Flight 77 flight path

[dtugg]

No, CITiot, by practically sideways, I meant practically sideways. As in close to 90 degrees. You do understand what that means, yes?

 

[mudlark]

That's exactly what he likely meant... That interview was probably minutes after the attack on the Pentagon... Much more fresh in his mind than YEARS after like the CIT witnesses. 395 is a lot closer to the south path than the noc path.

At which point? At the point where we know the plane started its path over the Annex? Before the paths intersect the proposed NOC path is closer until they intersect. are you saying the plane did not go over the Annex?

Do I have to list all the CMH interviews again? That is a failed argument.

 

[dtugg]

And he brings out the corkscrew path yet again!

This is almost too good to be true!

 

[mudlark]

CITiot, do you realize that the Citgo station is an arbitrary landmark? That before your CITiot heroes began their "investigation" few if any people named it when describing what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? That people could describe a path that is south of the Citgo without mentioning it?

What´s your point?
3 witnesses at this gas station described where the plane flew. They didn´t need to know it´s name (although they did)
The ANC workers described a path close to their carpark. They didn´t need to know it was there.
Boger remembers it. He worked there every day.
None of them described SOC.

 

[DGM]

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

At which point? At the point where we know the plane started its path over the Annex? Before the paths intersect the proposed NOC path is closer until they intersect. are you saying the plane did not go over the Annex?

Do I have to list all the CMH interviews again? That is a failed argument.

I take it you discount Terry Moran's (sp?) statements because they are not consistent with your flight path. He couldn't have seen the plane disappear behind the trees. Have you ever tried to justify all of CIT's interviews together? They don't work.

 

[Mangoose]

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

Dude, you still don't get it. Walter was not at the CITGO or on the north side of the CITGO at the time of the attack. Agreed? He makes absolutely no claim in that video that the plane was banking on the "north side". Look again at what he does:

He says "I watched and then it was the silver underbelly of a jet". His gestures illustrate that moment; he is looking up to what he is envisioning as the jet above in front of him, looking at the underbelly. That was what he saw on Route 27 -- NOT WHAT HE SAW ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO, as he wasn't there at the time. He was south of the CITGO on Route 27 (as we saw just moments earlier in the same interview video), and if he is looking at the underbelly, then he is placing the plane south of the CITGO as well. Just a moment later, he goes on to say: "I know it was a passenger jet, I know it was a big jet," and then he turns to point in the direction of the SOC path and his location on 9/11, and continues....

"...and I know it was screaming towards the Pentagon".

 

[mudlark]

That's not what he said. And as you know, what they say is 100% infallible. Or is that only as long as it supports your view?

I know what he said.
Again not even the official path goes over the I-395 so was that not a fair assumption to make?
So you tell me how he saw it there.

 

[mudlark]

I have asked about 4 times already, but, does anyone know if the official path takes the plane over the driving range?

The north side path does.

Jamal El'Kournayati is the witness who was on the driving range.

Witnesses to this leg of the flight path are in this presentation:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/vi...whiteplane.html

The driving range can actually be seen on the 2 paths map.

 

[mudlark]

Message to debunkers: We can not "defeat" what Mudlark is saying by using physical evidence. He will just play his "planted evidence" card.

Now, he says (correct me if I'm wrong Mudlark) that no witnesses place the plane on the south side of Citgo. If we (debunkers) come up with a list of SOC witnesses (especially more than CIT's 13), the NOC witnesses will look extremely weak as evidence.

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.

 

[mudlark]

Your "Terry" view does not show a heavily banked aircraft. Why?

Hint: According to "Capt. Bob" he would see the side of the plane.

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

 

[mudlark]

The DNA and physical evidence, as well as the majority of eye-witness testimony, shows the plane impacted the Pentagon. Any witnesses you provide are anomalous and are therefore discarded.

See how fun this is?

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

 

[T.A.M.]

ummm...if you are one of about 6 or 7 people who actually believe the NoC nonense, then NO, people are not likely reading your posts.

I was amazed to find this thread going on so long, until I realized Craig, Waldo, and Captain Bob had a new follower in here.

TAM

 

[mudlark]

William Middleton claims to have felt the heat from the plane. Is this possible if the plane is on the south path?

You can see his interview here.
There can be no doubt where he saw the plane.
When you say South path do you mean over the other end of the Annex or on THE official path?
it´s hard to tell what some people regard as the official path these days given the undeniable fact that it did go over the Annex.
This scenario has even been used in detractors attempts to debunk Pilotsfor911truth g-force readings.

 

[mudlark]

I'm asking whether the driving range is on the official path. Can it be on both paths?

Look at the photo where the driving range is (bottom left).
I would say that it doesn´t.

 

[T.A.M.]

does anyone pay enough attention to Captain Bob's site and theories to actually "debunk" what he puts forward?

Seriously? I mean yah, when they first came out, a few paid attention to him, but in the last couple of years (2008-2009) does anyone in the debunking community even talk to him or communicate with him anymore?

TAM

 

[Reheat]

Hay Mud,

That turn on the blue line you've been drawing requires 84 + degrees of bank at 10 + G's.

Do you really expect anyone here to take you seriously?

