Flight 77 flight path

[WildCat]

mudlark, in all seriousness you'll probably convince more people by wearing a sandwich board detailing your flyover theory at a freeway off ramp than by posting here.

Carry a cup with you and you'll probably make more money than CIT does selling their DVDs.

Just a thought...

 

[Caustic Logic]

First of all Balsamo used this scenario because Pilotsfor911Truth extracted this data from the FOIA requested Flight 77 FDR and the plane´s path is plotted OVER the Antenna.

No it desn't! It puts it about a mile away from the Pentagon at its closest point, the FDR is missing about 8 seconds. Check the lat-long reading, go ahead and adjust for INS discrepancy, and tell me that's "over the antenna." Really what he used was a CIT graphic depicting the official story. Go ahead and look it up!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

According to the government, American 77 final approach to the pentagon is depicted below.

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

learn.... learn.... I know it's scary but you'll be alright!

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
A ´stupid gas station´?

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

And your point was??

Quote: Mudlark
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.

Do you seriously believe that after that CIT interview they were as sure given all the damage is IMPOSSIBLE from what they are ´105%´ sure of?

Quote:
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.

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

Weak.

Quote:
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?

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 I´ve asked is for someone to explain how the damage was caused from NOC.
Undocumented evidence and denial don´t cut it for me personally.

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.

Again?

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Image removed

It is/was a regular occurrence.

 

[mudlark]

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

Is the damage possible from where he described it?

 

[mudlark]

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

Ditto

 

[BigAl]

I think I did and it was dead. If it was the ´someguyyoudontknow´ page that has been removed.

It still works.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

It was posted in this msg.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5304795#post5304795

 

[mudlark]

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!

Same question as before.
Is the damage possible from where he saw it?
I never called him a liar. The two events are incompatible.
I was trying to picture the scene given the circumstances.
The plane flew NOC according to him. No doubt.
He even questioned the gatecam footage.Noone was in a better position to see that.
Is he lying about that too?

 

[A W Smith]

you continue to re-post the same animated gifs. And cling to foggy witness recall filmed six years after the fact. When all physical evidence debunks your NOC claim. No matter how many times you repost your gifs. It wil not matter. Do you not see the futility of reposting your fantasy? even if 50 people say they saw it fly NOC six years after the fact. It does not matter until you PROVE the evidence which proves the accepted and documented flight path was planted. They are simply wrong.

 

[mudlark]

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.

roosevelt roberts

 

[BigAl]

roosevelt roberts

What does he say?

 

[mudlark]

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?

Yes what will I say when i see the list of SOC witnesses?
This eyewitness evidence is corraborrated. They were in perfect positions.
Can you find anybody else within that area that contradicts them?
Those and the Annex witnesses?

Edited by prewitt81: 

Image removed.

Anyone?

 

[Edx]

What I ´need´ to see is documentation of the debris.
Documentation the FBI admitted it does not have.

But why would you care? You've already decided it couldnt have hit the Pentagon, surely you can just say its fake, right?

 

[mudlark]

Simple personal incredulity noted

Did you even bother to read the post?
It was in reply to the supposed identification of Flight 77 parts.
I´ll show you again.

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

Misconstruing my words noted.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

roosevelt roberts

muddy, please explain what happens to your witnesses if you use roberts statement.

Here is the flight path the douche bags at PFT put together using roberts.

Thank you no-planer.

Please note that Ranke admits that if this were to happen, it would not be a flyover ...but a fly around as the plane would have to travel to the right of the impact point.

 

[mudlark]

Not necessarily bad evidence, unless it can be corroborated with physical evidence. He has none. EOS.

Legally speaking? Nor do you.
Unless of course you count forged data such as that of the C 130 flightpath.

 

[Edx]

roosevelt roberts

And CIT believes he says it flew right back around and flew back over the south parking lot.

Explain why none of even CIT's saw this?

Their claim is that the blast obscured the flyover for these witness'. Now you claim it flew back again? How the heck did no one notice that? Please do tell us

Way to debunk yourself Mud!

 

[BigAl]

Yes what will I say when i see the list of SOC witnesses?

You certainly have gone out of your way to avoid seeing the statements of all the people that describe seeing flight Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon or about to.

 

[The Big Dog]

Same question as before.
Is the damage possible from where he saw it?
I never called him a liar. The two events are incompatible.
I was trying to picture the scene given the circumstances.
The plane flew NOC according to him. No doubt.
He even questioned the gatecam footage.Noone was in a better position to see that.
Is he lying about that too?

nah, you called him a liar.You said he lied about him seeing the plane hit the pentagon.

Weave and move the goal posts all you want champ.
You said he lied.

That is why North of Citgo is the theory of idiots.

 

[A W Smith]

Yes what will I say when i see the list of SOC witnesses?
This eyewitness evidence is corraborrated. They were in perfect positions.
Can you find anybody else within that area that contradicts them?
Those and the Annex witnesses?

Anyone?

They are wrong. And it's simple as that. Corroborating physical evidence proves the accepted path. from the FDR. To the radar, to the impact damage. to the aircraft debris. to the DNA of the passengers, to the physical remains of the passengers on site. to every lampost hit. to the VDOT pole footpeg, to the clipped genset construction site trailer, to the clipped tree top adjacent to the overpass, to the bits of debris from said treetop AND the plane parts strewn onto that overpass, You would have to PROVE all the above was planted instantaneously in the seconds during the event. And you haven't. And you cannot. At this point you are just trolling. Only about seven people side with your scenario. every one of them agenda driven mentally ill morons. It's over for you. You are a debunked and suspended twoofer. Bye Bye.

 

[TexasJack]

Mudlark is really using worn out blades. I suggest he borrow some from this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Heck, I'll supply the shaving cream.