• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 77 flight path

mudlark said:
Any links to the documentation on the DNA retrieval and identification?
Has the FDR been translated by anybody else and if so does it corrolate with testimony not only NOC, but the additional ´Annex witnesses´?
Even the very retrieval of the FDR has lead to contradictory reports.
The time the information was extracted from the FDR, the same.
Who actually found it, the same.
So forgive me if I have little faith in the actual official translation (if there is any I´m unaware of)
Click to expand...
The Navy had close oversight over the DNA because the terrorists you make excuses for killed Navy personnel and now you spew lies about the event. Does shallow research always accompany asking questions and spewing delusions? Why can't you find real evidence?

The FDR was decoded by p4t, NTSB and Warren. All three decodes verify each other and all the parameters do match the witness statements, too bad you can't do a proper analysis since all you do is post moronic delusions of an overflight.


So you have zero evidence to refute the DNA, zero to refute the FDR, and zero to refute all the witnesses.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.​

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. ​

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.​

3 took photographs of the aftermath.​

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."​

And of course,​

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. ​

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.​
Click to expand...
When will you debunk all 136 witnesses. When will you debunk the FDR and DNA. NEVER
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
I dont believe Mud is Craig, since Craig and Aldo are both disgusting trolls, Mud doesnt seem to fit their way of arguing, yet.
Click to expand...
I don't know who he is but he's not your basic drive by 9/11 CTist. His focus is the CIT myth, which he's fully embraced. Most new CTists quickly veer of course and start rambling about other facets of 9/11, not Mud.

He uses all the CIT terminology, talking points and rebuttals. He's not someone who stumbled upon the CIT crap and came here to talk about it. His post volume and speed suggests he knows this stuff inside and out and not someone who spends time researching elsewhere.

The CIT cult is small, but as we've seen over the years persistent. How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?
 
The FDR was decoded by p4t, NTSB and Warren. All three decodes verify each other and all the parameters do match the witness statements, too bad you can't do a proper analysis since all you do is post moronic delusions of an overflight.
Click to expand...

Did the plane fly over the Navy Annex in all 3 translations?

Have you links to the documentation of the DNA?

104 witnesses to an impact??
Old, debunked disinfo.
 
tj15 said:
Mudlark... Explain this guy... Tim Timmerman (a pilot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc
Click to expand...

Is this the guy with the panoramic view of almost the entire flight of the plane from the Navy Annex?

timmVig.gif


Do you see the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
How long do you think he saw the plane at this point? At what point did he see it enter the lawn?
Do you really think he saw the plane ´desintegrate on the lawn´ before it ´impacted´?
 
Everyone here knows what CIT is all about. It's nothing but the paranoid fantasies of two goofs who suffer from delusions of grandeur. They have yet to interview anyone who saw anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. When people disagree with them they resort to threats and intimidation, i.e their enemies list.
 
DavidJames said:
I don't know who he is but he's not your basic drive by 9/11 CTist. His focus is the CIT myth, which he's fully embraced. Most new CTists quickly veer of course and start rambling about other facets of 9/11, not Mud.

He uses all the CIT terminology, talking points and rebuttals. He's not someone who stumbled upon the CIT crap and came here to talk about it. His post volume and speed suggests he knows this stuff inside and out and not someone who spends time researching elsewhere.

The CIT cult is small, but as we've seen over the years persistent. How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?
Click to expand...

The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is because the thread was started with the question ´Has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked?´
I´m simply not going off-topic.
It´s no big mystery and frankly doesn´t matter who I am.
I´m in no ´cult´ and know so much about CIT´s work because I have studied it myself.
I do not talk for CIT, Aldo, or Craig.
I´ve avoided insulting people who have continually insulted me in this thread and whose comments have no bearing on the topic.
I WILL be reporting from here on in. Childish insults have no place on a board discussing such a serious issue.
I´m not accusing you personally btw. Just sticking it in this post.

Peace.
 
stewieg said:
i.e their enemies list.
Click to expand...

That's probably the most hilariously pathetic thing in the history of ever. I'm proud to be on it although all I really had to do was give them a picture of me and ask them to put me on the list.

mud, what do you think about the CITiots' enemies list?
 
DavidJames said:
I don't know who he is but he's not your basic drive by 9/11 CTist. His focus is the CIT myth, which he's fully embraced. Most new CTists quickly veer of course and start rambling about other facets of 9/11, not Mud.

He uses all the CIT terminology, talking points and rebuttals. He's not someone who stumbled upon the CIT crap and came here to talk about it. His post volume and speed suggests he knows this stuff inside and out and not someone who spends time researching elsewhere.

The CIT cult is small, but as we've seen over the years persistent. How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?
Click to expand...

Oh Im sure he is a CIT cultist, I'm saying I think he probably isnt Craig and Aldo. They seem to be a lot more vicious.
 
mudlark said:
Do you see the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
How long do you think he saw the plane at this point? At what point did he see it enter the lawn?
Do you really think he saw the plane ´desintegrate on the lawn´ before it ´impacted´?
Click to expand...


I cant see anything well because your video is too crappy.
 
mudlark said:
The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is because the thread was started with the question ´Has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked?´
Click to expand...

100+ tons of aircraft wreckage that can only be Flight 77 and identified bodies that can only be the people that boarded Flight 77 earlier that morning, all found inside the Pentagon kind of trumps a few people that say they saw something inconsistent with the physical evidence.
 
mudlark said:
Is this the guy with the panoramic view of almost the entire flight of the plane from the Navy Annex?

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/timmVig.gif[/qimg]

Do you see the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
How long do you think he saw the plane at this point? At what point did he see it enter the lawn?
Do you really think he saw the plane ´desintegrate on the lawn´ before it ´impacted´?
Click to expand...
He is a pilot and is absolutely sure it was an AA plane. I guess that rules out the "white plane" idea. He said it followed Columbia pike. That also makes him a south of Citgo witness.

How about Mark Petitt? He also says it came up 395.
 
mudlark said:
The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is because the thread was started with the question ´Has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked?´
I´m simply not going off-topic.
It´s no big mystery and frankly doesn´t matter who I am.
I´m in no ´cult´ and know so much about CIT´s work because I have studied it myself.
I do not talk for CIT, Aldo, or Craig.
I´ve avoided insulting people who have continually insulted me in this thread and whose comments have no bearing on the topic.
I WILL be reporting from here on in. Childish insults have no place on a board discussing such a serious issue.
I´m not accusing you personally btw. Just sticking it in this post.

Peace.
Click to expand...

So don't be afraid to tell us what you think happened with AA77's flight path.

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon?
Did AA77 fly over the Pentagon?

Just give us your reasons and evidence for one or the other.
 
mudlark said:
So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.
Click to expand...

If over 100 people say they saw something and 3 say they saw something else, who are you going to believe.

We KNOW they are wrong because the plane did hit the pentagon. What is your problem here ?
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is I do not talk for CIT, Aldo, or Craig.
I´ve avoided insulting people who have continually insulted me in this thread and whose comments have no bearing on the topic.
I WILL be reporting from here on in. Childish insults have no place on a board discussing such a serious issue.
I´m not accusing you personally btw. Just sticking it in this post.

Peace.
Click to expand...

Have you ever called Craig and Aldo to task, assuming you are not Craig or Aldo, on the threats and name calling they direct towards people they disagree with?
 
Does anyone have a list of witnesses that specifically put the plane south of Citgo? That would really help the debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom