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

1:10:04 They all three then drove to the scene of the crime of the century, it was already dark then.
Now Craig Ranke tells us that his neighbor had taken pictures of that cab standing on that overpass bridge, and they went to ask him where he took those pictures, and of course this guy said on that bridge, because that's where Lloyde's cab in the end turned up, after driving around some distance with his speared windscreen.
Ranke accuses Lloyde by screen texts then of lying about his real position, to fit in the stories Craig told him already about the other NoC witnesses, especially the ANC workers.
Craig doesn't seem to realize, that Lloyde's neighbor did take his pictures OF COURSE only after Lloyde asked him for that, after that Lloyde was turning up on that bridge with some very suspicious secretively looking guys. That neighbor was not sitting in Lloyde's car.
He probably just proceeded driving with that pole in his windshield to that bridge, where these secretly operating guys already had placed those other pole pieces on the road and stopped him there.
Graig doesn't realize that the photographing neighbor probably turned up much later after being phoned up by Lloyde for his insurance, or when slowly passing him when one lane was opened again and was then stopped by Lloyde for the same reason, insurance evidence.
At 1:11:29 it is possible that you see Lloyde phoning his neighbor for help and to bring a camera with him.
We know that Lloyde ended up AND stood on that bridge for a very long time.
At 1:10:45 Lloyde tells Craig for the stumpiest time again, that this was where he was when the plane passed (and the pole piece speared his windscreen.?)
Craig doesn't listen to him, he already made up his mind about Lloyde lying to him about the place where the evidence photographs were taken, he totally neglects that's not what Lloyde is saying at that spot, Lloyde says there that that's where he WAS. No more.
And as you see, that's at the end of the ANC its eastern side stone wall, where the exit to the Pike starts curving to the right. Precisely where a NoC plane would be crossing low over Route 27.

This is a clear example of how to ruin the chance to get evidence of a HUGE false flag covert operation, from a potential star-witness.

Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm. (1:35:25)
Posted by lytetrip (Craig Ranke) on You Tube 4 years ago, in 2011. This video was originally released on 10/29/2008 as a follow-up to the presentation "The First Known Accomplice?"
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: LaBTop

There is no case for a flight path north of the gas station and I have shown that witnesses accounts are not reliable enough during air disaster investigations, which is why investigators rely on FDR and radar data and communication types.

Physical evidence speaks louder than the words of the witnesses as far as the flight path of American 77 is concerned.

a reply to: LaBTop

The image from your post that proves the south-of-the gas station flight path.

Imagery: South of the gas station evidence

Conspiracy theorist have said that American 77 passed over the Pentagon and landed at Ronald Reagan Airport. Question is: how do you sneak a B-757 into such an airport under the watchful eyes of air traffic controllers in the tower who are directing traffic and radar operators who are guiding aircraft in the local area? Simply amazing!!

This depiction was used by some conspiracy theorist to demonstrate who American 77 flew over the Pentagon.

Depiction: The Claim that American 77 Flew over the Pentagon

That conflicts with the announcement from American Airlines that American 77 was lost at the Pentagon.

a reply to: LaBTop

He bets his life, just as Sergeant Brooks, on the fact that they both saw a huge plane flying NORTH of the northern canopy of that CITGO station.

'

Apparently, physical evidence do not support his claim and remember, physical evidence speaks louder than words of the witnesses accounts. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that proves American 77 passed north of the gas station. All of the physical evidence proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

This images is taken from your post, which once again, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Imagery: Further evidence that American 77 passed south of the gas station

Just to let you know, the distribution of wreckage in the following photo proves the south-of-the-gas station approach to the Pentagon.

Photo: American 77 Wreckage Distribution Outside the C-ring hole

a reply to: LaBTop

There is no demo explosion evidence in the seismic data you posted. If you have other seismic data evidence, send that data evidence to demolition companies and major news agencies for their evaluations. Speculation about what the seismic data reveals doesn't cut it. Let the real experts make that determination and then, report back to us, their findings.

a reply to: LaBTop

In regard to your video, it has been debunked. Did you really think that traffic would have been disrupted in order for the government to stage and plant those light poles on, and near the roads? For what purpose would the government have for ***secretly*** planting downed light poles in full view of travelers who were using those roads that day, including my Wing Commander who saw no such staged event on his way to work? That also debunks the claim the light poles were placed on, or near the roads, the night before 9/11.

Accepting such disinformation videos is why the Truth Movement is a laughingstock that it is today.

****BREAKING NEWS****
This roadway was shut down so the government could ****secretly**** stage this scene in full view of travelers

Secretly Staged Daylight Scene on Busy Roadway According to Conspiracy Theorist

a reply to: skyeagle409

The problem with the conspiracy theorists who think that American 77 landed at Reagan after it flew over the Pentagon is, as you said, the controllers in the tower did not see it fly over the Pentagon or land at Reagan. Neither did the Dash 8 that was on short final for Runway 33 (the runway that faces directly toward the Pentagon). Neither did the aircraft that was back taxiing to the north on Runway 1, which also faces the Pentagon.

The controllers at Reagan were warned that a "757" was 5 miles away and approaching from the west. They watched it disappear behind some buildings in Crystal City and reported that it had crashed into the Pentagon shortly after. Same with the pilot of the C-130.

Not one single person has ever reported American 77 flying over the Pentagon or anywhere but West of the Pentagon.

The NOC/Fly-over is the single dumbest 9/11 conspiracy in a great big stack of dumb 9/11 conspiracies.

a reply to: Boone 870

It is simply amazing that conspiracy theorist claim that American 77 passed north of the gas station and yet, there is not a single shred of damage anywhere near the Pentagon that would indicate that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

They ignore the fact that all of the documented evidence proved that American 77 passed south of the gas station. When confronted with facts and evidence, they claim the downed light poles were staged. They are talking of placing downed light poles on, and near, busy roadways in broad daylight hoping that no one would notice.

What is even more outrages is the claim that American 77 flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport under the watchful eyes of the air traffic controllers and radar operators. Did they ever stop to think that ground traffic control would be watching as well? Where did they expect American 77 to park once it landed at the airport? Who would pay its landing fee?

Simply amazing!!

Skyeagle409 : ""It is simply amazing that conspiracy theorist claim that American 77 passed north of the gas station ""

You're making a HUGE mistake there, and it's clearly intentional.

**[SNIP]** Removed Childish Insult

Your own colleagues, also in service by a US Government institution, have claimed THAT passage NoC, and BOTH bet their life on it :
They saw a huge commercial plane flying right in front of them, NORTH of the CITGO gas station and just above Columbia Pike, only a few tens of meters above a transformer pole situated at the Pike's side there, according to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks.



Their Pentagon Police upper brass put a gag order on Lagasse and Brooks, as Ranke says in his last words of his video that I posted in my bottom post in page 7.
And I invited you to contact these two, since such a persistent OS-defender like you could have a chance to get to these two again.


Of course, ESPECIALLY these two uniformed witness statements put the whole Pentagon attack in a totally different light. That's why the gag order is put in place.
Huge evidence of an immense military false flag operation to regain their huge budgets which were decimated in the Clinton years.

When you believe all these NoC eyewitness accounts I already laid on the table, then automatically a complicated operation comes to mind in which of course extra psyops "evidence" as mass-memory imprints were planned, to facilitate the indoctrination of the gullible masses, glued to their TV screens, to be expected after their heinous deed.

For example a deep gash in the generator trailer roof added to the 5 "downed" light poles, the planted internal shaped charges, the "exit" C-Ring brick wall hole and a small half-circle shaped cut-out in the underground utility stairwell access structure its 5 bricks high, white colored brick/concrete wall :


That "exit" hole is clearly an entry hole made by military detonation cord inside a water filled, malleable shaped hard-plastic ring, attached to the wall's outside. A Wall Breaching Unit is its name, Google it up, I made many posts about it here, with links to small ones and a photo of an exploded hole by a military one, which shows the exact same partial bricks breakage at its outsides contours and sharp brick boundaries at its insides :


The small wall cut-out and the generator's roof gash are no-brainers to produce in advance for agency planners like the CIA, Secret Service, NSA and various Military-Agencies. Or foreign planners with dedicated members in the US military.
The roof cameras at Wedge I and II were out of order because of the renovation, as we lately learned. And they could camouflage those two prepared gaps with a soft material of the same color, days in advance. And removed that soft material (paper mash, polyurethane) shortly after the impact, in the resulting huge confusion, easy to do for trained agency men. Just push them out and throw them in the fires.

I know that now the usual 7 to 10 ridiculing posts will arrive, but since you can't bring enough new evidence to the table to doubt these VERY convincing NoC eyewitness interviews, I invite you to knock yourself out guys, as usual.

ANY FURTHER NAME CALLING

INCLUDING CALLING ANYONE A LIAR

AND YOUR ACCOUNT COULD ME SUSPENDED OR TERMINATED

That's enough of the childish banter. If you can not post as an adult, don't post.

Do not reply to this post

And yesterday I added a 25th eyewitness to my list of NoC witnesses, Lloyde England.
You all should listen carefully to what Lloyde further said, in the last part of the CIT interview, that I did not quote from, yet. Since I thought some interested doubters would address that part. My mistake, I see now. So, let's do that myself again, sigh...

Lloyde : ""Here at this big street-sign, I was here"".
Lloyde indicates not the full south and northbound lanes spanning street-sign board, at that overpass bridge over the Pike; but the half one spanning only the southbound lanes after the point where the exit lane to the Pike is curving away towards the Pike, just south of where the ANC white concrete dirt wall at their car's right side ends.
It spanned half of Route 27, its southbound lanes, just at the southern point of that white dirt mound to the left/west of the southbound lanes, right under my yellow NoC flight path line :


Lloyde : ""I met them on that highway"".
By them, Lloyde means the representatives of the 9/11 Planners, as he explained just before that sentence.
The executers of the 9/11 Plan, the foot soldiers. You see those two men he meant, standing near him and his cab, in his neighbor's photos from the overpass bridge's cab position :


It's the positional difference between here, within sight of a SoC flight path :


And here, within sight of a NoC flight path as 25 witnesses saw it fly, this is what Steve Riskus told an Italian blogger where he exactly was on 9/11, and that picture showed exactly what he saw and where : that huge low flying plane crossing Route 27 (Washington Boulevard).
Btw the exact same position Lloyde England indicated in his nightly drive southbound over Route 27 together with the two CIT guys, as being the spot where the plane flew over in front of his cab and eyes (view the last part of the CIT video, after 1:10:10) :


It's the use of these simple psychological tricks that muddy the waters of a real discussion, f.ex. suddenly throwing in a landing at Reagan National Airport.
And then couple that to ""conspiracy theorists"", i.o.w. the NoC witness stories, that's so telling.
Note that I never spoke about it in this thread.
Which landing I, and in fact no one else clearly did not condone to, nor ever believed in. I once even posted an aerial picture to show the foolishness of such a proposal, about everybody around the Pentagon and in the Reagan Airport Tower would have noticed it :


Or this clear example of screwing up my words :
I wrote that they could have placed those already prepared light pole pieces from 5 poles, during the NIGHT in the grass beside the roads, and that no one would pay attention to them from inside their speeding cars up till 09:38.
Skyeagle409 makes this from it :

They are talking of placing downed light poles on, and near, busy roadways in broad daylight hoping that no one would notice.

a reply to: LaBTop

Once again, documented physical evidence overrides witnesses accounts, as is the case of other air disasters. Physical evidence do not support a north-of-the-gas station flight path. It's that simple.

This depiction was taken from your link.

Flight Path Depiction

Hani was already on a straight-line course for the Pentagon and it doesn't make sense for Hani to conduct a curving maneuver north of the gas station, and additionally, a B-757 was not capable of performing that banking maneuver at over 400 knots.

A north-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77 does not make any sense whatsoever and that maneuver would have been impossible for a B-757 to have performed. The physical evidence in regard to the huge hole on the west wall of the Pentagon and hole on the C-ring wall, align with the downed flight poles proves that American 77 was on a flight path a south-of-the-gas station. All of the documented physical evidence supports a south-of-the-gas station flight path.

a reply to: LaBTop

You're making a HUGE mistake there, and it's clearly intentional.

I am placing the south-of-the-gas station flight path on documented physical evident and remember, there is no physical evidence for a north-of-the-gas station flight path. It is impossible for a B-757 to perform a curving north-of-the-gas station maneuver as depicted on some photos and it doesn't make any sense for the terrorist pilot American 77 to deviate from a straight-line course for the Pentagon, and once again, the physical evidence doesn't support such a curving maneuver, which is outside the performance envelope of a B-757.

You are depending upon eyewitness accounts are eyewitness accounts are not reliable, especially in regard to air disasters. Let's take a look here.

Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident

Qualitative Examples of Aviation Accident Eyewitness Validity and
Reliability

Dr. Percy Walker, director of Britain’s Ministry of Aviation accident inspector branch in the early 1960’s, was said by The Sunday Times to have researched more crashes than anybody else in the world (Air Correspondent, 1962). In the same article he was quoted as saying that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are “almost always wrong” (p. 8). Contemporary accident investigation textbooks employ more measured language (Strauch, 2002; Wood & Sweginnis, 2006) but they do note that inconsistences are often found among eyewitness accounts. In the 50 years since Dr. Walker’s statement, research into eyewitness testimony has advanced considerably; however there remains a paucity of published empirical studies regarding the validity and reliability of aviation crash witness statements. We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006).

There are many aircraft accident reports where eyewitnesses are generally in agreement with each other and the final accident probable cause; for example the takeoff of a DC-9 seen by 100 external observers where “none of the witnesses described smoke or flames coming from any part of the airplane otherthan the right engine” (National Transportation Safety Board, 1987). Sometimes asingle eyewitness can supply otherwise ephemeral evidence, as for example the farmhand who reported that something fell off an accident aircraft: “Whizzed pastme [h]ead it did, and when I dug it out of ground a large chuck of ice it were”(Brown, 1962, p. 38). The probable cause of the crash was determined to be inflight icing based largely on the farmhand’s account. However there are alsomany well-recorded cases that support the late Dr. Walker’s contention, caseswhere aviation accident eyewitnesses report seeing things that did not happen or substantially confuse the order of events.At an airshow in 1952, a supersonic fighter disintegrated in the air causing the death of both crew and 29 spectators (Staff, 1952).

Over 100,000 people witnessed the accident. A public appeal was put out for witness accounts and photographs to help solve the mystery, resulting in several thousand letters being collected. Rivas and Bullen (2008) found “many of the accounts are touchingly detailed and well intentioned, but the whole of the vast mail was of little use” (p.186). The vital clue that led to determination of probable cause was supplied by a cine film. The in-flight breakup happened in less than a second, and almost all the eyewitnesses, including experienced pilots, gave grossly inaccurate accountswhen compared to the film record.

commons.erau.edu...

To sum it up, the unreliability of eyewitness accounts is why physical evidence is primarily used to determine the cause of an air disaster. I've use documented physical evidence of a south-of-the-gas station flight path while on the other hand, you use unreliable eyewitness testimony of a north-of-the-gas station flight path for which no physical evidence exist.

the physical evidence doesn't support such a curving maneuver

Nor does it support a 757 crashing into the building. Again show us the video of a plane, they have not done that because there is none..

a reply to: wildb

Nor does it support a 757 crashing into the building. Again show us the video of a plane, they have not done that because there is none..

Let's take a look here.

Video: American 77

Which explains B-757 wreckage at the Pentagon.

Photo: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 2: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 3: American 77 Flaps

Photo 4: American 77 Wreckage Inside the Pentagon

Photo 5: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 6: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 7: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 8: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 9: American 77 Wreckage

Photo 10: American 77 Wreckage

American Airlines, B-757-223, N644AA, (American 77)

Reserved N-Number "Mode S Code" - 52072030
was reserved on 9/15/2006
by Greenway, Jonathan James
PO Box 714
Frederick, Maryland

Deregistered Aircraft
Serial Number 24602
Mfgr - BOEING
MODEL 757-223
Year Manufactured 1991
Reason for Cancellation - Destroyed
Type Registration - Corporation
Certificate Issue Date 05/08/91
Mode S Code 52072030
Cancel Date 01/14/2002

Aircraft registration prior to Deregistration
Wilmington Trust Company Trustee
Rodney Sq North Attn Corp TRT ADM.
Wilmington, Delaware

Airworthyness
Engine Manufacturer ROLLS-ROYC
Engine Model RB.211 Series
Classification Standard
Category Transport
A/W Date 05/08/1991

And, it all explains why American Airlines announced the loss of American 77.

Did not see video of the plane crashing into the building in your post, like I said there is none..

a reply to: wildb

I did, because the B-757 is one of my favorite aircraft and I know what to look for.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I did, because the B-757 is one of my favorite aircraft and I know what to look for.

Then show us the video..

a reply to: wildb

Here it is again.

American 77 Video