Flight 77 flight path

[DGM]

Why SHOULD he view a ´heavily banked aircraft´?
It banked as it flew over the edge of the Annex.

I thought we were talking about your "blue line", If not tell me. If so, the plane would be damn near on it's side as it passed the annex (where he said he was). Your simulation and Mr Moran's statements do not indicate this. So, back to my original question, why?

 

[TexasJack]

I haven´t been playing any ´planted evidence card´. I´ve asked for documented proof.

Then please explain where the DNA of the passengers and all that debris from the plane came from. Please expain where 77 went.

 

[Edx]

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.

If avoiding the questions is answering them, then yes you answered them.

 

[Edx]

I haven´t been playing any ´planted evidence card´. .

Lol not only have you called people liars who dont say what you want them to say, but you have said that all the evidence of a plane was faked. CIT even call people liars, then say they are telling the truth when they can twist what they say to fit (like Mike Walters)

 

[Edx]

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.

We already showed him and he ignored it.

 

[twinstead]

The 'planted evidence card'? Mudlark, there is SO much physical evidence that contradicts what you are claiming, you played the 'planted evidence card' from the second you started posting. In your scenario, how ELSE could that evidence have got there?

 

[DGM]

The 'planted evidence card'? Mudlark, there is SO much physical evidence that contradicts what you are claiming, you played the 'planted evidence card' from the second you started posting. In your scenario, how ELSE could that evidence have got there?

It was carried in by a bunch of "crop dusters" flying his path.

 

[Locknar]

Ok folks...going through this thread, I keep seeing the same basic posts with the same images over...and over...and over...and over...did I mention "and over" again.

Continual posting of the same thing (text, pictures, etc.) is spamming and will be subject to Moderation (editing, deletion, infractions, etc.).

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

 

[TruthersLie]

You can't do that retroactively? tsk tsk tsk.
(I'm joking, honest)

 

[bje]

First of all I could understand why they were annoyed with you on the thread you linked to.

Yes, I ruined their day, and yours too.

As I´ve pointed out before, airplanes were a regular site over the Pentagon.

You should have read my post:

"Just think how those drivers and long-time commuters would react having seen a never-before-seen sight of a 757 moving faster and lower than any departing or approaching jet from and to Reagan ever had done before, loud as hell, along with a freaking explosion going off behind the jet, then hearing all the subsequent media reports from that moment until today that the jet crashed into the Pentagon and didn't fly over it. You would think they would remain silent, eh?"

Commuters on the opposite side of the west face of the Pentagon would not have looked twice.What they would have noticed was the massive fireball. If they saw a plane they would hardly have connected the two.

You really should have read my post:

"Once again, you stick your foot in your mouth claiming to know what hundreds of people would have seen or not seen after you, CIT, and P4T, refused to interview them for the last 8 years."

Roosevelt Roberts? Remember him?

Sure do. He was looking over the South Parking lot over lane 1. Your flight Path doesn't go anywhere near the South Parking Lot. And even if he had seen the so-called "flyover" jet, so would scores of others.

How about hearing the sequestered 911 calls around Arlington?

Man, your evasions are ridiculous. You expect that an unknown number of 911 callers reporting a "flyover" would sit around passively as the news media reported a crash instead? Maybe you as a CIT "Truther" wouldn't think to contact the media and ask, "What gives?"

It´s not as cut and dry as it seems. If Craig and Aldo found out so much with a cam and a pair of balls what do you think a real investigation with power of subpoena would reveal?

Tsk... tsk... You all claim you did the investigation already.

You and CIT have real problems with your fantasy flight path. Apart from the fact the g forces required to execute your flight path, you've got so many more problems that you have been evading for years.

Let's look at the reality. You'll have to click on the photo to see the enlarged, readable version.



The image shows several things:

1. A View Shed analysis shows the area within the purple shading extending to one mile from the center courtyard of the Pentagon. It shows the area in which a person could see a 757 that is 100 feet off the ground directly over the Pentagon courtyard at that instantaneous point in time.

2. Any person in that purple-shaded area would be in a position to see the 757 excepting, of course, where shrubbery and trees existed in the direct line of sight.

3. The points of visibility of the jet at that instantaneous point in time includes 2.3 miles of I-395 including the Arland D. Williams Memorial Bridge. It also includes a majority of the George Mason Memorial Bridge and the Rochambeau Memorial Bridges. It incluses all the major arteries around the Pentagon as well as the Pentagon parking lots.

The area encompassed within the purple-shaded area is just shy of 3 square miles.

4. The jet's movement will bring more area within a one-mile radius of the jet and more chances for observation.


CIT's Problems:

1. CIT has consistently refused to draw any "flyover" flight path after the point of intersection with the Pentagon. Any "flyover" path CIT would draw, such as represented by the three yellow lines, only further illustrates the probability that many people would see a flyover from the freeways, bridges, and parking lots. CIT refuses to draw a "flyover" flight path and must ignore any eyewitnesses not on the impact side of the Pentagon.

2. The absurdity of AA77 flying a NOC flightpath, apart from the extreme g forces required, when the actual flight path is easier and results in a damage pattern to the Pentagon consistent with the direction of damage.

3. Roosevelt Robert's statements are completely inconsistent with CIT's claims of a "flyover." He states he was at the loading dock looking over the South Parking Lot facing Lane 1 of the lot. CIT's fantasy NOC flight path puts the jet nowhere near the South Parking Lot so Roberts would not see it flying over the South Parking lot.

4. CIT has been completely unable to deal with the implications of any "flyover" and must avoid the hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, parking lots around the Pentagon who were in position to see a low-flying, fast moving, very loud jet moving away from an explosion.

Give it up, mudlark. You and CIT are completely debunked.

 

[Mangoose]

CIT has been completely unable to deal with the implications of any "flyover" and must avoid the hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, parking lots around the Pentagon who were in position to see a low-flying, fast moving, very loud jet moving away from an explosion.

Which would have easily been interpreted by witnesses as a plane that had just bombed the Pentagon. There would have been a deluge of phone calls to emergency services and to radio stations and the media that some crazy low-flying plane had just dropped a bomb on the building.

 

[Edx]

The 'planted evidence card'? Mudlark, there is SO much physical evidence that contradicts what you are claiming, you played the 'planted evidence card' from the second you started posting. In your scenario, how ELSE could that evidence have got there?

He doesnt directly say they were planted, he's just asking questions, remember?

 

[Edx]

1. CIT has consistently refused to draw any "flyover" flight path after the point of intersection with the Pentagon. Any "flyover" path CIT would draw, such as represented by the three yellow lines, only further illustrates the probability that many people would see a flyover from the freeways, bridges, and parking lots. CIT refuses to draw a "flyover" flight path and must ignore any eyewitnesses not on the impact side of the Pentagon.

3. Roosevelt Robert's statements are completely inconsistent with CIT's claims of a "flyover." He states he was at the loading dock looking over the South Parking Lot facing Lane 1 of the lot. CIT's fantasy NOC flight path puts the jet nowhere near the South Parking Lot so Roberts would not see it flying over the South Parking lot.

Whats funny is they claim the witness' wouldnt have seen the overflight because the explosion hid the plane, but as you say they ignore the other sides of the Pentagon.

But they then go right ahead and contradict themselves by claiming - because of Roosevelt Robert- that the plane went right back around again and flew over the South Parking Lot, so all of the witness would have seen it. Apparently they see no problem with this senario.

 

[mudlark]

The preponderance of evidence, both PHYSICAL and EYE-WITNESS, support the official flight path. I could care less about anything you have to say or ask unless you provide some evidence that physical evidence was planted, or a SINGLE eye-witness of a flyover.

See, it IS fun. I can play just like you guys

Any links or DOCUMENTED physical evidence to add?
Or official path witnesses?
Thanks.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark

If you are asking if there was oppurtunity for someone to plant anything as you say in ´broad daylight´, of course there was.

Originally Posted by mudlark

Doesn´t change the fact that there was opportunity.
Remember there was also renovation work and empty offices.
Speculation but again opportunity.

Originally Posted by mudlark
Exactly what ´heavy aircraft parts´ are you talking about?

There was a raging fire, Bozo. Try some other delusion, that one won't hack it.

Only if you are an idiot and pretend there was no raging fire.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't know. Otherwise you would have rejected this asinine idea in the very beginning.

How much do you reckon a landing gear weighs? You do know they were there, or do you need spoon feeding from someone via a photograph?

What I ´need´ to see is documentation of the debris.
Documentation the FBI admitted it does not have.
Are you trying to tell me that debris allegedly found within the building could not have been planted beforehand?
Whether there was a ´raging fire´ or not would make no difference.

How heavy WOULD this be?

 

[mudlark]

NO ONE ever reported what Ranke and you claim. Not this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg[/qimg]


Nor this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_159394afdf02ca5f2c.jpg[/qimg]

It's highly entertaining that you have to avoid supporting your claims of a "flyover" with actual evidence, mudlark. Just imagine ALL those eyewitnesses all around the Pentagon....

I´ve supplied the names of witnesses who describe something completely different both during and after the explosion that raise questions and need an explanation.
Did you even read their accounts? (Or was it too much of a hassle?)
Roosevelt Roberts for one.

Sequestered Arlington 911 calls. Why to this day are they kept from us even though the Manhattan 911 calls were released??

My ´actual evidence´ are the list of NOC witnesses including Robert Roosevelt which nobody here have debunked yet.
The false FDR RADES data for both Flight 77 and the C 130.

Undocumented ´physical evidence´ and the what is by now the mysterious 104, 135 or is it 150 impact witnesses is all I´ve seen in counter evidence.

 

[Caustic Logic]

What I ´need´ to see is documentation of the debris.
Documentation the FBI admitted it does not have.
Are you trying to tell me that debris allegedly found within the building could not have been planted beforehand?
Whether there was a ´raging fire´ or not would make no difference.

How heavy WOULD this be?

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/landinggear002.jpg[/qimg]

Documentation can be faked way easier than actual 3-D debris that all appeared in the building just as a few dozen occupants were torn to shreds by the 757 that dozens outside watched helplessly as it crashed into the ground floor. All the evidence is consistent with all these things being connected in the quite obvious way. If you can find an actual problem with debris and damage pattern that's one thing (no one else has done so yet, they just misread it badly). But to trifle over the paperwork you imagine should be shown to you. Are you playing on the level here? Do you really beileve cherry-picked out-of-context WORDS from some inconsistent witnesses telling you a physically impossible story (NoC + impact), plus a lack of "documentation," can cast reasonable doubt on something so totally real and massive and testified to by every other aspect of the 3-D world?

Now go ahaead and nitpick the pre-packaged CIT talking points and gifs all over again. You are apparently not programmed to be a learning spam bot.

Your endless challenges aren't worth anyone's wasted time here, and everyone knows it. But so long as we're having fun, keep on bouncing around, all!

 

[mudlark]

So did the plane fly directly over the VDOT antenna?

I don't think so. But even if it did, the g-forces that Cap'n Bob calculated are totally ridiculous. It's based on the assumption that the plane would have flown in a straight line to the light poles, then pulled up in a split second. In reality, only an idiot would believe that the "official" story has this happening; Hanjour certainly pulled up in a much more gradual fashion, as would any pilot.

First of all Balsamo used this scenario because Pilotsfor911Truth extracted this data from the FOIA requested Flight 77 FDR and the plane´s path is plotted OVER the Antenna.
Secondly, ´even if it did´ fly over the Annex?
Please don´t tell me that is still in question. There is no doubt about this.
Even one of the Balsamo counterargument links described this scenario.

Hanjour certainly pulled up in a much more gradual fashion, as would any pilot

Shouldn´t that be ´as any experienced 757 pilot may have possibly been able to do´?

 

[mudlark]

You didn't read the link I provided then.

I think I did and it was dead. If it was the ´someguyyoudontknow´ page that has been removed.

 

[Crazytimes]

Still ignoring all of the plane parts all over the lawn Mud. How did they get planted there with no one seeing ?