• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 77 flight path

Has anyone ever asked CIT why on earth the "conspirators" would do a flyover? Why the heck would they do that when they could just crash the plane into the Pentagon?
 
A W Smith said:
Domenic.. we have been over this before. the VADOT camera pole foot peg knocked off. The top of the tree just to the overpass having its top shorn off. The shadow of the plane seen in the Citgo security camera, the flight 77 wreckage on the pentagon lawn, The genset trailer being hit by the engine and being pushed TOWARD the pentagon impact hole. The pentagon entry and exit holes lining up with the path towards the VADOT camera pole peg, the tree and all the impacted light poles, The DNA recovered. All this washes away your NOC "witnesses" Who coincidentally to a man say they saw it impact the pentagon. Lagasse was under a canopy and in the process of ducking into his cruiser. from the time its shadow was cast on south gate road on the Citgo security cam till it impacted at 780 feet per second was two seconds, It would have only been in Lagasses field of view three tenths of a second before that shadow was cast and it disappeared from his view over the canopy. before that it was behind the trees up the hillside of the annex. Sorry you lose.
Click to expand...
This might be a stupid question, but do you have a still-shot picture of the shadow from that video of the shadow? That would destroy the north of Citgo witness testimony.
 
tj15 said:
This might be a stupid question, but do you have a still-shot picture of the shadow from that video of the shadow? That would destroy the north of Citgo witness testimony.
Click to expand...

from here
http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo Update.pdf

citgoshadow.jpg
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
...
There are also serious questions raised as to the validity of the RADES/FDR Data here so I´d say this was far from contradictory evidence.
...
Click to expand...
There are zero serious question at pilots for truth. Their best efforts were moronic 11.2 G failed physics. Pilots for truth sell DVDs of implied moronic conclusions based on paranoid anti-government poppycock. Bringing up the p4t as serious anything is proof of failed research and supreme gullibility, not to mention lack of knowledge in subjects required to figure out 911.

p4t claims are claptrap, there is zero chance anyone can support anything p4t claim with evidence and logic. Who missed over 100 witnesses who refute p4t and CIT delusional claims? p4t offer no theories, but do dish-up moronic math.

Seroius Support for serious p4t questions is defined as the empty set, a math term not recognized by p4t 11.2 G cult members.
 
beachnut said:
There are zero serious question at pilots for truth.
Click to expand...

My favorite attempt at debate there was trying to explain to one of their "experts with years of experience" that the following theory was unfounded:
An aircraft hits a light pole, a conservative estimate is that 1% of kinetic energy of the aircraft is transfered to the light pole, therefore a conservative estimate of the speed of the light pole will be ~5000 mph, therefore the official story of aircraft knocing the light poles over is impossible.

After showing it that the best possible case, which requires springs on the aircrafts' wings only allows the light pole to achieve twice the speed of the aircraft, I was banned for a month for not providing evidence of a maximum transfer of momentum. Note that I did show them how to turn the equations to show ... just that. Their "expert with years of experience" didn't understand highschool physics and kept the appeal to his authority to overrule it.

McHrozni
 
mudlark said:
The ASCE report quotes Probst as approaching the heliport, saw the plane come over the Annex and heading ´straight for´ him.
He was actually on the footpath that runs parallel to Route 27 along the Pentagon lawn.
He never mentioned any major deviances in the plane´s flightpath which would have been necessary to manouevre into the lightpole, low level trajectory necessary.
Boger, Christine Peterson, Levi Stephenson, Penny Elgas, Donald Bouchoux and even Steve Riskus narrow the entry point onto route 27 from the direction of the Citgo. Well off the trajectory necessary to make Probst a southside witness.
Are you trying to say that the plane could physically have reached lightpole 1 from Citgo?
Who witnessed this zig-zag pattern?
Click to expand...

Please explain to us where Flight 77 is? Where did it go?
 
Caustic Logic said:
Perfect, now that one person showed it to another and they said awesome, it's officially well worth the work. I made that one, and explain it in text here and here as well. Oh but the CIT cult has it covered! You can't trust that video as it's been proven manipulated! Here's their proof.
Click to expand...
In the second link, you say that some stuff in your original analysis was not accurate. In this video, http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/caustic+logic#watch=v14831085ACnQG4Rt , is everything adjusted so that it is accurate?

Also, great work!
 
Each time this CIT thing comes up, I love pointing out that one of their star witnesses, if he is to be believed, absolutely disproves their thesis. If Ed Paik saw the plane fly overhead and/or to the south of him, then plane had to fly south of the Citgo.

Had the plane gone north of the Citgo, Ed could not have seen it. This isn't a question, like the people at the gas station, where they could just misremember where they were standing - with Ed, either he saw the plane and it went south, or he didn't see it at all.
 
mudlark said:
The problem with this is that by the time the NOC had converged with SOC the plane´s entrance onto the lawn were a question of metres apart.
How does this diagram fit with Supelveda and Liebner´s testimonies?
Neither mentioned this low and level approach. Neither mentioned the white plume either in the gatecam footage yo offered as proof.
These two firemen ran for their lives, Wallace diving under the fire engine.
He admits he never saw an impact. He saw it on the lawn for a split second.
This does not prove SOC.
FDR/RADES data are proof? Read my first post. This is FAR from concrete evidence.
You guys are doing well on avoiding the ´debunking´ of Lagasse and the NOC witnesses.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me just how long the eyewitnesses had to make their determinations. At 500 mph by the time they became aware of what was happening it would be over with. This was not a moment frozen in time but a dynamic, confusing scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom