The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact. Options

[LaBTop]

The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, or Head-on impact?
Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact.

I first want to address an important note to all readers of this thread, who are genuinely interested in the real, historic truth of the day of 11 September 2001.

I am still not convinced that there is one solid and overruling Pentagon attack theory.
At this date, there are several possible scenarios at hand, which perhaps could be proven the day after tomorrow already, by such convincing, iron-clad evidence, that all left-over traces of doubts are washed away, for all citizens.
I would really welcome the day that we can leave all the internal bickering behind, and step up to the task of bringing real justice to everybody.

As we, the firm believers in the witnesses of a, by CIT unearthed, NoC (North of CITGO) flightpath flown by the Pentagon attack plane, all know by now, we have to live with a very vocal group of opponents, who firmly believe the opposite, South of CITGO officially endorsed flightpath, as envisioned in for example Mike J. Wilson's animated

"911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8...player_embedded





We know however, when listening to CIT's earliest interviews, that for example Pentagon police Sgt. Lagasse, bets his life on the fact that he saw the plane fly north of the gas station where he was filling up his gas tank under the northern canopy of that CITGO gas station.
For the shock of your lifetime, in case this is the first time you are going to see this, and you are a firm "officially endorsed south of CITGO" flightpath believer, because you have a natural trust in your representatives chosen also by so many of your fellow citizens, which politicians nearly all do not protest the official 9/11 storyline told by the US government and its institutes to this day, here are the :

"Highlights from interviews with eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE...player_embedded



And you can never accuse William Lagasse to be a "wacky Truther".
He vehemently defended on several online forums and blogs the officially endorsed Pentagon attack explanations, in the years before he got interviewed by CIT.
It is crystal-clear, that he was really shocked after he realized what the implications were from his genuine eyewitness evidence he laid out before us, heard from his own mouth and enforced even more by his drawing of his observed flight path on an aerial photo of the Pentagon area. He even tried to make it appear in his story as if he witnessed a downed light pole, but later on admitted that he himself, had seen not one light pole being hit in real time. He heard and saw about it, as so many, later in the week and much longer after that in the various news coverages. And read about them in online 911 websites.
But he kept pointing out in this video, on his own flight path drawing, that the plane's body, flew over Route 27 within let's say 30 to 50 meter to the right of the two trees in front of the Heliport landing platform with the huge H painted on its concrete.
He said in the end of the video, that the taxi must have stood also there, if it had been speared through its windshield by a downed light pole, which pole must have been downed then at the point he put his finger on, very near those two trees along Route 27, planted in front of the Heliport landing pad.
We all know by now, that nobody ever saw or photographed downed light poles there.
They saw and photographed 5 light poles cut and landed on the grass or concrete, just after the point where Columbia Pike goes under the overpass of Route 27 over the Pike's last 100 meters.
And that's about 300 meter further southwards, down the road.
And that was also the point where the taxi with the broken windshield and a broken light pole in front of its nose was photographed. Which makes the statement of the taxi driver, and the placement of his taxi, an obvious part of a false flag operation.

Just as his colleague Sgt. Chad Brooks says he saw it fly there, north of the CITGO's northern canopy roof; he stood on a parking lot, beside his car, on the other side of the road which goes along the west side of the CITGO (Joyce Street), which street then, 60 meter further, joins the long curve in Columbia Pike which leads towards the underpass under Route 27, the highway that runs along the western Pentagon lawn, and Columbia Pike that ends then at the western entrance of the Pentagon's huge South Parking lot.

And just as the then enlisted military man Sean Boger, at that time the Pentagon Heliport-tower air-traffic flight controller, saw the plane coming towards him in his control-tower, from a point it was flying low over the Y-shaped antenna at the center of the roof of the last, 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, passing the CITGO station in his angle of view to the right (that's the north side), all the way flying in a slight right bank, correcting that bank just before Route 27 by a slight left bank movement, and impacting the west wall of the Pentagon about 60 meters to the right of his flight control tower windows ( left of his left shoulder). Those Heliport control-tower windows were at level with the west walls' second floor-level windows, about 6 meters/yards above ground.

And just as the four Arlington Cemetery maintenance workers, interviewed first by the Center for Military History (CMH) group, and later also by the CIT team.
They all four indicated a plane coming in a slight right bank towards them at the ANC maintenance buildings, situated on The Arlington National Cemetery grounds, on the other, northern side of the parking lot behind/beside the ANC's buildings boundary fence, which parking entrance is on the long curve in Columbia Pike, which is there swirling around the CITGO gas station. They all four vividly explain that they were afraid that the plane was coming down and crash right on top of them, standing there, in front of those ANC buildings, 200 meters to the north of the CITGO gas station. But the plane right-banked away from them, over the highway called Route 27 a.k.a. Washington Boulevard and impacted the west wall of the Pentagon.
They concluded that from the sound, smoke column rising, and later from the news, they however did not really see an impact, because the ANC buildings and the tree foliage blocked their view on the lower part of that west wall.

CIT: National Security alert :
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

CIT: The PentaCon. Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed. (Smoking Gun Version) :
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=EYQHPMS8&setlang=en

The pure fact that they and many more with them, saw the plane fly on the north side of the CITGO, immediately negates the official SoC theory with all its accompanying "evidence" , since it's aeronautical impossible for a NoC flying plane, to force its way back to the officially endorsed SoC flight path, before hitting pole Nr. 1 in a nearly horizontally leveled-off flight level position.

Thus, that "South of CITGO evidence" was all falsified. The damage path must for at least 60% have been caused by demolition explosions, while the first 40% can come from a head-on, nearly 90° impact of a NoC flying attack plane.

Or all of it was not from AA 77 impacting, which was flying over the west wall roof line, away over the west wall's roof, as the two founding fathers from the CIT team and, so to see, at least a part of the Pilots for Truth, to this day strongly believe.
These Pilots base this on a decoded FDR which has been made public by FOIA requests. They found a too high last written Baro Pressure meter position of the plane into the FDR, for it to be able to dive down and still hit the west wall in a nearly leveled off flight path in the remaining very short time.

Since the NTSB got the FDR from the FBI who said they found it inside the Pentagon in the wreckage path there, in fact only one sane conclusion is left over then, especially when you see the Pilots for 911 Truth their evidence that the FDR shows a too high flying plane.

CONCLUSION 1.
The FDR must be a falsified FDR. Where at least the last 12 seconds have been altered.
From around the Sheraton Hotel, up till the impact point.
This is the most logical and strongest conclusion, based on a strong believe in those recorded eyewitnesses by the CIT team, which all position the plane in a north of CITGO flight path.
An "inside the Pentagon found" black-box's FDR can never be combined with a plane flying so high in the last 2 seconds, that it must have flown over the roof. Thus, this FDR is false.

And "they" waited to hand that FDR over under a FOIA request until they knew from what point on in the FDR they had to alter the data in such a manner, that it still coincided at first glance, with as many possible eyewitness reports, and still "proved" a south of CITGO approach, which also covered all 5 "downed" light poles. And on top of that, the damage path inside the Pentagon first 3 rings.
They have altered the original last 12 seconds data only. No need to change any data before that.
There are no earlier solid eyewitness reports which could pinpoint the plane's position sufficiently secure to a precise point on a map of the area. The first reliable witness account for the plane's altitude and its position above ground is the woman inside her room in the Sheraton Hotel, who saw through her window the plane closely passing the hotel's south side facade, on its way over the Navy Annex towards the Pentagon. And then Perry Morin, and the military man standing in his room at the east side of the last Annex building, the 8th Wing. He saw it passing over the Annex roof above him, over his right shoulder. His room was at the north end, looking out over the CITGO and towards the Pentagon and Washington center.


The following, second, seemingly possible, however weaker conclusion is always negated and disproved by the first, strongest conclusion, but nevertheless I will write it out for you, so you can contemplate on the only possible logical conclusion when both seemingly possible cases are compared and then show the logical fallacy in this second, wrong, "conclusion" :

ILLOGICAL "CONCLUSION" 2.
Since the FDR must have been inside a plane that was still flying after the artificial "impact point", as this FDR last altitude data shows, then that plane must have flown over the Pentagon.

Because it was impossible to impact the Pentagon from the FDR-reported Baro Altimeter pressure-meter altitudes in the last recorded sub frames, i.o.w. row of portions-of-a-second of the flight path. That data placed the plane much too high above the roof level of the Pentagon.
(Keep in mind now, that CONCLUSION 1, that the FDR is falsified for at least the 12 last seconds, is the first and strongest one. This above second conclusion is however based on a false assumption, namely that the last reported altitude is suddenly right, and NOT falsified as can be concluded from Conclusion 1.).

In that case it should have needed to fall like a brick instantaneous, i.o.w., "warp" from about 200 feet above ground, to 4 feet above ground (which was the last Radio meter reading according to Warren Stutt.)
And thus it seems at first glance logical to conclude that the plane flew away, low over the Pentagon roofs which are about 75 feet high, plus a few small antennas.
However, since the FDR is false, this altitude registration is a total fraud, and thus non-existing, and we can't conclude then after having proved that the FDR is bogus, that the plane must have flown over the Pentagon roof.
Such a line of reasoning is a fine example of a logical fallacy reasoning.

However, a MUCH more logical conclusion is, that the person(s) who were in charge of retracting the data from that FDR, falsified that FDR, and he/they made that huge mistake, and not the FBI which has no expertise in decoding FDR's, by feeding back into the FDR data streams, the right radio-altimeter transceiver data, but the wrong pressure-altimeter data, back into the solid state memory block of that flight data recorder originating from the so-called black box found in the Pentagon. They (or he or she) have thus retracted the original data streams from its memory block, then painstakingly changed the last, say, 12 seconds and switched the data back into the FDR, erasing the original last 12 seconds. There was probably no need to alter all the other, preceding, huge amounts of data.

This kind of falsification is exactly what has happened also in the crashed first Airbus demonstration flight in France, where the company did falsify the recovered FDR, to be able to put the burden of the crash on a "pilot fault", instead of a software fault, which was the real reason the Airbus could not be pulled out of a low fly-by for interested buyers. It glided slowly lower and lower to end up in the trees from the wood at the end of the runway and crashed and burned out.
We found out that the FDR was false, after we found a photo from the just found original 2 "black" boxes (they are orange or red) standing beside the legs of an European FAA man, while the Airbus Company and the authorities always showed different colored and shaped boxes to the public, as being the "original" ones.

As Dennis Cimino pointed out lately, it is very suspicious that the FDR did not show any sudden rudder/foot-paddles movements, or any other input during the so-called physical hi-jack period. And also not after the hi-jacker pilot must have been seated in the pilot seat. All the way to the Pentagon. That's quite unbelievable, that an inexperienced 757 pilot did not use any rudder movements to make that huge circle around the Pentagon, and dived down to Route 27, and leveled off without any foot paddles usage. And no sign of rudder input while the real pilots left their chairs.

According to the Pilots for Truth, all certified pilots from every airline will always keep their eyes on their barometric pressure Primary Altimeter, in other words "The Altimeter" or altitude meter, and discard any always alternating altitude readings of the radio-altimeter during low flights.
And that is the only quite logical behavior.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793650

Since that radio-altimeter can, and will report, many different altitude readings while in a landing approach (low over the ground), since radio signals emitted by the plane, will during any low flown flight path, bounce off a multitude of times from a multitude of objects on the ground, much higher than the ground level. Like buildings, trees, bushes, masts, flocks of birds or road signs. The pilots know by heart, that in the landing phase of their flights, they can not ever rely on that alternating radio-altimeter readings, and risk their life and those from their passengers and crew in believing that those are reliable readings. They know very well they are not.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793038

And a pressure altitude meter will not be influenced by any obstacles on the ground, since it retracts its data solely from the local pressure values while descending. Which differ very slightly compared to different low altitudes, but measurable enough by that pressure-meter's valves, at different low altitudes. And that's why solely that pressure-altitude meter gives the right, reliable altitudes during low above ground, runway approach flights which fly over urban or hilly terrain.
It's the only on-board altitude meter not constantly influenced by objects build above ground level.

Rob Balsamo from Pf911Truth :

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490
""The only way to tell what the RA is measuring from (a building, trees... other objects...) is to check it against your Primary Altimeter as you have a solid reference for this height, which is from sea level. Final MSL height in the "extra" data Warren decoded shows 174' MSL (above sea level), RA shows 4'. This can only mean the RA was bouncing off an object higher than ground level and the MSL height shows too high to hit the Pentagon.""

MSL = Main Sea Level.
RA = Radio Altimeter.
Primary Altimeter = Barometric Altimeter.

Thus, since the NTSB handed-over FDR pressure-meter data itself, show a too high flying plane, that FDR must be either true and the FBI-story telling us that they found it in the Pentagon between the plane wreckage must be false, or this whole FDR, provided after a FOIA procedure, by that same, thus mis leaded FBI, must be false.

After that, the most probable conclusion will be, that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, as so many eyewitnesses reported already on the day itself. And many more later on. Thus it could not have flown away over the roofs on its falsified, too high altitude, found in the last seconds of that false FDR.
Simply said, if the FDR is falsified, a plane did not fly over the Pentagon, since the "evidence" for a too high altitude in that false FDR, and thus a fly-over, is falsified.
Thus logic prevails then, and forces us to fall back on the heap of true eyewitnesses, who all reported that a plane impacted the Pentagon's west wall.

The 9/11 planners reason to falsify that FDR, must have been the inconsistency of the last 12 seconds real data on that memory block in the black box they said was found inside the wreckage path in the Pentagon, with the overall scenic picture they had prepared to enforce the direct acceptation of the billions of global media watchers, that a plane flew in a straight and leveled-off line, in those last 12 seconds, from a point in the air beside the Sheraton Hotel, straight to the impact point. And under an angle with the west wall of around 61.5° true magnetic, and "cutting" 5 light poles in the last 300 meter. And the internal damage which was laid/exploded out in an extended line through the center of those 5 light poles.

And when you observe, and listen to, these 13 eyewitnesses while being interviewed by CIT in the above videos, they do not express any sign of lying, on the contrary, they are all firmly convinced of what they saw and describe. A, for some last flight path part, definitive NoC, flight path flown by a commercial airliner.
Thus, when you combine the Pilots for Truth altitude-case with the 13 CIT-witnesses case, the plane can only have impacted on the same spot as filmed already minutes later, but under a totally different angle as told to us by so many officially endorsed US institutions. Under a nearly 90° angle, in other words nearly head-on.

And then it must have ended with its nose cone at the outer wall of the first ring, the E-ring. Which is shown in the ASCE report as the furthest damage-path point when you follow a head-on penetration path.
And it certainly could not have ended at that artificial "exit" hole in the outer wall of the C-ring.

And it definitely did not fly in from a more southernly approach and a much sharper angle, while supposedly downing 5 light poles on the way in.
Like the US government still defends as their interpretation of what happened at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.



Nevertheless all of the above logic, we still have to convince the until now uninterested part of the populace, plus the interested but mis leaded part, plus the hardcore, mis leaded but still strongly patriotic, SoC defenders who can't bring themselves to mistrust the "State", that they are wrongly believing a lot of their "democratically chosen" representatives in government and military ranks.

We need to convince all these people that the following visual and invisible markers (at first sight, quite convincing to the lay person with little to no time spend on 9/11 issues) which were left behind by the planners of a SoC flight path, are all part of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, which is still unfolding and maintained (and defended) to the present day by said government and military.
Such markers are :

The five light poles being "downed" by the wing-tips of a SoC flying plane.
The "downed" pole nr 1 which "speared through" the taxi's front window.
The generator trailer's front, diesel storage tank roof damage, "caused" by the right wing impacting it, and the damage to the fence in front of it, "done" by the right jet-engine housing.
The FOIA released FDR data file (Flight Data Recorder) "originating" from the black box found inside the AA 77 wreckage path inside the Pentagon, and its accompanying raw CSV file ( Comma Separated Values) and its flight path animation file made by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board).
However, this animation, and all other NTSB provided 911 animations (UAL 93 also) had a time-specific error in it, and much later on, the NTSB described that animation as simply a "working copy" that was "never used for an official purpose". But why did they put it then in the same FOIA package, specifically meant for public release? To fool the truth-seekers?
The external "impact evidence" of wings and fuselage imprints on the west wall's facade. These imprints can be interpreted as caused either by a SoC, 61.5° angled impact; or a NoC, nearly 90° angled, head-on impact.
The entrance hole in the west wall, big enough to fit the diameter of a Boeing 757.
The "full" internal damage path depicted in the later published ASCE report.
The wreckage parts "found" inside the building's damage path.
The wreckage parts found on the Pentagon's west side grassy lawn, and on Route 27 by witnesses standing or walking around on that highway just after the impact.
The "exit" hole in the C-ring wall, which looks more like an emergency entrance hole, blown inwards from the open AE-Drive side. This hole is explicitly used by myriads of "experts" to show to uninformed readers, that you can draw a line from it, through the C, D and E-ring, and through the middle of those 5 "downed" light poles, to arrive by a too obvious SoC flight path for the attack plane.

However, when you viewed the CIT videos with the 13 eyewitnesses for a NoC flight path, and see how convincing these witnesses explain how they saw a north of CITGO flying plane, then you also believe suddenly, that all of the above markers must be evidence of a false flag operation, on a massive scale.

[onesliceshort]

So, use your valuable time to find a solution for the problem how to contact in a civil manner,

I have given very reasonable answers and asked very relevant questions LabTop. All contained within just 2 or 3 posts. You keep ignoring them and going off on another tangent that you feel more comfortable in. As you probably will Rob's.

The aircraft cannot "impact" from NOC. Physically, aerodynamically and more importantly,as per the OCT!!!

Try talking point by point for once instead of lecturing 2000 word ramblings and you may be surprised at the response. Take a chill pill, deep breaths, whatever.

Just a thought.

[LaBTop]

I have given very reasonable answers and asked very relevant questions LabTop. All contained within just 2 or 3 posts. You keep ignoring them and going off on another tangent that you feel more comfortable in. As you probably will Rob's.

The aircraft cannot "impact" from NOC. Physically, aerodynamically and more importantly,as per the OCT!!!

Try talking point by point for once instead of lecturing 2000 word ramblings and you may be surprised at the response. Take a chill pill, deep breaths, whatever.

Just a thought.

I do not ignore your answers and questions, as you will see.
You seem to ignore the way I like to answer posts by other participants.
Namely, point by point, one by one, one after the next one.
I was answering Tume's post about the wind effects on the last 53 seconds of the flight path, then you tuned in, after a few more posters who I had to answer first, but since you have not much patience, you got seemingly frustrated that I did not directly reacted on your, in your eyes, so important post.


Well, have it your way, here's my answer to that post :

My comments on Onesliceshort's Post #84 .

1) He also had to stand up, and get out of that booth first. That's how he arrives at those "10 seconds tops."

2) We do not know the exact time of arrival of the C-130 at the scene, and sadly enough, the car-guy video does not start at impact. I agree, that the C-130 left the area in front of the smoke column, at least 1:50 seconds in that video. And so you have to add the unknown amount of missing seconds before he started to film.
Let's gamble it were 60 seconds to add.

Do not forget that RR could have easily seen it COMING towards him, he had an unobstructed view on it while being somewhere near the southwest corner of the building, when he first spotted the C-130.
Listen to the rest of the 2 audio files to hear what he did after he saw the dust. He went to that spot to help wounded which ran from the western stairs down to the parking 's lane one area.

Thus, the smoke column did not block his view 2 to 3 minutes after the impact. He had a perfect view on the descending C-130, which was btw still so high, that it would be quite difficult for a non experienced plane spotter, to recognize it as such. Could that be the reason that he talked about two commercial planes, while clearly describing three times or more in the CIT interview, the flight path of the C-130.
In fact he says ""it'was two aircrafts, yes. For sure..! ""

Btw, thanks for the 2 videos, I lost track of them. Especially the zoomed short one I was looking for a long time already.

3)

OSS : how likely is it that he first saw the second tower being struck for the first time at the exact same moment that the attack plane was in the area? That he saw this on TV and actually "ran" out to the dock to witness it??

Well, you could have heard him explaining that himself in the first minutes of the LoC interview.
"Like it was timed" etcetera.....

4) Your quotes have no links!

And your quotes are far from the real "translation" of RR's CIT audio I posted in my post #61!

And you introduce essential misdirecting words which he did not use!

And you (mis)quote Craig as the interviewer, it was Aldo who asked the questions, but Craig was clearly in the background excitedly coaching/confusing him. Which will have caused the chaotic nature of this interview. It's obvious that both of them had already "concluded" that RR must have been a fly-over witness. And thus the many misunderstandings between Aldo and RR.
Btw, RR seems to use the word- WHY? - when he means to say in good English - WHAT? -.

Onesliceshort translation :

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock (LT: no, shack) it was already in the parking lot in lane one,[(LT: RR did not say this: ) and it was so large, you couldn't miss from seeing it.

Craig Ranke (LT: No, Aldo!): Right, but [(LT: Aldo also did not say this : ) from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... (LT: RR did not say this: ) ]south west.., look the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm...(LT: he definitely did not say this crap : ) fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.



LaBTop translation :

RR: It seem like uhh.., when I sure by the time I got for the shack it was already in the parking lot at Lane One, anyway it sure was, you couldn't miss it seeing it.

Aldo : Right, but where did it seem from where it came from?

RR: It seem like uhh.., that it came from uhh.., it, hold on a second, it seem like it came from uhh.......let's look, the same way it came in or it appeared to came in from the same way from where it came in, uhh.., almost like where the first plane hit, so uhh.., it looked like.., it looked like it came from that direction.

He's clearly talking about the second plane, the C-130, which came towards him (same way the attack plane "came in" ) in the same way as the first plane hit the Pentagon a few minutes earlier.

You cost me several hours to get this post right, all that because of your sloppy quoting...


And would you be so kind to try to explain to me, how RR could be talking about anything else than that C-130, in that part of the CIT interview, after Aldo suddenly introduced this second plane flying AWAY from the Pentagon, up till that "news flash". :

Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon...this second plane, do you remember.....
RR: WHY??

What the hell, here's the full RR-quote about that C-130, to save you time, so you won't cost me even more time later on :

So, from where it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
RR: From the, UHH???!!............???.... Can you repeat that one more time please!
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon...this second plane, do you remember.....
RR: WHY??
Do you remember which direction it was heading?
RR: The..uhh.., it was heading, uhm.., back across 27....and it looks like..., it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading, like...uhhh, southwest.., coming out.
So like banking around, turning back around?
RR: Corr-rect... (LT: in a doubting tone)
OK....
RR: Banking. Banking around, coming back out turning southwest, and going straight across...
OK.So,..
RR: And then it...

(LT: If you had let him speak out, Aldo, you would have RR probably heard adding :""turned around back across (over) Route 27"", because that's what he was saying before.)

OK, did it look like it went over the river and kind of turned around?
RR: Uhh... It looked like it went over on the Mall Entrance side and turned around, because you got.. the Mall there, and then, where I was at south, and the plane from the direction of the city and was facing west, so it went southwest, away from the Pentagon.

