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

a reply to: MrBig2430

This 9/11 stuff is an interesting subject, but so much wrong headedness prevails that it's fascinating to watch.

Interestingly, the video that was shown to the American people was proven to have been tampered with and it was proven that several frames were missing.

If there was nothing to hide, then why tampered with the evidence. The fact is, I did not see any plane in that video neither has anyone else.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: MrBig2430

This 9/11 stuff is an interesting subject, but so much wrong headedness prevails that it's fascinating to watch.

Interestingly, the video that was shown to the American people was proven to have been tampered with and it was proven that several frames were missing.

If there was nothing to hide, then why tampered with the evidence. The fact is, I did not see any plane in that video neither has anyone else.

Well, it's someone's opinion that it was tampered with, it's not a fact.

And This Chandler guy explains what he does to make the plane more noticeable. Something about de-interlacing frames? Did you try it?

And while it may be a fact that YOU don't see the plane, it doesn't make it a fact that it's not there.

Let's face it, if an inside job is what you're involved in, and flying planes into buildings was the plan, then you would just fly planes into buildings and not risk faking evidence. There's no upside to faking evidence.

The OP agrees that a plane hit the pentagon but says it was on a different heading. That means that radar and light poles and all the other hard evidence was faked. And that since there are some witnesses that disagree with the official flight heading, then that is enough to construct an entire belief system about how the official version is a lie.

Sorry, but that's crazy.....

a reply to: MrBig2430

nd flying planes into buildings was the plan, then you would just fly planes into buildings and not risk faking evidence. There's no upside to faking evidence.

That also applies to the north or south of the Citgo.
If you really are going to fly a plane into the pentagon why have light poles ready to knock over?
If the plane was off course slightly (north vs south) why send out crews to knock down light poles ?
If the plane was on course (south) why bother knocking down poles ? Just let the plane do it?

This whole north vs south is meaningless because they saw a large plane not a small missile.
The guy was mistaken.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Are you that convince that our government has never done a false Flag operation to get us into a war?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: MrBig2430

Are you that convince that our government has never done a false Flag operation to get us into a war?

If your plan is to crash a plane into the Pentagon, why fake physical evidence?

The OP suggests that's it's a smaller plane. So if that's the plan - to crash a plane smaller than a 757 - why tell everyone that it was a 757? Why not just say they hijacked a smaller local commuter plane?

What upside can there possibly be to not only faking physical evidence, but also lying about the actual plane that hit?

Please indicate where I ever typed/wrote that a smaller plane than a B-757 hit the Pentagon.
I never did, and surely not in this thread.
It is my firm believe, based on very early recorded eye-witness accounts from now more than 25 reliable people, that Flight 77 had to correct its planned flight path just a tad bit, because of the sudden and unexpected pop-up of the tall, steel construction of the VDOT traffic radio tower on the right side of the road it was following under it.

That's why that B-757 steered shortly to the left and then immediately back to the right to re-align to the intended impact point.
And that's why all these 25 witnesses saw it fly for a few seconds a tad bit North of the CITGO gas station.

The preparation of the light poles, they thought necessary to have enough physical evidence after the deed, to succeed in convincing the bulk of global TV-viewers that a B-757 had hit the Pentagon via a flight line going through those 5 light poles and ending in that hole in the C-Ring brick wall.
Because they knew that such a huge plane was a bit difficult to keep on an exact flight line, they must have calculated a certain risk in, and tried to negate that risk by overdoing a bit on the physical evidence side.
Btw, that was an entry hole made by det-cord in the C-Ring wall. Not a thread of doubt in my mind, I've seen them used, and their aftermath. I've also seen it used from the inside of a building, that gives quite a different pattern on the outer wall than what we saw in the photos.



And this is my promised rebirth at ATS of my WTC 7 seismic thread in 2007 which I then posted at the now long defunct StudyOf911.com website :

Title : Times on LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: LaBTop
Please indicate where I ever typed/wrote that a smaller plane than a B-757 hit the Pentagon.
I never did, and surely not in this thread.
It is my firm believe, based on very early recorded eye-witness accounts from now more than 25 reliable people, that Flight 77 had to correct its planned flight path just a tad bit, because of the sudden and unexpected pop-up of the tall, steel construction of the VDOT traffic radio tower on the right side of the road it was following under it.

That's why that B-757 steered shortly to the left and then immediately back to the right to re-align to the intended impact point.
And that's why all these 25 witnesses saw it fly for a few seconds a tad bit North of the CITGO gas station.

The preparation of the light poles, they thought necessary to have enough physical evidence after the deed, to succeed in convincing the bulk of global TV-viewers that a B-757 had hit the Pentagon via a flight line going through those 5 light poles and ending in that hole in the C-Ring brick wall.
Because they knew that such a huge plane was a bit difficult to keep on an exact flight line, they must have calculated a certain risk in, and tried to negate that risk by overdoing a bit on the physical evidence side.
Btw, that was an entry hole made by det-cord in the C-Ring wall. Not a thread of doubt in my mind, I've seen them used, and their aftermath. I've also seen it used from the inside of a building, that gives quite a different pattern on the outer wall than what we saw in the photos.

A whole lot of Gish Gallop so avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question -

If your intention is to crash a plane into the Pentagon, then why fake evidence?

Why wouldn't you just crash a plane into the Pentagon and let whatever evidence presents itself to be evidence for the "OS"?

Basically, your argument is an elaborate Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy -

a reply to: MrBig2430

Why not fake an airplane crash? Sleight-of-hand works on humans--they can be fooled by illusion, quite easily.

The purpose of the attack at the pentagon was to destroy the records being audited for the missing funds about which Rumsfeld was deposed the day before.

The airliner illusion worked quite well, and many folks today still believe that illusion.

originally posted by: Salander
The purpose of the attack at the pentagon was to destroy the records being audited for the missing funds about which Rumsfeld was deposed the day before.

Actually the records were not destroyed, no funds were missing (nor did anyone claim that they were missing)

The airliner illusion worked quite well

What illusion? How do you explain the 757 engines, 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage, DNA from all passengers and crew found inside the Pentagon, damage done to the Pentagon by a 757 sized aircraft and the fact Flight 77 was tracked by radar all the way to the Pentagon....

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Why not fake an airplane crash? Sleight-of-hand works on humans--they can be fooled by illusion, quite easily.

Your response is nonsensical, since the OP understands that a plane really did crash into the Pentagon.

If you want to reply for him, try taking his point of view...

a reply to: hellobruce

Sure Bruce, and Bill Clinton did not "have sex" with that young woman LOL

a reply to: Salander

Why not fake an airplane crash? Sleight-of-hand works on humans--they can be fooled by illusion, quite easily.

That makes no sense.
Destroy the 'funds records' then fly the plane into the building.

a reply to: samkent

It makes perfect sense. There are records being examined at the pentagon that certain parties would rather not be examined. They wanted them destroyed.

So they were destroyed and the auditors killed by conventional explosives, complete with cordite odors reported.

Stage a fake airliner crash and everybody pays attention to that, while being completely unaware of the audit and records.

And the backups of the audits were "secured" in WTC-7.

Google it with the right words, and you'll find the source.

The following publication from Sept. 2011 is a solid investigative peace of work, by two men I respect highly.
I agree with them, that the Flyover hypothesis by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and their affiliates, the CIT Team of two men, is not sustainable.

But not the CIT thesis of a North of CITGO flight path for Flight 77, that one I agree wholeheartedly with, based on all their hard work to video tape all their digged up eyewitnesses, while I found in the passed years even more of those sure NoC flight path witnesses, it's now 25 in total, at least. The ones I found declared pertinently in their 9/11 interviews already, that they were positioned on Washington Boulevard, under the plane, in front of the Helipad or just beside that.
Which nullifies the official flightpath immediately.

In this case however, the two by me as serious and highly respected rated researchers, seem to have suddenly developed a blind spot for such anomalies in the officially endorsed Pentagon story, and disregard on forehand one other possible official falsification, the air speed issue :


The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
Based on Analysis of the Flight Path
By Frank Legge
(B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry)
and
David Chandler
(B.S. Physics, M.S.,Mathematics)
September 2011

stj911.org...

CIT has provided assistance here, handing some witnesses a model plane so that they could illustrate the bank. The bank they show is slight. In particular we note that not one of the 13 witnesses, who claimed they saw the plane well enough to believe that it was NOC, mentioned that it was extremely steeply banked. The bank angle would have been glaringly obvious and, because of its strangeness, unforgettable.

Which should have lead Legge and Chandler to take in consideration another possibility, that the speeds they used in their calculations, derived from sources belonging to the most logical 9/11 culprits if not Arab terrorists, in this case the US military industrial complex, were falsified, just as the FDR and radar values, where they based there speed calculations on.

These otherwise very sincere 9/11 researchers, who in other publications express a strong distrust in official explanations, couldn't bring themselves (because of vicious online attacks by the CIT crowd and some Pilots for Truth members), to re-consider the calculated for them, by government controlled sources, air speeds in the last 6 seconds.

Which are exactly the last 6 seconds up to the impact, starting from a point just south of the southern, blind wall of the Sheraton Hotel along Columbia Pike (blind = no windows, see Deb Anlauf words, she was in her room at the 14th floor : " a huge plane so near, I thought I could touch it with my hands" ) .

In those last 6 seconds, Flight 77 flew obviously much slower than the military did try to convince us, since we have video recorded evidence from four ANC workers, who show with a model airplane in their hand, no more than a 30 degree bank angle for the by them observed North of CITGO gas station flying airplane. And to such a 30 degree bank angle for a B-757 belongs a VERY SPECIFIC airspeed.!
A B-757 can't fly any slower or faster than the very specific air speed, as explained in my thread's opening posts.

Legge and Chandler based their necessary minimum 77 degrees bank angles at those ridiculous speeds of 550 statute miles per hour, on their sudden (false) faith in official sources, and thus their assumption that the speeds they received from military (the radar) and FBI/NTSB (the FDR) sources were honestly calculated ones.

Which speeds CAN NOT be true, when you believe all these 25 eyewitnesses their freshly recorded stories from during the day of 9/11, where some of them explained WHERE they stood when the plane flew OVER them, on Washington Boulevard, in their cases, in front of the Heli pad, and the two adjacent trees, at 100 yards lawn grass from the west wall).

Or when you view and belief the ANC workers videos, where they indicated ALL a 30 degree bank angle flown in front of them, which in itself nullifies every damn calculation based on thus non-reliable, clearly lying government sources.

If you can't imagine such sources lying, just imagine what's at stake, when irrefutable evidence is laid before you, that PARTS of the US Government were behind the 9/11 ATTACKS on their OWN CITIZENS.

Just think about that, a few seconds more.....what would YOU do, as a three or four star Pentagon general or admiral in charge, at last finding out what really happened that day.
It seems that's exactly what happened in the early days, months and years after 9/11/2001.
Otherwise a very messy and bloody revolution would have enfolded on US soil....

36. Witnesses near the cemetery who indicated the plane was not consistently banked:
At 34:22 in www.youtube.com... W. Middleton shows a flat hand gesture then wobbles his arms and says "while descending he was straightening..." He shows no indication of sustained bank. At 37:30 D. Stafford says "It was flat, just on top of the roof [of the Navy Annex]" and holds the model plane level. He shows the plane descending then banking to about 30 degrees. D. Prather also holds the model plane level as he says "across the Navy Annex," He too shows the plane descending before it banks. This bank is too little, too late.

It's not too little, he also, just as all the others interviewed on camera by CIT, showed a bank angle for their observed plane of around 30 degrees.

And that 30 degrees bank angle is INDISSOLUBLY connected to a very precisely defined airspeed MUCH LOWER than the officially calculated air speed.

Which is by far not near the ones pressed upon us by the military and the FBI who "saved" the black boxes, in which their FDR showed the same 550 m/hr airspeeds in the last 6 seconds as the 86RADES radar team presented also.

I emphasize on the enormous importance of eyewitnesses, when they are corroborated by physical evidence, in this case a security video from the CITGO gas station.
Pentagon Police Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks are PERTINENT : they say that they put their life on the scale, that that plane they saw, flew NORTH of the CITGO gas station.

