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

a reply to: LaBTop

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.

Figure out why I have said to add 50 feet to the mark on the wall of the Pentagon. Your math doesn't add up.

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.

It is all very simple, there is a very serious error in your presentation. Look over your figures and find out where you have gone wrong before I reveal the problems for you.

a reply to: LaBTop

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.?

Guess who supplied the conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77, which pertain ONLY to the airframe of American 77?

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...

If the FDR of American 77 was totally destroyed, what means could have been used to determine the flight path of American 77? I am not speaking of eyewitness accounts because eyewitnesses accounts are very unreliable in aircraft disaster investigations and I have provided references to prove my point, and we can take a look at this example of an aircraft that crashes on landing. Some eyewitnesses have said that the aircraft was on fire before it slammed into the runway, while other eyewitnesses have said that the aircraft caught fire after the crash. That is why investigators rely more on physical evidence, radar and black box data, and communication tapes to determine the chain of events.

Once again, taking a look at American 77, how can the flight path be determined in the absence of FDR data?

a reply to: skyeagle409

It is all very simple, there is a very serious error in your presentation. Look over your figures and find out where you have gone wrong before I reveal the problems for you.

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.

Since you are making the claim that LapTop math is wrong, please provide the correct math?

Lets see your evidence please?

a reply to: LaBTop

Let's detect who's calculations are off by a wide margin. I suppose you meant millimeters, or are it meters?

I used feet only.

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.

Using the dimensions of the wing span of a B-757, tell us why it proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

a reply to: Informer1958

Since you are making the claim that LapTop math is wrong, please provide the correct math?

Of course he is wrong and I am going to let him have the opportunity to point out his error and if he fails to do so, I will reveal his error for him.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Of course he is wrong and I am going to let him have the opportunity to point out his error and if he fails to do so, I will reveal his error for him.

I don't think he is wrong.

I don't believe you can prove him wrong mathematically.

So far you have not giving us anything but to make statements that he is wrong.

Where is your math?

a reply to: Informer1958

I don't believe you can prove him wrong mathematically.

So far you have not giving us anything but to make statements that he is wrong.

Where is your math?

We can begin here. Why does the following photo evidence prove that American 77 did not fly a NoC flight path?

Photo: Wing Marks on Pentagon Wall

a reply to: skyeagle409

We can begin here. Why does the following photo evidence prove that American 77 did not fly a NoC flight path?

I don't care about all that, I want to see your math debunking LapTop?

You said his math is wrong, I want to see your math?

Thank you.

a reply to: Informer1958

I don't care about all that, I want to see your math debunking LapTop?

I posted the wing marks on the wall of the Pentagon, because there is no swept-winged aircraft in the world that could have produced the angle of the impact damage from the right wing as depicted in the photo of the Pentagon wall from a NoC flight path, especially at over 400 knots.

Any jet pilot who has flown a swept-winged aircraft would know where I am coming from in that regard, which means that his math doesn't add up for a NoC flight path. I am waiting for him to respond so I can provide him with the rest of the story.

To let you know just how far-fetched his math is for a NoC flight path is, even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has stepped in to debunked the NoC flight path claim. "P4T" is in agreement with me that it would have been impossible for ANY aircraft to perform a NoC maneuver at over 400 knots, but he implies that his math proves a NoC flight path when his math depicts nothing of the sort.

For "Pilots For 911 Truth" and I, to come to an agreement of no NoC flght path, that is something very significant to say the least considering our past disagreements.

That's 7 posts full of BAITING and side stepping, and no solid math to attack my 2 L to 1 H RATIO math. Stop baiting and dodging, show up, or shut up.

SE409 in his above Post :
-- from a NoC flight path, especially at over 400 knots. --
-- to perform a NoC maneuver at over 400 knots --

There you started it again.
With your very faulty copying of a SoC straight flying 757's airspeed of 400 KTS scenario,
onto a totally different NoC curved flight path flying 757's airspeed of max. 250 KTS scenario.
You seem to have no comprehension at all that math-logic prescribes separate data reporting for both flight paths, and KEEPING those APART from each other in any neutral argumentation.

You are stubbornly and CONSTANTLY mixing oranges and apples, by changing air speeds from a SoC to a NoC plane. You seem to have no notion at all, how scientifically, mathematically and LOGICALLY WRONG that is, ESPECIALLY in this discussion about a proposed NoC flying plane with flight characteristics reported by 25 eyewitnesses while flying along a totally different flight path and with a very different speed than your promoted SoC flying plane with its totally different flight characteristics.
NoC Curved flight path against SoC straight flight path.
230 to 250 KTS NoC max, against 400 KTS SoC airspeeds.

