• 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

dtugg said:
LOL! You actually think that a plane could fly that blue line? and fly over the Pentagon Too funny!
Click to expand...

Ask these guys.

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?
 
1. Mud why do you ignore all the witness' that would have seen a flyover if that happened?

2. Why do you suggest they knew they were going to have the luck of a leprecon?

3. And what reason wouldnt they just crash the plane into the building?




I knew you wont even try and answer those questions, but feel free to surprise me.
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
Ask these guys.

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?
Click to expand...

Hey genius, your hero Cap'n Bob used the yellow line at about 3:30 for his calculations. And it turns out that that path is only possible if the plane is flying practically sideways, which nobody saw. And not to mention the fact that it throws several of the CITiot witnesses under the bus and ignores the pull up and over the Pentagon.

Your insane corkscrew path is impossible.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
[qimg]http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/DeadHorseBeatAgain.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

´Margin of error´?

Are you saying the FDR/RADES data may be off?

Don´t think so.

From there, the unit will process the information and send an output to the cockpit instrumentation and flight data systems at least 8 times per second.

The Flight Data Recorder doesnt have any errors in terms of air data (altitude, airspeed). Those errors are removed during calibration testing for certification.

"Airdata quantities are needed for a multitude of tasks, including flight safety, control, navigation, weapons delivery, flight test, and flight research. These quantities generally need to be measured and then calibrated to remove errors. The techniques and procedures are here; numerous references should be studied if airdata values are to be measured and calibrated."
Click to expand...

Have a browse through here too.

According to the many FDR Companies we (P4T) called (including the manufacturer of the FDR and Aircraft Accident Investigators in our organization at pilotsfor911truth.org...), they adamantly refer to DME as the most accurate in terms of location/position. However, they also offered this during our interview...

¨If you know where the airplane departed, we can truly determine where the airplane was by pure physics. We have some very sophisticated equipment. If you know where the airplane took off, we know the airplane turned left, right, up down, speed... We can precisley determine last position based purely on physics. But if you have DME, that is the most accurate...¨
Click to expand...

Couple this information with the fact NOBODY saw the plane on the South of Citgo your ´margin of error´ is pretty wide and basically a personal opinion (?)
 
mudlark said:
Ask these guys.

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?
Click to expand...
Oh, so you now change your story. According to you, if the plane flew NOC, there is no way it could have hit the Pentagon. Hmmm
 
mudlark said:
Couple this information with the fact NOBODY saw the plane on the South of Citgo your ´margin of error´ is pretty wide and basically a personal opinion (?)
Click to expand...
Mark Petitt said that it came down 395... This is definitely closer to the south path.
 
mudlark said:
´Margin of error´?

Are you saying the FDR/RADES data may be off?
Click to expand...
The margin of error pertains to what people saw.
Couple this information with the fact NOBODY saw the plane on the South of Citgo your ´margin of error´ is pretty wide and basically a personal opinion (?)
Click to expand...
You have been provided with some. Just because you hand wave them away doesn't mean that they don't exist. Of course, there is the whole physical evidence thing that you refuse to provide and evidence that proves it is fake.
 
CITiot, do you realize that the Citgo station is an arbitrary landmark? That before your CITiot heroes began their "investigation" few if any people named it when describing what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? That people could describe a path that is south of the Citgo without mentioning it?
 
tj15 said:
Did you figure out Petitt yet?
Click to expand...

I showed both the official path and the NOC path. Neither puts the plane over I-395.
When he said ´it came up I-395´ maybe he meant alongside?
I don´t know. He would have to be interviewed first hand to get to the bottom it.
First hand in depth interviews asking details are the only way forward.
 
mudlark said:
I showed both the official path and the NOC path. Neither puts the plane over I-395.
When he said ´it came up I-395´ maybe he meant alongside?
I don´t know. He would have to be interviewed first hand to get to the bottom it.
First hand in depth interviews asking details are the only way forward.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he likely meant... That interview was probably minutes after the attack on the Pentagon... Much more fresh in his mind than YEARS after like the CIT witnesses. 395 is a lot closer to the south path than the noc path.
 
mudlark said:
Ask these guys.

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?
Click to expand...

WOW! Are you still trying to justify that insane corkscew path???

Bwhahahaha!

Calculations by professional pilots? Those guys are idiots, Have you seen their infamous hockey stick analysis? Hilarious!

They are lying to you and you are too drunk on the Kool Aid to know any better.
 
mudlark said:
I showed both the official path and the NOC path. Neither puts the plane over I-395.
When he said ´it came up I-395´ maybe he meant alongside?
I don´t know. He would have to be interviewed first hand to get to the bottom it.
First hand in depth interviews asking details are the only way forward.
Click to expand...
That's not what he said. And as you know, what they say is 100% infallible. Or is that only as long as it supports your view?
 
I have asked about 4 times already, but, does anyone know if the official path takes the plane over the driving range?
 
Reheat said:
Oops! You left out Terry Moran. My, my he's one of the star witnesses and you left him out. Shame on you, but I'm sure it was inadvertent and you'll correct the flight to include him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

BothPathsOverhead.jpg


morinPOV2.gif
[/IMG]
 
Keep showing that path! You're doing a much better job of discrediting yourself than any of us ever could!
 
Message to debunkers: We can not "defeat" what Mudlark is saying by using physical evidence. He will just play his "planted evidence" card.

Now, he says (correct me if I'm wrong Mudlark) that no witnesses place the plane on the south side of Citgo. If we (debunkers) come up with a list of SOC witnesses (especially more than CIT's 13), the NOC witnesses will look extremely weak as evidence.
 
mudlark said:
You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/BothPathsOverhead.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg][qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/morinPOV2.gif[/qimg][/qimg]
Click to expand...
Your "Terry" view does not show a heavily banked aircraft. Why?

Hint: According to "Capt. Bob" he would see the side of the plane.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Another shill, obviously. As you can see from the comments, I wonder if Mudlark will directly or indirectly call this another fake witness. Cuz they're all fake if they dont say what CIT want them to say, isnt that right Mudlark?
Click to expand...

Again...have I called anybody a shill?

Mark Petitt´s testimony needs to be dug into further but given the paths I posted, not knowing exactly where he was and the fact that the NOC path is actually closer to the I-395, then intersects with the official path it needs further investigation.
Especially given the fact that we know the plane went over the Annex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom