Flight 77 flight path

[mudlark]

This only shows that eyewitness testimony cannot be the main source of evidence. This only proves that your "confirmed and verified" eyewitness statements are not reliable as well. So we have to go with the physical evidence. You still haven't provided even one shread of evidence that proves that the debris, DNA, jet fuel, etc. was planted. You still can't explain how all the physical evidence got all over the lawn that was in plain view of everyone got there. You haven't been able to even explain how the light poles got knocked over while everyone was looking. When are you going to do this?

You are like tj15 comparing eyewitness testimony from kilometers away looking out a window to people who were actually underneath the plane.
Witnesses who worked or lived in the immediate area and who had an intimate view of where the plane was in relation to the buildings.
Particularly the ANC workers whose testimony is consistent. It came over the Annex on the right hand side facing them. In a bank. Towards the carpark.
Three people at the Citgo Gas Station who say it passed over the North side.
Sean Boger for God sake. Who possibly had the best view of the plane´s entrance into the area.
They all concur. NOC.
I have repeatedly asked for documentation to confirm the physical proof you are taling about. Still waiting.
Jet fuel? There was a fireball no?
One thing I do know 100% about the lightpoles is that it is a physical impossibility for the plane to fly NOC AND strike the lightpoles.

 

[mudlark]

And not only that, there are witnesses that place the plane south of Citgo. So the witnesses contradict each other... Further proving that eyewitness testimony is pretty unreliable.

Sorry if you guys have provided the names of the SOC witnesses you are referring to further on in the thread. I´ll talk about that when i see them.

 

[Baylor]

One thing I do know 100% about the lightpoles is that it is a physical impossibility for the plane to fly NOC AND strike the lightpoles.

But the light poles were NOC just like Lagasse said. It's been "independently verified" and "independently verified" evidence trumps "official story" reports. You said it yourself.

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.

 

[mudlark]

Mudlark... It sounds like this guy should have seen the flyover. But he says no such thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&index=0&playnext=1

This is the view this guy had

I would like to see how a plane would look from that distance.
Again he would have been looking at the fireball and smoke.
If the plane had been flying low and level as per the official story would he have been ABLE to see it?
You can just about make out the Navy Annex roof. Did he see it flying over
this point?
Look at the official path. How would he have even noticed it´s arrival on the scene allegedly at 540mph in a straight line facing his POV?
That´s why verification is necessary on details.

 

[beachnut]

Okay in addition to the 2002 digipresse interview (which occurred at the same location on Route 27 where he saw the plane), there is this interview with Mike Walter just AN HOUR AFTER THE ATTACK where he points to the SOC path and says "I saw it clip these poles".



"But there is no doubt about it, it was American Airlines and it slammed right into the building, and there was no doubt about it, whoever was piloting that plane was aiming for the Pentagon".

Reality does not stop CIT and p4t believers. They only use hearsay, quote-mined statements to support moronic delusions. All mudlark's witnesses debunk mudlark's flyover fantasy.

He is open loop spam mode now, not stopping to explain his failed 34 G lies.

 

[Reheat]

This is the view this guy had
Look at the official path. How would he have even noticed it´s arrival on the scene allegedly at 540mph in a straight line facing his POV?
That´s why verification is necessary on details.

Your judgment and opinion on this is obscured by brown stuff with an unpleasant odor.

You're omitting the fact that the aircraft would have turned to escape up the Potomac (or down if you wish, doesn't matter). This would have provided the aircraft profile in "plan form" view much closer than you imply. Fireball or not, this would have been seen unless Cook was blind!

 

[mudlark]

The RADES data and the FDR match all the witnesses, you are not trained to take witness statements or analyze them. I was trained by the USAF in accident investigation and nothing CIT has claimed is valid.

Sure about that statement?

The best part is if you use Boger at all, he has 77 impacting the Pentagon exactly where Flight 77 hit. Oops, you are debunked by your own witness.

NOC and impact are a non runner. What should we believe? That he saw the NOC flightpath described.

And who also questioned the gatecam footage.
Or that he didn´t flinch at the sight of a bigass plane heading towards his direction across the Pentagon lawn?
I´m not questioning his belief that he saw an impact but his testimony in regards its approach make it an impossibility.

Too bad CIT never were trained. Why do you fall for the moronic overflight?

You have not dented one of the 136 witnesses. What is the problem?

136 witnesses beat your 13 witnesses who all agree that 77 impacted the Pentagon and knocked down the lamppost. Sad

136? Who are they? And what exactly did they see? Where from?

Here is how the failed paths work. All the witnesses saw 77 for an instant in the air, there is no way they can accurately describe the ground track from where they were. So they saw 77 in the air, that matches the path 77 took. The paths draw are impossible due to G force. Use some math and physics and stop posting stupid stuff from CIT and p4t.

Why don´t you tell them this? They didn´t see what they saw because it was there ´for an instant´
Witnesses in the area claim it took 10-15 seconds to get to the Pentagon from the plane´s arrival at the Annex.
The flightpath has been proved POSSIBLE
The G-forces necessary given the FDR data has been proven to be IMPOSSIBLE

When you prove the DNA is fake, and the FDR is fake, and the RADAR data is fake, and all 136 witnesses I presented are fake, you will have a Pulitzer Prize. But you never will, you will be a fantasy believer, an anti-intellectual failed idea supporter. A terrorist apologist to follow the terrorists loyalist at p4t and CIT who lie to forgive the terrorists and blame whoever they hate. Join them it is so sad to see people jump into the pit of ignorance with no knowledge how to build the ladder of knowledge. How long will it take you to rise from the pit?

Again YOU show ME official documentation for the Flight 77 plane parts.
Documentation on the chain of custody for the DNA.
The FDR/RADES path is described by noone in the area. Are you going to tell me that the plane didn´t at least fly over the Annex?
G-forces and altimeter readings cast serious doubts over the authenticity of this data. Hence the official path.
And again, list the 136 witnesses you keep repeating.

 

[mudlark]

How come you ignore the fact that all of your own witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, CITiot? It's almost as if you are only cherry picking what you want to hear. But you wouldn't do that, would you?

All?
Paik? Morin? The ANC witnesses? Do you believe Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios are so sure they saw an impact now given the implications of their testimony?
How about you ´cherrypick´ some SOC witnesses and throw them my way?

 

[Baylor]

But the light poles were NOC just like Lagasse said. It's been "independently verified" and "independently verified" evidence trumps "official story" reports. You said it yourself.

Bump for mudlark.

 

[dtugg]

The flightpath has been proved POSSIBLE

Yeah, if the plane was banking practically sideways the entire turn. Too bad that precisely nobody saw this.

The G-forces necessary given the FDR data has been proven to be IMPOSSIBLE

No. Your hero Cap'n Bob is just a complete frickin' moron and so is anybody who listens to him.

You never answered my question:

An airplane can only fly in straight lines. True or false?

I promise to make fun of you no matter what you answer.

 

[dtugg]

Edited by Darat: 

Various breaches of MA removed.

 

[Reheat]

The flightpath has been proved POSSIBLE.
The G-forces necessary given the FDR data has been proven to be IMPOSSIBLE

Only if you believe charlatan's and deceptive math. Congratulations, you have been duped by con men.

 

[mudlark]

Rob Balsamo's calculation was off by a factor of 5: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

I haven´t time at the moment (as you can see) to follow through this link.
Mind being a bit more specific?
Even the 1.62 G-force that was arrived at through these set of calculations, is it correct to say that the 1.62 gs was for a 4 second duration?
If so how come the data´s highest g-force shown was 1.75g for 1/8th of a second?

Or is this the 4g required for 4 seconds as proposed by Mackey?
Factor of 5? Explain.

The last radar altitude recorded by the FDR was 4 feet: http://www.warrenstutt.com/

Will

You want me to download this program or is the 4ft altitude proven at this link?

 

[Algebra34]

I haven't read through all of this thread but mudlark as obviously got all the debunker panties in a bunch.

Good job.

 

[dtugg]

I haven't read through all of this thread but mudlark as obviously got all the debunker panties in a bunch.

Good job.

Do you think that the plane really flew up and over the Pentagon,

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

removed

And no, he certainly hasn't got my panties in a bunch. It's just that the CITiot variety of twoofer is especially fun to mock.

 

[A W Smith]

I haven't read through all of this thread but mudlark as obviously got all the debunker panties in a bunch.

Good job.

He does does he?

Argument By Selective Observation:

Hypothesis Contrary To Fact:

Burden Of Proof:

Argument By Scenario:

 

[mudlark]

Sorry, I go with what the physical evidence shows. People's recollection can be wrong and a small percentage that recollect something different than the majority is to be expected with such a large number of eyewitnesses. Since, as you claim, there is no way the plane could have crashed if it flew NOC, then it didn't fly NOC. The onus is on you to prove that the physical evidence is fake. Once you prove that it's fake, then your NOC eyewitness statements will start carrying some weight.

I was answering your assertion that ´nobody saw NOC´.
Now you have changed that assertion to the ´physical evidence outweighs witness testimony´ line.
That would be true if you had access to this documented physical evidence and could pass it on to me.

 

[mudlark]

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.

I have answered them. Look for them yourself.

 

[Baylor]

But the light poles were NOC just like Lagasse said. It's been "independently verified" and "independently verified" evidence trumps "official story" reports. You said it yourself.

Bump for mudlark.

 

[mudlark]

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.

´Practically sideways´?
No, not sideways but something like this?

You are totally wrong. Sorry.