(LT: here Roosevelt again clearly described the C-130's descending, coming towards him, then the U-turning in the northern front of the smoke column, then flying back up and out again, to the southwest. Back to his home or designation Air Guard airport.
Maneuvers actually flown by that military C-130 freight plane with 4 turbo-propeller engines, but which he identified wrongly as a second, 2 or 4 jet engines commercial plane. Remember, this interview is years after 9/11, RR had time enough to read about the C-130 story.
But hearing him describe the above, it sounds like he in reality saw that C-130 with his own eyes.
Btw, the C-130 flew much higher, we have 4 photo's of it (taken by a man at the DC shore side of the Potomac), turning high in the sky, just in front of the Pentagon smoke column.)

South..southwest away from the Pentagon. OK, So kind of did it U-turned it away?
RR: WHY???
OK. Uhh.., ok..
RR: (57:00) It banked down as why U-turning and coming around and coming out, it looked like, uhhh..for a few seconds it looked like as if uhhh.., how I'm gonna say it, uhh.., it missed the wrong target. Going like out of the way like back to the airport or something like that...
ALL-right, so it was heading towards the airport it looked like?
RR: Well no, not heading towards the airport, it's almost like if uhh.., if a pilot missed his target, he'll try to do a banking and come around because he missed the target he missed the landing zone.
Got-it, got-it.

--A very short inserted 9/11 news flash--

You can hear the utter wondering in RR's voice, when Aldo threw that 180° turn in the wheel of the conversation. You hear him thinking : "What the hell is that guy NOW asking for..??? "
But he did comprehend directly after that first "WHY??" of him, that there was only one explanation.
The only logical subject Aldo was asking about now, was about that C-130 that he, RR, also saw a few minutes later then the impact.

So, go check my translation in Post #61, while you also listen to the audio link, and try your best in explaining anything to the contrary of a description by RR of that C-130.

[LaBTop]

Rob, regarding your first and second picture, could you explain to me then, why you pictured the plane here in your post's first pictures, as a strongly right banking one, while you have set me then on the wrong leg, with a perfectly level to the ground, plane, flying on the north side of the northern canopy of the CITGO, in your video named : 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, in this High Quality Download Page here :

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/high_quality_download.html

This is the video I meant, called now : 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - OFFICIAL TRAILER:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=784...6887&hl=en#



You can see it flying level from 00:24 to 00:26, of 03:28 total video time.
Then, suddenly, after it passed the eastern canopy pole, it changed to a slight right bank in one frame.
And at 00:27 seconds in the video, it is aiming in the same very slight right bank at the "two trees".
Then there is a sudden fade to the Parking booth's two video cameras view on the north side of the Pentagon lawn.
At 00:35 we see a perfectly level flying plane passing over Terry Morin standing in between the 4th and 5th wing of the Navy Annex.
Next you show a cockpit view up till 00:43 seconds, through the two front windows of a 757, again in a seemingly perfect level flight.
Then you show a time lap of a SoC flying plane, to the right of the VDOT mast. Also level.
At 00:50 you show the height difference between the Annex roofs of wing 7 and 8, and the row of trees just west of the CITGO. Not very impressive in height difference.
At 00:54 we can see that a plane coming from the left side of the Sheraton Hotel, flying over the Annex roofs and also over the last tree of the row of trees at the CITGO, does not encounter any obstacles anymore, a perfect image to show the free space the plane had, all the way to Route 27.
Where it only had to clear the light poles and eventually the southern tree of the "two trees" in front of the Helipad, to descend the last 10 meters to the impact hole.
At 00:56 I see the two other trees on the other, western side of Route 27, one on each side of the underpass of the Pike under Route 27.
From 01:36 to 01:43 we see a level flying plane pass over all Annex roofs. Especially at 01:43 it is clearly flying perfectly already past, and level to the last roof of Annex Wing 8.
From 01:47 to 01:48 you change from level flight above the row of trees in front of the CITGO's west side, to a slight right bank beside the CITGO's north canopy.
That's about the same spot I do that too.

