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

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is, there was no documented evidence from the Pentagon crash and what was witnessed does not support the OS of the Pentagon crash.

That won't fly. Check it out.

Documented Internal Damage of the Pentagon

a reply to: skyeagle409

s511.photobucket.com...

Not a credible source.

a reply to: Informer1958

Of course it is and the fact of the matter is, you know it. Now, tell us who is the source for this depiction.

Pentagon Damage Depiction

a reply to: skyeagle409



No source for your video either.

Another 911 Myths?

a reply to: Informer1958

No source for your video either.

Another 911 Myths?

You have just set yourself up because the source of that video is listed at the beginning of the video, which proves where you are coming from.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Fly? The Fly or Marty McFly?

I like that your "won't fly" responses didn't fly either. Another piece of Irony Iron is awarded:

Try to debate the facts or don't, cop-out's don't fly at all. Carry on!



a reply to: GBP/JPY

Maybe you're right, I was referring to this investigation:



Paid witnesses is another topic full of shilly cab drivers.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You have just set yourself up because the source of that video is listed at the beginning of the video, which proves where you are coming from.

An animation company? I don't think so.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yes the shilly cap drives got a new car out of the deal and G-d knows how much money he got paid from the government for playing his part in duping the masses.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Sky, Sky, Sky...

You and your pal linked forbidden-knowledge 911myth sites, better stick to the facts when you're on ATS. We know where you're coming from either.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

That is not evidence of a NoC flight path because their accounts are not supported by the documented physical evidence. I might add that eyewitness accounts are very unreliable in air disasters.

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing

HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)

The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.

None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. "Eyewitness memory is reconstructive," said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. "The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there."

The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: "How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire."

www.nytimes.com...


Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident

We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).

Investigating the mid-air collision of a passenger DC-9 and a Marine Corps F-4 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found “witnesses in the area of the accident gave widely varying accounts” (NTSB, 1972). Five people described both aircraft on steady courses prior to the collision, but fifteen people described the fighter aircraft in a rolling or evasive maneuver prior to the collision.

Wilikinson (1977) quotes an eyewitness to a crash describing a light aeroplane just before impact as “heading right toward the ground—straight down” (p.102). However photographs of the crash site clearly showed the aeroplane plane hit flat and at a low enough angle to skid for almost 1,000 feet. Two expert eyewitnesses to a crash on takeoff of a MD-82 stated that the wing flaps were extended, but the Board determined the flaps were in fact not extended (NTSB, 1988). What was initially reported as a possible bombing of a B767 due to many eyewitness accounts of the plane first exploding in fire (Johnson, 1991; Kelly Elliott, 1991) turned out to be caused by the uncommanded activation of an
engine thrust reverser (Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee, 1993).

When a fuel tank explosion caused a B747 to descend in pieces from 13,000 feet, the fireball was seen by hundreds of people, about one-third of who reported that they observed a streak of light moving upward in the sky (NTSB,
2000). However there was no evidence that a missile struck the plane, and physical examination of the wreckage unequivocally supports the cause as a fuel tank explosion. Thirty-eight of the witnesses described a streak of light as
ascending vertically. Forty-five reported that a streak moved to the east, 23 that itmoved to the west, 18 that it moved to the south, and 4 that it moved to the north.

When a MD-82 crashed on takeoff initial reports included eyewitness accounts of an engine catching fire as the aeroplane heading down the runway(Goodman, Todd & Koch 2008; Naughton & Strange, 2008). However analysis showed that engine performance was normal on takeoff, and that the cause of thecrash was failure to set the flaps (CIAIAC, 2008).

commons.erau.edu...

The unreliability of eyewitness accounts is why documented physical evidence overrides eyewitness accounts in air disaster investigations. Once again, NoC eyewitness accounts are not supported by the documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I deal in facts.

Another example of many is where I corrected 9/11 truthers in regard to ACARS, radar data, and transponders. 9/11 cospiracy theorist were posting false information because they were not knowledgeable enough to understand that they were being duped by certain people whose agenda was to dupe the Truth Movement, and I noticed that efforts to discredit the Truth Movement were working because truthers were posting the same pieces of disinformation that were placed on the Internet to discredit them.

Another example is where I corrected 9/11 conspiracy theorist about cell phones and Airfones of the 9/11 aircraft. I debunked their claims because at times, my own cell phone worked during my flights, which is why I now turn off my cell phone whenever I fly, and I am not just talking about flying in an airliner either.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

As I have said before, I depend upon my own experience and knowledge to know when to hold 'em and when to throw 'em.

A reply to: PublicOpinion

A reply to: LaBTop (to his OP on page 1 )
You've lost me somewhere on the flight through specifics, I'm sorry.

I'll gladly explain the details to you, since you ask me to explain what seems not clear to you in my OP's first 20 sentences.
I try again, more detailed now, for PublicOpinion and other OS Doubters.

In my NoC flightpath, we have 25 eyewitnesses their NoC explanations, plus from lots of them, multiple video and/or phone interviews. We also have a curious ceiling flash in the FOIA freed CITGO gas station security cameras screens, that points to a NoC passing plane, and that flash exactly fits timely, as if it is originating from a NoC passing reflective aluminum attack plane. The reactions of the customers visible in the counter videos are also a giveaway, directly after that flash occurs.

And now we also have a photographed plane length in a security boot's camera screen-shot with an L to H ratio that only fits on that perspectively stretched out screen-shot photo, on the vertical line going through the impact point, that is half as high as the photographed plane length.
Which conclusively means that we see a NoC attacking plane under an angle between 80* to 90* in that screen photo, since only such an angle provides the real 2 times longer length of a B-757 compared to the half as high height of the Pentagon west wall.
In a SoC case, we would see that it would only fit on a 0.7 times as long vertical line, which can only be drawn at least 30 m further south from the real impact point on column 14 of the west wall.

I found out this last week, that the two FOIA freed security boot camera feeds of 4 min each, show in one of their picture frames (4 frames/sec, thus not a video) the vague but distinctive outline of a B-757, which is per definition 2 times longer then the height of the west wall.
The line drawn through the length of that plane's vague fuselage (2L) can be stretched out towards the surface of the west wall's height (1L).
It HAS to end on the line through column 14. That's where the nose cone impacted, you see the gap in the second floor slab easily in pre-collapse photos. But where does it ends on that strongly perspectively distorted security camera screen-shot with the vague B-757.?

Well, that's in fact quite simple to determine with my easy RATIO method for that plane its (45* virtual length) to (90* real length) ratio. Based on the raw assumptions that a SoC plane's attack angle was 45*, and a NoC plane's attack angle was 90*. (* = degree)

We draw two red vertical lines ON THE WEST WALL, which fit exactly between the roof line and the wall's base line, one with half the length of that plane, and one with 0.7 x 0.5 = 0.35 times the easily measurable length of that vaguely visible plane, from the back of the tail fin to the nose cone. Use a pair of compasses to do so (don't scratch your screen).
This ratio is based on the simple equation for a 45*+45*+90* triangle, found by Pythagoras, that a>2 + b>2 = c>2. In this raw case I used the rounded-off values of 7>2 + 7>2 = 10>2
It should be 7.071 and 10.000, however since that plane's contours are much less precise, the rounded figures will suffice.

This below picture is a depiction of what I mean, the light-blue arrow is 7 cm wide, the red and blue, 45* and 90* lines, depicting both the plane's real length, are both 10 cm long :



If you take the real length ratio of a B-757 as 10 cm on half of the longest side (hypotenuse) of a 45x45x90 degrees triangle, then a perpendicular line through that 1/2 hypotenuse point ends at nearly exactly the 7 cm line on the other side.
Which means that we see a virtual length of 7 cm for a SoC attacking plane that flies under an angle of 45* to our camera's viewing field.
And we see a real length of 10 cm for a NoC attacking plane that flies under an angle of 90* to our camera's viewing field. And a line height of 5 cm on the west wall, in a zoomed in screen photo of that security camera, would depict the column 14 impact position.

And if we take a 42* SoC angle, compared to a 84* NoC angle, the ratio is the same, and the virtual SoC plane width/length is still impressively shorter than the virtual NoC plane width/length. The vertical lines on the west wall in that screen shot photo will in that case not differ too much from my 45* against 90* proposal as in my already posted picture :



My red dotted line, along the vague outline of a plane's tail-to-nose length in my picture, will point to, and end at the impact point on column 14, somewhere on my longest vertical red line drawn on the west wall.
And will not point to my 0.7 times shorter drawn vertical red line, that is at least 30 meters further south, even further than the corner of the extended portion of the west wall, thus surely NOT indicating a SoC attack plane length.

It's also very bad online behavior to falsify an other 9/11 researcher's data, which STRICTLY belong to one NoC thesis, based on several kinds of evidence.

These are a few other pictures to help you imagine my L to H ratio method :

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I deal in facts.

...truthers... cospiracy theorist... Truth Movement... Truth Movement... conspiracy theorist...

And yet no facts at all, conspiracy theorist. You say I'm a Truther, how is that not another paradigmatic cop-out to the lower levels of name-calling? Care to elaborate on the facts I've mentioned?

Another piece of Irony Iron is awarded for backing up my point with hot air and the justification of outright denial.




a reply to: LaBTop

Thanks for picking me up, Lab. Much appreciated!



So you managed to deconstruct the disinfo with math and a crappy picture at hand? And I thought the witnesses were compelling, pretty impressive display of applied logics!
I guess nobody even scratched the surface of your calculations yet? Looks pretty solid to me.



On a second thought the blue stripes don't fit, they run nearly horizontal on the crappy cam-pic. Really tough to guess the correct perspective, but I would put the nose up a bit, to get a more horizontal alignment with the pic, and see where we would get then. Further North, I guess?








