Flight 77 flight path

[tj15]

I have a question for the OPer. If you were standing anywhere near the pentagon and a plane flew at over 500 mph at a low altitude, how easily do you think you could place where the plane is/was ? Unless you knew that is was coming and from where, there is no way you could get a good idea of where it is/was.

But if I was standing at the citgo gas station, looking, say, north, I would probably be able to tell if the airplane was in front of me (in my sight) or behind me (not in my sight).

Again, this doesn't mean that the eyewitnesses who think the plane passed north of the citgo station are correct... It was hectic and eyewitnesses can be unreliable.

 

[TruthersLie]

eyewintesses "can be unreliable?" Um... no.

eyewitnesses are USUALLY unreliable for specific details. That is why prosecutors LOVE physical evidence and usually have to coach witnesses and don't like them.

5 witnesses to an event will usually have 5 different versions, each on slightly different. When you then interview people YEARS after the event, you are bound to get differing stories.

There literally are TONS of psychology papers on how bad most eyewitnesses are.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Socia...-critical-is-the-accuracy-of-an-eyewitne.html
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/0...-experiment-on-eyewitness-testimony-accuracy/
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/47497.html

I could go on all day.

Asking someone where they were and exactly what they were doing YEARS after an event is ********.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Let's see here:

I was sleeping at the time after the Towers collapsed. Got woke up by my parents (was spending the night at their house) saying that the Towers were hit & destroyed. Turned on TV in spare bedroom just in time to hear about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Then Flight 93 flew overhead near my town, & that plane was louder than the commerical jets that takeoff & land here at the airport. After some time I heard a whole bunch of sirens going off from the adjacent highway (RT. 219), fire trucks & police cars. Watched the News to hear Flight 93 crashed.

The whole thing was too chaotic to say the least. I remembered this from over 8 yrs ago & it still haunts the hell out of me. I still remember my childhood too!

And of course, my B-day's on 9/12. The day after! Not exactly a B-day gift I wanted.

 

[tj15]

eyewintesses "can be unreliable?" Um... no.

eyewitnesses are USUALLY unreliable for specific details. That is why prosecutors LOVE physical evidence and usually have to coach witnesses and don't like them.

5 witnesses to an event will usually have 5 different versions, each on slightly different. When you then interview people YEARS after the event, you are bound to get differing stories.

There literally are TONS of psychology papers on how bad most eyewitnesses are.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Socia...-critical-is-the-accuracy-of-an-eyewitne.html
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/0...-experiment-on-eyewitness-testimony-accuracy/
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/47497.html

I could go on all day.

Asking someone where they were and exactly what they were doing YEARS after an event is ********.

The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...

 

[TruthersLie]

The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...

Be careful, your twoof is showing through. Unless that wasn't sarcasm (which makes it even more of a facepalm moment).

And beachnut pointed you to their ORIGINAL statements when it was much fresher in their minds.

And notice that in 8 years, their statements have changed, because their memory fades.

When you have overwhelming physical evidence (are you JAQing off still?), with on the spot eyewitnesses (look up the xls sheet that was given to you which you didn't bother to look at), it definately trumps 8 years after hazy memories and datamined quotes.

why is that sooooooooo hard for you to understand?

Ready? Quick, tell me what you were doing, where you were and everything that happened to you on the morning of 9/11. Not generalities, but specificis. Where were you, how long were you there, who did you talk to EXACTLY. I have a fantastic memory, and I can't tell you with that much detail.

Especially when it is a traumatic event. Often times the eyewitnesses are hazy on what happened RIGHT before the event because they are NOT PAYING ATTENTION when it happens.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...

Here is John Farmer's analysis of the main north-of-CITGO witnesses:

http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo Update.pdf

Will

 

[MRC_Hans]

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

My personal take on that. Have you ever looked at low-flying planes, passing overhead?

Now, either you spin your head about, trying to follow it, in which case you are in a very poor position to actually position the pass. Especially when being entirely unprepared.

Or, you really only observe the plane in your peripheral vision (very likely in the surprise situation), in which case the most prominent thing you see is the ground shadow. The shadow of a jetliner is rather huge. Seing the time of day for the Pentagon strike, the ground shadow would be north of the plane's actual path.

My guess is that they saw the shadow passing north of the Citgo station and assumed that this indicated the path of the plane.

Hans

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Again, this doesn't mean that the eyewitnesses who think the plane passed north of the citgo station are correct... It was hectic and eyewitnesses can be unreliable.

Yes, they are unreliable. IIRC, Lagasse had to be corrected as to what side of the gas station he was pumping gas from.

 

[CurtC]

I don't hang out in this part of the forum too much anymore, but if the OP is talking about Ranke's video, it's not true that all of the witnesses support a NoC path.

Ed Paik, the asian guy from the car repair shop, tells a story that refutes the NoC path. He clearly indicates that it flew south of where he was, which would be directly over or south of Columbia Pike. From there, he indicates a straight-line path to the Pentagon. This path passes south of the Citgo.

If the plane flew over Paik or to his south, there is no physical way that it could have been on a path north of the Citgo and then turned to hit the Pentagon - it's too sharp of a turn for a plane to make at high speed.

Further, had the plane been on a north-of-Citgo path, Paik would not have been able to see it at all because it would have been two or three blocks to the north of where he was.

Including Paik's account falsifies their NoC idea.

 

[tj15]

Be careful, your twoof is showing through. Unless that wasn't sarcasm (which makes it even more of a facepalm moment).

And beachnut pointed you to their ORIGINAL statements when it was much fresher in their minds.

And notice that in 8 years, their statements have changed, because their memory fades.

When you have overwhelming physical evidence (are you JAQing off still?), with on the spot eyewitnesses (look up the xls sheet that was given to you which you didn't bother to look at), it definately trumps 8 years after hazy memories and datamined quotes.

why is that sooooooooo hard for you to understand?

Ready? Quick, tell me what you were doing, where you were and everything that happened to you on the morning of 9/11. Not generalities, but specificis. Where were you, how long were you there, who did you talk to EXACTLY. I have a fantastic memory, and I can't tell you with that much detail.

Especially when it is a traumatic event. Often times the eyewitnesses are hazy on what happened RIGHT before the event because they are NOT PAYING ATTENTION when it happens.

This accusation that I'm a truther is complete nonsense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158533
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158367
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158285&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140936&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140856&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137293&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115212&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140636&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140317&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118225&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116325&highlight=tj15

Read these threads... My posting is consistently the same. Where in those threads have I ever agreed with the truther position?

You are not the first person to question whether I am a truther.

 

[TruthersLie]

This accusation that I'm a truther is complete nonsense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158533
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158367
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158285&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140936&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140856&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137293&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115212&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140636&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140317&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118225&highlight=tj15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116325&highlight=tj15

Read these threads... My posting is consistently the same. Where in those threads have I ever agreed with the truther position?

You are not the first person to question whether I am a truther.

walks like a twoof, quacks like a twoof, JAQ's like a twoof, is probably a twoof.

if you aren't, then I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that you have consistently shown a lack of
1. the ability to do simple research
2. want to be spoon fed
3. are asking questions in a way which look extremely trutheresque.

 

[tj15]

walks like a twoof, quacks like a twoof, JAQ's like a twoof, is probably a twoof.

if you aren't, then I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that you have consistently shown a lack of
1. the ability to do simple research
2. want to be spoon fed
3. are asking questions in a way which look extremely trutheresque.

Well, think what you want. Ignore my posts that you think are stupid.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

if you aren't, then I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that you have consistently shown a lack of
1. the ability to do simple research
2. want to be spoon fed
3. are asking questions in a way which look extremely trutheresque.

Well, the first two points mainly confirm that he's human.

As for the third, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. Good questions are a lot harder to come by than good answers.

By "trutheresque", I assume you refer to defensiveness, persistence, transportation of goal posts, or other evasions when questions are answered. In defense of the original poster, the WWW now contains so much nonsense on this subject that it takes a while to separate sense from nonsense. The original poster is right not to believe everything he reads or hears.

Will

 

[grandmastershek]

Not sure if this belongs here but, a Professor from North Eastern tackles Pilots for Twoof and their version of physics.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

Anyway, it's above my head but I figured some may find it interesting.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?

Not really, and hardly anyone would. Split-second occurrence overshadowed by the massive plane they all saw do nothing to the building but hit it low. All physical and other evidence supports this. Except a few nuts who insist the plane flew over (w/no confirming witnesses on the other side) and a few witnesses who swear it flew north of the station.

This conflicts with the evidence, that's for sure. If you don't like the honest mistake theories presented so far, these witnesses could also be lying. Check this thread. But eyewitness WORDS, true wrong memory or not, DO NOT trump tons of airplane, massive building damage, a hundred-ish witnesses to impact, and nothing but these few words and fevered wishful thinking to counteract it.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't hang out in this part of the forum too much anymore, but if the OP is talking about Ranke's video, it's not true that all of the witnesses support a NoC path.

Ed Paik, the asian guy from the car repair shop, tells a story that refutes the NoC path. He clearly indicates that it flew south of where he was, which would be directly over or south of Columbia Pike. From there, he indicates a straight-line path to the Pentagon. This path passes south of the Citgo.

If the plane flew over Paik or to his south, there is no physical way that it could have been on a path north of the Citgo and then turned to hit the Pentagon - it's too sharp of a turn for a plane to make at high speed.

Further, had the plane been on a north-of-Citgo path, Paik would not have been able to see it at all because it would have been two or three blocks to the north of where he was.

Including Paik's account falsifies their NoC idea.

South Path Witnesses

 

[Mr.Herbert]

South Path Witnesses

Adam ~

I just listened to the interview the CIT dolts had with the woman "Wanda?" OMFG what a butcher job. She tells them both that she saw the plane hit the light poles!! No wonder CIT said the drugs wiped out her memory.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Adam ~

I just listened to the interview the CIT dolts had with the woman "Wanda?" OMFG what a butcher job. She tells them both that she saw the plane hit the light poles!! No wonder CIT said the drugs wiped out her memory.

Yes indeed, Mr. it was an awkward moment, like watching a slow-motion mugging. Wanda did seem to forget if she saw the poles hit or was it a turn of phrase? Likely the latter, since no one else really saw it, clearly. George Aman is the best light pole witness, IMO, aside from Lloyd of course, who didn't actually see any of them get hit. Just heard and saw one flying through his friggin windshield. Lying accomplice fer shure!

Oh God, why can't people figure out for themselves what does and doesn't make sense?

 

[A W Smith]

The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...

You are aware he was under a huge canopy, right? And because of the azimuth and altitude of the sun that morning the shadow of flight 77 was cast in the direction of the Citgo?

 

[tj15]

You are aware he was under a huge canopy, right? And because of the azimuth and altitude of the sun that morning the shadow of flight 77 was cast in the direction of the Citgo?

Yes, I just found out about that not too long ago. Of all the 9/11 research I have done (not near as much as most people here), I never really looked into the flight path of flight 77 stuff before. This stuff may be old to most of you, but I actually didn't know about all this stuff until recently.