Next, to the dodging, again.
Every 757 flying at 250 KTS, or even more, at 400 KTS, has its wings ends progressively flexed up, forced by the enormous lift, caused by the difference in speed of that fast stream of air molecules traveling over their upper curved up area, and traveling under their shorter, straight bottom area.
More over, this 757 was reportedly tilting its starboard (right) wing up, just before impacting, at about an angle of 3 to 6 degrees, and evidenced as shown in that same photo that I posted already 9 years ago in the longest thread ever at ATS. That's why its other, port (left) wing, left horizontal marks on many of the vertical limestone decking plates of the second floor slab, above the first floor windows at the left side of the west wall's column 14.
And of course a NoC incoming plane's right wing end also "could" have caused the gash on top of the generator trailer roof, but I doubt it, the chance is higher that it was just part of all the other indoctrinative "evidence", which is to be expected by such a heinous group of war planners, that needs an abundance of extra evidence, to ever be able to seemingly successfully defend their NEEDED internal devastation angle for many years to come.
There were a few attack targets inside that debris path. ONI personnel and their newly installed mainframes, and the DoD auditors.
Why that right wing impact photo however has ANYTHING to do with my
Length of plane - to - Height of wall its RATIO math, is again beyond me.
We may expect him to explain that shortly.

cool thread.....no plane hit.....the first team of reporters with video showed not enough debris to fill a suitcase.....as the reporters commented..........on both the pentagon site and friggin Shanksville my brothers and sisters.....yup, I'm a pilot.yup, I'm a trained observer, I went to observer school in the U S Air Force during Vietfuggingnam.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

cool thread.....no plane hit.....the first team of reporters with video showed not enough debris to fill a suitcase.....as the reporters commented

It would have been a bit difficult trying to get these wing flaps into a suitcase.

Photo: American 77 Wing Flaps at the Pentagon

a reply to: LaBTop

There you started it again. With your very faulty copying of a SoC straight flying 757's airspeed of 400 KTS scenario,

A B-757 with fire-walled throttles is definitely not going to be speeding along at 200 knots in level flight.

...onto a totally different NoC curved flight path flying 757's airspeed of max. 250 KTS scenario.

Even at 250 knots, there was no way a B-757 could have flown that NoC flight path and strike the Pentagon. You are also forgetting that documented physical evidence does not support a NoC flight path and furthermore, there is no physical evident supporting a NoC flight path. A B-757 was incapable of performing that NoC flight path.

Every 757 flying at 250 KTS, or even more, at 400 KTS, has its wings ends progressively flexed up, forced by the enormous lift, caused by the difference in speed of that fast stream of air molecules traveling over their upper curved up area, and traveling under their shorter, straight bottom area.

Why would the wing of a B-757 that is flying along at 250 knots in level flight flex higher than the wing of a B-757 that is flying along at 400 knots in level flight? Any increase in lift due to increase airspeed would require that the pilot trim the aircraft to maintain level flight.

You are stubbornly and CONSTANTLY mixing oranges and apples, by changing air speeds from a SoC to a NoC plane.

I have said that B-757 was flying along at over 400 knots, not 250 knots.

You seem to have no notion at all, how scientifically, mathematically and LOGICALLY WRONG that is, ESPECIALLY in this discussion about a proposed NoC flying plane with flight characteristics reported by 25 eyewitnesses while flying along a totally different flight path and with a very different speed than your promoted SoC flying plane with its totally different flight characteristics.

I am telling it like it is as a pilot, that there was no way that American 77 could have flown a NoC flight path and strike the Pentagon. The lines on pictures that depict a NoC flight path won't work in the real world of aviation. In other words, the so-called NoC flight path is a myth.

NoC Curved flight path against SoC straight flight path. 230 to 250 KTS NoC max, against 400 KTS SoC airspeeds.

Even at 250 knots, there was no way a B-757 could have flown that curved flight path in order to strike the Pentagon.

NoC and SoC Depicted Flight Paths

More over, this 757 was reportedly tilting its starboard (right) wing up, just before impacting, at about an angle of 3 to 6 degrees, and evidenced as shown in that same photo that I posted already 9 years ago in the longest thread ever at ATS. That's why its other, port (left) wing, left horizontal marks on many of the vertical limestone decking plates of the second floor slab, above the first floor windows at the left side of the west wall's column

The fact that the right wing of American 77 was elevated higher than the left wing underlines the fact and confirms, that American 77 passed south of the gas station because the elevated right wing proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was impossible for American 77 to have flown a NoC flight path and then, elevate its right wing at the time of impact. That was the point that I was making when I posted the right wing damage on the wall of the Pentagon.

