For an example, lets take a closer look at what you had missed.

Referring to the last two photos of your post, The height of the Pentagon is 77 feet while the height of a B-757 is 44 feet, 6 inches, which is more than half the height of the Pentagon.

With that information, mark the top of the vertical stabilizer of the B-757 and mark that point as "A". To make it simple, now place a mark 50 feet above ground level on the Pentagon wall at the impact point and record that mark as "B". Next, draw a straight line from point "A" to point "B".

The angle will provide the undeniable flight path of American 77 that points to a south-of-the-gas station flight path, but if you want to do it the easy way using that photo, look at the angle of the smoke trail from #2 engine in relation to the Pentagon wall after it ingested foreign objects and the damaged light poles clearly indicate a south-of-the-gas station flight path because there are no damaged light poles that would have indicated a NoC flight path and yet, we have a damaged engine from the collision with a light pole that clearly indicates a south-of-the-gas station flight path. You failed to take that into consideration that there are no damaged light poles that would have indicated a NoC flight path, not to mention that you failed to draw a straight line from the outer impact hole to the C-ring hole, which is further proof of a south-of-the-gas station flight path, especially when that line is extended and matched with the downed light poles and damaged generator.

It is evident that your calculations are off by a wide margin and I tend to look at the minor details that others usually miss. As an aircraft structural inspector in the Air Force and for major defense contractors, I know what little details to look for.

To sum it up, there is no case for a NoC flight path in the photo, which is underlined by the fact that the path of destruction inside and outside the Pentagon proved that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

a reply to: Informer1958

Thank you for answering my question and the answer you gave me is no.

Since the B-757 is constructed from thousands and thousands of parts and millions of fasteners, why would anyone start checking part numbers to verify the identity of the aircraft when all they have to do is call American Airlines? After all, they keep track of their aircraft. It is also known that American 77 was tracked to the Pentagon crash site, not to mention that human remains from passengers and crew of American 77 were recovered from inside the Pentagon and identified.

After all these years the physical evidence still indicates a large wide aircraft (definitely not a missile) approached the pentagon on the SOC path at high speed.

No such evidence supports the NOC theory and the only way to make it even a little feasible is to fudge the numbers by reducing the approach speed of the aircraft by some 50% to perform the necessary turn?
And then it requires an army of conspirators to plant all that physical evidence in full view of a large crowd of onlookers without being noticed at all while another team is busy faking an FDR recording?
And not one of the supposed conspirators has ever come forward anonymously or otherwise to 'blow the whistle' on these dastardly deeds?

Sorry but the NOC theory just doesn't fly and never did.

a reply to: Informer1958

So there is "no evidence" on record, that crash debris were from said planes.

So all we get are some photos taken by? where? when?
As far as I am concern, those photos that are all over the internet could be airplane parts from any bone yard.

So what you are saying is that since YOU were NOT there, it's all faked.

SE409 : Referring to the last two photos of your post, the height of the Pentagon is 77 feet while the height of a B-757 is 44 feet, 6 inches, which is more than half the height of the Pentagon.
With that information, mark the top of the vertical stabilizer of the B-757 and mark that point as "A". To make it simple, now place a mark 50 feet above ground level on the Pentagon wall at the impact point and record that mark as "B". Next, draw a straight line from point "A" to point "B".
The angle will provide the undeniable flight path of American 77 that points to a south-of-the-gas station flight path, ---

How on earth you think it's correct to determine an attack ANGLE in a 2 dimensional photo taken along the base of the west wall, and its viewing field perpendicular on the real (NoC) or virtual (SoC) length of that plane, by drawing a line in that flat (not 3-dimensional, a laser cube f.ex.) photo from tail fin top to its point of impact on the west wall, is beyond my, and I suppose everyone else, comprehension. And then also use the word undeniable, that's really daring for someone who seems to lack any comprehension of geometry, trigonometry or stereometry.
You do in fact exactly the same as I did, but without the L-H RATIO connection. Then you declare to see an angle (HOW?) that will provide the ""undeniable"" flight path of American 77 that points to a south-of-the-gas station flight path.

If you could provide an AERIAL photo of the same event (from minimal 200 meter ABOVE the lawn), now that would be convincing, since THAT would show the plane's angle of attack indisputably. Sadly enough, there is not such an aerial photo (or the Chinese and Russians must publicize their 20 cm resolution spy-satellites photos from 9/11), so stop introducing quasi-geometry and quasi-trigonometry in this discussion.

You really should go study my below drawing again, and try to imagine your strange quasi angle-identification method proposal into it :
If you project your SoC plane on that 45* angled blue line of mine, then explain please how that line A-B you want to draw from its tail fin top to that same fin-top's point of impact, would change anything to my NoC 2 L to 1 H RATIO, vertical red line proposal in that 2-dimensional camera view photo.

And your A-B line also doesn't change the light-blue SoC virtual Length line I drew in it, which VIRTUAL Length-RATIO of 1.5 L to 1 H should be appearing in that photo if it depicted a SoC plane length, but did NOT do so.
A 2.0 L to 1 H length-ratio appears as the thin red vertical line that depicts the impacted column 14 plus the height of the west wall , with half a 757's length, which only can belong to a 2 L to 1 H NoC flight path, which is perpendicular on its path photographed.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

---but if you want to do it the easy way using that photo, look at the angle of the smoke trail from #2 engine in relation to the Pentagon wall after it ingested foreign objects and the damaged light poles clearly indicate a south-of-the-gas station flight path because there are no damaged light poles that would have indicated a NoC flight path and yet, we have a damaged engine from the collision with a light pole that clearly indicates a south-of-the-gas station flight path. You failed to take that into consideration that there are no damaged light poles that would have indicated a NoC flight path, not to mention that you failed to draw a straight line from the outer impact hole to the C-ring hole, which is further proof of a south-of-the-gas station flight path, especially when that line is extended and matched with the downed light poles and damaged generator.
It is evident that your calculations are off by a wide margin and I tend to look at the minor details that others usually miss. ---

As an aircraft structural inspector in the Air Force and for major defense contractors, who knows what little details to look for, as you position yourself, would you be so kind to enlighten us readers, and explain in minute detail, how on earth you come to the conclusion that you can SEE THE ANGLE of the smoke trail, let it be that you can determine from which jet engine it comes, in that two dimensional flat screen-shot from a security boot video.
And don't come up with that video made by Mike J. Wilson, he "assumes" the starboard (right) jet engine sucked up parts of a clipped light pole and started to smoke. That's not conclusive proof at all, its an artistic impression without any evidence to base it on, it could as well have been both engines, or the other, port engine. And that animation never ever can be an argument for determining the ANGLE of that smoke trail. He just drew it into his animation, based on the official story its SoC plane angle of attack, of around 45*.

And you missed the words from one of the four by CIT interviewed ANC workers[/url], who said that he saw that AA77 clipped the top of a light pole on that street just outside the ANC southern fence. Which is COLUMBIA PIKE.
Nobody seems to pay attention to the little details, even not when I text-bold them.
He also said that he and a co-worker afterwards saw the clipped lamp parts laying on that street, the Pike.
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, to hear him say that. :
www.youtube.com...


And Lagasse told you, that he saw the plane passing very low over that transformer pole that stood in the grassy divider between the Pike lanes. A short reminder for all readers, by someone who was REALLY there and saw that NoC plane flying THAT crazy low above that part of the Columbia Pike road :



Btw, in your above posted "Case Study.." video, made by Mike J. Wilson, at 2:36 you see half of the plane's body up to the cockpit, extend to the left of that security boot's camera box-top, and then Wilson drew only the back half of that plane and its tail in, at 3:22.
Attentive researchers can see his strongly overdone plane-height ratio-misrepresentation of 1L to 1H.
He knew of course, that if he drew the real CAMERA OBSERVED length in his animation, then that 80* to 90* angled NoC ratio of 2L to 1H would turn up, which would have conclusively shown us that it was not a 45* angled attack with a 1.5L to 1H ratio, belonging to a non existing SoC plane angle.

At 3.22 he overdid it a lot more, when he changed the camera angle suddenly from along-side the wall, looking at a 1.5L to 1H length ratio plane, to 45 degrees on the wall.
And by that trick, let the REAL VIRTUAL length vanish and change to a perpendicular view on the plane's REAL length.
He never honestly showed us FIRST in his animation, the real VIRTUAL length of a 45* angled attack path for a SoC approaching plane ( with a 1.5 Plane-Length to 1 West-Wall-Height ratio) in the officially released video of the camera view as seen from that security boot.

SE409 : It is evident that your calculations are off by a wide margin and I tend to look at the minor details that others usually miss. As an aircraft structural inspector in the Air Force and for major defense contractors, I know what little details to look for.

Let's detect who's calculations are off by a wide margin. I suppose you meant millimeters, or are it meters?
Let me correct you first on a few minor but crucial points, especially since you said that you tend to look at the minor details.
Which I didn't miss. See why, here :
upload.wikimedia.org...


You took the height of a B-757 when it stands on its wheels, so from the ground up, being 44 ft 6 in = 13.56 m. (6 in = 0.5 ft).
(44 x 0.3048) + (6 x 0.0254) = 13.4112 + 0.1524 = 13.5636 m (44.5 x 0.3048 = ditto)
That vague outline of a plane was however flying in its clean configuration, no wheels out. It didn't taxi, it was flying.

Its height should have been taken from the bottom of its fuselage to the tail top ( >11.5 M or 37.73 ft). That's what you named yourself a "minor", even "little" detail, it's however a margin of around 2 meters, i.o.w. 2000 mm. That's surely not a minor detail, to be mentioned by an inspector in a 757 plane crash report.
And only in case you want to prove that it could not have hit the soil, that height should then be measured from the bottom of its jet engine nacelles to the top of its tail fin.

Then you also take the liberty to round off upwards from 44 ft 6 in = 44.5 ft to 50 ft, without telling the readers why you added those extra 5.5 ft (1.68 m).
It's probably not because you wanted to include the height of the second floor slab, where the nose cone or the longitudinal fuselage center beam impacted at its column 14 position.
That height is namely nearly two times higher, 3.25 m (10.66 ft, see ASCE report).
So I presume you also forgot that minor but crucial point to include in your still equally faulty A to B line drawing proposal.
A structural planes inspector's measurement skills should not need improvement.
I advice everybody to be humble and to pay more attention to the little details.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Open your drawer, take out your case of mathematical instruments, choose your pair of compasses, and measure between its legs the height of the fuselage, indicated already in the above drawing as 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m ), then take that measure 2x over upwards, and you end up a bit above the tail fin's top. Which means the height from the tail top down to the bottom of the fuselage is about 11.5 m.

This should be mandatory reading for ANY still actively flying pilot in the world.
Your trust in Authorities and their Investigation institutes will be considerably lessened after that...

There's a thin line, easily passed by willing bureaucrats, between this French falsification of a FDR and the US Institutional investigations regarding 9/11/2001, like the :
FEMA Report
9/11 Commission Report
NIST Final Reports
ASCE Pentagon Performance Report

Of course, like in these above cases, the STAKES ON 9/11 WERE TOO HIGH, will many "patriotic" politicians, military brass and scientists have thought, and then acted appropriately.
In their eyes, closing an eye here and there for glaring anomalies was just a case of justifiable thinking, and did not breach their integrity....and this is how corruption on a grand scale always starts in any country, by starting it on government levels.

Title : The Airbus A320 crash at Habsheim, France 26 June 1988. (58 pages PDF)
Why and how the flight recorder tapes were forged :
www.crashdehabsheim.net...
The airport is also referred to as Mulhouse-Habsheim.

Suspicion persisted during the inquiry, and is now shown to have been justified because the fact that the flight recorders had indeed been exchanged for false ones was demonstrated scientifically on 18 May 1988 by the Scientific and Criminal Police Institute of Lausanne in Switzerland.

Pilots should at least read Chapter "The Case" on pages 3 and next, and then will be so glued to this excellent read, that they will read through all 58 pages.
You will learn how to protect yourself from political honchos and the legal quagmires they cause, and the kind of influential indoctrination they operate with, to get the population on their sides, while ruining your professional life without even a flinch of their eyes.

Page 4 : It follows that one can evidently not credit conclusions based on data on tapes of illegally diverted flight recorders, data which is so incompatible that the only explanation is forgery.
Switching the flight recorders enabled the flight data to be forged and the traces of this
forgery are there to prove it.

It should be mandatory for beginning politicians, to be jailed for 3 months minimum, before they are allowed to start a political career, to get a grip on what awaits them, if ever caught in the machinations they for sure will be involved in in the following years of that career.
The downfall could be that they will become even more skillful experts in preventing getting caught red-handed.
Like in 3rd world countries, where you always have to pay the 2nd-secretary (the fall guy) of the secretary, instead of the politicians, generals and bureaucrats.

Page 4 : Here follows a synthesis of the facts as of June 1998, it contains the following sections:-
1) Why were the flight recorders switched?
2) The expertise in Lausanne of wreck photos demonstrating the recorder switch.
3) How the recorders were switched.
4) The omissions of certain legal experts.
5) The way the flight data tapes were forged; method, timing, opportunity.
6) Glossary

Do you, as a pilot, (or an interested reader) after reading this full report, still trust DFDR data (digital flight data recorder) to their full extend, knowing that the FBI lost track of the AA77 one, for one and a half day, after which it mysteriously re-appeared on a FBI desk in Virginia.?
On a side note, the UA11 and UA175 DFDR's were never found, says the FBI.
Rescue workers say different...they saw them being pulled from the debris by their agents.
And they went public with their witness statements.

Page 9 : The results of the examination of the photos by the Scientific Police Institute of Lausanne
Page 13 : Switching the flight recorders necessitated that the serial numbers of the false recorders should not be recorded, because they were not the serial numbers shown in the aircraft's delivery documents. --snip--
The flight recorders were in the hands of the law for only 6 days in the year following the crash, thus allowing time for forgery of the data.

After reading the whole list of wrongdoings by lawyers, officials and last but not least the judge, your trust in national and international Court systems, when so much is at stake, will have diminished and neared zero.

After reading all this, you should also read the full 38 pages of rebuttals on critical press articles, written by Airbus Industries :
www.crashdehabsheim.net...

They are not convincing, regarding what you just read in the 58 pages, translated in English by Terry Anson, from the French texts by Christian Roger.

The scandal of the Airbus A320 crash at Habsheim, France.
Christian Roger is a professional pilot. He was leader of the French air force's aerobatics team and, later, a Boeing 747 Flight Captain with Air France.

He was President of the leading French pilots' union, the SNPL, at the time an Airbus A320
crashed into trees at Habsheim in Eastern France in June 1988.

The pilot, Michel Asseline, stumbled out of the blazing wreck saying the engines failed to
pick up. The SNPL supported the pilot, then gradually stood back and let things happen, when
expert examination of the black boxes produced overwhelming evidence showing the A320 to
be perfect. The pilot was sentenced to prison on this evidence.

Christian Roger retired and watched from the side-lines. One day he realized that some of the crash data just released was rubbish. He looked closer at other crash data and that did not
stand up to scrutiny either. He undertook a mammoth scrutiny of all the crash data supplied
by the witnesses and aeronautical experts in two commissions of inquiries, one judicial inquiry and three court cases.

He exposed multiple anomalies, not to say lies, in the experts' evidence and in the data of the crash all of which pointed to a very high level, state inspired plot to whitewash the aircraft in the crash and confirmed what the pilot had been saying all along. He joined the pilot's defense team.

His report to the SNPL, the French pilots' union, presented here in English, is a summary of those anomalies, discrepancies, omissions and distortions in a civilized nation's official Inquiry and Judicial system. The whole story of this Airbus crash and the high level plot to forge the data is to be found in the forthcoming book by Michel Asseline and Terry Anson.

Terry Anson
October 1998

There are so many anomalies and discrepancies noted in this air-crash investigation, that one can only conclude that the French judge has received strict guidelines where the state wanted this to lead to.

a reply to: LaBTop

How on earth you think it's correct to determine an attack ANGLE in a 2 dimensional photo taken along the base of the west wall, and its viewing field perpendicular on the real (NoC) or virtual (SoC) length of that plane, by drawing a line in that flat (not 3-dimensional, a laser cube f.ex.) photo from tail fin top to its point of impact on the west wall, is beyond my, and I suppose everyone else, comprehension. And then also use the word undeniable, that's really daring for someone who seems to lack any comprehension of geometry, trigonometry or stereometry.

To put it simply, your math is off by a long shot and does not depict a NoC fligiht path. There is a very serious error in your presentation, and I will let you tell us what it is. Look it over very carefully.