Flight 77 flight path

[W.D.Clinger]

Skipping questions that have already been answered several times, along with irrelevancies and professions of personal disbelief, I am left with this:

Have you any idea of the math necessary to reach lightpole 1 from NOC and turn to a low level approach (even more so at 540mph)?
Beam me up Scotty

It's impossible. No sane person would advocate a NOC approach to the line of downed light poles and point of impact. Go for it.

 

[Edx]

Dont forget to check those hundreds of witness' out Mud.

 

[Reheat]

Have you any idea of the math necessary to reach lightpole 1 from NOC and turn to a low level approach (even more so at 540mph)? Beam me up Scotty

Pssst! That ought to tell you something. Would it help if I whispered, so no one else could hear?

 

[mudlark]

How much of a turn was 77 in? What was the turn radius? Do you understand this requires math, which p4t can't help you out? If you can't quantify your claims and back them up why are you posting hearsay and your google junk science?

The ´slightest turn´ that Penny Elgas described in front of her over the HOV lanes?
The ´lift´that Robert Turcios described on the sign 150-200 metres up from the lightpoles?
The roadsign Boger described the plane hitting from NOC?
The ´jink´ Albert Hemphill described when he had the plane in his sights for ´3 seconds´?
Which turn?
There certainly wasn´t a ´turn´described anywhere near the lightpoles.
My ´google junk science´ actually makes sense.
The plane was travelling at an alleged 250mps/540mph
It is 300m from the first lightpole to the facade. Fact.
This equates to just over a second to ´impact´
The ´turn´ you describe would not affect this time because the plane allegedly went into a low and level trajectory from lightpole 1.
It could NOT go into the slightest of arcs as you are suggesting to add more time to the aforementioned 1+ second.
How could it execute a turn at that speed realistically? How would he have had time to realise he had to make that turn?

´Google junk physics´ but try and debunk it.

Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon at over 483 KIAS, over 548 mph. The kinetic energy at impact was 2,470,000,000 joules. If p4t or CIT did math they would discover 350 mph impact would be 1,010,000,000 joules, over two time less energy.

Thank you. Half the force of impact. That´s all I was saying.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77VDOTmast.jpg[/qimg]
Wingtip hit post. And cut up the tree next to this post. The wingspan is what, 124 feet. Oops, this is right where people next to 77 saw 77 right over their cars. Too bad your witnesses from CIT were how far away?

That pic is your proof?
Which witnesses are these?

Penny Elgas?

¨As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon.

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane COMING STRAIGHT AT US from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, TO THE SIDE OF (AND NOT MUCH ABOVE) THE CITGO GAS STATION that I never knew was there.

I SAW THE PLANE COMING IN SLOW MOTION TOWARD MY CAR AND THEN IT BANKED IN THE SLIGHTEST TURN IN FRONT OF ME, TOWARD THE HELIPORT. IN THE NANO-SECOND THAT THE PLANE WAS DIRECTLY OVER THE CARS IN FRONT OF MY CAR, THE PLANE SEEMED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 80 FEET OFF THE GROUND AND ABOUT 4-5 CAR LENGTHS IN FRONT OF ME. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.-- I could see the windows and the color stripes.¨

She saw the plane in front of her at all times from the Citgo gas Station until it reaches the motorway ´4 cars in front of her´.
Are you saying she was actually 4 cars behind the official path on the road?
In a position to see Lloyd England´s car being spiked?
In a position to see the lightpoles being hit?
If she saw the plane coming straight at her from NOC towards the position you are alleging what sort of manouevre would be required to make that turn to hit the poles, etc? Yet she described a ´slightest of turn´

Christine Peterson
At a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon

¨I WAS AT A COMPLETE STOP ON THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE HELIPAD AT THE PENTAGON; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I LOOKED IDLY OUT MY WINDOW TO THE LEFT -- AND SAW A PLANE FLYING so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed.

Note that the lightpoles are well behind her. She looked left. Not back. She had a similar POV to Sean Boger but from ground level. How big would the wings have to be to reach her car?

Please tell us the turn radius for the delusional aircraft turns you posted.

Need help with the physics? You do, when you imply 77 knocking down the lampposts would reduce the impact energy, you suffer further delusions based on ignorance. Got physics?

Don´t forget the generator trailer. That the engine just ploughed on through the generator,the wing stayed intact and the engine (whereever it is) just followed on through.
And the fact lightpole witnesses are scarce on the ground these days.

Why are p4t and CIT unable to make rational conclusions? Got those turn radii for your NOC high G impossible turns yet? Do you have some evidence to back up your wild claims? Have you proved the DNA false? The FDR, can you explain any of your failed claims about the FDR? How did the education system of your country fail you?

The revised FDR claims are solid. Please explain.
Even the massaged parameters used by detractors threw up g-forces that were nowhere to be found on the official NTSB provided FDR data.
I´d like to see that one explained.

 

[BigAl]

The ´slightest turn´ that Penny Elgas described in front of her over the HOV lanes?
The ´lift´that Robert Turcios described on the sign 150-200 metres up from the lightpoles?
The roadsign Boger described the plane hitting from NOC?
The ´jink´ Albert Hemphill described when he had the plane in his sights for ´3 seconds´?
Which turn?
There certainly wasn´t a ´turn´described anywhere near the lightpoles.
My ´google junk science´ actually makes sense.
The plane was travelling at an alleged 250mps/540mph
It is 300m from the first lightpole to the facade. Fact.
This equates to just over a second to ´impact´
The ´turn´ you describe would not affect this time because the plane allegedly went into a low and level trajectory from lightpole 1.
It could NOT go into the slightest of arcs as you are suggesting to add more time to the aforementioned 1+ second.
How could it execute a turn at that speed realistically? How would he have had time to realise he had to make that turn?

´Google junk physics´ but try and debunk it.



Thank you. Half the force of impact. That´s all I was saying.




That pic is your proof?
Which witnesses are these?

Penny Elgas?



She saw the plane in front of her at all times from the Citgo gas Station until it reaches the motorway ´4 cars in front of her´.
Are you saying she was actually 4 cars behind the official path on the road?
In a position to see Lloyd England´s car being spiked?
In a position to see the lightpoles being hit?
If she saw the plane coming straight at her from NOC towards the position you are alleging what sort of manouevre would be required to make that turn to hit the poles, etc? Yet she described a ´slightest of turn´

Christine Peterson
At a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon

Note that the lightpoles are well behind her. She looked left. Not back. She had a similar POV to Sean Boger but from ground level. How big would the wings have to be to reach her car?

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

Don´t forget the generator trailer. That the engine just ploughed on through the generator,the wing stayed intact and the engine (whereever it is) just followed on through.
And the fact lightpole witnesses are scarce on the ground these days.

The revised FDR claims are solid. Please explain.
Even the massaged parameters used by detractors threw up g-forces that were nowhere to be found on the official NTSB provided FDR data.
I´d like to see that one explained.

How do you explain the fact that the entire aircraft and all the bodies wound up inside the Pentagon?

 

[Mangoose]

Here he is on the NORTH side of the citgo describing the plane making this bank on the north side of the station!

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walter-NoC.gif

Except that wasn't where he was at all when he saw the plane. He was on Route 27 directly in front of the SOC path and in his digipresse interview he explicitly described the plane hitting the light poles along the SOC path, pointing specifically to the light pole on the east cloverleaf that was indeed toppled on 9/11.

 

[WildCat]

How do you explain the 10-15 seconds described by witnesses?
The plane came over the right side facing the Pentagon at a bank.
No way it reached in 4-5 seconds. Just over 1 second to reach the Pentagon facade from lightpole 1? Then 8/10ths of a second to penetrate?
How are the Route 27 witnesses so specific in their detail?
It would have been a blur.

Never seen an air show, have you? If you had, you would have seen fighter jets doing high-speed passes at over 600mph, and it is not a blur.

 

[WildCat]

Oh, there's another guy who saw the plane hit the Pentagon!

 

[Mangoose]

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".

 

[mudlark]

Except that wasn't where he was at all when he saw the plane. He was on Route 27 directly in front of the SOC path and in his digipresse interview he explicitly described the plane hitting the light poles along the SOC path, pointing specifically to the light pole on the east cloverleaf that was indeed toppled on 9/11.

Are you suggesting it's just a coincidence that he would describe a perfectly straight path to light pole one but also describe a very explicit right bank on TV the morning of 9/12/2001, only to go on to specifically point out the plane banking on the north side of the citgo just as described by these guys and others?

[/IMG]

If the official story wasn't a lie the plane would not be banking and it would be on the south side.

It doesn´t bother you at all that even the most famous face and voice out there who has worked the hardest over the years to sell an impact of the plane in the media can't commit to the straight official flight path and perfectly supports over a dozen others regarding a north side right banking plane?


If he was really on the highway and not at the citgo why do you think he claims it disappeared behind the embankment when he was being interviewed at the citgo on 9/11?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln97NJV44xs

Obviously he would not see it disappear behind that embankment if he was on the highway.

Did he simply forget where he was allegedly located earlier that day?

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".

Look at his location.

He's just north of the citgo like he was when he described the plane banking on the north side and like he was when he described it disappearing behind the embankment that he wouldn't see from the highway as if his vantage was from the citgo.

Mike Walter told different stories during different interviews on the same day and would go on TV the very next morning to describe the right bank that contradicts all official data and with hitting the light poles but is corroborated by several others.

You can't cite Mike Walter in support of the official flight path and suggest along with others throughout this thread that I´m the one who is picking and choosing what to believe.

Writing it off as a mere coincidence that he would so perfectly describe both of these very different yet hotly disputed flight paths that happen to be THE main sticking point proving the plane did not hit? Come on man.

 

[mudlark]

Craig Ranke slipped up and showed you. See how easy it is to see that "flyover" jet, Mudlark?:

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

And he's been running from it for over three years:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5034365&postcount=87

First of all I could understand why they were annoyed with you on the thread you linked to.
You were discussing evidence for how long? Then you drop the bombshell that you hadn´t even seen the video presentation of said evidence.

Just a piece of advise. Your video is over an hour long. If you wish to convince people of your position, you should release a condensed version...for those who are not so devout to sit through an hour or more long presentation. I would be happy to hear your evidence..but I'm not really willing to sit through such a long presentation. Other's who sit on the fence about 9/11 could possibly feel the same way. Whoever did the editing did a pretty decent job. How hard would it be to provide a condensed "utube" version...that could boil down your theory into reasonable amount of time for the casual observer.

Anyway..
Are you really pointing to a homemade photoshopped airplane video as evidence of why people should have seen the flyover? Come on man.
As I´ve pointed out before, airplanes were a regular site over the Pentagon.

Sean Boger even commented on their regularity and how he was surprised one hadn´t crashed into the Pentagon before 9/11.
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.

Roosevelt Roberts? Remember him?

Maria de la Cerda?

Eric Dihle?

Dewitt Roseborough?

Mr. Gurba interviewed live that morning from his appartment beside the airport?

How about hearing the sequestered 911 calls around Arlington?
Or Dave Statter´s interview with witnesses that morning who said

"pilot tried to avert the building"
"went to the side of the building not directly in"

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?
Or even a media that doesn´t 404 any interviews or documentation that contradicts the official story?
They did this investigation with their hands tied and still came up with results.

 

[mudlark]

This can be easily turned around on you--Given the SOC testimony and the testimony of those who saw it hit the Pentigon and the fact that NOBODY saw the plane go anywhere after the impact, it doesn't matter what we or you 'think' on the matter. If it couldn't have flown over where did it go? Into the Pentagon.

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?

 

[mudlark]

Don't you think AA would have figured out that it was not their aircraft then?

AA provided documentation that it was Flight 77?
Links?

 

[mudlark]

OK, so is Timmerman a liar or not?

I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.¨
¨And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO CRASH INTO THE BUILDING; MOST OF THE ENERGY WAS DISSIPATED IN HITTING THE GROUND, BUT I SAW THE NOSE BREAK UP, I SAW THE WINGS FLY FORWARD, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames.¨

Whether the recording was made in the ´middle of the room´ or on the ROOF could he have distinguished where I-395 was?
He was obviously using the I-395 as a reference point.Can you see where that motorway is?
If he witnessed the plane flying by the Sheraton he had to be standing in roughly the same spot as the camera angle shows.


´I lost it behind a building´. From the Navy Annex. Right?
So when did it appear again in his line of sight?
He would have had to have been looking at the exact spot where the fireball ensued for the next sighting. Or is the low level approach
not true? Or the 540mph speed?

´IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO CRASH INTO THE BUILDING; MOST OF THE ENERGY WAS DISSIPATED IN HITTING THE GROUND, BUT I SAW THE NOSE BREAK UP, I SAW THE WINGS FLY FORWARD´

Remember the plane allegedly entered the entire 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second at 540 mph.
Given what I have described he MUST have seen the fireball as it exploded.
It is a physical impossibility that he had time or the POV to see ANY detail.

If you have any counterargument I´d like to hear it.

Many testimonies were embellished that day both by the media and the witnesses themselves.
If I was presenting this witness to back up my claims you´d make exactly the same points. You know it.

 

[Baylor]

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.

So you agree that the damaged light poles were north of the citgo?

 

[mudlark]

Hey, Dom... how did he miss the flyover? Don't you think he would have noticed a 757 flying 4 feet above the Pentagon?

Now hurry along, I'm sure the library is closing soon and your mom has dinner on the table for you.

Can you explain to me how he came to be looking at that exact spot?
When the plane went out of his sight ´behind a building´ after seeing it pass the Sheraton?
Isn´t it more reasonable to assume that he saw the fireball, THEN looked?

[/QUOTE]´IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO CRASH INTO THE BUILDING; MOST OF THE ENERGY WAS DISSIPATED IN HITTING THE GROUND´[/QUOTE]

 

[Baylor]

Can you explain to me how he came to be looking at that exact spot?
When the plane went out of his sight ´behind a building´ after seeing it pass the Sheraton?
Isn´t it more reasonable to assume that he saw the fireball, THEN looked?

No.

´IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO CRASH INTO THE BUILDING; MOST OF THE ENERGY WAS DISSIPATED IN HITTING THE GROUND´

He was describing the plane's reaction after hitting the generator.

 

[The Big Dog]

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?

Frank Probst, duh.

Hey champ, why don't you give us the specs on that NOC flight path you posted at 3:55, post number 477?

At what point in the flight path did the wings fall off? Add in the pull down and pull up, and you CITiots are a ****ing HOOT!

 

[mudlark]

So when witnesses like Timmerman and Petitt put the plane south of Citgo, they are liars? Or just wrong and should be ignored?

I have already covered Petitt. Neither flightpaths put the plane over the I-395
The NOC path is actually closer to the I-395 than the official route until they intersect. I´m waiting to hear from you exactly where he was.
I´ve just posted the reason why it was physically IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish exactly where the I-395 was from Timmerman´s POV.
Timmerman´s testimony from an appartment window 1-2 kilometers away is more reliable than people who saw it fly over their heads in the immediate area?

 

[The Big Dog]

I have already covered Petitt. Neither flightpaths put the plane over the I-395
The NOC path is actually closer to the I-395 than the official route until they intersect. I´m waiting to hear from you exactly where he was.
I´ve just posted the reason why it was physically IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish exactly where the I-395 was from Timmerman´s POV.
Timmerman´s testimony from an appartment window 1-2 kilometers away is more reliable than people who saw it fly over their heads in the immediate area?

What do you care? You've called a bunch of people in the immediate area liars already.