They probably let the plane use only its huge tail rudder, to let it drift in level flight to the ships right, all the way from over the Annex to beside the north side of the CITGO. Then, just as you show us, they operated the wing's ailerons to start a slight right bank, while maintaining the same rudder position. (I remember Dennis Cimino wondering why he saw no rudder movements in the last seconds of FDR flight.)

Isn't that not exactly what I also drew in my aerial drawing?
And then they operated the wing's ailerons in the opposite manner, just before Route 27, to change the slight right bank to a slight left bank, hopped over the light poles along Route 27 and in front of the Helipad, and used the ailerons to descend the last 10 meters over the 100 meters lawn towards impact..


Your introduction to your video:

Pilots For 9/11 Truth brings you analysis never seen before regarding the Attack On The Pentagon. Highly technical analysis presented in a way that the layman will appreciate and understand. A 757 reported to have caused the damage at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is analyzed based on topography, obstacles, flight data, physics, and witness statements. In order to accurately determine and understand the nature of the attack, Pilots For 9/11 Truth constructed a 3D scale model of the Arlington area complete with US Geological Survey Topography, obstacles, structures and vehicles. Based on flight data (LT : HUH? aren't they false?), physics and witness statements, we take you to Arlington on that fateful day, observing through the eyes of those who were there. We let the viewer determine if it is possible for a 757 to navigate such a region and cause the physical damage reported at the Pentagon. Many common arguments made by those who make excuse for and support the government story are also addressed.

I don't think you can fall back now, on the same argument you gave me for the intention of that shadow analysis video, where you said the only intention was to show that Edward Paik in his office in front of his workshop did not see a shadow of the plane, as debunkers had proposed, but the plane itself. The rest of the video was only intended to show the rest of the flight path in a non-representative way....
I still wonder why then use 80% of that video, all the rest of it, to show a nearly identical flight path as my flight path proposal, when we did not know at that time of eachother drawings.
You could have just shown the first few hundred meters. Not the full path until the west wall.
It was not important for your intention, and could only add confusion, as it did to me for sure.

Now you confuse me even more.

An important question :
Why do you let that plane in all your rebuttals to my proposal, perform a strong right bank, while all the witnesses I brought to the table, all report either a very slight right bank, or even a very slight left bank between the "two trees" and the west wall.

Even Pier from Italy drew a level flying 757 for Steve Riskus, who then said in his return email, he did not needed to change anything in that picture anymore, because that was exactly what he saw on 911 crossing in front of him, over Route 27.

(IMG:http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/80c716095f6c.jpg)

[rob balsamo]

Rob, regarding your first and second picture, could you explain to me then, why you pictured the plane here in your post's first pictures, as a strongly right banking one, while you have set me then on the wrong leg, with a perfectly level to the ground, plane, flying on the north side of the northern canopy of the CITGO, in your video named : 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, in this High Quality Download Page here :

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/high_quality_download.html

This is the video I meant, called now : 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - OFFICIAL TRAILER:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=784...6887&hl=en#

First... The only calculations done in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" were done for the South Path.

Second... you really shouldn't try to use information from a movie trailer for a scientific analysis. You should perhaps watch the whole movie first....lol

It wasn't until we analyzed the North Path a few months later to debunk the garbage coming from the detractors, when we then made precise calculations for the North Path. I gave you this link before in this thread, I highly recommend you click on it this time...

The North Approach - Technical Paper
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930

and the accompanying video...

The North Flight Path
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

No one else sent you on the "wrong path", but you.

The current flight path you have drawn will leave a path of destruction from the NoC if it were to impact the first floor at the impact hole. Also, your path line seems to be a few feet north of the impact hole, so you will need to decrease radius while increasing bank angle, leaving more destruction.

Feel free to draw any path you feel might be conceivable and when i get the time, i'll run the numbers. But your current path will not work. I can almost guarantee you will not find one that will, without leaving a path of damage from the NoC.