8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[sheeplesnshills]

You. Your drawn flight paths are equally absurd as in your recent illustration of the north and south paths. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as anyone who saw their testimony would suspect.

What parts of the paths do not exactly match the statements (apart from the the fact they are sets of straight lines rather than curves which is just a limitation of the software used)

[/QUOTEWhat do you say to the fact that Middleton would have barely seen the plane at all if it would have been on the "official/real" flightpath?

]

Not at all. If it was further out over Columbia Pike he would have no problem seeing it until perhaps the last second. Please explain how he could have seen at all once it passed him? The Navy annex is simply in the way! So either he did not see it at all after it passed him or its SoC

 

[I Ratant]

It's all smoke and mirrors. Go check my words, I Ratant.

.
I did.
Best to say nothing about those.
Finding a top view photo of a large airplane in a 90° bank is nearly impossible, so I adapted a video of a C-17 crash in Alaska to get the image for the airplane in this composite.
ALL the NoC witnesses would have had to have seen AA 77 at the orientation at that point in the approach to the Pentagon in this second image.
NO large transport can do this. NONE.
The C-17 in Alaska was in a wings vertical dive, not holding altitude, as would have been a requirement for the purported flight paths into the Pentagon, north of the Citgo station as "witnessed".

 

[Childlike Empress]

Not at all. If it was further out over Columbia Pike he would have no problem seeing it until perhaps the last second. Please explain how he could have seen at all once it passed him? The Navy annex is simply in the way! So either he did not see it at all after it passed him or its SoC

This is complete hogwash, like any look on the map with a knowlegde of topography will show. Your "lines" are overliterate interpretations of two witnesses reporting what they have experienced. Your contradiction doesn't exist. You fabricated it. The plane flew somewhere between those subjective testimonies: over the Navy Annex. Nowhere near the "real/official" path.

 

[Arus808]

uh no, he's taking two witness statements nad used to plot theire claims. then match it up against the real flight path and the others who testified about the where the plane was, and IT can only be Soc

and btw, did you not learn ANYThing from perspective and relationship between observers.

Why would someon use the citgo station (a non descript gas station) as a point of reference when describing what they saw that day? They would use buildings that stand out: The Shearton and the Navy Annex.


Your kool aid drinking of the CIT nonsense has made you such a dishonest person.

 

[Childlike Empress]

ALL the NoC witnesses would have had to have seen AA 77 at the orientation at that point in the approach to the Pentagon in this second image.
NO large transport can do this. NONE.

None of the witnesses have seen "AA77". They saw a large jetliner on a trajectory fundamentally different from the "official/real" flightpath.

So, as stated before - eighter you believe what their corroborated statements (not any of the literal lines) teach us about the plane, or you believe the data. The former would be option 4), the latter eighter 2) or 3). 1) it would be if you honestly think those people could all be mistaken (seen the CITGO testimonies?).

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why would someon use the citgo station (a non descript gas station) as a point of reference when describing what they saw that day? They would use buildings that stand out: The Shearton and the Navy Annex.

If you had taken 15 minutes and checked out the CITGO testimonies while being on Google Maps/Earth at the same spot, like i advised, you would know why the CITGO is the point of reference. And you would have avoided making a fool of yourself.

 

[I Ratant]

None of the witnesses have seen "AA77". They saw a large jetliner on a trajectory fundamentally different from the "official/real" flightpath.

So, as stated before - eighter you believe what their corroborated statements (not any of the literal lines) teach us about the plane, or you believe the data. The former would be option 4), the latter eighter 2) or 3). 1) it would be if you honestly think those people could all be mistaken (seen the CITGO testimonies?).

.
None of none the "witnesses" described the aircraft in the necessary orientation for those flight paths north of the Citgo/Annex.
NONE of them.
Considering also the very short amount of time all witnesses had to observe anything as completely unexpected as the event was, and, be knowledgeable about what was going on, coherence in descriptions of this transient experience shouldn't be expected, nor made a hard base line for any conclusions.
Whether or not they identified AA 77 or the type of airplane is irrelevant.
AA 77 flew into the Pentagon.
The Flight Data Recorder information is Square One.
The impact damage to the surroundings of the building and in the building are Square Two.
The debris both airplane and human found in the building are Square Three.
"Witness" descriptions that vary as significantly from that data as has been collected and elevated to "fact" need not be considered. No more so than any UFO abductee's horrifying tale could be accepted as fact by anyone but the gullible.
QED.
Eyewitness testimony for any event is the least plausible source for anything, other than possibly confirming something occurred.
What that something might have been, real data has to be obtained, and for all the aircraft and crash sites on 9/11, this data exists and confirms the raw scenario of fanatics attacking facilities in the US, using hijacked airplanes.
Two in New York, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Washington DC. The origins and identifications of all pertinent information regarding those planes and their final destinations are hard fact.
The mental aberrations that entertain (it's not entertaining to sane people) a vast conspiracy can't even come up with 50% of a conspiracy, and are worthy of notation in DSM IV.

 

[achimspok]

Here.

edit: additional explanation

Short explanation:
I took the "time" "true heading" "ground speed" "pressure altitude" from the FDR and calculated the xyz backwards from the impact hole. The last altitude was recorded about 0.8 seconds prior to the impact. Therefore I just calculated a straight line for the last 0.8 seconds...