Rotated the whole pic 1° clockwise here. Didn't change anything else and was lazy enough not to rotate the plane only, don't mind the background.

Plane and pixels don't fit at all, colourwise. The blue is different and the red stripe is as lost as I am. But now the alignment with pixels goes along with my guts.

a reply to: LaBTop

That doesn't fly. Now, check this out.

American 77 Depiction with the Pentagon

The depiction is supported by documented physical evidence of a SoC flight path for which none exist for a NoC flight path.

In my NoC flightpath, we have 25 eyewitnesses their NoC explanations, plus from lots of them, multiple video and/or phone interviews. We also have a curious ceiling flash in the FOIA freed CITGO gas station security cameras screens, that points to a NoC passing plane, and that flash exactly fits timely, as if it is originating from a NoC passing reflective aluminum attack plane. The reactions of the customers visible in the counter videos are also a giveaway, directly after that flash occurs.

Time for a review that debunks a NoC flight path.

Depiction 1: NoC Flight Path Debunked

Depiction 2: NoC Flight Path Debunked

Depiction 3: SoC Flght Path Proven

A simple straight line drawn from the outer impact wall to the inner C-ring hole is all it takes to debunk a NoC flight path.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And I thought the witnesses were compelling, pretty impressive display of applied logics!

His math is bogus as proven by the documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon. Even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has debunked the NoC flight path as well.

Anyone who has flown a swept-winged aircraft would know that American 77 could not have flown a NoC flight path and strike the Pentagon in a slight left bank at impact.

To sum that up, only 9/11 conspiracy theorist who have no understanding of aerodynamics would push a NoC flight path. As far as eyewitness accounts are concerned, you might want to review this article in case you missed it.

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

His math is bogus as proven by the documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon. Even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has debunked the NoC flight path as well.

Pilots For 911 Truth? The very website that you always say is full of disinformation?

Your math is bogus. The fact is You presented no math to debunk LapTop.

Parroting the OS all day long is not facts. There are plenty of credible eyewitness who saw the plane coming from a different flight path than what the OS tells.

Again I will tell you it is impossible to fly a commercial airliner, B-757 at 400 knots just inches off the ground.

There are ground effects that make it impossible. Every real pilot knows this.

And you want us to believe a hijacker who couldn't pass a written examination, much less take off and land a Cessna 172 was able to perform such maneuvers in a B-757.

That a lone, defies common sense.

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum that up, only 9/11 conspiracy theorist who have no understanding of aerodynamics would push a NoC flight path. As far as eyewitness accounts are concerned, you might want to review this article in case you missed it.

You need to stop with the insults. Anyone who dares to question or has a different "opinion" than you does not need to be INSULTED.

No one on here is insulting you.

a reply to: Informer1958

Pilots For 911 Truth? The very website that you always say is full of disinformation?

That is correct, and that is very significant because the NoC flight path is so outrages that even "Pilots For 911 Truth" has now put its foot down. Here is what Rob posted, and about the only thing that I agree with Rob on despite the fact that he is a hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Rob Balsamo's Conclusion

“Conclusion – It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station.

The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.”~Rob Balsamo

Any pilot with swept-wing time would have known the significance of the photo I posted in regard to the angle of the right wing impact damage on the wall of the Pentagon. In fact, ANY experienced pilot should have known the significance of the photo I had posted.

Your math is bogus. The fact is You presented no math to debunk LapTop.

You've just committed another blunder with your comment because the math I posted has been peer-reviewed by high-time commercial/military pilots and look what you had posted!

And you want us to believe a hijacker who couldn't pass a written examination, much less take off and land a Cessna 172 was able to perform such maneuvers in a B-757.

You can't be talking about Hani Hanjour because he held a commercial pilot license, which requires that he demonstrate a skill level higher than required for a private pilot license. He must demonstrate his skill level before the FAA examiner who will sign him off and before he is allowed to take his flight test, he must have passed his commercial written test with the FAA and have passed an oral test with an FAA examiner, which are required before he is allowed to take his flight test. After passing all three test, he applied for a B-737-Type rating.

Here is his application for a B-737-Type rating.

Hani Hanjour's B-737-Type Rating Application

Hani Hanjour's Commercial Pilot License

Note on the application that he held a commercial pilot license at the time he'd submitted his application. Now, let's take a look at his flight record.

* 250 Hours Total Flight Time

* 75 Hours Instrument Flight Time

* 29 Hours Multi Engine Flight Time

I might add that with all of that experience, all he had to do was to take over American 77 in flight and fly the aircraft into the Pentagon, which doesn't require a lot of skill with the experience he had under his belt.

a reply to: Informer1958

You need to stop with the insults. Anyone who dares to question or has a different "opinion" than you does not need to be INSULTED.

That is not an insult, it's a fact! 9/11 conspiracy theorist who support the NoC flight path will try to rewrite the laws of physics with their so-called evidence that is not supported by the documented physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon.