Flight 77 flight path [Archive] - Page 2

beachnut

12th November 2009, 05:24 PM

Given the NOC testimony? ...
So the FDR got in the Pentagon how? How did the DNA get there?

Have you told the families their loved ones were not killed by terrorists, but by some unknown nut case conspiracy theory you can't define?

You never debunked one of the 136 witnesses. Why do all the CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but you twist their testimony given years after the event into some lame moronic delusion where Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon.

Where is Flight 77? The RADAR track ends at the Pentagon. Oops. Science proves your ideas are delusions shared by a select few paranoid conspiracy theorists armed with 11.2G failed physics and the worse investigators in history, CIT.

So the FAA, NTSB, Navy, USAF, DoD employees, Army, Firemen, police, doctors, DNA specialist, and the FBI all conspired to do 911 and you have the evidence but it was eaten by your dog? Is that about right?

I guess you are not an engineer, or a pilot, or a trained aircraft accident investigator.

The jet fuel fireball was a big clue, guess that not good enough for you false statements, fantasies and hearsay.

Flight path verified by FDR, witnesses, and RADAR. You should go talk the the witnesses yourself, all of the CIT witnesses point to the south flight path on video; must take a great deal of ignorance to not know the direction people are pointing and CIT personify complete ignorance.

dtugg

12th November 2009, 05:28 PM

UNLoVedRebel

12th November 2009, 05:28 PM

Before I forget tj15.
You linked me to the ´I-395´ witness?
NEITHER flightpath crosses this motorway.

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/BothPathsOverhead.jpg[/img] (http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/BothPathsOverhead.jpg)
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/DeadHorseBeatAgain.jpg

tj15

12th November 2009, 05:29 PM

Edx

12th November 2009, 05:30 PM

Before I forget tj15.
You linked me to the ´I-395´ witness?
NEITHER flightpath crosses this motorway.]

Closer than NOC

tj15

12th November 2009, 05:31 PM

Mudlark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY

Reheat

12th November 2009, 05:34 PM

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

Oops! You left out Terry Moran. My, my he's one of the star witnesses and you left him out. Shame on you, but I'm sure it was inadvertent and you'll correct the flight to include him. :rolleyes:

tj15

12th November 2009, 05:34 PM

is the driving range on the official flight path?

Edx

12th November 2009, 05:41 PM

Mudlark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY

Another shill, obviously. As you can see from the comments, I wonder if Mudlark will directly or indirectly call this another fake witness. Cuz they're all fake if they dont say what CIT want them to say, isnt that right Mudlark?

tj15

12th November 2009, 05:44 PM

Another shill, obviously. As you can see from the comments, I wonder if Mudlark will directly or indirectly call this another fake witness. Cuz they're all fake if they dont say what CIT want them to say, isnt that right Mudlark?

I'm not familiar with that area, but Petitt said that he was on 110. Anyone know what direction he was traveling? Shouldn't he have seen the flyover if it occurred?

Crazytimes

12th November 2009, 05:44 PM

Mud, please answer me. You made the statement that the plane never hit the pentagon. Then please answer how the debris, DNA and bodies were planted in broad daylight without a single person seeing it. Also explain the more than 100 witnesses to the actual impact.

Now do you see why people think you and your CIT buddies are insane ? You simply cannot make the claim that no plane hit the pentagon with the mountains of evidence that it did.

A W Smith

12th November 2009, 05:47 PM

Before I forget tj15.
You linked me to the ´I-395´ witness?
NEITHER flightpath crosses this motorway.

[/URL]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/BothPathsOverhead.jpg (http://[url]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/BothPathsOverhead.jpg)

Domenic:
We have proven that the plane in question cannot navigate the path you marked in blue in your image. We debunked that back in April 08.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3587021

16.5

12th November 2009, 05:59 PM

Before I forget tj15.
You linked me to the ´I-395´ witness?
NEITHER flightpath crosses this motorway.

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

I already pointed out that he was about the worst CIT shill I've ever seen, but there is NO WAY he just posted that flight path. That is absolutely fantastic!

Morin? under the bus! Paik? Under the Bus! Boger? Under the Bus!

Plus the damn plane would have had to have been hauled over on its side to fly that cork screw!

Mud, is it to early to say I love you? Or should I just call you One Slice? Hey, the Boys are going to be very angry back at the Tree House tonight, given that you posted the most ridiculous flight path in ever, and threw their witnesses under the bus, AND did not point out that Aldo's weight problem stems from a glandular problem.

One Slice! Accusing Lloyde of mass murder, uh huh!

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:07 PM

Mud, please answer me. You made the statement that the plane never hit the pentagon. Then please answer how the debris, DNA and bodies were planted in broad daylight without a single person seeing it. Also explain the more than 100 witnesses to the actual impact.

And how Legasse saw the aftermath of the plane crash, how did all the plane parts he saw get there?

tj15

12th November 2009, 06:09 PM

We should get a good list going of south of Citgo eyewitnesses... I mean, truthers rely so much on eyewitness testimony, what would they do if other witnesses contradict their witnesses?!

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:12 PM

DNA:

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml

Note the date, Nov 2001. Not all the bodies had been identified yet.

Yes I have read that link.
What I was asking for was official verified documentation.

I have a problem understanding how there was a 100% success rate. Especially with the passenger DNA and the papers related to its recovery and identification.

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full

There is also the ever-present problem of debris. Virtually every specimen from this site was mixed with debris composed of aircraft and building materials of an opaque and semiopaque nature. Body parts from several individuals may have been mixed into a single specimen.
...

Analysis of DNA is a powerful tool in military casualty identification, but it has limitations. THE DNA SOURCES FROM VICTIMS SUBJECTED TO INTENSE FIRE MAY DENATURE AND NOT BE RECOVERABLE (5). The mass-casualty operation resulting from the Pentagon attack confirms the importance of forensic radiology as a key component of casualty identification.

They deduced that it was ´aircraft..materials´ based on what exactly btw?

The military anticipates the requirement of obtaining DNA specimens from all personnel and maintaining them in a central repository for postmortem identification purposes (4). In addition, dental records are maintained and usually include a full-mouth pantograph. The existence of a reference database allows relatively rapid positive identification of military casualties. THIS WAS, IN FACT, TRUE WITH THE PENTAGON ATTACK, SINCE MANY MORE MILITARY CASUALTIES WERE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THAN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE INVESTIGATION.

Yet in another report

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html

"WHILE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION ON MILITARY PERSONNEL IS STORED AND CENTRALLY AVAILABLE, INFORMATION ON THE 64 CIVILIANS ON FLIGHT 77 TOOK WEEKS TO ARRIVE.

Were there not passengers with a military background on the plane itself?

Passengers involved in gov’t/defense related work: 21
Military backgrounds: 10
Navy background: 7

Surely ONE of these people had a DNA database available?

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

The sifting operation produced about 70 percent
of the body PARTS processed at the morgue.
A statement issued by the county said:

Responsibility for incident and site management at the Pentagon crash site was transferred from the Arlington County Fire Department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) effective at 7 a.m., Friday, Sept. 21. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT ADDITIONAL REMAINS WILL BE DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION. Qualified mortuary personnel remain on site to process these remains.

So are they saying that the passengers were identified AFTER the FBI took over the investigation? The earlier report stated that it took two weeks more to identify the passengers.
This is why I have a problem with the fact that we have seen no documentation.

The other problem I have is the actual 100% success in identification of the passengers.
It has been pointed out that DNA can only be destroyed through cremation. 1000º over a period of time.
So do we believe the ASCE report on temperatures reached?

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

¨...longitudinal cracks and corner spalling, which are typical in concrete columns because of the large thermally induced transverse
strains that are unrestrained in the transverse direction, occurred approximately one hour after exposure to ISO 834. This coincides with an ambient temperature of about 1,740º (950º)
Several structural elements in bays adjacent to the path of aircraft impact in the first floor did not sustain damage by impact. Rather, the damage to these elements was due to fire exposure. Because the structural elements in the Pentagon are believed to have had additional fire protection provided by the interior finishes-while the laboratory columns were fully exposed -and because the rate of temperature rise in the actual fire is believed to be greater than that prescribed by ISO 834, the comparison is not exact. However, it should bprovide an indication of the lower bound temperatures at some locations in the Pentagon.

...in Ring C, toward the end of the damage path..columns sustained
thermal damage in the form of longitudinal cracks and corner spalling....It took a little more than one hour of exposure to ISO 834-at a corresponding ambient temperature of about 1,740ºF (950ºC)
-for the longitudinal cracks and corner spalling to develop in the laboratory test columns. This indicates that the temperature of the fire at this location might have reached a similar level.

Fire damage to the underside of the second-floor slab at some locations can also be compared with laboratory tests for an indication of the lower bound of the maximum temperature reached.
...In laboratory fire tests of concrete slabs....88 minutes of exposure to ASTM E119 is equivalent to a maximum ambient temperature of about 1,832º (1000º).

Those temperatures were reached. Especially around C Ring where the bulk of passengers were allegedly found.
Also in an earlier post I was pointed to the testimony which stated that passengers were found ´strapped to their seats´
Why weren´t these people identified in the first two weeks if their bodies were allegedly visually identifiable as not being fragments of tissue?

Maybe I´m reading too much into the recommendation made in the same report but it needs expanded on.

Occasionally, it is appropriate for senior government officials to visit sensitive facilities such as the FBI’s temporary morgue, even if only to check on the wellbeing of the staff working there. However, these visits must be carefully controlled and absolutely necessary. (LE-073)

?

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:20 PM

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Crazytimes
Mud, please answer me. You made the statement that the plane never hit the pentagon. Then please answer how the debris, DNA and bodies were planted in broad daylight without a single person seeing it. Also explain the more than 100 witnesses to the actual impact.

And how Legasse saw the aftermath of the plane crash, how did all the plane parts he saw get there?

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

During the first 24 hours, it was necessary to evacuate the Pentagon on four separate occasions because of the risk of structural collapse or the threat of additional terrorist attacks. It is difficult to measure the full impact of repeated building evacuations, but it was clearly negative and significant. Each time an evacuation was ordered, firefighters interrupted operations, abandoned equipment, shut off hoses, and ran several hundred yards to protected areas.
From there, they had to watch as flames reclaimed the parts of the Pentagon they had just evacuated.

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

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:26 PM

tj15

12th November 2009, 06:29 PM

Good luck with that.

Did you figure out Petitt yet?

tj15

12th November 2009, 06:30 PM

Is the driving range on the official flight path?

A W Smith

12th November 2009, 06:31 PM

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 have to laugh. Domenic, you are no brighter than the last time you were here. Do you know the logical fallacy you are engaging in? it is called special pleading. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) You ask us to provide documentation yet you provide none yourself. Just hearsay. You hand wave off the physical evidence as "planted" with no ducumentaion or proof whatsoever. You need to do this to support your paranoid delusional fantasy.

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:34 PM

Still cant answer the question about Timmerman, how sad. I know you think he's a fake witness, just another shill feeding fake reports and fake information to people. I know you wont admit it, you're just asking questions!

I never said that once.
I think and KNOW from the POV from his appartment window he could not have made such a detailed description.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/vignola1.jpg

Where is the lawn visible in this shot?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/vignolacircle-1.jpg

The reason he said what he did? Ask him. Or Dawn Vignola as CIT has done.

Reheat

12th November 2009, 06:34 PM

If you are asking if there was oppurtunity for someone to plant anything as you say in ´broad daylight´, of course there was.

Sure, the fork lift to haul the heavy aircraft parts was disguised as a pink elephant! The asbestos suit wearing perps walking into the fire were just ignored as everyone thought they were aliens from space.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:36 PM

I never said that once.
I think and KNOW from the POV from his appartment window he could not have made such a detailed description..

Thats a terrible picture taken far away from the window. I could take picture like that from my room and declare I cant see stuff I can see.

And you avoid my question, again. Why do you do that? How would Timmerman know so much about the details of the Petagon crash if he hadnt seen it, and why would he "feed" these details to someone else if he isnt a shill? Why would he lie if he isnt a shill? Why would he need to "coach" someone else?

Just admit it, you think he is a planted witness.

16.5

12th November 2009, 06:36 PM

Good luck with that.

Yeah, you and the tree house gang will just call them liars. Or mass murderers, right OS? That is a great way to run a cult! Man, no wonder every other truther hates you guys.

Hey, Mud, just between us, is Aldo as big in real life as he appears on the internet?

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:38 PM

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:38 PM

I have to laugh. Domenic, you are no brighter than the last time you were here. Do you know the logical fallacy you are engaging in? it is called special pleading. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) You ask us to provide documentation yet you provide none yourself. Just hearsay. You hand wave off the physical evidence as "planted" with no ducumentaion or proof whatsoever. You need to do this to support your paranoid delusional fantasy.

Domenic?? Is that my new name? It´ll do.

I asked for documentation yes.
I provided links and quotes from official reports which raised reasonable questions in my post. Hardly ´hearsay´.
The plane flew NOC. Corraborated on record. Verified.
NOC = No impact.

Another poster told me this was actually possible. Now THAT is magic.

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:39 PM

We should get a good list going of south of Citgo eyewitnesses... I mean, truthers rely so much on eyewitness testimony, what would they do if other witnesses contradict their witnesses?!
Good luck with that.

You'll only imply they are lyinging anyway, you wont directly say they are shills though cuz you're just asking questions!

16.5

12th November 2009, 06:42 PM

Thats a terrible picture taken far away from the window. I could take picture like that from my room and declare I cant see stuff I can see. .

That is hilarious. Hey, Aldo, i just looked out my bedroom window, and I could not see my lawn! What is up with that? Someone stole it!

Oh wait, I was standing in the hall way.

Mud, do you have Craig's permission to come here and **** the bed all over CIT's No Plane theory? Naughty Naughty.

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:42 PM

Yeah, you and the tree house gang will just call them liars. Or mass murderers, right OS? That is a great way to run a cult! Man, no wonder every other truther hates you guys.

Hey, Mud, just between us, is Aldo as big in real life as he appears on the internet?

Name the witnesses tj15 proposed.
I have never met Aldo.
Have you anything else to add to this discussion apart from insults and sticking your tongue out?

mudlark

12th November 2009, 06:44 PM

You'll only imply they are lyinging anyway, you wont directly say they are shills though cuz you're just asking questions!

Man, give it up. It´s old. Playing on words won´t change the fact that I am right.

TexasJack

12th November 2009, 06:45 PM

No-planer, where did the plane and the passengers go?

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:48 PM

Man, give it up. It´s old. Playing on words won´t change the fact that I am right.

Whatever, just admit you think Timmerman and so on are paid shills. You already think Lloyd, Walters and thousands and thousands of other people are in on it, why not one more? I know you already think he is, just allow yourself to admit in the open you think he is a shill. :)

16.5

12th November 2009, 06:49 PM

Name the witnesses tj15 proposed.
I have never met Aldo.
Have you anything else to add to this discussion apart from insults and sticking your tongue out?

Sure, One Shot. That mass murdering Cab Driver, Lloyde England!

I can add my undying gratitude to you for posting the most ridiculous flight path ever. What the hell boy, ya ever plane in a plane before??

Why do you let Craig and Aldo lie to you?

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:49 PM

Thats a terrible picture taken far away from the window. I could take picture like that from my room and declare I cant see stuff I can see.

And you avoid my question, again. Why do you do that? How would Timmerman know so much about the details of the Petagon crash if he hadnt seen it, and why would he "feed" these details to someone else if he isnt a shill? Why would he lie if he isnt a shill? Why would he need to "coach" someone else?

Just admit it, you think he is a planted witness.

And another thing about that picture its pretty clear its zoomed in, you can do a lot with a camera to make things took obscured, it doesnt even have to be intentional necessarily but this isnt even trying to take a good shot.

dtugg

12th November 2009, 06:49 PM

The plane flew NOC. Corraborated on record. Verified.

Nope. The witnesses were interviewed years later by idiots with an agenda. That some of them said that the plane flew on one side of a stupid gas station means precisely nothing. Especially when 100% of the physical evidence contradicts it.

NOC = No impact.

But all of your own witnesses say it impacted. It's really hilariously pathetic how you ignore that part.

Another poster told me this was actually possible. Now THAT is magic.

Magic would be fooling all witnesses from all angles into believing that a large jet flew into the Pentagon when it really flew over and then planting/faking all kinds of evidence without a single person noticing.

PS: Do you still stand by that insane corkscrew path? That was some funny stuff! Keep it up, I love unintentional comedy from twoofers.

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:52 PM

Classic quote by Mud:

I´m in no way saying that these people are liars. Just that testimonies
become polluted and altered by the time they reach us.
That all testimonies must be questioned.. - Mudlark

Say Mud, how many years after the fact was it before CIT interviewed these people?

16.5

12th November 2009, 06:52 PM

PS: Do you still stand by that insane corkscrew path? That was some funny stuff! Keep it up, I love unintentional comedy from twoofers.

SHHHHH! Hush up! You'll give it away.

And to think, old mud here is a respected member of Pilots for Paying Cap'n Bobby's Bills and That's the Truth!

Edx

12th November 2009, 06:55 PM

But all of your own witnesses say it impacted. It's really hilariously pathetic how you ignore that part..

And its hilarious how they managed to risk flying a plane over the building and have no one notice.

Mud, why do you guys believe these conspiractors to be complete idiots, as lucky as lepricorns and complete genius' all at the same time?

And please tell me, why wouldnt they just crash a real plane into the damn building?

I know you'll never answer, no CITist ever does.

tj15

12th November 2009, 06:56 PM

Is the driving range on the official flight path?

tj15

12th November 2009, 06:57 PM

Mudlark... Is Petitt a liar?

dtugg

12th November 2009, 07:01 PM

And its hilarious how they managed to risk flying a plane over the building and have no one notice.

Mud, why do you guys believe these conspiractors to be complete idiots, as lucky as lepricorns and complete genius' all at the same time?

And please tell me, why wouldnt they just crash a real plane into the damn building?

I know you'll never answer, no CITist ever does.

If I remember correctly, according to Craig, the NWO did it like this because they needed the damage to the Pentagon to be very precise and they couldn't achieve this degree of precision with an actual plane. And they needed this precision in order to destroy some evidence or something because apparently nobody at the NWO has heard of paper shredders.

tj15

12th November 2009, 07:04 PM

mudlark

12th November 2009, 07:08 PM

No-planer, where did the plane and the passengers go?

Been thinking that one up all night Jack?
I don´t know. There ya go.

mudlark

12th November 2009, 07:13 PM

Mudlark... When the conspirators were having their meeting about how to hit the Pentagon (knowing that they also want to crash planes in the WTC), why did they decide that the best way to carry out this part of the attack was to put explosives inside the Pentagon (that somehow blew airplane parts all over the place) and fly a plane close to the Pentagon and then make it fly over at the last second (hoping no one would see that)? Why would they think to create a fake flight path by knocking down some light poles and stage Lloyd's taxi and all of that?

Why on earth wouldn't the conspirators just crash the plane into the Pentagon (and spare themselves TONS of risk), like at the WTC?

Maybe because we would have seen what actually happens when a plane hits a building? Particularly a fortified building that had recent reinforcements?
What I do know is that the plane didn´t cause that damage from NOC.

What airplane parts were blown ´all over the place´? The photographs of lightweight sheets of aluminium on the lawn?

mudlark

12th November 2009, 07:18 PM

Mudlark... Is Petitt a liar?

Apparently the FAA didn´t have a problem with NOC.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/FAANoC.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/noradnorthpath.jpg

defaultdotxbe

12th November 2009, 07:20 PM

Maybe because we would have seen what actually happens when a plane hits a building? Particularly a fortified building that had recent reinforcements?
why did the plane hitting the building on 9/11 have to look different from it should look like? why would they take the risk that some plucky internet sleuth would see through the ruse?

i mean honestly, if the story is going to be a plane hit the pentagon, then why not hit the pentagon with a plane, and the resultant damage will be exactly what a plane hitting the pentagon should cause

What I do know is that the plane didn´t cause that damage from NOC.
with that we are in agreement

What airplane parts were blown ´all over the place´? The photographs of lightweight sheets of aluminium on the lawn?
and the engine, and landing gear, and other debris (and yes, the aluminum did also come from the plane)

mudlark

12th November 2009, 07:26 PM

If I remember correctly, according to Craig, the NWO did it like this because they needed the damage to the Pentagon to be very precise and they couldn't achieve this degree of precision with an actual plane. And they needed this precision in order to destroy some evidence or something because apparently nobody at the NWO has heard of paper shredders.

By your reckoning do you believe the plane would have made far less damage at @350-400 mph?
The official story had the plane on a direct hit from SOC at 540mph.
If it was on a turn as many witnesses described it including witnesses who CIT haven´t included on their NOC list. If it was going much slower as testified by the 10-15 seconds to reach the facade. If it hit lightpoles on the way in. Then a generator trailer. Then how much force was left to actually puncture 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second?
Anybody?

16.5

12th November 2009, 07:27 PM

Apparently the FAA didn´t have a problem with NOC.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/FAANoC.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/noradnorthpath.jpg

HI! Yeah, hot linking images from banned members is kind of frowned upon around here.

Especially ones that have been systematically debunked.

Say Mud, why do you call Boger a liar?

A W Smith

12th November 2009, 07:28 PM

mudlark

12th November 2009, 07:31 PM

and the engine, and landing gear, and other debris (and yes, the aluminum did also come from the plane)

I was referring to the plane parts that were ´blown all over the place´ not the unidentified parts that were inside the building.

A W Smith

12th November 2009, 07:32 PM

I was referring to the plane parts that were ´blown all over the place´ not the unidentified parts that were inside the building.

they were identified. so was the landing gear at the exit hole.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

TexasJack

12th November 2009, 07:34 PM

Been thinking that one up all night Jack?
I don´t know. There ya go.

Don't you think that poses a little problem in your bat crazy fantasy?

Edx

12th November 2009, 07:40 PM

Reheat

12th November 2009, 07:41 PM

Apparently the FAA didn´t have a problem with NOC.

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/FAANoC.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/noradnorthpath.jpg

I can't quite believe anyone who would still display this demonstration from a software company as being endorsed by the FAA. Where are the radar returns on which to base it, Bozo? Oh, there are none.

This alone vividly illustrates how stupid this NOC nonsense really is along with those who are gullible enough to believe and endorse it.

kookbreaker

12th November 2009, 07:43 PM

Don't you think that poses a little problem in you bat crazy fantasy?

"the people are secondary" - Spoken by one truther, believed by all of them.

mudlark

12th November 2009, 08:17 PM

irrelevant Domenic, the plane hit at 540 mph, the radar shows it, the FDR shows it. end of story.

That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.

At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.
Penny Elgas said that the plane ´made the slightest turn´ just in front of her on the HOV lanes.
At 540mph? Impossible.
The ANC witnesses and Boger describe a bank the whole way down to route 27.
Even Walter describes a bank.
The plane is said to have ´wobbled´ and the pilot ´struggled with it´ from Route 27 to the facade.
You can choose to ignore the NOC witnesses if you wish but to ignore an even larger number on these testimonies is ridiculous in the extreme.

If the plane was travelling at 540 mph that equals 250 metres a second.
From the plane´s arrival on Route 27 at lightpole 1 to the facade is 300 metres exactly.
So are you telling me that in just over a second the plane reached the facade?

Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.

Edx

12th November 2009, 08:19 PM

Hey Mud you gonna respond to Reheat?

Edx

12th November 2009, 08:20 PM

Even Walter describes a bank..

Yea but Walter's a shill just like Timmerman and Lloyd, right Mud?

mudlark

12th November 2009, 08:25 PM

I can't quite believe anyone who would still display this demonstration from a software company as being endorsed by the FAA. Where are the radar returns on which to base it, Bozo? Oh, there are none.

This alone vividly illustrates how stupid this NOC nonsense really is along with those who are gullible enough to believe and endorse it.

I personally don´t give it any sway.
It´s just curious how close it is to the NOC path witnessed.
Who provided the stats to this software company?
In all the posts I´ve seen tonight there was very little counterargument explaining how this testimony could have been totally ********** up to such proportions that all the witnesses were wrong. All of them.
Oh wait, another gem was to ´ignore them´ and another was that an impact was possible from NOC.
None of this testimony has been debunked or even discussed.
I personally won´t put faith in the word of an agency held up as proof of physical evidence. Or arguments based on incredulity.
Night.

mudlark

12th November 2009, 08:26 PM

Hey Mud you gonna respond to Reheat?

Yes Teddy.

UNLoVedRebel

12th November 2009, 08:30 PM

I personally don´t give it any sway.
It´s just curious how close it is to the NOC path witnessed.
Who provided the stats to this software company?
In all the posts I´ve seen tonight there was very little counterargument explaining how this testimony could have been totally ********** up to such proportions that all the witnesses were wrong. All of them.
Oh wait, another gem was to ´ignore them´ and another was that an impact was possible from NOC.
None of this testimony has been debunked or even discussed.
I personally won´t put faith in the word of an agency held up as proof of physical evidence. Or arguments based on incredulity.
Night.

Do "independently verified testimonies" trump any "official story" reports?

defaultdotxbe

12th November 2009, 08:35 PM

I was referring to the plane parts that were ´blown all over the place´ not the unidentified parts that were inside the building.
the parts were identified (thats how i know they were engines and landing gear, etc)

and you expect anything other than lightweight parts to be "blown all over the place" ?

ETA: also, you didnt answer my question on why the conspirators chose a method of carrying out their plan that would result in the attack not looking like it should.

9/11 Chewy Defense

12th November 2009, 08:53 PM

:D :

BigAl

12th November 2009, 09:04 PM

That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.

At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.
Penny Elgas said that the plane ´made the slightest turn´ just in front of her on the HOV lanes.
At 540mph? Impossible.
The ANC witnesses and Boger describe a bank the whole way down to route 27.
Even Walter describes a bank.
The plane is said to have ´wobbled´ and the pilot ´struggled with it´ from Route 27 to the facade.
You can choose to ignore the NOC witnesses if you wish but to ignore an even larger number on these testimonies is ridiculous in the extreme.

If the plane was travelling at 540 mph that equals 250 metres a second.
From the plane´s arrival on Route 27 at lightpole 1 to the facade is 300 metres exactly.
So are you telling me that in just over a second the plane reached the facade?

Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.

None of the above oddities, even to the degree they may be true trump the fact that the entire fuselage of Flight 77 (minus the aluminum consumed in the fire) and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and radar tracks and radar data show how and when it got there.

tj15

12th November 2009, 09:05 PM

Maybe because we would have seen what actually happens when a plane hits a building? Particularly a fortified building that had recent reinforcements?
What I do know is that the plane didn´t cause that damage from NOC.

What airplane parts were blown ´all over the place´? The photographs of lightweight sheets of aluminium on the lawn?
That was an incredibly weak response. Were the conspirators TRYING to be risky when they carried out this "plot?"

TexasJack

12th November 2009, 09:12 PM

In all the posts I´ve seen tonight there was very little counterargument explaining how this testimony could have been totally ********** up to such proportions that all the witnesses were wrong. All of them.

You obviously don't know what corroboration of evidence is. Testimony doesn't mean squat unless you can corroborate it with physical evidence. You can't corroborate testimony with no plane, unless you know where that plane is, and by your own admission, you don't know where it it went.

On the other hand, the rational one, you have testimony of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, corroborated by physical evidence such as DNA, plane debris and FDR. Get it? Or is this too hard for you?

BigAl

12th November 2009, 09:13 PM

beachnut

12th November 2009, 09:16 PM

That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. ... Math beats that **** hands down.
Lies. Zero problems with the FDR, you just say there were without presenting evidence; you point at the idiots at p4t who have not done anything as they "offer no theories".

Lie, there are many witnesses to the actual path.

Math, with the 11.2G wave your hand make up the numbers math of p4t, failure is complete.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

If you fall for lies like CIT, what will keep you from falling for other fraud. CIT is a fraud, not recognizing that is self-critiquing.

W.D.Clinger

12th November 2009, 09:49 PM

By your reckoning do you believe the plane would have made far less damage at @350-400 mph?
The official story had the plane on a direct hit from SOC at 540mph.

At 350 mph, the kinetic energy is less than half the kinetic energy at 540 mph. The fuel and resulting fire would have been about the same, although differences in kinetic energy would have affected the structure in ways that might have affected the fire.

If it hit lightpoles on the way in. Then a generator trailer. Then how much force was left to actually puncture 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second?
Anybody?

The energy lost to the light poles would have been negligible. The collision with the trailer involved more loss of energy, but even that had to have been small compared to the collision with the Pentagon. A glance at the damage caused by each collision shows why.

That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.

If you're saying ground-based RADES radar didn't detect any evidence of a flyover, and there are also no witnesses for the flyover path, then you should draw the obvious conclusion. If you're saying flight 77 wasn't tracked by RADES, or there are no witnesses for the path that matches the physical and FDR evidence, then you're badly mistaken.

At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.

At least two separate ground-based radars recorded the last minute or so of flight 77, until the low-flying plane's radar return was lost among radar reflections from buildings. Those radar records are consistent with the 500+ mph speeds recorded by the flight data recorder. Based on that physical evidence, there were 4 to 5 seconds between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon impact.

Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.

It's okay to talk math here. The mathematics that has been posted so far suggests your theory would require extraterrestrial maneuverability and a SEP field.

I personally won´t put faith in the word of an agency held up as proof of physical evidence. Or arguments based on incredulity.
Night.

So your disbelief is sufficient to reject evidence (first sentence), but no one else's disbelief counts for anything (second sentence).
:rolleyes:

beachnut

12th November 2009, 11:21 PM

By your reckoning do you believe the plane would have made far less damage at @350-400 mph?
The official story had the plane on a direct hit from SOC at 540mph.
If it was on a turn as many witnesses described it including witnesses who CIT haven´t included on their NOC list. If it was going much slower as testified by the 10-15 seconds to reach the facade. If it hit lightpoles on the way in. Then a generator trailer. Then how much force was left to actually puncture 94 metres in 8/10ths of a second?
Anybody?
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?

Far less damage? You should have take physics in high school and college. The football coach taught physics at my high school, too bad you failed to take, or failed to gain knowledge at your chance to learn and understand.
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. Do you do math and physics, or merely repeat failed ideas from idiots who are paranoid conspiracy theorist selling delusions on DVD, the terrorists loyalists at p4t and CIT?

The impact with lampposts were negligible. SEE!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77CrashTestBreakaway.jpg
Breakaway lampposts do not stop cars or aircraft.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77VDOTmast.jpg
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?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77WINGTIP.jpg
Wing tip from 77. Oops, evidence defeats the lies of p4t 11.2g failed math, and CIT moronic investigation summaries. I always thought only the dirt dumb neoNAZIs at p4t would fall for the tripe dished out by CIT.

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?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/IMG_1057b.jpg
If p4t and CIT could do math and physics, they could build the quad amp center channel from hell; alas, they make up numbers and spew delusions only a few fringe conspiracy minded fall for.

Or they could teach their grandkids to build sub-woofers using math!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/keynansubwoofer2.jpg
What would this look like using Balsamo's 11.2G failed math?

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?

twinstead

13th November 2009, 04:17 AM

I would pay to see you present your "evidence" in a court of law, mudlark. Seriously.

bje

13th November 2009, 07:03 AM

Given the NOC testimony? I would have to say the plane could NOT have hit the Pentagon. It doesn´t matter what I ´think´ on the matter.
If it couldn´t hit where did it go?

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5034365&postcount=87

twinstead

13th November 2009, 07:06 AM

Given the NOC testimony? I would have to say the plane could NOT have hit the Pentagon. It doesn´t matter what I ´think´ on the matter.
If it couldn´t hit where did it go?

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.

stewieg

13th November 2009, 08:03 AM

You´re addressing the wrong person.
I´m here to talk about NOC.
This thread has taken a personal turn away from the topic.
I´ll come back when I see discussion of the topic back on track.

Why do you contine to ignore the fact that CIT has never produced a witness that saw anyhting other than a 757 hit the Pentagon? Why do you continue to ignore that Craig and Aldo have this disturbing habit of threatening people? Yet you get all pissy that someone insults you here.

stewieg

13th November 2009, 08:07 AM

Domenic?? Is that my new name? It´ll do.

I asked for documentation yes.
I provided links and quotes from official reports which raised reasonable questions in my post. Hardly ´hearsay´.
The plane flew NOC. Corraborated on record. Verified.
NOC = No impact.

Another poster told me this was actually possible. Now THAT is magic.

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

Edx

13th November 2009, 08:18 AM

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

Duh, they are in on it.

Edx

13th November 2009, 08:19 AM

Edx

13th November 2009, 08:20 AM

I would pay to see you present your "evidence" in a court of law, mudlark. Seriously.

I would love to see them get owned in court like the Creationists got owned in Dover.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 11:18 AM

Give me better video, I cant even verify that is his view.

Yes from the positon far back in the room with a camera whip panning from one direction to the other, it does seem hard to see anything. But we cant tell what he could or could not have seen without better video now can we?]

Here´s a still. Tell me if you can see the lawn. Tell me if you can see the approach to the lawn. Tell me how he saw through this building.
The cam positioning had to be from that angle to see the Sheraton clearly.
There is a bigass building blocking the view.
There is a red circle on it just in case you don´t know where it is.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/vignolacircle-1.jpg

Why don´t you get in touch with Dawn Vignola to confirm the footage?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 11:22 AM

"Coaching" her? He was simply giving her information about what he saw so that she could relay that information to the media.

To an untrained eye (Vignola), the plane might appear white (reflections ect.). But Timmerman is a pilot. And he was pretty sure it was an AA plane. Do you think Timmerman lied?

So he was relaying HIS testimony through HER.
The point is that this interview by phone was being treated as HER testimony.
It was Timmerman´s. That´s all that is being conveyed by the term ´coaching´ in this instance.

tj15

13th November 2009, 11:32 AM

So he was relaying HIS testimony through HER.
The point is that this interview by phone was being treated as HER testimony.
It was Timmerman´s. That´s all that is being conveyed by the term ´coaching´ in this instance.
OK, so is Timmerman a liar or not?

Edx

13th November 2009, 11:37 AM

Why don´t you get in touch with Dawn Vignola to confirm the footage?

It may well be real, but its still painfully bad. Why did Craig and Aldo record such bad footage several feet back in the room whip panning around if they wanted to prove Timmerman couldnt see what he said he saw?

How did Timmerman know details he couldnt have seen?

Why was Timmerman lying?

Why was Timmerman feeding information to Vignola ?

Is it because... he's "in on it"? Just admit it, its okay. You've already implicated 10s of thousands whats one more?

Mr.Herbert

13th November 2009, 11:46 AM

Here´s a still. Tell me if you can see the lawn. Tell me if you can see the approach to the lawn. Tell me how he saw through this building.

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.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 11:46 AM

It's not, CITologist. You and your bum chums are obviously too stupid to realize that the witnesses misremembered the exact flight path.

AGAIN.... they SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.

Hey Einstein, if you were there and three-five years later you were asked what happened...what would be more clear to you? The exact location of the plane, or the impact?

Thank you.

All of them ´misremembered´?
So the plane was actually flying over the Citgo on the right hand sideso those 3 witnesses, Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios could not distinguish between right and left? Worse still both Lagasse and Brooks ´misremembered´ in the exact same way. They both drew an exact copy of the ´misremembered´ flightpath? aahh..ok.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/lagassepov.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/robertflightpath2.jpg

The ANC workers ´misremembered´ which side of the Annex they saw the plane appear? So when they said it had it´s right wing tipped it was actually flying AWAY from the scene. William Middleton ´felt the heat of the plane´ from a fair distance then huh?
They ran for their lives and described it heading right for them in the ANC parking lot but in reality they were way off.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

Boger was way off too then.

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

You DO realize that when the plane reaches Citgo, this is the point of no return in regards to hitting lightpole 1 and 2?

I would personally remember a bigass plane 50-100 ft agl heading my way and where I saw it just as much as the fireball.

That they all misremembered to such a degree is ridiculous.
I don´t question the BELIEF of SOME or that of any other witness who says they saw an impact. What I do question is the physical possibility of the plane reaching the lightpoles from NOC and the subsequent damage.

tj15

13th November 2009, 11:50 AM

All of them ´misremembered´?
So the plane was actually flying over the Citgo on the right hand sideso those 3 witnesses, Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios could not distinguish between right and left? Worse still both Lagasse and Brooks ´misremembered´ in the exact same way. They both drew an exact copy of the ´misremembered´ flightpath? aahh..ok.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/lagassepov.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/robertflightpath2.jpg

The ANC workers ´misremembered´ which side of the Annex they saw the plane appear? So when they said it had it´s right wing tipped it was actually flying AWAY from the scene. William Middleton ´felt the heat of the plane´ from a fair distance then huh?
They ran for their lives and described it heading right for them in the ANC parking lot but in reality they were way off.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

Boger was way off too then.

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

You DO realize that when the plane reaches Citgo, this is the point of no return in regards to hitting lightpole 1 and 2?

I would personally remember a bigass plane 50-100 ft agl heading my way and where I saw it just as much as the fireball.

That they all misremembered to such a degree is ridiculous.
I don´t question the BELIEF of SOME or that of any other witness who says they saw an impact. What I do question is the physical possibility of the plane reaching the lightpoles from NOC and the subsequent damage.

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

lapman

13th November 2009, 11:52 AM

Here´s a still. Tell me if you can see the lawn. Tell me if you can see the approach to the lawn. Tell me how he saw through this building.
The cam positioning had to be from that angle to see the Sheraton clearly.
There is a bigass building blocking the view.
There is a red circle on it just in case you don´t know where it is.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/vignolacircle-1.jpg

Why don´t you get in touch with Dawn Vignola to confirm the footage?
This only shows that eyewitness testimony cannot be the main source of evidence. This only proves that your "confirmed and verified" eyewitness statements are not reliable as well. So we have to go with the physical evidence. You still haven't provided even one shread of evidence that proves that the debris, DNA, jet fuel, etc. was planted. You still can't explain how all the physical evidence got all over the lawn that was in plain view of everyone got there. You haven't been able to even explain how the light poles got knocked over while everyone was looking. When are you going to do this?

twinstead

13th November 2009, 12:00 PM

This only shows that eyewitness testimony cannot be the main source of evidence. This only proves that your "confirmed and verified" eyewitness statements are not reliable as well. So we have to go with the physical evidence. You still haven't provided even one shread of evidence that proves that the debris, DNA, jet fuel, etc. was planted. You still can't explain how all the physical evidence got all over the lawn that was in plain view of everyone got there. You haven't been able to even explain how the light poles got knocked over while everyone was looking. When are you going to do this?

I honestly think that in his mind all he has to do is find a few witnesses who say what he wants to hear and he doesn't have to deal with all the physical evidence. He doesn't care about it. In his mind the plane HAD to fly over (even though nobody saw it) so the physical evidence HAD to have been faked.

What he doesn't realize of course that we could do the same thing in reverse. Since all the physical evidence points to the plane hitting the Pentagon, we could care less about his witnesses. The plane HAD to have crashed into the Pentagon so his witnesses HAVE to be mistaken.

See how easy that is?

tj15

13th November 2009, 12:03 PM

I honestly think that in his mind all he has to do is find a few witnesses who say what he wants to hear and he doesn't have to deal with all the physical evidence. He doesn't care about it. In his mind the plane HAD to fly over (even though nobody saw it) so the physical evidence HAD to have been faked.

What he doesn't realize of course that we could do the same thing in reverse. Since all the physical evidence points to the plane hitting the Pentagon, we could care less about his witnesses. The plane HAD to have crashed into the Pentagon so his witnesses HAVE to be mistaken.

See how easy that is?
And not only that, there are witnesses that place the plane south of Citgo. So the witnesses contradict each other... Further proving that eyewitness testimony is pretty unreliable.

beachnut

13th November 2009, 12:04 PM

All the CIT witnesses cannot draw a god view of the path of Flight 77, they were all on the ground and their ability to describe a path of a jet going 800 feet per second is limited after years.

If they were told about the lampposts, they would all agree on the path and if a real investigator was there and it was needed to know the path, we would fly a helo low and get the path confirmed.

But we know the path, it was littered with debris because Flight 77 hit lampposts and CIT are pathetic morons when it comes to investigation of high speed aircraft impacts.

Mudlark has to suspend rational thought processes to embrace the pure stupid of CIT. mudlark, just add water to CIT and shake

tj15

13th November 2009, 12:08 PM

Mudlark... It sounds like this guy should have seen the flyover. But he says no such thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&index=0&playnext=1

mudlark

13th November 2009, 01:10 PM

So the FDR got in the Pentagon how? How did the DNA get there?

The FDR has a story all of its own on how (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=5505) it got there.
I´ve said repeatedly here that the DNA retrieval and identification, especially that of the passengers, needs to be proven through documentation.
´Twoofers´ are repeatedly asked for proof on any evidence. Same goes for the DNA.

Have you told the families their loved ones were not killed by terrorists, but by some unknown nut case conspiracy theory you can't define?]

April Gallup (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html) has began legal precedings against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and other officials with the help of one of those ´nut case conspiracy´ investigators.
Pilotsfor911truth. That affidavit (http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20Affidavit=20Balsamo.pdf) quotes the following on behalf of Ms Gallup.

We concluded that:
(1.) The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
(2.) All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the Case 1:08-cv-10881-DC Document 17-5 Filed 06/29/2009 Page 2 of light poles.
(3.) The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
(4.) The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
(5.) If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
(6) The NTSB and FBI have been contacted and refuse to comment.
The foregoing is true and correct.

More families connected to the Pentagon attack have previously signed a petition that would be branded a ´conspiracy nut theory´ here.

