Flight 77 flight path

[tj15]

Mudlark,

Can you explain the south of Citgo witnesses and the shadow made by flight 77?

 

[mudlark]

South of Citgo Proof
[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png[/qimg]

Thanks for the NOC proof....

 

[dtugg]

LOL! Thanks for the laughs, CITiot sock.

 

[WildCat]

Thanks for the NOC proof....

Your Pentagon walls don't line up for some reason, likely because you're deliberately trying to deceive.

Nice try!

 

[lapman]

Thanks for the NOC proof....

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

Actually, if you follow his line, it goes directly over the CITGO. So, it could be said to be niether proof of NOC or SOC.

ETA: Now line up the wall of the Pentagon and post that picture. Or are you deliberately trying to deceive?

ETAA: Aargh. Wildcat beat me to it. LOL

 

[tj15]

This arguing over a picture that someone drew is weak...

Mudlark, please explain the south of Citgo witnesses and the shadow from flight 77.

 

[dtugg]

Has anyone ever asked CIT why on earth the "conspirators" would do a flyover? Why the heck would they do that when they could just crash the plane into the Pentagon?

I think Craig said that it was because the NWO needed to damage the building in a very precise manner that couldn't be achieved with an airliner impact in order to destroy some files or computers or whatever. Apparently the NWO doesn't have shredders or incinerators and the risk of attempting the most convoluted scheme in human history was worth it.

 

[tj15]

I think Craig said that it was because the NWO needed to damage the building in a very precise manner to destroy some files or computers or whatever. Apparently the NWO doesn't have shredders or incinerators and the risk of attempting the most convoluted scheme in human history was worth it.

Yeah... I laugh when they use "destruction of evidence" as a motive for demolishing WTC7.

 

[WildCat]

Hmmm...

 

[mudlark]

Sean Boger? Sean saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. Sean never placed the flight path on a trajectory that did not hit the Lampposts or the Pentagon. Why are you posting junk? Are you saying Flight 77 did not hit the lampposts witnesses, more witnesses than CIT dolt's have, saw hit?

Are you sure about that trajectory?

Boger interview.

¨If I´m looking out the window because I´m looking towards the gas station, it would be on my right hand side.¨

¨I saw it clip...an information sign on the highway.¨

Was this the same sign that Robert Turcios described?
I believe this to be corraborative eyewitness testimony from two opposite POVs.

At 04:20 in this interview he describes how the plane ´lifted´ to get over a signpost on the road.

It could not have been the sign beside the first lightpole not just because it is physically impossible for the plane to reach it from NOC but because Boger does not describe this manouevre AT ALL.

What I want to understand is how Boger could see the plane NOC AND an impact.
How is it that he describes the plane from its appearance at the Navy Annex to the motorway completely on the North path without deviance to reach the lightpoles?

When asked what side of the Navy Annex he saw the lane come over:

¨I would say more to the right also¨

When asked how long it took the plane to reach the Pentagon from the Navy Annex

¨It took 8-15 seconds¨

¨as he was coming towards me he was tilting the aircraft to HIS right¨

Compare his testimony to these people:

So, we have 3 people at the Citgo Gas Station who saw the plane NOC from the station itself, 5 workers at the ANC who describe exactly what Boger described. He was facing the incoming plane.
So why should he be removed from the NOC list?
Because he said he saw an impact? He didn´t duck at all?
Then I take it his doubts about what the gatecam showed still stands?

When asked was the plane ´low and level over the grass´

¨No¨

¨he was descending¨

¨the gatecam is ..uh...like 3 feet off the ground...I´m like 2 stories up...as I´m looking at that plane that plane didn´t seem like it was level.It seemed like it was actually at a point of descent.So if it was let´s say 3 stories high it was descending to 2 stories high.So it wasn´t, I didn´t see like anything level.
So it wasn´t, I didn´t see like anything level.
To me it would be like too big to actually be that level.
Because he was almost like you know 10-15 feet from the ground if you just go by that video. I mean if that´s the case he would have taken out a lot more stuff....he definitely would have taken out a lot more stuff than he did.

When asked if the plane hit high or low

¨I pretty much say it hit maybe between the 2nd and 3rd floor¨

ASCE

¨The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped betwwen the first floor slab on grade and the second floor¨

If he froze in that cubicle in the helipad tower and watched the plane enter the lawn area (from NOC),he also goes on to question what was shown in the gatecam footage.
Take him off the list?
Nah.

 

[tj15]

Are Cindy Reyes and the driving range on the official flight 77 flight path?

 

[beachnut]

Poster of CIT junk waves hand, says p4t have serious questions, and joins 8 years of failure.

Never will explain in detail why his failed ideas are dashed when the FDR was found in the Pentagon along with DNA from Flight 77 passengers. Two things never refuted with evidence, just hand waving. Flight 77 engine, evidence, that CIT and p4t hand wave away with hearsay and moronic delusions.

Evidence from a trial; never debunked with evidence only failed attempts to spread doubt with lies and the failed statement, "photos are not evidence" lie. So the kool-aid drinkers are reduced to posting lies formed by dolts at CIT and p4t whose best efforts are pure nonsense.

The flight path for the last few seconds was on a true track of 61.5 degrees and the CIT failed idea believers failed to refute that fact except by waving hands and citing failed 11.2g dolts at p4t.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

FINISH THE INTERVIEW LIAR! Post the description he gave as he watched the plane GO INTO THE PENTAGON.

Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? Go back and interview a few more so that we can watch yet another self debunking P.O.S. like all your other ones.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

here troll:

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001


You understand Craig? Can it be spelled out for you ANY CLEARER??

 

[mudlark]

This arguing over a picture that someone drew is weak...

Mudlark, please explain the south of Citgo witnesses and the shadow from flight 77.

Yep,
I 100% agree. It proves nothing.
You´ll have to point out which ´south of Citgo witnesses´ you are referring to and if they are confirmed and verified. Not media reports or second hand testimony.

First prove to me that it IS a shadow and not a glitch in the video.
A video that has been discussed here.
That is as weak if not weaker argument than the drawing. Scanning grainy possibly contaminated videos for a POSSIBLE shadow and ignoring/sidestepping confirme corraborative testimony.
Are you trying to say that this trumps this evidence?
If I presented this ´shadow´ I´d be laughed out of this discussion. Again. Weak.

 

[mudlark]

Hmmm...

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~dylanaverysucksballs/drawing.jpg[/qimg]

1. This is Wallace´s drawing. It was drawn after the much publicized official route were made public.

2. He obviously had very little time to specify exactly where he saw the plane in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1½-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure. I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible. At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)

Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?
Weak.

 

[The Big Dog]

you are referring to and if they are confirmed and verified.

O'RLY. Yeah, confirmed and verified. Say, that is what Fat Aldo said about Probst before Craig called Probst a liar. Things that make ya go hmmm, hey SP?

Anyhow, about that verification, when you swang back to the freaking CIT tree house, did you ask Peter Pan and The Buffet Slayer when they were going to release the freaking raw video like they promised?

Sorry I keep bringing it up.
Once, however, would be enough.
Cripes, I am sure even you want it, right??
Knowing after all is half the battle.

 

[The Big Dog]

2. He obviously had very little time to specify exactly where he saw the plane in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!

Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?
Weak.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh man, you just freaking debunked everything that CIT has ever said!!

FANTASTIC!

So it goes!
Once it hits the internet, it is there foreover.
Can someone get a screenshot of that.
Kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?

 

[mudlark]

FINISH THE INTERVIEW LIAR! Post the description he gave as he watched the plane GO INTO THE PENTAGON.

Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? Go back and interview a few more so that we can watch yet another self debunking P.O.S. like all your other ones.

First off I´m NOT Craig detective.
Where in that last post did you actually READ?
How could he describe the flightpath of the plane from a perfect position as being totally NOC from the Annex to the Citgo to the sign he is describing AND see an impact.
How is it humanly possible to watch a plane fly at you from a confined space without flinching??
Not only that but now you are adamant that he watched a 200ft diameter fireball with the windows breaking around him and what some people described as the ´loudest noise´ they had ever heard.
His NOC testimony is corraborated. NOC and impact are impossible.

 

[Crazytimes]

Mud,

I dont know why you spend so much time trying to prove a different flight path because a few people were confused that day about what they saw where. Regardless of where the plane was we know for 100% fact that it hit the pentagon because of -

Airplane debris all over the pentagon lawn and inside the pentagon
DNA positively identified inside the pentagon of passengers from the plane
Somewhere around 100 witnesses that saw the impact
Pictures of bodies strapped to airline seats
ZERO witnesses seeing the plane fly over the pentagon

So, I think you are wasting your time. Feel free to explain why you possibly think the SOC is relevant anyways considering we know the facts above.