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

This is a zoomed-out map of the northbound part of I-395, I'm afraid the ATS formatting also can't cope with a @ in a link, so just copy and paste both parts in your browser address bar :

Click Map
www.google.com...@38.8592206,-77.0709136,15z

At this zoom level, you can see that the Army Navy Country Club grounds lay to the west of I-395, not to the east as I wrote before.
We may assume that those firefighters intended to get off I-395 at Exit lane 8B, proceed to S. Hayes St which becomes 18th St S when entering Crystal City.
Btw, Pentagon City lays directly south of I-395. Not Crystal City which lays a bit more southeast, between about 300 to 1000 yards south of Pentagon City.

Where this recent map prints the words Foxcroft Heights, that was the area where the former Navy Annex with its 8 Wings buildings was situated in September 2001.
Where Flight 77 started to bank away from that sturdy obstacle for a low flying plane, the steel construction of the VDOT radio mast.

Those guys had a front seat to observe that evasive left banking maneuver by Flight 77, to avoid hitting that VDOT mast obstacle.

In my opinion, my discovery of that "sharp bank by Flight 77" remark by those firefighters, is comparable in importance with my WTC 7 collapse seismogram discovery about the 13 seconds time-anomaly between seismogram and photo times of the Cianca photo event, which is the first visual sign of the WTC 7's collapse begin.

a reply to: LaBTop

So, why would Flight 77 not have been halted already very early on in the impact by these newly reinforced walls...? And the official angle of impact doesn't help at all when you consider the deflection forces involved at such a small angle of impact.
My proposal of a big 80 to 90 degrees angle of impact by a North of CITGO flying plane would deliver all involved vector forces nearly head-on on that reinforced wall.

And still the plane's nose cone at the front of the strongest, center longitudinal plane body beam that impacted right on the outer side of the reinforced concrete floor-slab between the first and second floor, near column14, would after impact and compacting end up near the back of the first, E-Ring area, which so conveniently collapsed on top of the then totally compacted plane debris there.

Contrast this with Empire State Building, July 1945, when struck by B 25

The B 25 weighed in at 1/15 that of Boeing 757, traveling at 1/3 the speed - a energy difference of more that 100 times

Facade of ESB was 10 inch thick cut limestone set in steel channels - yet B 25 was able to rip a large hole in the side of the
building

en.wikipedia.org...:Bomber_Crashed_into_Empire_State_Building_1945.jpg

www.youtube.com...

One of the motors punched all they way through building and landed on roof of another building 1 1/2 blocks away

One engine shot through the South side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block, dropping 900 feet and landing on the roof of a nearby building and starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse art studio. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. It is still the only fire at such a height to be brought under control.

Here you are making excuses why plane should not have been able punch through E ring of Pentagon......

A reply to: firerescue

It seems too many readers have serious trouble with "going with the flow" of a present discussion.

The indicators I heaped up in this thread, all point to a substantially LOWER airspeed flown by Flight 77 in the proposed left and right banking evasive maneuver it was forced into, to not run into the VDOT radio mast.

Thus, i.m.h.o., it flew just a few tens of M/hr slower than its stall speed. See my O.P.
Not much faster than that B-25 Mitchell flew into the 78th floor of the ESB, near its smaller and thinner tapered top, if it really was trying to land in the fog, flying near its standard landing speed.
By the way, it did not got too deep in the Empire State Building's 78th to 80th floors, so you see enormous deceleration hits in very early already, before the first steel and bricks in the facade gives way.

No surprise that motor shot through, in the South Tower happened the same, one jet engine shot through the facade side and landed on a crossing 600 meters further.

At the Pentagon we saw one photo of the super hard alloy parts of an engine core, laying in front of that west wall entrance door, and one photo was published of an engine they said was photographed on the plane parts recovery spot in the South parking. Which has not been proven to be true. It looked much more like a photo from an aeroplanes scrap yard.

I see no proof that that engine core part was recovered from inside the building, or where it was found, could just as well have been found near the facade after bouncing off it, at the much lower impact speed that now arises.

A-36 rated steel is used, which is standard structural steel having a yield strength over 36 KSI, just as A-242 rated steel which goes over 100 KSI, the A-242 was used in the impacted top floors of the Twin Towers and in the impacted reinforcement parts of the Pentagon west wall.
Not much difference there to find, if combined with the other factors I mentioned.

Your second quote comes from :
en.wikipedia.org...

And yes, I know very well that with increasing speed, thinly covered but still massive weighting aluminum alloy planes can cut through steel or brick facades like butter it seems, but what in reality happens is that the massive impact breaks the welds and bolts and rivets that hold the steel together, and then the increasingly fast compacting plane debris will shove the whole building debris in front of the super fast decelerating plane debris, as a snow shovel.
Which happened in the Pentagon and also in the top WTC floors.
Flight 77 flew much slower than you think. So far less punching power than you thought.

originally posted by: LaBTop
Prove your no.
I can prove my remarks.

No, you can't.

Linking to some random web site where some lunatic makes some unproven claim backing you up won't cut it either.

Prove that there were 14" square steel framing put around the Windows. You have no credible source for that.

That makes you a liar. Prove me wrong and I will retract but you can't.

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: LaBTop

Then do realize too, that the Pentagon's west wall part that Flight 77 hit, was also lately reinforced with thick steel beams the size of the Twin Tower sides, intertwined around the windows

LMAO.

Ummmmm. No.

Well, yes.

The Pentagon's Sept. 11 First Responder stories :
www.defensemedianetwork.com...

i2.wp.com...
Photo 1 :

Thick embedded steel beams held up against the jet fuel-loaded left wing's fuel tank from Flight 77. Note also the thick brickwork behind the limestone deck plates and surrounding the still intact vertical columns.

911research.wtc7.net...

Pentagon Renovation
Renovation Program Had Hardened the Facade Attacked on 9/11/01

The renovation program included the following improvements to the building:

Exterior walls reinforced with steel
Exterior walls backed with Kevlar
Blast-resistant windows installed
Fire sprinklers installed
Automatic fire doors installed
Building operations and control center created

Steel Reinforcements

The steel reinforcements to the walls consisted of tubular frames surrounding the window openings and attaching to the reinforced concrete floor slabs. Each windowed wall panel (between vertical concrete columns) was retrofitted with a piece consisting of two horizontal tubes welded to two vertical tubes running from the floor to the ceiling. [3]

911research.wtc7.net...
Photo 2 :

This illustration shows reinforcements added to the Pentagon's walls as seen from the inside. Reinforced concrete columns are shown in gray, and tubular steel reinforcements are pictured in red.

The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.

Kevlar cloth was stretched between the steel columns to provide blast resistance to the short spans of brick wall. [4]

Facade columns Twin Tower. Note that what you see is the aluminum cladding, the steel column inside those clad columns is somewhat smaller in size :
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
Photo 3 :

The whole reinforced construction of the renovated outer wall of Wedge One was at least in its totality as strong as the outer facade columns of the Twin Towers, if not massively stronger.


Flight 77, which impacted at :
Triple-rebar steel reinforced columns, thick tubular steel columns, KEVLAR netting and thick brickwork in between, huge reinforced thick concrete floor decks at the Pentagon.

Compared against :

Flight 11 and Flight 175, which impacted at :
Steel H-shaped facade WTC columns and huge but somewhat thinner reinforced concrete floor decks.

It should be noted that most of the WTC towers facade steel columns were not cut, but bended inwards after their vertical connections to upper and lower columns from the Vierendeel facade-triplets were broken off by the force of the plane and its wings impacts.

So, why would Flight 77 not have been halted already very early on in the impact by these newly reinforced walls...? And the official angle of impact doesn't help at all when you consider the deflection forces involved at such a small angle of impact.
My proposal of a big 80 to 90 degrees angle of impact by a North of CITGO flying plane would deliver all involved vector forces nearly head-on on that reinforced wall.

And still the plane's nose cone at the front of the strongest, center longitudinal plane body beam that impacted right on the outer side of the reinforced concrete floor-slab between the first and second floor, near column14, would after impact and compacting end up near the back of the first, E-Ring area, which so conveniently collapsed on top of the then totally compacted plane debris there.

LMAO.

Your photo proves that there weren't 14" square tubes of steel around the Windows.

They might be 2" at best.

Your claim is that they are the size of the towers columns. You just provided the evidence for me to debunk your claim.

Thank you.

So, you are avoiding another question of mine - if, as you believe, a plane actually went into the Pentagon, what advantage to the conspirators could there possibly be to faking physical evidence regarding the flight path.

Everyone can see you ducking this. Others have even tried to answer for you but have failed miserably, since they don't believe in a plane.

Try answering.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: firerescue

It seems too many readers have serious trouble with "going with the flow" of a present discussion.

You mean you do not like the fact that your Gish Gallop has shown to be just made up crap.

The indicators I heaped up in this thread, all point to a substantially LOWER airspeed flown by Flight 77

No they do not.

It looked much more like a photo from an aeroplanes scrap yard.

So just what should the wreckage of a 757 look like, according to you?

I see no proof that that engine core part was recovered from inside the building,

Of course you do not accept reality, as it totally destroys your silly conspiracy theory!

Flight 77 flew much slower than you think.

However, the facts do not show that! Your claims rely on made up nonsense.

a reply to: LaBTop

As I recall, it was about 4 or 5 years before the government provided the FDR data to Cimino and others regarding 77. That is a pretty long time, and could easily explain how much tampering, or complete construction, might have been accomplished by the bad guys.

If the FDR was not assigned to an airframe, that suggests to me that a complete story was built regarding 77, not just tampering with the last few minutes worth. My take is that the FDR data was completely fabricated. The other really cute part that I remember is that both the hijackers changed their altimeter setting from 29.92 to the local altimeter at exactly the same instant. In real life, that does not happen. And it raises the question of why on earth would these hijackers even give a damn about changing from 29.92 to the local setting? It's ludicrous.

You are correct that competing egos has greatly hurt the so-called truth movement. Cimino admits he 'does not suffer fools lightly', and I understand his point.

I think Balsamo and Ranke did the best they could, all things considered, but ego does get in the way.

I just realized, that this picture in my post from damage, inflicted by the LEFT wing with fuel tank :
i2.wp.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Is in fact not from Wedge One, but from Wedge Two, which was not yet renovated at all.

Thus, that NOT reinforced, original 1941 wall construction, held up remarkably well to the impact of a supposedly 500+ M/hr incoming wing piece plus its jet fuel laden wing tank mass. On top of that, you must add the extra acceleration that that left wing part must have undergone when the nose cone and massive longitudinal cabin beams supposedly hit under an angle of circa 42 degrees on that wall.

That left wing plus jet engine that had yet no met an obstructive decelerating force in its path, and thus wanted to proceed in the direction it followed before the first nose plus cabin hull touched on that west wall, must have been teared off from its wing strut and connections to these beams, and like a whip, accelerated towards that non-renovated part of the building. So an additional very short but influential speed increase of that wing piece must have played a part in the left wing impact on that not yet renovated wall section.

Which had no additional tubular steel embedded around the windows, and no KEVLAR netting attached. And had no new, triple re-bar concrete columns. Just single re-bar columns.
First the jet engine impacted on the last E-Ring columns that were already reinforced, see the hole there in the post Wedge One collapse photos. All the building parts to the left of that wing impact were from Wedge Two, not renovated yet.
So that outer wing part with a piece of fuel-loaded wing-tank in it, hit that relatively far weaker part of the west wall.

Another indication that the plane impacted with quite a lot less end speed than officially touted.

Note that this photo does not show the actual wing rim impact level, which was nearly exactly against the concrete floor slab between first and second floor.