We have on top of their words, an official, FOIA freed video of Lagasse standing at the northern CITGO gas pumps, with his back to the security camera in the ceiling above the pay counter space (which camera is pointing NORTH), filling up the gas tank of his Pentagon Police cruiser, and we see a huge flash of reflected sunlight from the side of the shiny aluminum hull of Flight 77, reflected from the shiny top of a parked car, up to the white painted ceiling of the northern CITGO canopy, when that plane passes NORTH of that gas station.
We see him jumping inside his car to yell in his police radio mike that a plane is diving to the Pentagon, then he backs out and races out of the entrance to the right and onto the Pike towards the South Parking of the Pentagon.

We also see in the same CITGO security video, in one of its other security video windows, ALL the people inside the pay counter start to run to the eastern door opening, to watch the impact on the west wall, THE MOMENT that flash of reflected light appears and dims again. Two seconds later they all look at the smoke column appearing above the Pentagon's west wall impact point.

originally posted by: MrBig2430
If your intention is to crash a plane into the Pentagon, then why fake evidence?

Because planes have serial numbers, tracking abilities, pilots blah blah blah.
you think its easy to just paint a plane in the right colors and fly it in there? what about military and civilian tracking ? what if it missed and smashed somewhere else then all the evidence was there for people to see

just because you pretend not to be able to be creative.. doesn't mean others wont.

I dont know what happened at the Pentagon, Shanskville or WTC. but I know what we've been told is a total load of crap!

In these 10 ATS Search pages you can find all there is to know about what you really see in the FOIA freed CITGO gas station security video, taped on 9/11/2001 during the Pentagon attack.

The only one ever challenging the ceiling flash and its connection to the NoC flying plane was Larson, who proposed a vague "moving dark spot or such" on the southern side of the gas station as a vague shadow of the plane, but that "event" happened many seconds before the ceiling flash, which was the real event and the real moment when suddenly all people inside ran to the eastern door opening to look at the plane's impact :
ATS Search for LaBTop CITGO video

About 110 results (0.26 seconds)

Did you mean: LaPTop CITGO video (NO . ! )

Body-language in CITGO video - North path indication?, page 1
Camera 3 at the Dual Pump Side W in the above shown Citgo video screen, gives an overall North-West view. .... reply to post by LaBTop.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop
Here are their two CIT interviews, and Sean Boger's one too, and the CITGO video the FBI confiscated on 9/11 : 9/11 Pentagon Reality Check 5: ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11 ...
Not the first shown Laptop search results.) In many of those results you will find the link to that FOIA freed CITGO gas station security video, and ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

post by LaBTop
But I don't believe this would give such a flash as in the Citgo video on ... LaBTop, On the last video, the sun reflecting off of the plane... can we ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ...
The Citgo video and hard drive were confiscated on September 12th. ... I challenged LaBtop to produce similar receipts as evidence of his ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 : , page 9
Added: I suppose you've seen Farmer's analysis of the Citgo video ... edit on 4/10 /11 by LaBTop because: Changed 285 MPH to 285 KTS in ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ...
edit on 25/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given). LaBTop ..... The Citgo video and hard drive were confiscated on September 12th.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Generator-trailer its cabin roof-gouge is made by a NoC flying ...
Remember there are images and video of broken plane parts on the ground but ..... edit on 12/3/12 by LaBTop because: Had the urge to add JREF ... plane for whatever reason, had to take a shortcut around the CITGO station.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all ...
edit on 7/6/12 by LaBTop because: Added turn calculator link. ..... The CITGO video also has a suspicious bright reflective flash at its north side ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over., page 3
YOUR FBI STILL has the 85+ Pentagon area videos and Arlington County 911 .... How do you think that will go over in court? LaBTop. posted on May, 13 ... Citgo security cams video, released by the FBI under FOIA pressure.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What then follows are 9 more ATS Search pages with 10 more search results each.

For honest objectivity reasons, here is the review page for online discussion of their NoC refutation thesis, with Legge and Chandler :
www.scientificmethod911.org...

Anyone reading all that and wants to hang in here.?

originally posted by: Salander
records being audited for the missing funds about which Rumsfeld was deposed the day before.

Except for the fact that no funds were missing, and the paperwork was not in that area....