Flight 77 flight path

[Edx]

Mud thinks everyone is lying that doesnt say what he wants them to say.

 

[Edx]

All angles? Who? The commuters on the motorway out of view of the Pentagon facade? Traffic was freely moving. Most would have seen the fireball after it had happened.
Airplanes are a common site flying over the Pentagon. How could they have possibly put two and two together at that time when this information has only come to light years afterwards?

OMG srsly?

Yes planes are a common sight but not on 911.

Why didnt anyone notice a AA flying away from the Pentagon?

All your rhetoric comes back to ridiculous conclusions like this and this is why CIT fail so badly.

 

[mudlark]

they were identified. so was the landing gear at the exit hole.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

As those of Flight 77?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18210

14. By letter dated March 12, 2008, the FBI advised Plaintiff that, following a records search and extensive research into Plaintiff’s request, no responsive records were located.

The FBI conducted a reasonable search for the records requested in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and located no responsive records. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim should be denied as moot.

Despite these extensive and detailed search efforts, RIDS located no FBI records responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Id. The lack of documentation revealing the process by which the FBI identified the hijacked aircraft is unsurprising because the identity of those aircraft has never been in question and because other evidence collected after September 11, 2001, has corroborated the identity of the hijacked aircraft.

Thus, no documentation exists “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered . . . from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified . . . as belonging to the said aircraft,

Doubt it.

 

[tj15]

Mud thinks everyone is lying that doesnt say what he wants them to say.

It seems that the only evidence that he accepts is eyewitness testimony (notoriously bad evidence).

We need to counter it with a list of the eyewitness testimony of the many SOC eyewitnesses. I mean, he isn't going to accept physical evidence.

What will he say when he sees that the list of SOC witnesses is far larger?

 

[twinstead]

Doubt it.

Simple personal incredulity noted

 

[TexasJack]

It seems that the only evidence that he accepts is eyewitness testimony (notoriously bad evidence).

We need to counter it with a list of the eyewitness testimony of the many SOC eyewitnesses. I mean, he isn't going to accept physical evidence.

What will he say when he sees that the list of SOC witnesses is far larger?

Not necessarily bad evidence, unless it can be corroborated with physical evidence. He has none. EOS.

 

[Edx]

It seems that the only evidence that he accepts is eyewitness testimony (notoriously bad evidence).

We need to counter it with a list of the eyewitness testimony of the many SOC eyewitnesses. I mean, he isn't going to accept physical evidence.

What will he say when he sees that the list of SOC witnesses is far larger?

Ive been saying for ages we need those kinds of lists, in the same way we need a easily searchable database of truther quotemines. Roberts did a good job with his pentagon eye witness' list but it needs to be more specifically directed to CIT claims.

But it would be nice to complile not only a list of SoC witness' but also witness' that would have seen the plane fly over had it done so, obviously that part would be even bigger in reality since they wouldnt have been interviewed by the press. (since they were at the wrong angle to see the plane impact or SoC or Noc but would have seen a plane fly over.)

 

[tj15]

Ive been saying for ages we need those kinds of lists, in the same way we need a easily searchable database of truther quotemines. Roberts did a good job with his pentagon eye witness' list but it needs to be more specifically directed to CIT claims.

But it would be nice to complile not only a list of SoC witness' but also witness' that would have seen the plane fly over had it done so, obviously that part would be even bigger in reality since they wouldnt have been interviewed by the press. (since they were at the wrong angle to see the plane impact or SoC or Noc but would have seen a plane fly over.)

Exactly. I posted a couple videos of witnesses that said the plane came down 395... They would be SOC witnesses.

 

[mudlark]

Yea but Walter's a shill just like Timmerman and Lloyd, right Mud?

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

Lloyd? The guy who denied being anywhere near the bridge on camera and said he was ´in it´ and that ´it was planned´?
That ´when it comes to me it´s gonna be so big I can´t do nothing about it´

That Lloyd?

I don´t claim they were shills but that there testimony was highly dubious and evasive. Especially Lloyd.

Could you imagine I was presenting Lloyd´s scenario to back up any claims I was making on NOC?

Yeah fun times for you guys.

 

[Baylor]

Lloyd? The guy who denied being anywhere near the bridge on camera and said he was ´in it´ and that ´it was planned´?

So the mighty CIT discovered 9/11 was planned. Who woulda thought? Go Truthers!

 

[DavidJames]

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walterbankgif.gif[/qimg]

Just so I'm clear. You are using Walter at least partially to support your theory?

The guy who in the picture says the 77 nose dived into the pentagon?

Surely I'm missing something.

 

[mudlark]

Do "independently verified testimonies" trump any "official story" reports?

In the sense that the ´independently verified testimonies´ are in a way innocent in that they are uncontaminated and unbiased. That they corraborate from various angles. Yes.
What exactly are the ´official story´ reports you are referring to?

 

[Reheat]

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

This is quite stupid again. No one, No one described the type of incredible bank required to negotiate any of your imaginary turns. It's not even close.

 

[twinstead]

That Lloyd?

I don´t claim they were shills but that there testimony was highly dubious and evasive. Especially Lloyd.

Could you imagine I was presenting Lloyd´s scenario to back up any claims I was making on NOC?

Yeah fun times for you guys.

Yea. Just about as fun as you presenting a minority of witnesses who not only contradict the majority of witnesses, but the physical evidence as well and trumpeting them as proof that there was a flyover that none of them witnessed? Yea fun times for YOU guys.

 

[beachnut]

I... uncertainty in the times at which the altimeters are sampled during each recording interval. What is already known about that?
...

The Altimeter is sampled once near the first part of the 256 words, the vertical acceleration is sampled at 8 Hz, and the Altitude is in the first 32 words at word 39 and 30; the first 1/8 of a second.

Of 256 words per second stored in the FDR, pressure altitude is computed from words 29 and 30. This means the final pressure altitude is sampled a 226/256 second before the last value, and 13 or so words are missing from the end of the frame. If someone says 77 is too high to hit the Pentagon, there is at least another second of flying in a dive to go, and in the past second flight 77 has lost 59 feet and the RADALT is reading only 4 feet, about 10 feet from the antenna there is something below Flight 77. One of the lampposts or trees 77 is clipping?

 

[Edx]

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

Waters? The guy CIT says is lying so much they think he is an agent because he doesnt back up their fantasy at all?

You're even more ridiculous than they are.

So they hire an agent like Walters but somehow he is still too stupid to lie correctly? Why is the government so incompetent when they hire these guys?

Lloyd? The guy who denied being anywhere near the bridge on camera and said he was ´in it´ and that ´it was planned´?
That ´when it comes to me it´s gonna be so big I can´t do nothing about it´

Aside from being many years later and an old mans memory of a horiffic event, I still dont see why he was lying about where he was. The photos place him "at the pentagon" which is what he said.

As for the "it was planned", he has a David Icke book in his car, makes truther claims about the Pentagon, and clearlly believes in conspiracy theories in general. He is "involved" in the story of what he already considers to be a conspiracy, not because they hired him to lie. Why would he so easily just admit the conspiracy, while still maintain the lie about where he was, what he saw and what happened to his car? Does all that really make more sense to you?

 

[beachnut]

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?
...
Yeah fun times for you guys.

What was the bank angle? oops the largest bank angle for a moment was 8.8 degrees. 25 mile turn radius. Good for you.

The last few seconds had a 6 degree right bank, at exactly 5 seconds prior to impact the bank was 6.3 degree right wing down; hope no one confirms the exact number. Oops, you just posted a witness confirming the FDR. Darn, you were trying hard to keep up the lie of a fly over and you have another witness putting 77 nose diving into the Pentagon.

Yes, nose diving, Hani was up to 6 degrees down pitch, and going up to 6,000 feet per minute down; NORMAL landings are about 500 to 700 feet per minute, and the nose is not 6 degrees down. So compared to normal landings, this was a nose dive, the plane is not going to survive an impact at this high angle. Too bad you are not a pilot or an engineer, you would not be making dumb posts you will have to deny in the future if your kids go to college and retain their education. Think of how funny it will be when they see you defending moronic 11.2G physics of p4t truthNAZI, Balsamo.
The terrorists think your ideas are pure poppycock.

 

[mudlark]

the parts were identified (thats how i know they were engines and landing gear, etc)

and you expect anything other than lightweight parts to be "blown all over the place" ?

ETA: also, you didnt answer my question on why the conspirators chose a method of carrying out their plan that would result in the attack not looking like it should.[/QUOTE]

Identified as Flight 77?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11"]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11[/URL]

The post I made was in response to another poster claiming that ´airplane parts were blown all over the place´ when in fact the majority of debris was allegedly found inside the building.
What was photographed outside were unidenifiable small parts which were more likely building debris and a few sheets of plane ´skin´.

ETA: also, you didnt answer my question on why the conspirators chose a method of carrying out their plan that would result in the attack not looking like it should.

Speculation you want? I personally believe they messed up the op.
Whatever they had planned no concrete suspicions arose and the NOC evidence only came to light years after. So they didn´t do too bad.
Lucky they had the media on their side.
But as I said. Speculation.

 

[mudlark]

Mudlark
That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.

At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.
Penny Elgas said that the plane ´made the slightest turn´ just in front of her on the HOV lanes.
At 540mph? Impossible.
The ANC witnesses and Boger describe a bank the whole way down to route 27.
Even Walter describes a bank.
The plane is said to have ´wobbled´ and the pilot ´struggled with it´ from Route 27 to the facade.
You can choose to ignore the NOC witnesses if you wish but to ignore an even larger number on these testimonies is ridiculous in the extreme.

If the plane was travelling at 540 mph that equals 250 metres a second.
From the plane´s arrival on Route 27 at lightpole 1 to the facade is 300 metres exactly.
So are you telling me that in just over a second the plane reached the facade?

Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.

None of the above oddities, even to the degree they may be true trump the fact that the entire fuselage of Flight 77 (minus the aluminum consumed in the fire) and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and radar tracks and radar data show how and when it got there.

Parts?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11

Bodies? (passenger)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19057

The following is a September 10, 2008 Freedom of Information Act response from the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), regarding a request for records establishing the process of recovery and identification of forensic evidence from the crash scenes of American Airlines flight 77 in Arlington, VA and United Airlines flight 93 in Shanksville, PA on September 11, 2001. The records were deemed exempt from disclosure under U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(a) and (b)(7)(c) regarding law enforcement proceedings and privacy.

Radar data which contradicts all witness testimony and matches the FDR where g force values have been calculated to impossible extremities.
The revised calculations done by Pilotsfor911truth prove this.

The simple calculation I made on speed even throws doubt on the validity of this data.
Lightpole 1 to Pentagon facade in just over a second??

I´m sure there are a stream of posts ahead querying the validity of these calculations but I will address them.

 

[Edx]

Lucky they had the media on their side.
But as I said. Speculation.

Yes yes, even more people are in on it, its hilarious watching you create such an enormous conspiracy theory.