Flight 77 flight path

[dtugg]

It´s no good saying that they ´misremembered´, that they are ´wrong´ or that we should simply ´ignore´them. This needs explained.

Actually, that's good enough for any sane person.

 

[Reheat]

Hay Mud, Your appeal to non-credible authority is rejected. Here's a photo of the path I calculated, which matches yours:



The blue and green lines are for calculation purposes only and may be ignored. The X's mark the points for the calculation.

Here are the numbers to go with the GE image:

Radius = 1782.6'
Speed = 450 Knots
Bank = 84.3
G = 10.1
Stall Speed = 508.8

No more screwing around with the fraudulent pfffft moron's references. If you disagree, do the calculations and post your work.

 

[Mangoose]

If it did fly over the Annex where proposed it had a major manouevre to perform within 3.7 seconds at 540mph and get into the final 1.3 second trajectory damage ridden path.
THAT sounds like a taller order.
What sort of manouevre is necessary to fly fro NOC to the first lightpole and low level trajectory? All within 5 seconds?
It is impossible.

Riiight....Remind us of how the plane flew over the impact site and thence to the South Parking Lot in all of ... what ... one second?

 

[mudlark]

That's possible, but in the video you cited earlier for its alleged proof of 10.14g, Rob Balsamo insists that the plane had to have gone over the VDOT antenna, not the Navy annex.

Rob is more likely to be right about that than about the 10.14g:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

Whatever happened to your respect for mathematics?

It´s not only possible. It is a fact. Witnesses from all angles within the basin, the Pentagon and the building itself described this.
I think you missed the whole point of the reasoning behind Balsamo´s insistence on the flightpath as being over the VDOT tower and the height that he stipulated. He was going by data extracted from the FDR.
Is there a layman´s version of data extracted by other parties? Pilots?
Were the altimeter readings taken into account? I know it has been claimed that seconds are ´missing´ but has a path been drawn or demonstrated taking in all these considerations?

 

[dtugg]

Hey muddy, you've never answered this:

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

 

[mudlark]

Please show the work done by professional pilots. Bank angles speeds and G force please.

This is funny. You posted a turn requiring 80.25 degrees of bank, and 5.9 Gs. The wings would crack off. This is what professional morons at p4t give you?

80 degrees of bank never seen on 911 by any witness sinks your ideas.

No one has debunked or refuted the FDR with facts and evidence. The final seconds of Flight 77 were on a true track of 61.2 to 61.5 degrees at impact. Sorry, but at 483 KIAS, over 500 mph, small bank angles (less than 30 to 45 degree) do not turn the plane. The turn radius which you and p4t can't figure out at 30 to 45 degree is greater than 20,000 to 35,000 feet. You posted an impossible turn radius due to complete lack of knowledge of flight dynamics, something p4t can't do due to their paranoid "offer no theory" to mess with DVD sales fraud.

Failure for 8 years personified by p4t and CIT.

I can´t speak for Rob Balsamo but why don´t you debate him?
I´ll post your reply on their site and will get back to you on the specifics you suggest if you don´t want to contact them personally.
The flightpath shown here is a composite of eyewitness testimony.
Did you see my post on the proposed scenario offered in the attempted debunk of the g-forces?
The 1.62 g is derived I believe from the plane actually going over the Annex, although the stats are manipulated to presume that the plane flew over the opposite side of the Annex.
Did the plane fly over the Annex? Did it fly over the VDOT tower?
The VDOT tower raises the mega g-force problem so you must be saying it went over the Annex. (Which way did it go according to the FDR data in your opinion?)
If you say the plane went over the Annex it certainly was witnessed by no one at the side proposed in the debunk theory and witness testimony has it on the other side (NOC)

 

[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.

 

[BasqueArch]

I keep hearing about the ´SOC witnesses´ here.
Can I have a name to at least discuss it?

´NOBODY saw the plane go anywhere after the impact´?


Sure about that?

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?

Is anybody reading my posts??
DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE please.
What ´majority of eyewitnesses´? Names please.

Pentagon Witness Accounts
(with llnks and with matrix in below link)
http://www.webcitation.org/5kWmEVFru​

[C] Confirmed date witness gave his/her testimony [A] Date testimony appeared in article or other medium
Name Date Location Testimony Source

================================================
Steve Anderson 10/02/01 [C] his office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, with a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River.

Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
James Madison University website
=============================================
Deb Anlauf 9/12/01 [A] 14th-floor room in the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on. "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

Leader-Telegram (Eau Claire, WI)

Also see AP wire 9/12 & 9/13
===============================================
Stuart Artman

Lt. Col.
9/15/01 [A] walking near the Washington Monument "I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees." The Ledger (Lakeland, FL) (Lexis-Nexis - Joy Murphy)
================================================
Ralph Banton 9/11/01 [C] on a house porch a little more than a mile away from the Pentagon "It sounded like it was jetting instead of slowing down." The Topeka Capital-Journal

================================================
David Battle 9/12/01 [A] standing outside the Pentagon just about to enter "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking." Albuquerque Tribune Online
================================================
Gary Bauer 11/01 [C] driving into Washington DC

“I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn’t moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. My office called to tell me about the first plane in New York, the reaction was ‘horrible accident.’ And then they called about the second plane, and clearly that meant something much worse was going on. It was only then that I really noticed where I was in that traffic jam. I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

<snip>
Over 100 more at the link above.


ETA: Edited to reduce length.

 

[A W Smith]

longpost is long

 

[The Big Dog]

Hee hee!

How many times has the nimwit posted the Corkscrew?

What a great day!

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Crazytimes]

Face it Mud, the only reason you believe in these theories is because like most of the 9/11 nut bags is you WANT to believe they are true. If it is your hatred for the US, the hatred for Bush or just your emptiness in life I don't know.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence against everything you say and there is ZERO evidence to support your asinine theories. Give it up.

My proof in my theories is you ignoring my questions.

 

[BasqueArch]

longpost is long

As is the list of witnesses to the Pentagon crash that Mudlark denies. Quantity has a quality all its own. Perhaps the opened link will convey that.

Passenger's DNA and corpses, personal items, aircraft debris, FDR found inside Pentagon, hundreds of witnesses to the crash. Damage consistent with crashed plane, not missile.

Why an airliner needs to pretend to crash but not , fly over and not be seen , and shoot a missile is a complexity and benefit incomprehensible to me.

 

[mudlark]

Uh, no it doesn't pass over his position! Not even in the slightest.



You idiots lie about it and hope no one notices. Even in the latest "National Security" crap Morin is quoted as saying the aircraft would have hit the new USAF Memorial and that's NOT NOC. You idiots lie with impunity and hope no one notices. Gullible fools swallow it without critique and then LIE about it when questioned.

You have been busted! Go find some other hobby, you're a failure at this.

First of all he was 10ft from the edge of the building. INWARDS. As was ascertained here.

´Not in the slightest´?

He told Craig that the full plane was within his view entirely WITHIN the Annex.

The plane has a wingspan of 124ft, the fuselage at 24ft in width so that means that the fuselage was AT LEAST 50 ft within the Annex.

¨The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage.¨

How could he tell unless the plane was to his side. He could hardly tell if it was directly over him as you are suggesting.

Ed Paik has the plane going over the Annex at an angle

These people agree on which side of the Annex the plane came into sight.

You´re not honestly trying to tell me that the plane came over the opposite side of where the ANC workers place it?
They had a far better view and angle to see it.

 

[mudlark]

As is the list of witnesses to the Pentagon crash that Mudlark denies. Quantity has a quality all its own. Perhaps the opened link will convey that.

Passenger's DNA and corpses, personal items, aircraft debris, FDR found inside Pentagon, hundreds of witnesses to the crash. Damage consistent with crashed plane, not missile.

Why an airliner needs to pretend to crash but not , fly over and not be seen , and shoot a missile is a complexity and benefit incomprehensible to me.

I think you need to read the thread from the start.
Missile??
I keep hearing about this ´quantity´ but never specifics.
Documented physical evidence? (Please)
Yes, You need to read from the start I´m afraid.

 

[beachnut]

I can´t speak for Rob Balsamo but why don´t you debate him?
I´ll post your reply on their site and will get back to you on the specifics you suggest if you don´t want to contact them personally.
The flightpath shown here is a composite of eyewitness testimony.
Did you see my post on the proposed scenario offered in the attempted debunk of the g-forces?
The 1.62 g is derived I believe from the plane actually going over the Annex, although the stats are manipulated to presume that the plane flew over the opposite side of the Annex.
Did the plane fly over the Annex? Did it fly over the VDOT tower?
The VDOT tower raises the mega g-force problem so you must be saying it went over the Annex. (Which way did it go according to the FDR data in your opinion?)
If you say the plane went over the Annex it certainly was witnessed by no one at the side proposed in the debunk theory and witness testimony has it on the other side (NOC)

Balsamo does not debate he spreads moronic delusions.

Flight 77 was only seen on this path. The various witnesses are pointing to this path.

Flight 77 last seconds were on a true track heading of 61.2 to 61.5 degrees. You plot the track yourself and see the NOC is a lie made up by morons who have no skills at research.

Your witnesses are pointing to the south...

 

[Reheat]

First of all he was 10ft from the edge of the building. INWARDS. As was ascertained here.

´Not in the slightest´?

He told Craig that the full plane was within his view entirely WITHIN the Annex.

As with all of CIT's witnesses there is conflict between what was said in their original testimony and what Ranke says. Quite frankly, I wouldn't believe Ranke if he said the sky was blue.

The plane has a wingspan of 124ft, the fuselage at 24ft in width so that means that the fuselage was AT LEAST 50 ft within the Annex.

That's not what Morin said. Don't give us measurements regarding something that's false in the first place. It could not pass where you indicate and nearly hit the area where the AF Memorial is located today as is quoted in the silly National Security Alert video. This garbage is refuted in CIT's own video.

How could he tell unless the plane was to his side. He could hardly tell if it was directly over him as you are suggesting.

Of course you're ASSUMING it was on the side which you want it to be in order to support the delusion. I didn't suggest it was directly over him, so stop attributing something to me which I didn't say. That's very typical of CIT's method so you're in appropriate company.

Ed Paik has the plane going over the Annex at an angle.

No, he doesn't. Here is the original .gif until it was modified after CIT realized it didn't support their fraudulent crap. Paik is pointing down Columbia Pike.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Edwardpointsnorth.gif

You are busted again showing a CIT manipulated image to support their fraud.

You´re not honestly trying to tell me that the plane came over the opposite side of where the ANC workers place it?
They had a far better view and angle to see it.

I don't need to tell you where the aircraft flew, Paik and Morin did. It can not get to the North side based on their description of the path as I've personally proven.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

Just as it can't hit the light poles from the North side.

Why have you're heroes not posted the results of "Operation Accountability? Are the numbers embarrassing?

 

[TruthersLie]

What I´ve been saying is that you guys have thrown NUMBERS of witnesses and no names to discuss.
I haven´t been playing any ´planted evidence card´. I´ve asked for documented proof.

Here you go twoof.

do a simple google search. wtc7lies and 136 pentagon eyewitnesses.

it should be the first response. It is in an excel spreadsheet. Knock yourself out.

 

[GlennB]

´Pulling terrific G´s´?
At what point? The Navy Annex?

You're confusing the g's required to pull up from the descent and flyover the Pentagon with the bank and g's required to execute the turn required by a NOC flightpath.

I - and several others here - was explicitly talking about the latter. The dinky little banks shown on those model aircraft wouldn't do the job at all.

A 757 in a 70°+ bank close to the ground is something that would be burned forever in everybody's memory. Nobody saw it. It didn't happen.

 

[WildCat]

I can´t speak for Rob Balsamo but why don´t you debate him?

Cap'n Booby bans anyone debating him on his site. And people do debate him here on the occasions he uses a sock to post.

No one's afraid of debating Cap'n Booby, but he sure seems afraid to debate anyone else!

 

[WildCat]

A 757 in a 70°+ bank close to the ground is something that would be burned forever in everybody's memory. Nobody saw it. It didn't happen.

Wouldn't a plane lose altitude in such a sharp bank? If so, not something that could be done close to the ground.