Photo: American 77 Right Wing Impact Damge

And of course a NoC incoming plane's right wing end also "could" have caused the gash on top of the generator trailer roof, but I doubt it, the chance is higher that it was just part of all the other indoctrinative "evidence", which is to be expected by such a heinous group of war planners, that needs an abundance of extra evidence, to ever be able to seemingly successfully defend their NEEDED internal devastation angle for many years to come.

The damage on generator was inflicted by the right engine.

Depicton 1: Right Engine Strikes Generator

Depiction 2: Right Engine Strikes Generator

Photo: Damaged Generator

Depicton: Flight Path Toward the Generator

The flight path toward the generator and documented damage further debunks a NoC flight path. Now, let's do a NoC and SoC comparison in the following depiction.

Damaged Generator: NoC vs. SoC flight paths

There were a few attack targets inside that debris path. ONI personnel and their newly installed mainframes, and the DoD auditors.

Just to let you know that the the Pentagon doesn't keep all of its financial eggs in the same basket.

To sum it up, documented physical evidence has proven the SoC flight path and has proven that a NoC flight path was impossible for a B-757 to have performed.

Just to let you know that the the Pentagon doesn't keep all of its financial eggs in the same basket.

To sum it up, documented physical evidence has proven the SoC flight path and has proven that a NoC flight path was impossible for a B-757 to have performed.

Thank you for your "opinion," however you still have not produced any science or math to debunk LapTop scientific analyses.

Perhaps if you can provide some mathematics, instead of your opinion people might take you more seriously.

That's 8 posts now, full of BAITING and side stepping, and no solid math to attack my 2 L to 1 H RATIO math.
EDIT2 : My math starts HERE near the top of page 11, and goes on for a few more posts. END EDIT2.
Stop baiting and dodging, show up, or shut up.


EDIT : a small reminder, you promissed on top of this page 15 :

It is all very simple, there is a very serious error in your presentation. Look over your figures and find out where you have gone wrong before I reveal the problems for you.

END EDIT.

a reply to: Informer1958

Thank you for your "opinion," however you still have not produced any science or math to debunk LapTop scientific analyses.

It has already been done. Documented physical evidence does not support a NoC flight path and neither does the flight performance envelope of a B-757. I posted the photo of the wing damage on the wall of the Pentagon that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that those wing marks proved that American 77 flew south of the gas station because it would have been impossible for a B-757 to inflict the impact damage at the angle depicted on the Pentagon wall in the photo if a NoC flight path was flown.

BTW, were you the person who'd claimed that no aircraft struck the Pentagon? Just asking! If so, that runs counter to what LapTop has said.

a reply to: skyeagle409

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.

It is all very simple, there is a very serious error in your presentation. Look over your figures and find out where you have gone wrong before I reveal the problems for you.

Still waiting for your mathematical figures that you claim LapTop is wrong?

How long are you going to make us wait?

a reply to: LaBTop

It was all very simple in the beginning when I have asserted that all it took was to draw a straight line from the outer impact wall of the Pentagon to the C-ring hole. If that line was extened to include the damaged generator and the light poles, the result would be undeniable proof that American 77 flew a flight path south of the gas station.

Check it out.

Depiction of Three Flight Paths: Which One Fits

If that line was extened to include the damaged generator and the light poles, the result would be undeniable proof that American 77 flew a flight path south of the gas station.

I think that proves there was no plane, if it hit five poles and the genset there would be wreckage all over the place, and as we see from the first photos there was nothing to be seen..

And your photo of where the wing hit, were is the wing? did it evaporate after hitting the building, if it hit it should be there, again nothing to be seen..

a reply to: skyeagle409

It was all very simple in the beginning when I have asserted that all it took was to draw a straight line from the outer impact of the Pentagon to the C-ring hole. If that line was extened to include the damaged generator and the light poles, the result would be undeniable proof that American 77 flew a flight path south of the gas station.

So you do not have the math to debunk LapTop?

The fact is LapTop won this debate hands down. You can make all the claims ( your opinions ) that the OS is all true.

Old photos, of airplane parts with no evidence they belong to said airplanes is not proof.

Anyone can pull photos out of any airplane bone yard and claim these are the alleged airplane parts, however no investigation was done on any of the four airplane crashes and none of the so call airplane debris were cataloged and serial numbers matched to said planes.

That is how an investigation is done in the first place. Time change out parts are located at a crash scene and are tagged, photograph, and serial numbers are matched to prove the crash debris belong to said plane.

This was never done. For the first time in US aviation history four alleged commercial airliners crash on the same day and there was no investigation.

Your evidence is nothing more than propaganda from mainstream media to support the OS.

The fact is, Posting yellow journalism News articles are not facts.

You make the claim that LapTop is wrong, and the fact is, you have failed to prove him wrong.