...and aligned the end of that path with the impact hole.
The Prather / Stafford view for the last 11.8 seconds (the little balls mark the 1 second steps as recorded in the FDR):

You see the path is a lot higher and Yougene Debs was right about it.
Interesting point: Obviously these guys watched that plane approaching for mor than 12 seconds.

Even the Middelton view looks plausible:

 

[Childlike Empress]

AA 77 flew into the Pentagon.

See, that's why it is so important to keep the discussion focused. Otherwise, the prover starts to prove what the thinker thinks and ends up at UFOs in a few short sentences. If the above is the end of your investigation, I Ratant, then that's your choice. You'll keep my credit for even daring to mention something that doesn't fit the hive mind line of "thinking".

 

[The Big Dog]

See, that's why it is so important to keep the discussion focused. Otherwise, the prover starts to prove what the thinker thinks and ends up at UFOs in a few short sentences. If the above is the end of your investigation, I Ratant, then that's your choice. You'll keep my credit for even daring to mention something that doesn't fit the hive mind line of "thinking".

CE is ON A ROLL!

Good for you good buddy!

Figure out that your heroes fabricated that whole Paik thing yet?

Figure out that Craig and the Buffet Slayer don't understand aerodynamics yet?

Come up with a real response to your truther buddies demolition of the mutts yet?

Hee hee! Of course not. Don't read Legge's paper folks, CE is on a god damn roll!

/no tickee, no laundry. bwhahaha!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why shouldn't they read Legge's paper? Well, ok, maybe wait for the first revision which gets reviewed by the peers as we speak.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I took the "time" "true heading" "ground speed" "pressure altitude" from the FDR and calculated the xyz backwards from the impact hole.

That's very generous of you. Know what disgusts me the most? That this **** is good enough.

Weren't you preparing a critique of my debunking of your buddy's stopit video? It should explain why he tries to construct a flight path resembling the "real/official" one out of stills of people whose testimony, if seen in video, fundamentally contradicts that path.

Of course you can't do it, but hey, noise is better than nothing, right?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry, but option 2) is reserved for

Then Option #4: CIT knowingly biases sampling of witness testimony, and omits physical evidence which overrules them.

CE, this is serious. Producing a convincing case requires both the evidence to support the assertion and for the person producing it to offer an honest compelling case. CIT went the route of selection bias with their use of witness testimony, and you've decided long since to let that slide. Forget positing what the impossibility of the "NOC flight path," CIT poisoned the well before even making their case rendering it a moot point. If you don't like to be asked difficult questions, then I suggest you either make good use of the ignore function on this board to shut me out, or you confront those issues head on. I certainly won't be the only one asking you to address this in the future.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why shouldn't they read Legge's paper? Well, ok, maybe wait for the first revision which gets reviewed by the peers as we speak.

Well they did, silly.

You might recall that the Grounded Pilots for No Planes at the Pentagon declared: "no tickee, no laundry."

Hee hee heee!

Dodge on Paik, NOTED. Hey CE, you don't get a free drink with ten dodges of your heroes' fabrication.

 

[achimspok]

That's very generous of you. Know what disgusts me the most? That this **** is good enough.

Weren't you preparing a critique of my debunking of your buddy's stopit video? It should explain why he tries to construct a flight path resembling the "real/official" one out of stills of people whose testimony, if seen in video, fundamentally contradicts that path.

Of course you can't do it, but hey, noise is better than nothing, right?

Please CE, don't try to be "stopid" more than necessary. Your "debunking consists of a wrong drawing of some red line behind the trees. Did I missed something. There is no debunking. Yougene was right. Rankes question is ********!
...and from the Prather view the FDR plane came from over the Sheraton at about -20 sec. That might explain the time they had to run up to the Stop sign. That's might explain why so many CIT witnesses saw the plane hit the light poles. It was south of the Navy Annex.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Then Option #4: CIT knowingly biases sampling of witness testimony, and omits physical evidence which overrules them.

Option 4) is also taken.

The interesting thing about this thread is that it comes with the data to check the statements of the participants. Anybody who cares can understand the argument. This means that your hand-waving is terribly transparent. Just saying. Get a grip and learn which questions are difficult and which are not. You are basically shutting yourself up.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Please CE, don't try to be "stopid" more than necessary. Your "debunking consists of a wrong drawing of some red line behind the trees. Did I missed something. There is no debunking. Yougene was right. Rankes question is ********!

You did miss something, Achim. See above.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Your "debunking consists of a wrong drawing of some red line behind the trees. Did I missed something. There is no debunking. Yougene was right.

What's with his admitted straw man, Achim?
That would have been good enough in itself. It's at least a double debunk, and as noticed, i didn't even pay attention to the details of the suggestive nonsense the scumbag was trying to fabricate.

 

[achimspok]

And the point is not that it's behind the trees but that it never was to the right of what is now the distasteful memorial if it was on the "real/official" flight path. Drawing it higher would have been difficult because of perspective problems - with the label it's clear.

3 x Wrong!
1) It never was behind the trees
2) It was all the time right of the memorial except the last 5 seconds
3) drawing it higher would be right (no perspective problem)

This time a little closer to the Ranke video view:

Strawman? What?

 

[tsig]

Option 2):
CIT knowingly biases sampling of witness testimony, and omits physical evidence which overrules them. It doesn't get much more straight forward than that.

Option 3

CIT lied to the witnesses and lied about what the witnesses said.