¨NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)(Updated Sep. 11, 2009) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 (updated to 53) family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.¨

Among those were:

Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Jean Hunt, disabled survivor of Pentagon attack

These are family members who publically questioned 9/11. There are more from the other 3 incidents. Families who accepted the compensation fund (http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20070326_VictimFund.pdf) are contractually binded to waiver right to sue

Importantly, of course, the award of compensation is contingent upon waiver of the right to file, or to be a party to, a civil damages action in Federal or State court “for damages sustained as a result” of the 9/11 crashes.
...

Interestingly, the waiver of a claimant’s right to file suit does not become effective upon a claimant’s receipt of an award or even the Special Master’s determination of the claimant’s eligibility. It takes effect “[u]pon submission of a claim.” Section 405(c)(3)(B)(i); 115 Stat. 240. A person with an already-pending civil action under this title may indeed file a claim for compensation from the Fund, but only if he withdraws from such action by the date that is 90 days after the date on which regulations are promulgated under section
407.” Id. The statute is silent on the waiver obligation, if any, of a claimant who seeks—but ultimately is denied—Fund compensation.

I 100% respect the families who believe the attacks were carried out by OBL but these people must be given due respect too.

You never debunked one of the 136 witnesses. Why do all the CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but you twist their testimony given years after the event into some lame moronic delusion where Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon.

I´ve been thrown numbers throughout this thread about 104, 136, 150, ´hundreds´ of witnesses without actually seeing specific names.
I´m not twisting anything. I´m asking how these NOC witnesses could have seen what they described and the subsequent damage from the lightpoles onwards.

Where is Flight 77? The RADAR track ends at the Pentagon. Oops. Science proves your ideas are delusions shared by a select few paranoid conspiracy theorists armed with 11.2G failed physics and the worse investigators in history, CIT.

The RADES data matches the FDR data but NONE of the CORRABORATIVE witness testimonies.

So the FAA, NTSB, Navy, USAF, DoD employees, Army, Firemen, police, doctors, DNA specialist, and the FBI all conspired to do 911 and you have the evidence but it was eaten by your dog? Is that about right?

Did I say all these people were involved? Why would most of the people you mention HAVE to be involved??

Flight path verified by FDR, witnesses, and RADAR. You should go talk the the witnesses yourself, all of the CIT witnesses point to the south flight path on video; must take a great deal of ignorance to not know the direction people are pointing and CIT personify complete ignorance.

Again FDR readings that cast suspicion in the first place. The revised pilotsfor911truth calculations have the G-Force REQUIRED from the VDOT Tower at 10.14..!
The altimeter has the plane at nearly 300ft agl at the time of impact.
Which witnesses??
That´s a total lie about the CIT witnesses. They DID interview them. It´s on record.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 01:12 PM

I´ll get to the rest of your posts. I´m going through them one by one from where I left off.
I don´t want to be accused of ´avoiding´ or ´ignoring´ posts again.

Peace.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 01:19 PM

You might want to calm down first, then take a look at the glaring contradictions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4398631#post4398631) and double standards CIT (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4403752#post4403752) makes.

I am/was calm. I was answering in the same manner I was questioned.
Umm..and your point is? Please feel free to quote the ´glaring contradictions´ in posts that I myself have posted.
I will refrain from quoting contradictions from other people´s posts such as impact is ´possible´ from NOC...oh wait..that was you. Mybad.

beachnut

13th November 2009, 01:22 PM

The FDR has a story all of its own on how (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=5505) it got there.
I´ve said repeatedly here that the DNA retrieval and identification, especially that of the passengers, needs to be proven through documentation.
´Twoofers´ are repeatedly asked for proof on any evidence. Same goes for the DNA.

April Gallup (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html) has began legal precedings against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and other officials with the help of one of those ´nut case conspiracy´ investigators.
Pilotsfor911truth. That affidavit (http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20Affidavit=20Balsamo.pdf) quotes the following on behalf of Ms Gallup.

More families connected to the Pentagon attack have previously signed a petition that would be branded a ´conspiracy nut theory´ here.

Among those were:

Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Jean Hunt, disabled survivor of Pentagon attack

These are family members who publically questioned 9/11. There are more from the other 3 incidents. Families who accepted the compensation fund (http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20070326_VictimFund.pdf) are contractually binded to waiver right to sue

I 100% respect the families who believe the attacks were carried out by OBL but these people must be given due respect too.

I´ve been thrown numbers throughout this thread about 104, 136, 150, ´hundreds´ of witnesses without actually seeing specific names.
I´m not twisting anything. I´m asking how these NOC witnesses could have seen what they described and the subsequent damage from the lightpoles onwards.

The RADES data matches the FDR data but NONE of the CORRABORATIVE witness testimonies.

Did I say all these people were involved? Why would most of the people you mention HAVE to be involved??

Again FDR readings that cast suspicion in the first place. The revised pilotsfor911truth calculations have the G-Force REQUIRED from the VDOT Tower at 10.14..!
The altimeter has the plane at nearly 300ft agl at the time of impact.
Which witnesses??
That´s a total lie about the CIT witnesses. They DID interview them. It´s on record.

The RADES data and the FDR match all the witnesses, you are not trained to take witness statements or analyze them. I was trained by the USAF in accident investigation and nothing CIT has claimed is valid.

The best part is if you use Boger at all, he has 77 impacting the Pentagon exactly where Flight 77 hit. Oops, you are debunked by your own witness.

Too bad CIT never were trained. Why do you fall for the moronic overflight?

You have not dented one of the 136 witnesses. What is the problem?

136 witnesses beat your 13 witnesses who all agree that 77 impacted the Pentagon and knocked down the lamppost. Sad

Here is how the failed paths work. All the witnesses saw 77 for an instant in the air, there is no way they can accurately describe the ground track from where they were. So they saw 77 in the air, that matches the path 77 took. The paths draw are impossible due to G force. Use some math and physics and stop posting stupid stuff from CIT and p4t.

When you prove the DNA is fake, and the FDR is fake, and the RADAR data is fake, and all 136 witnesses I presented are fake, you will have a Pulitzer Prize. But you never will, you will be a fantasy believer, an anti-intellectual failed idea supporter. A terrorist apologist to follow the terrorists loyalist at p4t and CIT who lie to forgive the terrorists and blame whoever they hate. Join them it is so sad to see people jump into the pit of ignorance with no knowledge how to build the ladder of knowledge. How long will it take you to rise from the pit?

You never did give me the turn radii, or the energy of impact for your failed ideas; when will you do that simple stuff?

dtugg

13th November 2009, 01:25 PM

How come you ignore the fact that all of your own witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, CITiot? It's almost as if you are only cherry picking what you want to hear. But you wouldn't do that, would you? :rolleyes:

mudlark

13th November 2009, 01:29 PM

Thank you for debunking yourself. Since you cannot provide even one single piece of evidence that proves that the plane did not crash into the building, you are proving that your precious eyewitnesses are mistaken on the location of the flight path. Since all other evidence supports the SOC flight path, there could be no other. We look at the entire body of evidence. You just cherry pick the few pieces that support your fantasy while completely ignoring everything else.

Say what now? (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)
They are not ´my precious witnesses´. Why not interview them yourself with the same tone? Surely you can convince them that they didn´t see what they said they saw.

The reason I would not ´ignore´ them as has been previously suggested is because they corraborate eachother from the Annex, through NOC, away from any physically possible manouevre to reach the first lightpoles.
Please link me to VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTED evidence. Not the word of agencies. Actual documented proof.

W.D.Clinger

13th November 2009, 01:30 PM

Again FDR readings that cast suspicion in the first place. The revised pilotsfor911truth calculations have the G-Force REQUIRED from the VDOT Tower at 10.14..!

Rob Balsamo's calculation was off by a factor of 5: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

The altimeter has the plane at nearly 300ft agl at the time of impact.

The last radar altitude recorded by the FDR was 4 feet: http://www.warrenstutt.com/

Will

Edx

13th November 2009, 01:43 PM

Legasse said he saw plane debris Mud, why do you ignore that? probably because in the same interview he said it clipped light poles and one of them hit a black and orange cab, right? Cuz he's lying then but telling the truth with CIT right?

lapman

13th November 2009, 01:49 PM

Say what now? (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)
They are not ´my precious witnesses´. Why not interview them yourself with the same tone? Surely you can convince them that they didn´t see what they said they saw.

The reason I would not ´ignore´ them as has been previously suggested is because they corraborate eachother from the Annex, through NOC, away from any physically possible manouevre to reach the first lightpoles.
Please link me to VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTED evidence. Not the word of agencies. Actual documented proof.
Sorry, I go with what the physical evidence shows. People's recollection can be wrong and a small percentage that recollect something different than the majority is to be expected with such a large number of eyewitnesses. Since, as you claim, there is no way the plane could have crashed if it flew NOC, then it didn't fly NOC. The onus is on you to prove that the physical evidence is fake. Once you prove that it's fake, then your NOC eyewitness statements will start carrying some weight.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 01:57 PM

LOL! You actually think that a plane could fly that blue line? and fly over the Pentagon Too funny!

Ask these guys. (http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&ei=-NP9SsCJFYOm-Aa6nvjyCg&q=pilotsfor911truth&hl=es)

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?

Edx

13th November 2009, 02:02 PM

1. Mud why do you ignore all the witness' that would have seen a flyover if that happened?

2. Why do you suggest they knew they were going to have the luck of a leprecon?

3. And what reason wouldnt they just crash the plane into the building?

I knew you wont even try and answer those questions, but feel free to surprise me.

dtugg

13th November 2009, 02:10 PM

Ask these guys. (http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&ei=-NP9SsCJFYOm-Aa6nvjyCg&q=pilotsfor911truth&hl=es)

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?

Hey genius, your hero Cap'n Bob used the yellow line at about 3:30 for his calculations. And it turns out that that path is only possible if the plane is flying practically sideways, which nobody saw. And not to mention the fact that it throws several of the CITiot witnesses under the bus and ignores the pull up and over the Pentagon.

Your insane corkscrew path is impossible.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 02:11 PM

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/DeadHorseBeatAgain.jpg

´Margin of error´?

Are you saying the FDR/RADES data may be off?

Don´t think so. (http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000221/01/104316.pdf)

From there, the unit will process the information and send an output to the cockpit instrumentation and flight data systems at least 8 times per second.

The Flight Data Recorder doesnt have any errors in terms of air data (altitude, airspeed). Those errors are removed during calibration testing for certification.

"Airdata quantities are needed for a multitude of tasks, including flight safety, control, navigation, weapons delivery, flight test, and flight research. These quantities generally need to be measured and then calibrated to remove errors. The techniques and procedures are here; numerous references should be studied if airdata values are to be measured and calibrated."

Have a browse through here too. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163)

According to the many FDR Companies we (P4T) called (including the manufacturer of the FDR and Aircraft Accident Investigators in our organization at pilotsfor911truth.org...), they adamantly refer to DME as the most accurate in terms of location/position. However, they also offered this during our interview...

¨If you know where the airplane departed, we can truly determine where the airplane was by pure physics. We have some very sophisticated equipment. If you know where the airplane took off, we know the airplane turned left, right, up down, speed... We can precisley determine last position based purely on physics. But if you have DME, that is the most accurate...¨

Couple this information with the fact NOBODY saw the plane on the South of Citgo your ´margin of error´ is pretty wide and basically a personal opinion (?)

lapman

13th November 2009, 02:12 PM

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:15 PM

Couple this information with the fact NOBODY saw the plane on the South of Citgo your ´margin of error´ is pretty wide and basically a personal opinion (?)
Mark Petitt said that it came down 395... This is definitely closer to the south path.

lapman

13th November 2009, 02:16 PM

´Margin of error´?

Are you saying the FDR/RADES data may be off?The margin of error pertains to what people saw.

Couple this information with the fact NOBODY saw the plane on the South of Citgo your ´margin of error´ is pretty wide and basically a personal opinion (?)You have been provided with some. Just because you hand wave them away doesn't mean that they don't exist. Of course, there is the whole physical evidence thing that you refuse to provide and evidence that proves it is fake.

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:18 PM

Mudlark...

Why didn't this guy see the flyover? It seems like he was in a great position to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&index=0&playnext=1

dtugg

13th November 2009, 02:20 PM

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?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 02:21 PM

Did you figure out Petitt yet?

I showed both the official path and the NOC path. Neither puts the plane over I-395.
When he said ´it came up I-395´ maybe he meant alongside?
I don´t know. He would have to be interviewed first hand to get to the bottom it.
First hand in depth interviews asking details are the only way forward.

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:24 PM

I showed both the official path and the NOC path. Neither puts the plane over I-395.
When he said ´it came up I-395´ maybe he meant alongside?
I don´t know. He would have to be interviewed first hand to get to the bottom it.
First hand in depth interviews asking details are the only way forward.

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.

16.5

13th November 2009, 02:30 PM

Ask these guys. (http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&ei=-NP9SsCJFYOm-Aa6nvjyCg&q=pilotsfor911truth&hl=es)

The image in the video at 02:00 looks a bit more complicated, no?
So going on the calculations worked out and proven by professional pilots I would have to say yes.
Any stats to prove it was NOT possible?

WOW! Are you still trying to justify that insane corkscew path???

Bwhahahaha!

Calculations by professional pilots? Those guys are idiots, Have you seen their infamous hockey stick analysis? Hilarious!

They are lying to you and you are too drunk on the Kool Aid to know any better.

DGM

13th November 2009, 02:32 PM

I showed both the official path and the NOC path. Neither puts the plane over I-395.
When he said ´it came up I-395´ maybe he meant alongside?
I don´t know. He would have to be interviewed first hand to get to the bottom it.
First hand in depth interviews asking details are the only way forward.
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?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by mudlark
Before I forget tj15.
You linked me to the ´I-395´ witness?
NEITHER flightpath crosses this motorway.

Closer than NOC

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

That depends on exactly where he was on the motorway.
Up until the two paths intersect NOC is actually closer to the I-395.
And the plane 100% went over the Annex.
Are you trying to tell me the plane did not go over the Annex??

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:39 PM

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

mudlark

13th November 2009, 02:40 PM

Oops! You left out Terry Moran. My, my he's one of the star witnesses and you left him out. Shame on you, but I'm sure it was inadvertent and you'll correct the flight to include him. :rolleyes:

You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

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

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/morinPOV2.gif

dtugg

13th November 2009, 02:43 PM

Keep showing that path! You're doing a much better job of discrediting yourself than any of us ever could!

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:45 PM

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.

DGM

13th November 2009, 02:45 PM

You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

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

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/morinPOV2.gif
Your "Terry" view does not show a heavily banked aircraft. Why?

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

mudlark

13th November 2009, 02:50 PM

Another shill, obviously. As you can see from the comments, I wonder if Mudlark will directly or indirectly call this another fake witness. Cuz they're all fake if they dont say what CIT want them to say, isnt that right Mudlark?

Again...have I called anybody a shill?

Mark Petitt´s testimony needs to be dug into further but given the paths I posted, not knowing exactly where he was and the fact that the NOC path is actually closer to the I-395, then intersects with the official path it needs further investigation.
Especially given the fact that we know the plane went over the Annex.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 02:53 PM

is the driving range on the official flight path?

The north side path is.

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/videos-thewhiteplane.html)

twinstead

13th November 2009, 02:55 PM

Again...have I called anybody a shill?

Mark Petitt´s testimony needs to be dug into further but given the paths I posted, not knowing exactly where he was and the fact that the NOC path is actually closer to the I-395, then intersects with the official path it needs further investigation.
Especially given the fact that we know the plane went over the Annex.

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?

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:56 PM

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

tj15

13th November 2009, 02:57 PM

The north side path is.

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/videos-thewhiteplane.html)
I'm asking whether the driving range is on the official path. Can it be on both paths?

GlennB

13th November 2009, 02:57 PM

You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

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?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by mudlark
If you are asking if there was oppurtunity for someone to plant anything as you say in ´broad daylight´, of course there was.

Sure, the fork lift to haul the heavy aircraft parts was disguised as a pink elephant! The asbestos suit wearing perps walking into the fire were just ignored as everyone thought they were aliens from space.

Doesn´t change the fact that there was opportunity.
Remember there was also renovation work and empty offices.
Speculation but again opportunity.
Exactly what ´heavy aircraft parts´ are you talking about?

W.D.Clinger

13th November 2009, 03:10 PM

Especially given the fact that we know the plane went over the Annex.

That's possible, but in the video you cited earlier for its alleged proof of 10.14g, Rob Balsamo insists that the plane had to have gone over the VDOT antenna, not the Navy annex.

Rob is more likely to be right about that than about the 10.14g:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

Whatever happened to your respect for mathematics?
:stone022:

twinstead

13th November 2009, 03:11 PM

mudlark your witnesses are irrelevant.

beachnut

13th November 2009, 03:12 PM

You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

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

Please show the work done by professional pilots. Bank angles speeds and G force please.

This is funny. You posted a turn requiring 80.25 degrees of bank, and 5.9 Gs. The wings would crack off. This is what professional morons at p4t give you?

80 degrees of bank never seen on 911 by any witness sinks your ideas.

No one has debunked or refuted the FDR with facts and evidence. The final seconds of Flight 77 were on a true track of 61.2 to 61.5 degrees at impact. Sorry, but at 483 KIAS, over 500 mph, small bank angles (less than 30 to 45 degree) do not turn the plane. The turn radius which you and p4t can't figure out at 30 to 45 degree is greater than 20,000 to 35,000 feet. You posted an impossible turn radius due to complete lack of knowledge of flight dynamics, something p4t can't do due to their paranoid "offer no theory" to mess with DVD sales fraud.

Failure for 8 years personified by p4t and CIT.

tj15

13th November 2009, 03:12 PM

Is Jamal El'Kournayati on the official flight path?

Reheat

13th November 2009, 03:18 PM

You must be looking at the wrong photo.
The plane passes over his positioning.

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

Uh, no it doesn't pass over his position! Not even in the slightest.

Here's his statements:

“The Attack

I had just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO/Federal Office Building (FOB) #2 – call it approximately 9:36 AM. I was already trying to make some sense out of the World Trade Tower attacks having heard about them on the radio. The news was sketchy, but the fact that it was a terrorist attack was already known. I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

The Reaction
Many of the FOB people had been looking at the news reports flowing out of the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, going about their normal work routine as they watched. Maybe half or a bit more already knew of the New York attacks. However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.”
Source: http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

You idiots lie about it and hope no one notices. Even in the latest "National Security" crap Morin is quoted as saying the aircraft would have hit the new USAF Memorial and that's NOT NOC. You idiots lie with impunity and hope no one notices. Gullible fools swallow it without critique and then LIE about it when questioned.

You have been busted! Go find some other hobby, you're a failure at this.

bje

13th November 2009, 03:22 PM

I showed both the official path and the NOC path.

Sorry, you can't produce anyone who claimed to have seen this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

mudlark

13th November 2009, 03:34 PM

Sure, One Shot. That mass murdering Cab Driver, Lloyde England!

I can add my undying gratitude to you for posting the most ridiculous flight path ever. What the hell boy, ya ever plane in a plane before??

Why do you let Craig and Aldo lie to you?

Do you deny that the plane flew over the Navy Annex?
I´m presenting what witnesses described.
What I find ridiculous are the g-forces necessary according to the FDR data to substantiate the official path.
How many witnesses described it?

twinstead

13th November 2009, 03:40 PM

Reheat

13th November 2009, 03:41 PM

Sure, the fork lift to haul the heavy aircraft parts was disguised as a pink elephant! The asbestos suit wearing perps walking into the fire were just ignored as everyone thought they were aliens from space.

Originally Posted by mudlark]
If you are asking if there was oppurtunity for someone to plant anything as you say in ´broad daylight´, of course there was.

There was a raging fire, Bozo. Try some other delusion, that one won't hack it.

Originally Posted by mudlark]
Doesn´t change the fact that there was opportunity.
Remember there was also renovation work and empty offices.
Speculation but again opportunity.

Only if you are an idiot and pretend there was no raging fire.

Originally Posted by mudlark]
Exactly what ´heavy aircraft parts´ are you talking about?

I'm not at all surprised that you don't know. Otherwise you would have rejected this asinine idea in the very beginning.

How much do you reckon a landing gear weighs? You do know they were there, or do you need spoon feeding from someone via a photograph?

dtugg

13th November 2009, 03:44 PM

Reheat

13th November 2009, 03:44 PM

What I find ridiculous are the g-forces necessary according to the FDR data to substantiate the official path.
How many witnesses described it?

Another ignoramous who knows nothing about aeronautics. Vertical G's (even if excessive) are not detectable by an unknowledgeable observer, excessive bank is.

bje

13th November 2009, 03:56 PM

Do you deny that the plane flew over the Navy Annex?
I´m presenting what witnesses described.

NO ONE ever reported what Ranke and you claim. Not this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

Nor this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394afdf02ca5f2c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18187)

It's highly entertaining that you have to avoid supporting your claims of a "flyover" with actual evidence, mudlark. Just imagine ALL those eyewitnesses all around the Pentagon....

tj15

13th November 2009, 03:56 PM

So the official flight path is wrong. Jamal El'Kournayati confirms this.

tj15

13th November 2009, 03:58 PM

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

Anyone know?

beachnut

13th November 2009, 04:04 PM

Do you deny that the plane flew over the Navy Annex?
I´m presenting what witnesses described.
What I find ridiculous are the g-forces necessary according to the FDR data to substantiate the official path.
How many witnesses described it?
What g-forces? Please explain. You can't. Why do you post the lies of CIT and p4t when you have no clue about flying and investigation techniques?

The funny part is Balsamo comes up with 11.2 G by doing idiot hand-waving dirt dumb math. When in reality the G force to impact the Pentagon were recorded by the FDR exactly as predicted by physics as presented by real people who can do math. Balsamo has to look up formulas when most pilots can estimate the G-force in their head.

11.2 G is what Balsamo said it took, then he corrected his math and came up with 35G! p4t can't do math.

The real use of math came up with values of 1.4G to 2.0Gs for various scenarios to impact. Look what Hani poor flying skills came up with. By luck Hani did not smack into the ground he pulled up in time to miss the overpass and impact the Pentagon in his last 4 to 5 seconds of his murdering career you attempt as poorly as he flies to apologize for.

0.725 @8hz, (p4t have no clue what a hz is)
0.659
0.92
0.858
0.94
1.121
0.828
0.783
0.982
0.986
0.927
0.776
1.25
1.037
1.231
1.721
1.604
1.781
1.762
1.964
1.879
2.264
2.044
2.181
1.675
1.744
1.65
1.504
1.785
1.655
1.861
1.946
The last four seconds of G (average 1.4G)! IT is not 11.2, or 35 Gs needed to hit the Pentagon as the fraud Balsamo says. 8 years and p4t have no clue what happen on 911 as they choose to apologize for terrorists. Beat by hard evidence. Lost by this much!

twinstead

13th November 2009, 04:17 PM

The vast preponderance of both physical and eye-witness evidence supports the "official flight path". Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to present more than a few anomalous eye witnesses to convince rational people.

tj15

13th November 2009, 04:19 PM

twinstead

13th November 2009, 04:28 PM

Do you know if the driving range is on the official flight path?

The preponderance of evidence, both PHYSICAL and EYE-WITNESS, support the official flight path. I could care less about anything you have to say or ask unless you provide some evidence that physical evidence was planted, or a SINGLE eye-witness of a flyover.

See, it IS fun. I can play just like you guys

tj15

13th November 2009, 04:44 PM

The preponderance of evidence, both PHYSICAL and EYE-WITNESS, support the official flight path. I could care less about anything you have to say or ask unless you provide some evidence that physical evidence was planted, or a SINGLE eye-witness of a flyover.

See, it IS fun. I can play just like you guys

"You guys"? I'm not a truther... I'm simply asking a question that I don't know the answer to.

W.D.Clinger

13th November 2009, 04:54 PM

The last four seconds of G (average 1.4G)!

Yep. The last two seconds average a little over 1.8g, reducing the vertical velocity by a little less than 55 ft/sec.

I did a quick-and-dirty numerical integration to see how well the recorded vertical accelerations correlate with the pressure and radar altimeters. I'm seeing the right general shape of the curve, but I'm also seeing shifts that may be caused by the 1-second uncertainty in the times at which the altimeters are sampled during each recording interval. What is already known about that?

IT is not 11.2, or 35 Gs needed to hit the Pentagon as the fraud Balsamo says. 8 years and p4t have no clue what happen on 911 as they choose to apologize for terrorists. Beat by hard evidence. Lost by this much!

Balsamo knows a new member of his club is born every minute.

Over at the AboveTopSecret forum, the fake R_Mackey (evidently Rob Balsamo) quotes an email from Rob Balsamo in which Balsamo says my calculation of 1.9g for a path over the VDOT antenna "shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables":
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg17

On page 19, he's back to claiming 9g. On the basis of his very own favorite adjustment to the pressure altitude, he is claiming the plane is 129 feet above ground level 1 second before impact and descending at 59 ft/sec. He doesn't mention that the radar altitude is 4 feet:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg19
:rolleyes:

tj15

13th November 2009, 04:56 PM

So did the plane fly directly over the VDOT antenna?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 04:57 PM

Nope. The witnesses were interviewed years later by idiots with an agenda. That some of them said that the plane flew on one side of a stupid gas station means precisely nothing. Especially when 100% of the physical evidence contradicts it.

A ´stupid gas station´?

Darrell Stafford
ANC parking lot

Original CMH interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit420)

¨and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building
.. guess it was pretty big to be on top of you......The wing span was out here somewhere¨

Darius Prather
ANC parking lot

Original CMH interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/DariusPrather.mp3)

Prather: The Navy Annex, above midway. You can see where is a little area on the roof... the lower roof [...]. Right along in that area is where the American Airlines plane came directly across that, and it was only about 3 and half or 4 feet above that. We thought it was the weirdest thing. "It is too damn low", we were saying ..it came on down in between where the gas station [CITGO] is and our parking lot

William Middleton
upper end of ANC buildings

Original CMH interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3)

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive.

...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

George Aman
In his office in the ANC buildings.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AMANWINDS.jpg

Original CMH interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit419)

I thought it was going to hit this building here. So I was just looking out here and I see this airplane coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. And I said good God Almighty. So I'm just petrified. I'm looking. The plane flies right over the parking lot here...
When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front here

Chadwick Brooks
Citgo

Isn´t questioned about positioning of plane but mentions the lightpoles being struck.
In a CIT interview he admitted (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html) that he didn´t.

Roosevelt Robert Jr.
South parking loading dock

Original CMH interview (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/911_archive/title_sound_recordingI1.html)

´the plane hit the building..I ran to the centre of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot..¨

During CIt´s interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts) with him

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

CMH had an agenda too?

But all of your own witnesses say it impacted. It's really hilariously pathetic how you ignore that part.

All of them? No.
Brooks and Lagasse for example were visibly taken aback when they realised the implications of their placement of the plane.
You continually refuse to explain how the plane flew the above testified to route along NOC and managed to reach the lightpoles.

Magic would be fooling all witnesses from all angles into believing that a large jet flew into the Pentagon when it really flew over and then planting/faking all kinds of evidence without a single person noticing.

All angles? Who? The commuters on the motorway out of view of the Pentagon facade? Traffic was freely moving. Most would have seen the fireball after it had happened.
Airplanes are a common site flying over the Pentagon. How could they have possibly put two and two together at that time when this information has only come to light years afterwards?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/landing1.gif

The roads and motorways facing the west face of the Pentagon? Have you ever seen the topography of that area? Trees and bridges block most views.
Most witnesses in the area describe something along those lines blocking their view.

Reheat

13th November 2009, 04:57 PM

"You guys"? I'm not a truther... I'm simply asking a question that I don't know the answer to.

Uh, huh.

Then why are you acting like one? It has been repeatedly suggested to you that you first use the search function rather than incessantly asking simple questions. You're behavior is becoming quite annoying. If you can't find answers then STFU and lurk for awhile until you learn more, to include not interrupting an intense debate with your inane questions.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 05:00 PM

dtugg

13th November 2009, 05:05 PM

So did the plane fly directly over the VDOT antenna?

I don't think so. But even if it did, the g-forces that Cap'n Bob calculated are totally ridiculous. It's based on the assumption that the plane would have flown in a straight line to the light poles, then pulled up in a split second. In reality, only an idiot would believe that the "official" story has this happening; Hanjour certainly pulled up in a much more gradual fashion, as would any pilot.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 05:12 PM

HI! Yeah, hot linking images from banned members is kind of frowned upon around here.

Especially ones that have been systematically debunked.

Say Mud, why do you call Boger a liar?

It is? I´ll check it out with the mods. NP.
I´ve been here 2 days and the only counterargument I´ve heard to NOC is that of phyical evidence that is not documented and ´hundreds´ of witnesses that I´ve yet to hear named.

When did I call Boger a liar?

Reheat

13th November 2009, 05:14 PM

It is? I´ll check it out with the mods. NP.
I´ve been here 2 days and the only counterargument I´ve heard to NOC is that of phyical evidence that is not documented and ´hundreds´ of witnesses that I´ve yet to hear named.

Typical twoofer mentality. Only comprehend what coincides with your delusions.

BigAl

13th November 2009, 05:15 PM

16.5

13th November 2009, 05:18 PM

Do you deny that the plane flew over the Navy Annex?
I´m presenting what witnesses described.
What I find ridiculous are the g-forces necessary according to the FDR data to substantiate the official path.
How many witnesses described it?

The CORKSCREW?

You are fantastic!

That path is so astonishingly idiotic that Craig and Fatty have completely abandoned it. The freaking plane would have had to be almost vertical on the first bank, pull out of it, and keeled over the other way to bank around the CITGO. At that point, here is what it would have looked like to all of your witnesses:

l

Is it wrong to say I love you? Keep posting!

tj15

13th November 2009, 05:19 PM

Uh, huh.

Then why are you acting like one? It has been repeatedly suggested to you that you first use the search function rather than incessantly asking simple questions. You're behavior is becoming quite annoying. If you can't find answers then STFU and lurk for awhile until you learn more, to include not interrupting an intense debate with your inane questions.

Asking a question = truther?

Please ignore my posts from now on.

dtugg

13th November 2009, 05:19 PM

A ´stupid gas station´?

Just as I said, few people even mentioned it prior to your heroes' "investigation."

All of them? No.
Brooks and Lagasse for example were visibly taken aback when they realised the implications of their placement of the plane.

Oh, I see. They now say that the plane did not impact the Pentagon and are supporters of the the CITiots. Right? No? Then what they hell are you talking about.

You continually refuse to explain how the plane flew the above testified to route along NOC and managed to reach the lightpoles.

It didn't. Your witnesses were mistaken. That was easy.

You've never explained why you ignore the part about the plane hitting the Pentagon but take everything that you want to hear as gospel.

All angles? Who? The commuters on the motorway out of view of the Pentagon facade? Traffic was freely moving. Most would have seen the fireball after it had happened.
Airplanes are a common site flying over the Pentagon. How could they have possibly put two and two together at that time when this information has only come to light years afterwards?

The roads and motorways facing the west face of the Pentagon? Have you ever seen the topography of that area? Trees and bridges block most views.
Most witnesses in the area describe something along those lines blocking their view.

If you CITiots were there, perhaps you may have been dumb enough to see a large fireball and a large plane flying fast over the Pentagon and not be able to put the two together but I assure you that the rest of the world is not so stupid.

tj15

13th November 2009, 05:21 PM

I don't think so. But even if it did, the g-forces that Cap'n Bob calculated are totally ridiculous. It's based on the assumption that the plane would have flown in a straight line to the light poles, then pulled up in a split second. In reality, only an idiot would believe that the "official" story has this happening; Hanjour certainly pulled up in a much more gradual fashion, as would any pilot.

Truther lingo. Are you a truther?! Just kidding...

But yeah, truthers don't care about things like g-forces and the ridiculousness of their math.

dtugg

13th November 2009, 05:21 PM

When did I call Boger a liar?

So was Boger telling the truth when he said he watched the plane fly into the Pentagon? Hmmmm?

16.5

13th November 2009, 05:28 PM

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller - "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.

Mud accuses Boger of lying:

"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."

Mr. Boger, Mud thinks you are lying.

Keep it up Mud! Tell us more about the Hockey Stick Fraud your idiot pals at PFFT were talking about!

Edx

13th November 2009, 05:30 PM

Mud thinks everyone is lying that doesnt say what he wants them to say.

Edx

13th November 2009, 05:33 PM

All angles? Who? The commuters on the motorway out of view of the Pentagon facade? Traffic was freely moving. Most would have seen the fireball after it had happened.
Airplanes are a common site flying over the Pentagon. How could they have possibly put two and two together at that time when this information has only come to light years afterwards?

OMG srsly?

Yes planes are a common sight but not on 911.

Why didnt anyone notice a AA flying away from the Pentagon?

All your rhetoric comes back to ridiculous conclusions like this and this is why CIT fail so badly.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 05:34 PM

they were identified. so was the landing gear at the exit hole.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

As those of Flight 77?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18210

14. By letter dated March 12, 2008, the FBI advised Plaintiff that, following a records search and extensive research into Plaintiff’s request, no responsive records were located.

The FBI conducted a reasonable search for the records requested in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and located no responsive records. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim should be denied as moot.

Despite these extensive and detailed search efforts, RIDS located no FBI records responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Id. The lack of documentation revealing the process by which the FBI identified the hijacked aircraft is unsurprising because the identity of those aircraft has never been in question and because other evidence collected after September 11, 2001, has corroborated the identity of the hijacked aircraft.

Thus, no documentation exists “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered . . . from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified . . . as belonging to the said aircraft,

Doubt it.

tj15

13th November 2009, 05:34 PM

Mud thinks everyone is lying that doesnt say what he wants them to say.

It seems that the only evidence that he accepts is eyewitness testimony (notoriously bad evidence).

We need to counter it with a list of the eyewitness testimony of the many SOC eyewitnesses. I mean, he isn't going to accept physical evidence.

What will he say when he sees that the list of SOC witnesses is far larger?

twinstead

13th November 2009, 05:36 PM

Doubt it.
Simple personal incredulity noted

TexasJack

13th November 2009, 05:37 PM

Edx

13th November 2009, 05:38 PM

It seems that the only evidence that he accepts is eyewitness testimony (notoriously bad evidence).

We need to counter it with a list of the eyewitness testimony of the many SOC eyewitnesses. I mean, he isn't going to accept physical evidence.

What will he say when he sees that the list of SOC witnesses is far larger?

Ive been saying for ages we need those kinds of lists, in the same way we need a easily searchable database of truther quotemines. Roberts did a good job with his pentagon eye witness' list but it needs to be more specifically directed to CIT claims.

But it would be nice to complile not only a list of SoC witness' but also witness' that would have seen the plane fly over had it done so, obviously that part would be even bigger in reality since they wouldnt have been interviewed by the press. (since they were at the wrong angle to see the plane impact or SoC or Noc but would have seen a plane fly over.)

tj15

13th November 2009, 05:42 PM

Ive been saying for ages we need those kinds of lists, in the same way we need a easily searchable database of truther quotemines. Roberts did a good job with his pentagon eye witness' list but it needs to be more specifically directed to CIT claims.

But it would be nice to complile not only a list of SoC witness' but also witness' that would have seen the plane fly over had it done so, obviously that part would be even bigger in reality since they wouldnt have been interviewed by the press. (since they were at the wrong angle to see the plane impact or SoC or Noc but would have seen a plane fly over.)

Exactly. I posted a couple videos of witnesses that said the plane came down 395... They would be SOC witnesses.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 06:16 PM

Yea but Walter's a shill just like Timmerman and Lloyd, right Mud?

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walterbankgif.gif

Lloyd? The guy who denied being anywhere near the bridge on camera and said he was ´in it´ and that ´it was planned´ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)?
That ´when it comes to me it´s gonna be so big I can´t do nothing about it´

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pole_in_cab_graphic_sm-1.jpg

That Lloyd?

I don´t claim they were shills but that there testimony was highly dubious and evasive. Especially Lloyd.

Could you imagine I was presenting Lloyd´s scenario to back up any claims I was making on NOC?

Yeah fun times for you guys.

UNLoVedRebel

13th November 2009, 06:17 PM

Lloyd? The guy who denied being anywhere near the bridge on camera and said he was ´in it´ and that ´it was planned´ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)?
So the mighty CIT discovered 9/11 was planned. Who woulda thought? Go Truthers!

DavidJames

13th November 2009, 06:20 PM

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walterbankgif.gifJust so I'm clear. You are using Walter at least partially to support your theory?

The guy who in the picture says the 77 nose dived into the pentagon?

Surely I'm missing something.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 06:21 PM

Do "independently verified testimonies" trump any "official story" reports?

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.
What exactly are the ´official story´ reports you are referring to?

Reheat

13th November 2009, 06:29 PM

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

This is quite stupid again. No one, No one described the type of incredible bank required to negotiate any of your imaginary turns. It's not even close.

twinstead

13th November 2009, 06:32 PM

That Lloyd?

I don´t claim they were shills but that there testimony was highly dubious and evasive. Especially Lloyd.

Could you imagine I was presenting Lloyd´s scenario to back up any claims I was making on NOC?

Yeah fun times for you guys.

Yea. Just about as fun as you presenting a minority of witnesses who not only contradict the majority of witnesses, but the physical evidence as well and trumpeting them as proof that there was a flyover that none of them witnessed? Yea fun times for YOU guys.

beachnut

13th November 2009, 06:36 PM

I... uncertainty in the times at which the altimeters are sampled during each recording interval. What is already known about that?
... :rolleyes:
The Altimeter is sampled once near the first part of the 256 words, the vertical acceleration is sampled at 8 Hz, and the Altitude is in the first 32 words at word 39 and 30; the first 1/8 of a second.

Of 256 words per second stored in the FDR, pressure altitude is computed from words 29 and 30. This means the final pressure altitude is sampled a 226/256 second before the last value, and 13 or so words are missing from the end of the frame. If someone says 77 is too high to hit the Pentagon, there is at least another second of flying in a dive to go, and in the past second flight 77 has lost 59 feet and the RADALT is reading only 4 feet, about 10 feet from the antenna there is something below Flight 77. One of the lampposts or trees 77 is clipping?

Edx

13th November 2009, 06:42 PM

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?

Waters? The guy CIT says is lying so much they think he is an agent because he doesnt back up their fantasy at all?

You're even more ridiculous than they are.

So they hire an agent like Walters but somehow he is still too stupid to lie correctly? Why is the government so incompetent when they hire these guys?

Lloyd? The guy who denied being anywhere near the bridge on camera and said he was ´in it´ and that ´it was planned´ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)?
That ´when it comes to me it´s gonna be so big I can´t do nothing about it´

Aside from being many years later and an old mans memory of a horiffic event, I still dont see why he was lying about where he was. The photos place him "at the pentagon" which is what he said.

As for the "it was planned", he has a David Icke book in his car, makes truther claims about the Pentagon, and clearlly believes in conspiracy theories in general. He is "involved" in the story of what he already considers to be a conspiracy, not because they hired him to lie. Why would he so easily just admit the conspiracy, while still maintain the lie about where he was, what he saw and what happened to his car? Does all that really make more sense to you?

beachnut

13th November 2009, 06:43 PM

Walter? The guy who corraborates the bank I was talking about?
...
Yeah fun times for you guys.
What was the bank angle? oops the largest bank angle for a moment was 8.8 degrees. 25 mile turn radius. Good for you.

The last few seconds had a 6 degree right bank, at exactly 5 seconds prior to impact the bank was 6.3 degree right wing down; hope no one confirms the exact number. Oops, you just posted a witness confirming the FDR. Darn, you were trying hard to keep up the lie of a fly over and you have another witness putting 77 nose diving into the Pentagon.

Yes, nose diving, Hani was up to 6 degrees down pitch, and going up to 6,000 feet per minute down; NORMAL landings are about 500 to 700 feet per minute, and the nose is not 6 degrees down. So compared to normal landings, this was a nose dive, the plane is not going to survive an impact at this high angle. Too bad you are not a pilot or an engineer, you would not be making dumb posts you will have to deny in the future if your kids go to college and retain their education. Think of how funny it will be when they see you defending moronic 11.2G physics of p4t truthNAZI, Balsamo.
The terrorists think your ideas are pure poppycock.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 06:47 PM

the parts were identified (thats how i know they were engines and landing gear, etc)

and you expect anything other than lightweight parts to be "blown all over the place" ?

ETA: also, you didnt answer my question on why the conspirators chose a method of carrying out their plan that would result in the attack not looking like it should.[/QUOTE]

Identified as Flight 77?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11)

The post I made was in response to another poster claiming that ´airplane parts were blown all over the place´ when in fact the majority of debris was allegedly found inside the building.
What was photographed outside were unidenifiable small parts which were more likely building debris and a few sheets of plane ´skin´.

ETA: also, you didnt answer my question on why the conspirators chose a method of carrying out their plan that would result in the attack not looking like it should.

Speculation you want? I personally believe they messed up the op.
Whatever they had planned no concrete suspicions arose and the NOC evidence only came to light years after. So they didn´t do too bad.
Lucky they had the media on their side.
But as I said. Speculation.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 06:58 PM

Mudlark
That´s your opinion.
There were discrepancies in the whole FDR saga from retrieval to translation.
NOBODY witnessed this path. Nor that of the RADES.

At 540mph the plane would have been a blur between the Navy Annex and the facade.
Witnesses from all angles placed the plane at a bank. That it took at least 10-15 seconds from its appearance at the Annex to the fireball.
Penny Elgas said that the plane ´made the slightest turn´ just in front of her on the HOV lanes.
At 540mph? Impossible.
The ANC witnesses and Boger describe a bank the whole way down to route 27.
Even Walter describes a bank.
The plane is said to have ´wobbled´ and the pilot ´struggled with it´ from Route 27 to the facade.
You can choose to ignore the NOC witnesses if you wish but to ignore an even larger number on these testimonies is ridiculous in the extreme.

If the plane was travelling at 540 mph that equals 250 metres a second.
From the plane´s arrival on Route 27 at lightpole 1 to the facade is 300 metres exactly.
So are you telling me that in just over a second the plane reached the facade?

Maybe you can look to FDR/RADES but Math beats that **** hands down.

None of the above oddities, even to the degree they may be true trump the fact that the entire fuselage of Flight 77 (minus the aluminum consumed in the fire) and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and radar tracks and radar data show how and when it got there.

Parts?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11

Bodies? (passenger)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19057

The following is a September 10, 2008 Freedom of Information Act response from the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), regarding a request for records establishing the process of recovery and identification of forensic evidence from the crash scenes of American Airlines flight 77 in Arlington, VA and United Airlines flight 93 in Shanksville, PA on September 11, 2001. The records were deemed exempt from disclosure under U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(a) and (b)(7)(c) regarding law enforcement proceedings and privacy.

Radar data which contradicts all witness testimony and matches the FDR where g force values have been calculated to impossible extremities.
The revised calculations done by Pilotsfor911truth prove (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163) this.

The simple calculation I made on speed even throws doubt on the validity of this data.
Lightpole 1 to Pentagon facade in just over a second??

I´m sure there are a stream of posts ahead querying the validity of these calculations but I will address them.

Edx

13th November 2009, 07:01 PM

Lucky they had the media on their side.
But as I said. Speculation.

Yes yes, even more people are in on it, its hilarious watching you create such an enormous conspiracy theory.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 07:03 PM

Just so I'm clear. You are using Walter at least partially to support your theory?

The guy who in the picture says the 77 nose dived into the pentagon?

Surely I'm missing something.

It's not my theory it's what he outright claims mate!

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

Video link here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsfd6R29q0&feature=related)

If you haven't figured it out yet it's impossible for the plane to cause the damage from there and this is where all of the witnesses in a position to see the gas station place it.

Put that together with Lloyde's proven false impossible story and virtual admission of involvement and the implications are clear to honest objective skeptics.

bje

13th November 2009, 07:04 PM

All angles? Who? The commuters on the motorway out of view of the Pentagon facade?

No one would need to see the facade if the jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon," as you claim, correct, mudlark?

Traffic was freely moving. Most would have seen the fireball after it had happened.You don't have any knowledge of what hundreds of drivers would see or not see. You refused to interview them. And you have no reports from anyone of any "flyover."

In fact, many drivers were facing the explosion and the so-called "flyover" jet would have been coming directly at them with the explosion going off in the background. And you know that is precisely why you canot draw any "flyover" flightpath over the Pentagon.

Airplanes are a common site flying over the Pentagon. There is nothing common with a 757 flying at top speed, low and loud over the Pentagon while an explosion goes off on one facade. Remember, Craig Ranke showed us this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

What a wonderful view of something that never happens nor ever happened. Just look how easily it would have been seen, courtesy of Craig Ranke!

Just think how those drivers and long-time commuters would react having seen a never-before-seen sight of a 757 moving faster and lower than any departing or approaching jet from and to Reagan ever had done before, loud as hell, along with a freaking explosion going off behind the jet, then hearing all the subsequent media reports from that moment until today that the jet crashed into the Pentagon and didn't fly over it. You would think they would remain silent, eh?

The roads and motorways facing the west face of the Pentagon? Have you ever seen the topography of that area? Trees and bridges block most views.Once again, you stick your foot in your mouth claiming to know what hundreds of people would have seen or not seen after you, CIT, and P4T, refused to interview them for the last 8 years. And let me refresh your memory:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg50#pid4823797

And just look at the wonderful view of the so-called "flyover" CIT gave you - the view that nobody ever saw of something that never happened.

No wonder you cannot demonstrate your fantasy "flyover," mudlark.

mudlark

13th November 2009, 07:05 PM

That was an incredibly weak response. Were the conspirators TRYING to be risky when they carried out this "plot?"

That was a speculatory answer to a speculatory question Jack.
You´d have to ask those who were involved.

Edx

13th November 2009, 07:05 PM

It's not my theory it's what he outright claims mate!

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

So explain to me why CIT say he is a lying cover agent then Mud?

Because right now you're saying Walters is the worst shill ever

beachnut

13th November 2009, 07:07 PM

It's not my theory it's what he outright claims mate!

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

...
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walterbankgif.gif

What? This guy says 77 hit, so you are saying 77 hit? You are dropping the dolts at p4t?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 07:10 PM

You obviously don't know what corroboration of evidence is. Testimony doesn't mean squat unless you can corroborate it with physical evidence. You can't corroborate testimony with no plane, unless you know where that plane is, and by your own admission, you don't know where it it went.

On the other hand, the rational one, you have testimony of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, corroborated by physical evidence such as DNA, plane debris and FDR. Get it? Or is this too hard for you?

Wow is nobody following the links?
There is no documented DNA, retrieval OR identification.
There are no documented plane parts.
The FDR path was witnessed by who? How did it withstand the g-forces necessary given the data extracted?
The physical evidence is officially non existent in the case of the plane parts
and DNA documents are withheld under the ´National Security´ blanket.

16.5

13th November 2009, 07:11 PM

Oh Hai!

Here is a link to the rest of the CIT slurpers photos that he is going to post in this thread!

http://s659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/?start=160

Did he repost the insane corkscrew yet?

I heard that Aldo was so mad that a completely incompetent No Planer at the Pentagon was ******** the bed here that Aldo skipped second breakfast!

Keep up the great work MUD!

DavidJames

13th November 2009, 07:12 PM

It's not my theory it's what he outright claims mate!He also claims he saw it nose dive into the Pentagon, "mate". So you believe the part that matches with your fantasy but ignore the part that doesn't.

I can think of a few explanations for such beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance
Mental illness
Trolling

Have a nice life.

Edx

13th November 2009, 07:14 PM

@Mudlark:

So, what you and CIT are saying is that Mike Walters is telling the truth when you want him to, but absolutely lying through his teeth so much that CIT say he is a shill.....

..... AT THE SAME TIME.

??? Seriously ???

Mr.Herbert

13th November 2009, 07:22 PM

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/aldo.jpg

tj15

13th November 2009, 07:25 PM

mudlark

13th November 2009, 07:29 PM

Lies. Zero problems with the FDR, you just say there were without presenting evidence; you point at the idiots at p4t who have not done anything as they "offer no theories".

Lie, there are many witnesses to the actual path.

Math, with the 11.2G wave your hand make up the numbers math of p4t, failure is complete.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

If you fall for lies like CIT, what will keep you from falling for other fraud. CIT is a fraud, not recognizing that is self-critiquing.

The link you sent has went 404 I think. You need to link me to another site.
I gotta see these ´104 witnesses´.

On the G-forces? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en#)

Watch the revised calculations done by Pilotsfor911truth. Hats off to them for correcting and admitting their mistake.

They go on to show the fallacies in the attempts by detractors to work out the G-forces themselves.

Forgive me if I use their words in the most part to explain this.

Calculator was only applicable to a one dimensional calculation and didn´t take into account the TWO dimensional calc necessary.

(02:24 minutes)

One dimensional = vertical velocity vector
Two dimensional= vertical AND horizontal velocity
= total velocity vector

Altitude, vertical speed and attitude data were left out of the attempted debunk.
This data was provided by NTSB.
This parabolic formula, based on false assumptions recorded a maximum g-force of 1.62 for the least challenging scenario from the VDOT Tower.
This figure was arrived at without taking into account the linear trends provided by the NTSB.
A follow-up attempted bunk of P4911T calculations taking these omitted parameters into consideration was attempted and arrived at a SUSTAINED 4g pull from the FDR altitude above the VDOT tower through to being level across the lawn.

Also during the ´debunker´ calculations:

Based on these calculations, there is absolutely no case to be made that

1)the obstacles are inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77

2)the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, or

3)the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves

The 1.62g derived was required for a full 4 seconds.

The highest recorded g-force taken from the FDR data was 1.75g for
1/8th OF A SECOND.

Averaging the g load over a 4 second duration taken from the CSV File
a total og 1.17gs is derived.

Certainly NOT 4gs over 4 seconds either!

The parabola scenario DOES present a possible descent through obstacles and topography yet it is NOT consistent with the NTSB provided data.

As has been pointed out to me on this thread the FDR translation of data done by Pilotsfor911Truth matches the government translations.
This also includes Altimeter and vertical speed data which MUST be included. Any attempts to debunk the accuracy of this data or that data is missing in the final seconds of the approach is thoroughly debunked and in some cases even accomodated to but still calculated in the following thread. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163)

06:48 minutes

3D animation program used, scaled to exact measurements and topography and obstacles in the immediate area and the path in question.

To accomodate debunkers, even though the data regarding height above the VDOT Tower is 699ft , P4911T lowered the plane´s altitude at this point to just above the tower.

The scale of the 3D animation was:

1cm = 100ft
An arc was drawn based on the pull-up needed.
The radius of the arc was calculated at 20.85 cm

The radius was then calculated in feet:

100 x 20.85 = 2085 ft.

A formula to calculate acceleration required using the arc:

a=v²/r

Speed according to FDR is 781f/s

V=781 f/s^2 = 609961

609961/2085 = 292.2 f/s^2

G Force = (292.2 f/s^2)/32 f/s^2 = 9.14 G

1G must be added for earth´s gravity so:

Total G Force Required = 10.14 G

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 G Limit (maybe a little more) but 10.14 Gs??

Remember these calculations are for the LEAST challenging path from the VDOT Tower which remember has been lowered contradicting the FDR data.

If the FDR data is followed on altitude from the VDOT Tower following the same calculations, a 576.9 ft radius is derived.
Plotting this radius into the same formula:

781(f/s)² = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1057.3/32 = 33G
33 + 1 = 34 Gs Required

THIS is the proper way to determine G loads in a TWO dimensional problem such as an aircraft pulling out of a dive.

Another argument put forward is that the plane was NOT on a level approach across the lawn and this would lessen the G forces required.
The damage caused to the building and explained by the ASCE report REQUIRES this trajectory. Does that mean the gatecam really IS a fake if we argue this point?
Would this not weaken the argument on the lateral forces exerted to a 94 metre length in 8/10ths of a second?
The ASCE report stated that the roof of floor showed that the plane had exerted an upward force on it.

The Perdue simulation based on the ASCE report:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/simulation1.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/simulation2.jpg

If the data is followed to a tee as it HAS to be all the problems
and mathematical and physical IMPOSSIBILITIES had to be addressed by
this group of professional pilots.
They admitted to making mistakes and have rectified them.

P4911T calculations are based on the g-force REQUIRED from the official NTSB data taken from the FDR as regards the descent from the VDOT Tower on Columbia Pike.

A minimum of 10.14 Gs is REQUIRED. This was based on the LEAST difficult path and was not based on the FDR data but to accomodate
detractors.
If the official data is followed it requires a 34G manouevre from the FDR altimeter reading of 699ft agl from the VDOT Tower.
These numbers weren´t pulled out of the air. It´s there on the FDR.
The Altimeter readings also make it an IMPOSSIBILITY that damage was caused to obstacles such as the lightpoles, trailer and even the Pentagon facade itself.

beachnut

13th November 2009, 07:31 PM

Wow is nobody following the links?
There is no documented DNA, retrieval OR identification.
There are no documented plane parts.
The FDR path was witnessed by who? How did it withstand the g-forces necessary given the data extracted?
The physical evidence is officially non existent in the case of the plane parts
and DNA documents are withheld under the ´National Security´ blanket.
Yes there was documented DNA, there had to be to identify the dead soldiers it was required and was done. You are a liar.

The plane parts are documented from Flight 77 due to the fact the parts were from 77 which was confirmed by RADAR, FDR, and the fact the people who were on the jet were found dead where the jet impacted. Sorry, you failed to use logic again; why?

What G force, the largest g force besides impact was 2.26 G. p4t G force required are due to ignorance.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Flt77MW.jpg

You need to get Mike back out where he was; where was he when he saw the impact? lol, he saw the impact. Great proving your ideas are failed by presenting your own debunking witnesses.

Can you get Mike to say 77 did not hit the lampposts? Bet you could join CIT and be another top notch investigator.

16.5

13th November 2009, 07:36 PM

HOCKEY STICK!.

Hockey Stick! Moron liars post an absolutely insane impossible instantaneous turn! HOCKEY STICK

He went full hockey stick!

Hahahahahahahahaha!

God, mud, you are *********** brilliant!

Hockey stick, oh my stars.

He reposted the *********** hockey stick lie, oh man, this is the greatest thread EVER!

Slayhamlet

13th November 2009, 07:39 PM

Oh, look. The guy who claimed he was not a Truther and was only asking "legitimate questions" about 9/11 turns out to be a hardcore CIT cultist, possibly the stupidest subset of Truthers out there. Quelle surprise!

Edit: and it appears Mudlark is now acting as Rob Balsamo's proxy. I wonder if he realizes that posting-by-proxy from a banned member is itself bannable offense?

beachnut

13th November 2009, 07:49 PM

Watch the revised calculations done by Pilotsfor911truth. Hats off to them for correcting and admitting their mistake.

...

The 1.62g derived was required for a full 4 seconds.

The highest recorded g-force taken from the FDR data was 1.75g for
1/8th OF A SECOND.

...

Averaging the g load over a 4 second duration taken from the CSV File
a total og 1.17gs is derived.

Certainly NOT 4gs over 4 seconds either!

...

...

Total G Force Required = 10.14 G

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 G Limit (maybe a little more) but 10.14 Gs??

...
If the FDR data is followed on altitude from the VDOT Tower following the same calculations, a 576.9 ft radius is derived.
Plotting this radius into the same formula:

781(f/s)² = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1057.3/32 = 33G
33 + 1 = 34 Gs Required

THIS is the proper way to determine G loads in a TWO dimensional problem such as an aircraft pulling out of a dive.
...
A minimum of 10.14 Gs is REQUIRED. This was based on the LEAST difficult path and was not based on the FDR data but to accomodate
detractors.
If the official data is followed it requires a 34G manouevre from the FDR altimeter reading of 699ft agl from the VDOT Tower.
These numbers weren´t pulled out of the air. It´s there on the FDR.
The Altimeter readings also make it an IMPOSSIBILITY that damage was caused to obstacles such as the lightpoles, trailer and even the Pentagon facade itself. lol
This is pure poppycock hockey stick pull out junk. You can get any G-force value you want using the insane approach of Balsamo. I can use his method and come up with any g-force you want. If only you could do physics and knew how to fly.

The fact is you are wrong and Balsamo is dirt dumb stupid.
The final 4 seconds of G average 1.4, and are as follows.

0.725
0.659
0.92
0.858
0.94
1.121
0.828
0.783
0.982
0.986
0.927
0.776
1.25
1.037
1.231
1.721
1.604
1.781
1.762
1.964
1.879
2.264
2.044
2.181
1.675
1.744
1.65
1.504
1.785
1.655
1.861
1.946
Above values at 8 Hz. That is 8 samples per second for Balsamo.
The last second is 1.7 G - close to real physics, like flying predicted by real scientist and verified by the FDR! The second before, 1.93 G, almost 2 Gs, fits the prediction and exactly how a bad pilot flies.

Bad news, Flight 77 is at 317 MSL passing the VDOT tower (304 MSL), that is 183 feet AGL, not 699 AGL. You are as bad as Balsamo and his 11.2G failed physics still posted at p4t dolt web site that mainly attracts dirt dumb neoNAZIs who hate the government. (317MSL, 183AGL)

One of the CIT witnesses said 77 almost hit the VDOT tower - confirms 317 MSL and the FDR! BINGO

34 Gs, now that is dirt dumb...

... Watch the revised calculations done by Pilotsfor911truth. Hats off to them for correcting and admitting their mistake.
Hats off? lol the 11.2G failure titled "03/13/08 - Beware The Ides Of March" super stupid anti-physics course by Balsamo and p4t paranoid pilots who spew delusions about 911 is still posted today. I just copied the page to take to math classes and show why education is important. Still posted from 03/13/08, to 11/13/09. Was it the delusional math that got you interested in p4t where math is not required, you can just spew any old numbers you want to go with your delusions.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Flt77p4tdolt11pt2Gs.jpg
Still posted to trap the math failures.

W.D.Clinger

13th November 2009, 07:56 PM

This is like Life, the Universe, and Everything, chapter 34. I'm not sure how much more Truth we can tolerate.

Radar data which contradicts all witness testimony and matches the FDR where g force values have been calculated to impossible extremities.
The revised calculations done by Pilotsfor911truth prove (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163) this.

From Rob Balsamo's opening post in that thread:

2. Claim - The FDR Data stops/is missing 2-6 seconds of data west of the pentagon wall

Just a few weeks ago, Warren Stutt succeeded in decoding 4 more seconds of data from the raw FDR file. So yes, the data were hidden within the raw file, but all of the PfT's high and mighty claims about the completeness of the FDR decode they've been using are now known to have been complete rubbish.

Warren's accomplishment also destroys much of the evidence Balsamo cited to counter several of the other claims listed in that post.

Your continued refusal to deal with actual mathematics or physics is noted:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

The simple calculation I made on speed even throws doubt on the validity of this data.
Lightpole 1 to Pentagon facade in just over a second??

In one of the videos you cited, Rob Balsamo calculated 1.3 seconds. Disagreeing with Balsamo's calculations is generally wise, but he's right about that one.

I´m sure there are a stream of posts ahead querying the validity of these calculations but I will address them.

If you continue to address them with your customary efficacy, we're going to die laughing before you finish.

Will

Edx

13th November 2009, 07:57 PM

The link you sent has went 404 I think. You need to link me to another site.
I gotta see these ´104 witnesses´..

You must have only checked 2 links before you gave up.

One I think is only temporarily down at web.archive.org, one is geocities so probably down forever... the others are fine. One of them is even from Jim Hoffman's 911 REsearch! But yea I know, he's a shill as well.

edit: Ive just checked at 911 Research Hoffman has mirrored the pages that are down so you need not fret.

The real question you dont want to answer is why none of them saw the plane fly over. Did the conspirators just get lucky?

mudlark

13th November 2009, 08:16 PM

At 350 mph, the kinetic energy is less than half the kinetic energy at 540 mph. The fuel and resulting fire would have been about the same, although differences in kinetic energy would have affected the structure in ways that might have affected the fire.[QUOTE]

Would it have affected the ability to penetrate at such a high rate if at all?

[QUOTE]The energy lost to the light poles would have been negligible. The collision with the trailer involved more loss of energy, but even that had to have been small compared to the collision with the Pentagon. A glance at the damage caused by each collision shows why.

But at the lower speed of @350mph? You are sure of this because? I just find it hard to swallow that all these precollisions would not have damaged the wings. Especially at a lower speed.

If you're saying ground-based RADES radar didn't detect any evidence of a flyover, and there are also no witnesses for the flyover path, then you should draw the obvious conclusion. If you're saying flight 77 wasn't tracked by RADES, or there are no witnesses for the path that matches the physical and FDR evidence, then you're badly mistaken.

I would appreciate knowing exactly who these witnesses are.
I´ve outlined in earlier posts why I don´t trust the validity of the RADES data.
There are witnesses to anomalies AFTER the explosion.
Roosevelt Roberts, Maria de la Cerda, Dewitt Roseborough, comments heard by Eric Dihle. Mr Gurba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh62Wpqw_To), the witnesses Dave Statter interviewed who said the "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in" (404ed). Even an online blogsite has a description of a flyover dated Sept. 12th.
Of course the most prominent is Roberts.

At least two separate ground-based radars recorded the last minute or so of flight 77, until the low-flying plane's radar return was lost among radar reflections from buildings. Those radar records are consistent with the 500+ mph speeds recorded by the flight data recorder. Based on that physical evidence, there were 4 to 5 seconds between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon impact.

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.

Even Mike Dobbs who was on the fourth floor of the Pentagon where the plane allegedly hit said he saw it for 10 seconds.
Problem? The RADES data is suspect for me. Eyewitness accounts are too many to disregard unless somebody comes up with an explanation.

It's okay to talk math here. The mathematics that has been posted so far suggests your theory would require extraterrestrial maneuverability and a SEP field.

So your disbelief is sufficient to reject evidence (first sentence), but no one else's disbelief counts for anything (second sentence).
:rolleyes:

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 :)

16.5

13th November 2009, 08:32 PM

Have you any idea of the math necessary

Let me guess, a hockey stick turn of 34 g?

What incredible frauds! and you reposted that insane bit of pure lie here?

Fantastic!

Keep posting One Slice, people forget how dumb the no planers at the Pentagon are.

W.D.Clinger

13th November 2009, 08:38 PM

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.
:cool:

Edx

13th November 2009, 08:48 PM

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

Reheat

13th November 2009, 08:56 PM

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

13th November 2009, 09:32 PM

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.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77VDOTmast.jpg
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?

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

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

13th November 2009, 11:25 PM

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?

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

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

14th November 2009, 12:36 AM

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

14th November 2009, 07:39 AM

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

14th November 2009, 07:43 AM

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

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

Mangoose

14th November 2009, 09:49 AM

mudlark

14th November 2009, 01:55 PM

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?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/StaffordBankToTheRight.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/ancgif2.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/dariusangling.jpg

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

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.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/walterstories.jpg

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

14th November 2009, 02:00 PM

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

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

http://forums.randi.org/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. :rolleyes:

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.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/landing1.gif

Sean Boger (http://thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm) 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? (http://www.thepentacon.com/roberts) Remember him?

Maria de la Cerda? (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit567)

Eric Dihle? (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3)

Dewitt Roseborough? (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449)

Mr. Gurba interviewed live that morning from his appartment beside the airport? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh62Wpqw_To)

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

14th November 2009, 02:03 PM

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? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703&page=9)

mudlark

14th November 2009, 02:05 PM

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

14th November 2009, 02:09 PM

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.¨

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

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.

UNLoVedRebel

14th November 2009, 02:14 PM

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

14th November 2009, 02:16 PM

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]

UNLoVedRebel

14th November 2009, 02:18 PM

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.

16.5

14th November 2009, 02:20 PM

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? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703&page=9)
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 *********** HOOT!

mudlark

14th November 2009, 02:23 PM

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?

16.5

14th November 2009, 02:29 PM

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.

mudlark

14th November 2009, 02:35 PM

This only shows that eyewitness testimony cannot be the main source of evidence. This only proves that your "confirmed and verified" eyewitness statements are not reliable as well. So we have to go with the physical evidence. You still haven't provided even one shread of evidence that proves that the debris, DNA, jet fuel, etc. was planted. You still can't explain how all the physical evidence got all over the lawn that was in plain view of everyone got there. You haven't been able to even explain how the light poles got knocked over while everyone was looking. When are you going to do this?

You are like tj15 comparing eyewitness testimony from kilometers away looking out a window to people who were actually underneath the plane.
Witnesses who worked or lived in the immediate area and who had an intimate view of where the plane was in relation to the buildings.
Particularly the ANC workers whose testimony is consistent. It came over the Annex on the right hand side facing them. In a bank. Towards the carpark.
Three people at the Citgo Gas Station who say it passed over the North side.
Sean Boger for God sake. Who possibly had the best view of the plane´s entrance into the area.
They all concur. NOC.
I have repeatedly asked for documentation to confirm the physical proof you are taling about. Still waiting.
Jet fuel? There was a fireball no?
One thing I do know 100% about the lightpoles is that it is a physical impossibility for the plane to fly NOC AND strike the lightpoles.

mudlark

14th November 2009, 02:37 PM

And not only that, there are witnesses that place the plane south of Citgo. So the witnesses contradict each other... Further proving that eyewitness testimony is pretty unreliable.

Sorry if you guys have provided the names of the SOC witnesses you are referring to further on in the thread. I´ll talk about that when i see them.

UNLoVedRebel

14th November 2009, 02:41 PM

One thing I do know 100% about the lightpoles is that it is a physical impossibility for the plane to fly NOC AND strike the lightpoles.
But the light poles were NOC just like Lagasse said. It's been "independently verified" and "independently verified" evidence trumps "official story" reports. You said it yourself.
Do "independently verified testimonies" trump any "official story" reports?
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.

mudlark

14th November 2009, 02:56 PM

Mudlark... It sounds like this guy should have seen the flyover. But he says no such thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&index=0&playnext=1

This is the view this guy had

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/ScottsrealPOVwithComments-1.jpg

I would like to see how a plane would look from that distance.
Again he would have been looking at the fireball and smoke.
If the plane had been flying low and level as per the official story would he have been ABLE to see it?
You can just about make out the Navy Annex roof. Did he see it flying over
this point?
Look at the official path. How would he have even noticed it´s arrival on the scene allegedly at 540mph in a straight line facing his POV?
That´s why verification is necessary on details.

beachnut

14th November 2009, 02:59 PM

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".

-X1lBYOEP3c

"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".
Reality does not stop CIT and p4t believers. They only use hearsay, quote-mined statements to support moronic delusions. All mudlark's witnesses debunk mudlark's flyover fantasy.

He is open loop spam mode now, not stopping to explain his failed 34 G lies.

Reheat

14th November 2009, 03:06 PM

This is the view this guy had
Look at the official path. How would he have even noticed it´s arrival on the scene allegedly at 540mph in a straight line facing his POV?
That´s why verification is necessary on details.

Your judgment and opinion on this is obscured by brown stuff with an unpleasant odor.

You're omitting the fact that the aircraft would have turned to escape up the Potomac (or down if you wish, doesn't matter). This would have provided the aircraft profile in "plan form" view much closer than you imply. Fireball or not, this would have been seen unless Cook was blind!

mudlark

14th November 2009, 03:30 PM

The RADES data and the FDR match all the witnesses, you are not trained to take witness statements or analyze them. I was trained by the USAF in accident investigation and nothing CIT has claimed is valid.

Sure about that statement?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/NOCandstraighttestimony-1.jpg

The best part is if you use Boger at all, he has 77 impacting the Pentagon exactly where Flight 77 hit. Oops, you are debunked by your own witness.

NOC and impact are a non runner. What should we believe? That he saw the NOC flightpath described.

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

And who also questioned (http://thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm) the gatecam footage.
Or that he didn´t flinch at the sight of a bigass plane heading towards his direction across the Pentagon lawn?
I´m not questioning his belief that he saw an impact but his testimony in regards its approach make it an impossibility.

Too bad CIT never were trained. Why do you fall for the moronic overflight?

You have not dented one of the 136 witnesses. What is the problem?

136 witnesses beat your 13 witnesses who all agree that 77 impacted the Pentagon and knocked down the lamppost. Sad

136? Who are they? And what exactly did they see? Where from?

Here is how the failed paths work. All the witnesses saw 77 for an instant in the air, there is no way they can accurately describe the ground track from where they were. So they saw 77 in the air, that matches the path 77 took. The paths draw are impossible due to G force. Use some math and physics and stop posting stupid stuff from CIT and p4t.

Why don´t you tell them this? They didn´t see what they saw because it was there ´for an instant´
Witnesses in the area claim it took 10-15 seconds to get to the Pentagon from the plane´s arrival at the Annex.
The flightpath has been proved POSSIBLE (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509#)
The G-forces necessary given the FDR data has been proven to be IMPOSSIBLE (http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&ei=3Tv_SrSpCIuW-AaMxaGbAw&q=pilotsfor911truth+g+forces&hl=es&view=2)

When you prove the DNA is fake, and the FDR is fake, and the RADAR data is fake, and all 136 witnesses I presented are fake, you will have a Pulitzer Prize. But you never will, you will be a fantasy believer, an anti-intellectual failed idea supporter. A terrorist apologist to follow the terrorists loyalist at p4t and CIT who lie to forgive the terrorists and blame whoever they hate. Join them it is so sad to see people jump into the pit of ignorance with no knowledge how to build the ladder of knowledge. How long will it take you to rise from the pit?

Again YOU show ME official documentation for the Flight 77 plane parts.
Documentation on the chain of custody for the DNA.
The FDR/RADES path is described by noone in the area. Are you going to tell me that the plane didn´t at least fly over the Annex?
G-forces and altimeter readings cast serious doubts over the authenticity of this data. Hence the official path.
And again, list the 136 witnesses you keep repeating.