 

[mudlark]

mudlark - the blue line would require an astonishing degree of bank, pulling terrifying G's, for an airliner. Even if it were aeronautically possible (which is doubtful, but arguable) nobody - but nobody - reported any such thing about AA77 on 9/11.

Not even the supposed NOC witnesses.

Do you understand this? Do you understand why it means the blue line is simply impossible?

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

These guys don´t seem to think so.

In another link I was given just tonight trying to debunk the calculations of these people just this very scenario was proposed to counterargue Rob Balsamo´s g-forces. The link actually proposed that Balsamo was sticking to the VDOT tower descent because it was the most difficult path when he was actually following the FDR data.
It was proposed that the plane actually flew over the Annex but from the other side. Which NOBODY saw.
Balsamo found a maximum g-force of 1.4 for the NOC route using the official 540mph speed.
The bank witnessed began from the plane appeared over the Annex.
If you are saying the bank was too heavy based on the 540mph speed proposed wouldn´t it be just as difficult a manouevre from the other side of the Annex?
Remember the official story proposes that the plane took 3.7 seconds to reach lightpole 1 and 1.3 seconds from pole 1 to the facade.
If it is accepted that the plane flew over the Annex (which it undoubtedly did) but from the opposite side, it had a sharp manouevre to undertake to get into the low level approach and avoid the VDOT cam and roadsign. Then 1.3 seconds to get from the pole to the facade while pulling out of this, and get back on the proposed trajectory according to the damage.

I´d say THAT was a taller order.

What do you think are the odds or even physical possibility of flying NOC (which was witnessed 100%) and getting into a position to cause the subsequent damage?

 

[dtugg]

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

These guys don´t seem to think so.

In another link I was given just tonight trying to debunk the calculations of these people just this very scenario was proposed to counterargue Rob Balsamo´s g-forces. The link actually proposed that Balsamo was sticking to the VDOT tower descent because it was the most difficult path when he was actually following the FDR data.
It was proposed that the plane actually flew over the Annex but from the other side. Which NOBODY saw.
Balsamo found a maximum g-force of 1.4 for the NOC route using the official 540mph speed.
The bank witnessed began from the plane appeared over the Annex.
If you are saying the bank was too heavy based on the 540mph speed proposed wouldn´t it be just as difficult a manouevre from the other side of the Annex?
Remember the official story proposes that the plane took 3.7 seconds to reach lightpole 1 and 1.3 seconds from pole 1 to the facade.
If it is accepted that the plane flew over the Annex (which it undoubtedly did) but from the opposite side, it had a sharp manouevre to undertake to get into the low level approach and avoid the VDOT cam and roadsign. Then 1.3 seconds to get from the pole to the facade while pulling out of this, and get back on the proposed trajectory according to the damage.

I´d say THAT was a taller order.

It's amazing how little you know about aerodynamics. I mean, I am no expert, but you seem to know as much about how planes fly as my eleven year old brother.

What do you think are the odds or even physical possibility of flying NOC (which was witnessed 100%) and getting into a position to cause the subsequent damage?

The plane didn't fly NoC, CITiot. And no, a handful of witnesses cherry picked by idiots with an agenda years after the fact proves nothing.

 

[Crazytimes]

If you have documentation on debris, DNA and bodies I´d gladly look at them.
If you are asking if there was oppurtunity for someone to plant anything as you say in ´broad daylight´, of course there was.

http://www.arlingtonva.us/web/pdfinfo.aspx



You are asking for speculation but the oppurtunity was definitely there.

I havent been to this thread in a while so I assume someone else already asked but PLEASE give me ONE resonable explanation as to how airplane parts were planted all over the lawn. When was this opportunity and how was it done ?

Oh also, what is your explanation for the lack of any witness seeing the plane do anything but hit the pentagon ? No one saw a flyover so how do you explain that against the 100+ that saw the impact ?

 

[mudlark]

mudlark - the blue line would require an astonishing degree of bank, pulling terrifying G's, for an airliner. Even if it were aeronautically possible (which is doubtful, but arguable) nobody - but nobody - reported any such thing about AA77 on 9/11.

Not even the supposed NOC witnesses.

Do you understand this? Do you understand why it means the blue line is simply impossible?

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Mus.../balsamo2.html

This link was posted to me to debunk the calculations of Rob Balsamo and the g-forces scenario.

¨Mistake 1
Balsamo believes the government's official flight path places the aircraft directly over the VDOT antenna, and supports his belief with a picture provided by CIT. In reality, several eyewitnesses have said the aircraft flew over the Navy annex or the road that lies between the Navy annex and the VDOT antenna. For future reference, let us note that the elevation of the Navy annex is about the same as the base of the VDOT antenna (135 feet above sea level) and that the Navy annex is a five-story building¨

So to try and debunk the VDOT scenario it HAD to be admitted that the plane flew over the Navy Annex. This scenario involves the plane flying over the Annex on the other side to what the list of witnesses really described.
Anyway, what is the major difference between the scenario in the photo and the one proposed in this paper?
There was a bank as the plane flew over the edge of the building. It is not a radical arc and even using the official 540mph it has been proved to be dynamically possible.

This paper also says that the plane took 3.7 seconds to reach lightpole 1 and 1.3 seconds from there to the facade. 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.
It´s no good saying that they ´misremembered´, that they are ´wrong´ or that we should simply ´ignore´them. This needs explained.