Flight 77 flight path

[Mr.Herbert]

RUT RO REORGE... someone was naughty

mudlark
mudlark has been suspended for three days for ignoring a mod warning.

 

[bje]

I´ve supplied the names of witnesses who describe something completely different both during and after the explosion that raise questions and need an explanation.
Did you even read their accounts? (Or was it too much of a hassle?)
Roosevelt Roberts for one.

Do catch up: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5312806&postcount=557

You now have several days to ponder the self-destruction of CIT, CR.

 

[twinstead]

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?

Can you supply a list of witnesses who saw a flyover? Anyone?

 

[Edx]

Can you supply a list of witnesses who saw a flyover? Anyone?

He thinks Roosevelt Roberts saw a fly over even though that means it flew straight back around and back over the south parking lot, again, with no one seeing.

Its funny really because it makes the idea of a fly over even more ridiculous.

 

[Mangoose]

Are you trying to tell me that debris allegedly found within the building could not have been planted beforehand?

Exactly the same reason why no serious paleontologist should take fossil evidence seriously because we all know that it was within God's power to plant those fossils into the ground beforehand as a test to people's faith.

 

[lapman]

I was answering your assertion that ´nobody saw NOC´.
Now you have changed that assertion to the ´physical evidence outweighs witness testimony´ line.
That would be true if you had access to this documented physical evidence and could pass it on to me.

There have been plenty of pictures posted. These would have had to been planted in plain site of hundreds of people. Nobody saw anybody carrying parts out to the field. Nobody saw the light poles being collapsed and nobody saw the plane fly over the pentagon. Your FOIA reject notices you posted have nothing to do with any documentation of the parts themselves. Learn the difference between "method of identifying" and the identification of the actual parts.

 

[CHF]

Are you trying to tell me that debris allegedly found within the building could not have been planted beforehand?

It's scary to think that there are people like this walking around in public unsupervised.

And they're allowed to drive cars and vote.

Seriously, the Pentagon no-planers are every bit as insane as the Judy Wood beam weapon morons.

 

[lapman]

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

Where is your documentation that proves the flight path was forged?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Below are responses to mudlark's statements and questions concerning the PfT G-Forces video and the PfT/CIT video I reviewed at
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

I haven´t time at the moment (as you can see) to follow through this link.
Mind being a bit more specific?
Even the 1.62 G-force that was arrived at through these set of calculations, is it correct to say that the 1.62 gs was for a 4 second duration?

Yes.

If so how come the data´s highest g-force shown was 1.75g for 1/8th of a second?

Because Rob Balsamo was using data that omitted at least four of the final seconds. Most investigators had concluded that the final 4 to 8 seconds were missing. Balsamo denied that. We now know that Balsamo was wrong, because Warren Stutt succeeded in decoding four seconds beyond the end of the data that were available to Balsamo.

The last two seconds record vertical decelerations of up to 2.264g. The average vertical deceleration for the last two seconds was 1.8g.

Factor of 5? Explain.

Had Balsamo calculated the g-load for a circular solution correctly, he'd have gotten 1.9g (for the implausible approach directly over the VDOT tower). By measuring a hockey stick curve instead of a circular arc, and by choosing three data points near the bend in the hockey stick, Balsamo calculated 10.14g. Balsamo's calculation was therefore off by a factor of 10.14/1.9, which is more than a factor of 5.

You want me to download this program or is the 4ft altitude proven at this link?

The 4 foot radar altitude is in the CSV (comma-separated values) file at Warren Stutt's web site: http://www.warrenstutt.com/

I do not know whether Warren has yet made his data available in a more accessible form. CSV files are convenient for technical people, but I can understand why PfT/CIT cheerleaders would have trouble reading them.

In another link I was given just tonight trying to debunk the calculations of these people just this very scenario was proposed to counterargue Rob Balsamo´s g-forces. The link actually proposed that Balsamo was sticking to the VDOT tower descent because it was the most difficult path when he was actually following the FDR data.

You don't seem to understand that the accuracy of the instruments recorded by the flight data recorder is insufficient to determine from FDR location data alone whether the aircraft flew over the VDOT tower or beside it.

Once you understand that fact, then you should also understand that Balsamo was arguing for an approach over the tallest obstacle in the area because that approach requires the highest g-forces. The more plausible approaches, with the best support from witnesses, go beside the VDOT tower instead of over it.

It was proposed that the plane actually flew over the Annex but from the other side. Which NOBODY saw.

I think you just made that up, mudlark. No sane person would propose what you just said. You certainly can't continue to cite me as the source for your mad proposal.

Balsamo found a maximum g-force of 1.4 for the NOC route using the official 540mph speed.

Rob Balsamo has made some truly batty claims, but I don't believe he has made that particular claim. I know he made no such claim in the two PfT videos you have been citing. I'd love to have a source for that claim, but once again I think you're just making it up as you go along.

This paper also says that the plane took 3.7 seconds to reach lightpole 1 and 1.3 seconds from there to the facade. If it did fly over the Annex where proposed it had a major manouevre to perform within 3.7 seconds at 540mph and get into the final 1.3 second trajectory damage ridden path.
THAT sounds like a taller order.
What sort of manouevre is necessary to fly fro NOC to the first lightpole and low level trajectory? All within 5 seconds?
It is impossible.

Agreed. No sane person would advocate a north-of-CITGO flight path that hits the light poles and then the Pentagon.

You, mudlark, are the only person in this thread who has even come close to advocating that. Your repeated attempts to give the impression that my review advocates such madness have been noted, and count only as further evidence of your desperation.

I think you missed the whole point of the reasoning behind Balsamo´s insistence on the flightpath as being over the VDOT tower and the height that he stipulated. He was going by data extracted from the FDR.

He was going by his own favorite interpretation of data extracted from the FDR. Balsamo's interpretations have often been technically incompetent, and we now know that these particular interpretations were based upon incomplete data as well.

Is there a layman´s version of data extracted by other parties? Pilots?
Were the altimeter readings taken into account?

Several of us have been providing details of the newly discovered last four seconds. You have dismissed some of those details out of hand within this thread, simply because they do not agree with Balsamo's incompetent calculations.

I know it has been claimed that seconds are ´missing´ but has a path been drawn or demonstrated taking in all these considerations?

The locations, headings, and lateral g-forces for the last four seconds that have just come to light are consistent with the heading implied by the path of downed light poles and subsequent impact with the Pentagon.

The altitudes and vertical g-forces are also consistent with a descent that levels off somewhat before striking the Pentagon. The pressure altitudes recorded are not entirely consistent with the radar altitudes and vertical g-forces, but that is not terribly surprising because the aircraft was being operated well outside the parameters for which the pressure altimeter was designed and calibrated.

Will

 

[Caustic Logic]

Most investigators had concluded that the final 4 to 8 seconds were missing. Balsamo denied that.

Indeed, the only genuine mystery, or even potential mystery, about the FDR data and he flat ignores it, citing official documents that one said impact was at 9:37:45, even tho the data for that frame doesn't match at all. Wrong impact time? No, Capn Crunch finds, altered/inconsistent etc. data in fact let's just drop the whole thing and let CIT write the flight path!

We now know that Balsamo was wrong, because Warren Stutt succeeded in decoding four seconds beyond the end of the data that were available to Balsamo.

This must have been after I stopped following this crap. Sounds interesting - where can I read about how he got more data and what it shows? Is it apparently up to the end or is it still a little off far alt, pitch, bank, or location? Cause I've been guessing the upper end of 6 to maybe 9 seconds missing.

 

[Mangoose]

This must have been after I stopped following this crap. Sounds interesting - where can I read about how he got more data and what it shows? Is it apparently up to the end or is it still a little off far alt, pitch, bank, or location? Cause I've been guessing the upper end of 6 to maybe 9 seconds missing.

It's in the endless AA77 FDR Data thread. It carries the flight path to just short of Route 27. And there is a plot right on Southgate Road right next to the CITGO which is, yes, south of the gas station.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

We now know that Balsamo was wrong, because Warren Stutt succeeded in decoding four seconds beyond the end of the data that were available to Balsamo.

This must have been after I stopped following this crap. Sounds interesting - where can I read about how he got more data and what it shows?

You can start here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047&page=95

By the way, I'd like to thank you for putting together a web site that made it a little easier for me to find out who was saying what when I first learned of this whole "controversy".

Is it apparently up to the end or is it still a little off far alt, pitch, bank, or location? Cause I've been guessing the upper end of 6 to maybe 9 seconds missing.

Unclear. Based on comparing a numerical integration of the vertical decelerations to the total deceleration required for level flight at the Pentagon, I think it goes up to something like a second before the end.

The very last subframe records a radar altitude of 4 feet together with a negative longitudinal deceleration that pegs the data field (so we don't know its true magnitude). It could be

1. an artifact associated with loss of power to the FDR (but the lateral acceleration recorded in the same subframe is within range and consistent with an impact),
2. associated with some loss of power in the starboard engine, or
3. an impact.

If it's an impact, it could be the impact with the Pentagon, with the generator trailer, or with light poles. The JREF experts seem to think the light poles wouldn't have registered enough deceleration to peg the data field.

If that last deceleration wasn't caused by the light poles, then where do the light poles show up in the lateral/longitudinal acceleration? Both were recorded to at least two significant figures, yet the pegged longitudinal acceleration is the only negative value for that field during the last 10 seconds (and maybe longer; I looked only at the last 10 seconds). On the other, hand, there's a 0.014g longitudinal acceleration at 1/2 second from the end, following a long run of 0.1 to 0.2g accelerations and immediately followed by 0.118g a quarter second later. Perhaps the dip to 0.014g represents the impact with the light poles. That's all speculation at this point, but it's nice to have real data to speculate about.

Will

 

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks, guys. I can't be bothered getting back into this or even looking at the pages there. Seeing math made up my mind that I can take your word for it. If the data seems to stop about one second prior to impact, or at about route 27, that sounds like the same thing. So I guess the data (PFT's decode anyway) does only stop about five seconds short. I'm mildly curious how more seconds were teased out, or if Pfffft just cropped it to fit the "official time" and insert discerepancies, but not curious enough to find out! I love not caring very much about it now!

and finally, attention Debunkers - your services would be most helpful tackling the raging conspiritard fire burning up the Pan Am 103 threads unchecked! Ha! Coffee!

 

[apathoid]

I'm mildly curious how more seconds were teased out, or if Pfffft just cropped it to fit the "official time" and insert discerepancies, but not curious enough to find out! I love not caring very much about it now!

and finally, attention Debunkers - your services would be most helpful tackling the raging conspiritard fire burning up the Pan Am 103 threads unchecked! Ha! Coffee!

The last 4 frames were incomplete, so the NTSB software discarded them. How's that for a simple answer!? The new data provided by Warren actually show us radar altitude of 4 ft at the same moment the accelerometers peg. Pretty indisputable evidence of an flyover impact.

But the PfT imbeciles somehow keep clinging to the anomalies, which are of course not anomalies at all, just a profound willful ignorance of the data...particularly the Pressure Altitude.

Oh and I've looked at the Pan Am threads and I honestly don't see what the hubbub is all about.

 

[stewieg]

Post 103, look familiar?

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5751&highlight=ranke&page=11

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh and I've looked at the Pan Am threads and I honestly don't see what the hubbub is all about.

Oh just world class frame-up of epic proportions being exposed and roughly zero counter-arguments, but that's neither here nor there. Rather, it's not here.

Mr. Stutt has done some excellent work then, hat's off to him!

 

[911kongen]

Is Lagasse looking the wrong way in the surveillance footage? You know, away from were the plane in the officially coming from? Hope to get some help on this one..

 

[BCR]

Is Lagasse looking the wrong way in the surveillance footage? You know, away from were the plane in the officially coming from? Hope to get some help on this one..

In general, he was looking towards the station (direction of his car) and had a very good view of the plane's path between the Navy Annex and south side of the station. Below are notes I completed after a field trip to the station myself a few years ago.

SGT Lagasse states that he had a working dog in the back of his car and had his door open talking to the dog when he says, “out of the corner of my eye, I saw something.” He states that he did not hear anything until later.

He was not at the pump where he was in the CIT video, but at the pump further back. He had a much better view of the south path than CIT would lead you to believe.

Conversely, SGT Lagasse was on the other side of the station and would have had limited ability to see the plane along the official flight path until the final second of flight as it crossed Route 27 because of the same canopy. It is difficult to derive his motions from the Citgo video, but at the time of the shadow event (09:40:35), he does appear to move downward as if leaning into his vehicle. He stands back up at 09:40:39, 2 seconds after the light event begins. In the CIT film, he states the first thing he did upon seeing the plane was flinch and duck into his car. He further states that during this time he was calling it in on his radio that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon. This collectively indicates that he is making the full range of observations after the initial “something in the corner of my eye” from a posture of leaning into the front of his car.

Since he also says he does "not have eyes in the back of my head", it is safe to assume he did not see a plane on the north side initially. The video quality is poor, but his movements are consistent with leaning into his car.

 

[911kongen]

Is this video out on youtube?

 

[BCR]

Is this video out on youtube?

White car in upper right frame at 9:40:35. You'll see him talking to the SWAT officers in a van just prior to the event.

And by the way, the youtube version is pretty crappy. I have the VHS copy provided by the FBI. Looks a lot better on a 50-inch TV screen