Note also that we know from the ASCE Pentagon Report, that the nose cone plus beams did not penetrate the first/second floor concrete slab any deeper than about 5 meters....
There's a photo from it in there, or elsewhere.
Then I expect them to have either buckled/folded and then were deflected down or upwards, or compacted for quite a part of their total length, before they broke or were deflected.
A kind of fish filet, so to say. Where the nose plus cockpit part first compacted enormously, and then the huge mass of the floor could not be damaged any further by the resulting forces , and acted than solely as a filet knife, ripping the upper and lower part of the cabin open and pushed those parts up and downwards, while of course by means of momentum, those parts were still traveling further into the office areas, now cleared from really strong resistance.

Realize that such a scenario always involves some kind of "snow plowing" effect, caused by heaping up of office cubicles, bureaus, divider walls, steel cupboards, doors and doorframes and furniture in front of the incoming plane debris.

Which you can see also in the few HD photos from the impact holes in the Twin Towers.
A huge heap of compacted plane debris resting against a heap of facade columns and a mountain of office area debris behind that "plow". All of that mass stopped by the row of central core columns.

Of course, massive re-bar enforced concrete floor slabs their huge horizontal areas have far more stopping power than rows of three vertical steel beams that are either welded, or bolted together in lengths of about 3 WTC floors high. But those Vierendeel facade pieces were placed in a floor shifting pattern. That's why you see that pattern back in the wingspan plus jet engines and cabin impact slices, as cut into the sides of the Towers.

a reply to: Salander

d it raises the question of why on earth would these hijackers even give a damn about changing from 29.92 to the local setting? It's ludicrous.

Apparently you are not a pilot.
At or above 18,000 feet all altimeters are set to 29.92 .
Once below 18K you set it to the current local pressure.
The reason is you don't want to hit tall ground objects like TV/radio towers.

These hijackers were not as dumb as you might want to make them out.

A reply to: MrBig2430

None of that lays out the advantage of faking physical evidence vs just flying a plane into the Pentagon.

I'll explain that below.

Another reply to: MrBig2430

LMAO.
Your photo proves that there weren't 14" square tubes of steel around the Windows.
They might be 2" at best.
( LT : Now that's preposterous, 2 to 3 finger diameters wide, are you serious.? I'll give you a much better HD photo below, to see for yourself. By the way, my wing damage photo you here address, is not from a reinforced new wall, it's from the Wedge Two wall, not yet renovated in Sept 2001.
By the way, the gray concrete columns in the Wedge Two photo do look to me as indeed about 14 inch wide. )

Your claim is that they are the size of the towers columns. You just provided the evidence for me to debunk your claim.
( LT : Now that's a bit more serious, I will admit next that I could have chosen a tad bit preciser words, however, it will not influence the overall idea, that the whole reinforcement package in the Wedge One wall was at least comparable in overall strength with the facade of the top impacted floors of the Twin Towers )

Thank you.
( LT : Your -not really- welcome -yet. Dim down on the insults, and you would be.)

So, you are avoiding another question of mine - if, as you believe, a plane actually went into the Pentagon, what advantage to the conspirators could there possibly be to faking physical evidence regarding the flight path.
Everyone can see you ducking this. Others have even tried to answer for you but have failed miserably, since they don't believe in a plane.
Try answering.
(LT : I did try many times already, however you avoid to understand it. I'll try a last time below.

Last try, Source :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

5. I disagree :
To the contrary : The observed damage might have been EASILY staged.

Staging of the poles : during early, still dark, morning : EASY.
Staging of damage in sidewall of low concrete wall, and generator trailer roof dent : EASY.
Planting of spherical explosives during the renovation, the impression is thus planted on 9/11 for a straight plane debris trail : EASY.
C-Ring hole : EASY staging. Use a well known Wall Breaching Unit to form a circular impression and hole, in and on the outer C-Ring bricks.
Plane-debris remains in AE Driveway behind the C-Ring brick walls : EASY.

As I explained already here, a huge passenger plane such as a B757 is not that easy to aim at a specific spot on a west wall section of the Pentagon. So planners had to prepare some convincing (overdone) physical evidences, in case the plane did not follow exactly the planned course. Which it indeed did not, see all my NoC-evidence here, and CIT's own NoC-evidence at their website niche at Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

I admit that I could have used a much better description in the following text, the underlined part gave a wrong impression :

Then do realize too, that the Pentagon's west wall part that Flight 77 hit, was also lately reinforced with thick steel beams the size of the Twin Tower sides, intertwined around the windows and forming a formidable obstruction for terrorist attacks, while extra KEVLAR netting were also embedded between the new, triple strong re-barred concrete columns and brickwork, of exactly that E-Ring wall.

I propose now the following, hoping that you and the other readers now understand the intention of the message :
- -was also lately reinforced with thick steel beams which makes IT comparable to the strength of the Twin Tower sides.

By IT is meant the Wedge One part of the Pentagon's west wall section where the cabin and its landing gear below it, and the right wing, right engine and right landing gear struck, according to the official explanations.
Not the Wedge Two part where the left wing plus left engine and left landing gear struck.

By the way, I should have added that close-up photo of the caved-in part of Wedge One, where you clearly see the white KEVLAR cloths around the collapsed windows and the red painted steel tubular? (look like H- ) beams around the windows, as they lay folded down on each other. These steel embedded long H-formed window frames held up formidable.
The expansion joint between Wedge One and Two is also clearly to be seen in that photo, that was the line along which the whole roof section on that side and all floors below it, caved in on each other. The other expansion joint at the other side functioned clearly as a hinge for the caving-in process :

911review.org...


I also see thicker H-beams sticking out, not sure where they originated from, just zoom in to see much better details. Those H-formed enforcements around the windows are much better to see here, ain't it so.? Since this is the real reinforced Wedge One part of the Pentagon west wall, where the right wing, right jet engine, right landing gear and the cabin with its landing gear under it, all impacted. The left wing, left engine and left landing gear impacted in Wedge Two, then not yet reinforced or renovated at all.

PS : Can you guys dim down a bit on the hate?
I feel it drip through my screen, like vitriol on a rubber lab coat.

Just use a tad bit more mutual respect, if you can. Would be a nice gesture.
Words like these really aren't helping your cause :
""you are an obscenity; a joke; LMAO; some lunatic; liar; your Gish Gallop; made up crap; your silly conspiracy theory! ; made up nonsense, etcetera, it never stops.

Show some respect, and act and thus write more gallantly, it will greatly improve the level of 9/11 discussion, I promise that.

A reply to: samkent

z15.invisionfree.com...
Read the last two posts on that page 1.

And why is NO ONE attacking my new NoC evidence just yesterday found by me :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Because you can't attack a whole truckload of firefighters that all saw this :

In Arlington County Fire Department’s Engine 101, Fire Capt. Steve McCoy and his crew, traveling north on Interstate 395 for a training exercise in Crystal City,
saw the plane bank sharply before disappearing over the horizon.
As soon as they heard the explosion and saw the massive plume of smoke and fire, McCoy radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center (ECC) and – already thinking of the World Trade Center attacks – advised that the FBI be notified of a possible terrorist attack.

Simple question :
How on earth does a report of a truckload full of firefighters, reporting on a sharp banking plane, presumably Flight 77, just before they also report to hear an explosion and see the accompanying smoke rising;
cooperate with a (they say) from Flight 77 wreckage recovered FDR (Flight Data Recorder), which shows a perfectly straight flying and smoothly diving plane, all the way to the impact point in its last 20 seconds, with no VISIBLE banking maneuvers in its FDR.
My opinion : It can't.

Tell me how you, the reader, can still come up with a reasonable explanation.
Or do you agree with me, that both sorts of evidence mutually exclude each other.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: MrBig2430

None of that lays out the advantage of faking physical evidence vs just flying a plane into the Pentagon.

I'll explain that below.






As I explained already here, a huge passenger plane such as a B757 is not that easy to aim at a specific spot on a west wall section of the Pentagon.

This is your argument. All the rest is obfuscation.


So it's like I said, your whole argument is nothing more than a sharpshooter fallacy.


Why did they need to hit that 'specific spot"?

911review.org...

I also see thicker H-beams sticking out, not sure where they originated from, just zoom in to see much better details. Those H-formed enforcements around the windows are much better to see here, ain't it so.? Since this is the real reinforced Wedge One part of the Pentagon west wall, where the right wing, right jet engine, right landing gear and the cabin with its landing gear under it, all impacted. The left wing, left engine and left landing gear impacted in Wedge Two, then not yet reinforced or renovated at all.

This photo ALSO debunks your claim that there was thick tubular steel of the same size as on the exterior of the towers interwoven around the windows.

What is your problem bro? Are you blind? Can you not see that you are providing the evidence that debunks your claims?

originally posted by: LaBTop

Then do realize too, that the Pentagon's west wall part that Flight 77 hit, was also lately reinforced with thick steel beams the size of the Twin Tower sides, intertwined around the windows and forming a formidable obstruction for terrorist attacks, while extra KEVLAR netting were also embedded between the new, triple strong re-barred concrete columns and brickwork, of exactly that E-Ring wall.

There it is.

Your claim that the beams are the size as seen in the Towers.

It is an insane and obviously wrong claim.

Just admit you made it up and move on.

The lurkers can see that you're making this up.

This is a follow-up of my post on page 30, THIS one by me.

SOURCE title : Legge refutation.
Article : www.scientificmethod911.org...

Their chapter Main Response
(The article by Legge and Chandler now further analyzed by me.)

Let's concentrate first on their chapter :
Testimony of William Lagasse, Pentagon Police Officer

I feel sorry for the hard work by these two authors, and can only point them to the ONE main but grave error in their reasoning :

They introduce a fundamental mistake in their assumed VIEWING position of Sergeant Lagasse while he was refueling his car and talking to his dog that was sitting in the BACK-seat of his four-door car, and they are thus clearly mistaken also about his direction of view when he first noticed the North of CITGO flying plane.
He was in fact looking southeast and not northwest as the two authors assume.

First note also, that the Pentagon west wall is situated nearly on a south-north line.
Then realize that their Fig 1 positioning of Lagasse's face and eyes, the line L-F, is opposite of reality, he looked the completely other way round :

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Sergeant Lagasse was standing in between his car and one of the furthest northern row of pumps, beside his, hose-locked refueling, 4 doors police cruiser that was thus facing its nose and hood slightly northeast.
Cars came in from the entrance, parked beside the line of pumps with their noses to the overall direction of the Pentagon, then drove on after refueling and paying, turned left and left again behind the row of pumps, passing that row of pumps on the other side and drove back to the entrance on Joy Street.

His car was thus in a position perpendicular to the longest side of the eastern, Pentagon west wall-viewing side of the CITGO canopy ceiling, while he was leaning over his open front door, his driver side door, with his face to the BACK of his car, looking and talking to his working dog sitting on the back seat of his four door vehicle. See also the CITGO video.

Note that he could not face northeast along the article authors drawn in LF line, with his back against that open driver side door, while talking and looking to his dog sitting in the BACKSEAT. He must have turned his head then in a more than 120 degrees, impossible position. He could however have stood leaning with his belly against the side of his car, looking sideways to the backseats of his car, thus southeast, talking to his dog, but then he was facing the pay counter room, perpendicular on that drawn-in LF line. And in that position, he also was able to get his first glimpse of the NoC approaching, smoothly descending plane.

He was thus definitely not looking along the left nor right front (hood side) of his car, as the authors wrongly presume, because that was definitely not where his dog was sitting.
See for proof of their mistake, their drawn-in line LF in their Fig 1.
L wrongly depicts Lagasse, looking towards the Pentagon along the line L - F.

That line FL must thus be extended in fact in the opposite direction, and now pointing to the other, southwest leading direction that leads to the left, southwest smallest rim side of the CITGO's northern canopy. Lagasse was namely standing with his BACK to the front and the hood of his car, looking in the totally opposite direction both authors base their whole further reasoning on.

Lagasse was thus looking right in the direction of the incoming plane on its way to its North of CITGO flightpath, descending smoothly down the ridge behind the Navy Annex, passing over the row of northeastern trees along the S-shaped turn in Columbia Pike there and appearing in the eyesight of a looking in the overall direction of that row of trees, Sergeant Lagasse, while he was talking to his working dog sitting in the backseat of his Pentagon Protective Force Police car.
Anyone dare to take me on, on this subject.?
While trying hard to prove me wrong, and the two authors of the above article right.?
No chance, but be my guest.


Anyone reading this post of mine, willing to inform the two authors by mail about their grave mistake?

Because I do not contact any US sources, I'm too careful to get targeted again, and I try to be very careful in not loosing my neutral stance on the truly honestly observed 9/11 history.

Every direct out-of-forums exchange with other 9/11 researchers will have a measurable effect on my ongoing evidence gathering, I feel strongly that I must be kept free of personal favoring of likewise thinking souls or opposite thinking souls alike.
If one of them are wrong, the harsh FACTS proving them wrong, must be communicated through this medium. Friend or Foe alike. Not via another medium, like email, PM or such.

I found out the hard way with f.ex. Graig Ranke from the CIT Team, which I had a mutual understanding with in 2005 and 2006, until he came under the influence of Rob Balsamo, the owner of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website. Then he switched to that man's favorite toy, the fly-over theory. Which I did not agree with, and then Graig and his friend let themselves slowly become my enemies.
However, I let myself not slide down on such a path, based on wrongful reasoning, I still firmly defend their North of CITGO flight path for Flight 77 thesis, and their superb video interviews at the CITGO station and the ANC Grounds with their 13 NoC witnesses.

Their CITGO/ANC interviews were the main reason why I kept searching for additional witnesses, of which I already found an additional 12 new NoC witnesses, and now yesterday found a whole new bunch of.

Namely the WHOLE firefighters crew of Arlington County Fire Department’s Engine 101; Fire Capt. Steve McCoy and his crew, traveling north on Interstate 395 for a training exercise in Crystal City the morning of 9/11, who all saw the plane bank sharply before disappearing over the horizon.

Which firefighters crew their sharp banking observation immediately nullifies the officially backed South of CITGO flightpath, based partly on the recovered FDR flight data from Flight 77, since they told us that there was no significant bank angle found in the last 20 seconds of flight from Flight 77 in that FDR. And further based on the physical evidence as damage in the SoC flightpath, which additional SoC-evidence is thus also nullified since we now know that Flight 77 banked sharply a few seconds before it slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.

A reply to: MrBig2430

Why did they need to hit that 'specific spot"?

That's obvious by now, but not for the not so very logical reader.
I am for many years already in the long term process of proving, together with other Doubting ones, that the whole physical Pentagon evidence, and the FDR, are false flags.
Now I have recently found that "Banked Sharply" comment.
That in it self is full proof that the FDR is false, and thus also the SoC damage path.

Now try for all-gods sake, once to think logical :

Thus, WHY ON EARTH did they go for ALL THIS TROUBLE TO FALSIFY ALL THAT "evidence", if there was not a VERY IMPORTANT REASON for the 9/11 planners, to make up all this "damage" and falsify a very complicated FDR...?
Because their PLAN needed that plane to hit in THAT SPECIFIC SPOT, along that SPECIFIC ANGLE of IMPACT.

My very educated guess?

Because they wanted to take out all evidence of ENORMOUS corruption in the MILITARY, regarding all kinds of very expensive (probably unauthorized) false flag operations, instigated repeatedly by their upper brass and their captains of industry allies.
So those auditors had to die, and their files and hardware it was on, burned or blown up, here at the Pentagon, but also all the backups in WTC-7.

(Off topic, or not?) : Do readers ever realize, that the US economy is STILL a WARS-BASED and WARS-NEEDING one.? Provided by a crooked military brass.
Yes, multiple WARS, otherwise your precious greed-based economy, based on ideas of a small group of capitalist super billionairs, and their global plans, will die a swift death.
Detroit, Chicago and so on, are full of former industry-worker slums already, and its eating its way to the rest of your cities, slowly but undeniable.

This photo ALSO debunks your claim that there was thick tubular steel of the same size as on the exterior of the towers interwoven around the windows.
What is your problem bro? Are you blind? Can you not see that you are providing the evidence that debunks your claims?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I propose now the following, hoping that you and the other readers now understand the intention of the message :
- -was also lately reinforced with thick steel beams which makes IT comparable to the strength of the Twin Tower sides.

Bolded text inserted there in my text from a former (linked to) post, for clarification for not so logical readers.
Who's the blind one here?

By the way. Why do you circumvent and avoid commenting on the FACTS, of much bigger importance, I posted throughout this, and the other linked to, recent threads by me?
The new found BANKED SHARPLY remarks by a whole firefighter crew, for starters.

Why don't you read and comment on my remark about the Wedge Two, non-reinforced yet, wall part where the left wing hit, and find then my remark about the gray concrete columns there, which are certainly about 14 inch wide, and as you can see, UNDAMAGED.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: LaBTop

Then do realize too, that the Pentagon's west wall part that Flight 77 hit, was also lately reinforced with thick steel beams the size of the Twin Tower sides, intertwined around the windows and forming a formidable obstruction for terrorist attacks, while extra KEVLAR netting were also embedded between the new, triple strong re-barred concrete columns and brickwork, of exactly that E-Ring wall.

There it is.

Your claim that the beams are the size as seen in the Towers.

It is an insane and obviously wrong claim.

Just admit you made it up and move on.

The lurkers can see that you're making this up.

What do you not understand by now, about a west wall construction made up by 14 inch triple steel re-barred concrete columns, with a special tubular H-shaped steel construction in between those 14 inch columns, that were welded to the floors and ceiling steel beams, while the thick brick fill-up between all of that, was covered with white KEVLAR netting.
And super thick and strong windows panzer-glassing.?

As I see it, that reinforced west wall probably had a stronger resistance against fast moving object impacts, than the sides of the top floors of the Twin Towers.

By the way, you are getting to my nerves, attack the real important new evidence for a false flag FDR, or my opening posts, or move on to nag another poster on minor details and bad phrasing, instead of concentrating on the real heap of evidence for false flags by the US (and other) governments.

originally posted by: LaBTop
Thus, WHY ON EARTH did they go for ALL THIS TROUBLE TO FALSIFY ALL THAT "evidence",

The answer is very simple. They did not falsify any evidence, they did not have to as Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. All you have is a huge Gish Gallop of loads of crap, you have shown you do not actually know much about physics, or aircraft or how things actually work.

a reply to: hellobruce

Alright, now where in this by now, well known personal attack based, vitriolic rant, is the first serious try to confront my heap of evidence, I asked repeatedly from you and the others?
Start with confronting the evidence in my opening posts from my recent threads.

YOU NEVER DO. You only try to derail all my threads, no confronting me on the meat of the matter in all my threads, you just keep throwing in personal insults, it's getting terribly boring.

It's sad the Western world nations went first to two terrible wars over this 9/11 false flag farce, and now is burning the whole Muslim Middle East down, and you can't even debate me about the real evidence I showed you conclusively.

Realize that your precious nation is at the very early base of all old and new wars, they are the real war mongers and instigators.
For plain old GREED in the long and short terms, and PROFITS from stolen resources and during rebuilding the infrastructure in countries they bombed to oblivion :
Vietnam war, Nicaragua dirty war, Afghanistan coup, Iraq coup, Syria coup, Libya coup, Egypt coup, Ukraine coup, Congo coups, destabilization in every country where they can steal resources or rebuild factories, dams, roads etc after secretly assisted coups. There's no end in sight.
Do you support such behavior.?

originally posted by: LaBTop
to confront my heap of evidence,

What evidence? All you have posted is pages of crap. That is not evidence.

Start with confronting the evidence in my opening posts from my recent threads.

How about you start posting evidence, instead of just posting a Gish Gallop load of crap....

and you can't even debate me about the real evidence I showed you conclusively.

Except you have not showed any evidence, just silly stories about people sneaking around at night preparing to blow up light poles....

snip a rant!