New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey whacker, got some quick questions about that video. First off, is that video a representation of the official flightpath? Also, are you absolutely POSITIVE that the plane is only a few meters away from the pentagon when that video stops? Finally, the meter that shows altititute LOOKS like its in FT, but its kinda blurry...is it in fact in feet?

If so, then I'm wondering the following things:

1. The plane is at 2002 ft. at 3:24 in the video, so that means it decends 2000 ft in about 31 seconds...more likely 32 or 33 by the time of impact..is that enough to cause arguments about the G Force?

2. If the plane was only meters from the pentagon when this video stops, it is still 180 ft up...obviously its not hitting any lightpoles at that altitude, and I dont think its gonna drop that many feet to be just a few feet off the ground and strike the pentagon as it did...?

I'm not sure if you were saying this was the official data or whatever, but those things struck me instantly as I watched it.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Ha! I was wondering when someone would start pulling the "schill/government disinfo spook agent of darkness crap on BigSarge. It took 18 pages to do so...now that's a record!

I knew it though. If you agree with them, you're a "hero" and a "crusader for truth". Disagree, and you're suddenly a CIA plant/evil spook of doom.

Seriously, seeing behavior and hysterical ranting/theatrics like this, is it any wonder why people are reluctant to give out their personal details and be interviewed?

No wonder the truth movement is seen as a haven for mentally unstable fringe lunatics.

That the best you got Skadi? Sheesh, no wonder you made kitty scared...

So I am mentally unstable and a fringe lunatic because I read every one of his posts, assessed what he had to say, and decided in my opinion that he is a troll? The way you're trying to make it sound, I arrived at this conclusion with no basis and review at all. But you're dead wrong.

That's my opinion, not Craig's. It wasn't suddenly that I came to this conclusion at all. And in my subsequent exchange with Craig, I still give him the benefit of the doubt, and said I would retract my statements, if he will agree to be interviewed and follows through with it. Until then all we have is another anonymous poster who comes with mere words against all the solid eyewitness testimony CIT has obtained.

Now if you are in denial, and can't cope with what CIT has uncovered, and the implications of not only that but all the other evidence, mountains of it, of the official lie- then maybe it might be you who needs to seek some council for mental instability and fringe lunacy?

The realization that it did not go down the way the government said can be quite disturbing, so I understand your dilemma. Been there done that already. It hurt hard, but I got through it. And despite your attempt to portray me as a lunatic, I hope you can get through it too- but some will inevitably not make it.

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

2. If the plane was only meters from the pentagon when this video stops, it is still 180 ft up...obviously its not hitting any lightpoles at that altitude, and I dont think its gonna drop that many feet to be just a few feet off the ground and strike the pentagon as it did...?

As stated previously, the NTSB animation is incorrect as the map has not been rotated to compensate for magnetic declination.

With the correct rotation, the final coordinates recorded in the FDR have been plotted (by either CIT or PfffT) in the following diagram:

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
How in the heck do irreconcilable inconsistencies in the govt provided data

Are you now saying that there are multiple "official" flight paths?

Can you please direct me to the official flight path that puts the plane low and obstructed by the Navy Annex? That is not what the NTSB data shows.

I would like to see that one please.

Since you are clearly having trouble understanding this let me break it down in layman's terms.

The PHYSICAL DAMAGE is what 100% dictates the REQUIRED "official path" (i.e. heading and altitude) during this critical final leg of the flight path and leaves zero room for deviation.

The fact that there are numerous other fatal anomalies in the official data is only further evidence of a deception, but the fact that all the witnesses place the plane on the north side proves it did not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or the building which proves that Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses referenced by Erik Dihle did not hallucinate or lie about the plane flying away.

Get it now?

If not please read that paragraph again and read it slower.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
How in the heck do irreconcilable inconsistencies in the govt provided data

Are you now saying that there are multiple "official" flight paths?

Can you please direct me to the official flight path that puts the plane low and obstructed by the Navy Annex? That is not what the NTSB data shows.

I would like to see that one please.

Since you are clearly having trouble understanding this let me break it down in layman's terms.

I have not asked you to explain anything.

I have asked you to point me in the direction of the "official" flight path showing the plane low and obstructed by the Navy Annex when viewed from BigSarge's position.

Can you do that please?

Originally posted by discombobulator

I have not asked you to explain anything.

I have asked you to point me in the direction of the "official" flight path showing the plane low and obstructed by the Navy Annex when viewed from BigSarge's position.

Can you do that please?

BigSarge and all the witnesses prove the NTSB reported altitude fraudulent.

The PHYSICAL DAMAGE is what 100% dictates the REQUIRED "official path" (i.e. heading and altitude) during this critical final leg of the flight path and leaves zero room for deviation.

We have never accepted the official data as valid.

Do you?

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy

1. The plane is at 2002 ft. at 3:24 in the video, so that means it decends 2000 ft in about 31 seconds...more likely 32 or 33 by the time of impact..is that enough to cause arguments about the G Force?

Good question. No, that is a very gradual descent. (2000 feet in 32 seconds is 4000 fpm). If I were to take you up in a jet, and we throttled back to idle, and descended at about 250 knots, you would see the VSI (vertical speed) settle at about 2000-2500 feet per minute. Pushing the nose down slightly would increase the rate of descent, and the airspeed simultaneously, and it would not entail any unusual G-forces.

2. If the plane was only meters from the pentagon when this video stops, it is still 180 ft up...obviously its not hitting any lightpoles at that altitude, and I dont think its gonna drop that many feet to be just a few feet off the ground and strike the pentagon as it did...?

When I said yards (meters) I didn't mean like three or four....but, judging by the relative apparent size of the Pentagon in the distance it looks like the airplane had not yet reached Washington Blvd, Rte 27 (light poles).

Also, we must take into consideration the sampling rates of the Recorder and the various inputs....things were happening very, very fast. So, while heading was fairly steady, rapidly changing altitude readings can have an induced 'lag' time. Additionally, the local pressure has to be considered, and whether or not the altimeters had been manually set by the terorist pilot (in the Kollsman window) or if they were still left at 29.92 from before the hijacking (normal setting above 18,000 feet, in the USA). Those represent inches of mercury, to reflect atmospheric pressure...29.92 is standard Sea Level. Each inch of mg is approx. 1000 feet, local altimeter 'setting' at DCA was 30.22

So, that altitude reading can't be taken as sacred. Here's another tidbit: In flight, the three altimeters (Captain's, First Officer's and Standby) can disagree by certain margins. This is acceptable. Usually, at lower altitudes, it's less than 10 or 20 feet. At higher cruise altudes can be up to 100-150. There are charts to refer to before we write up an altimeter as out of tolerance.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

BigSarge and all the witnesses prove the NTSB reported altitude fraudulent.

The NTSB data is considered to be the "official" story and, fraudulent or otherwise, puts the plane considerable higher than the Navy Annex.

Could you please direct me to the "official" flight path showing that shows how that plane would have been obstructed by the Navy Annex when viewed from BigSarge's position.

The PHYSICAL DAMAGE is what 100% dictates the REQUIRED "official path" (i.e. heading and altitude) during this critical final leg of the flight path and leaves zero room for deviation.

That isn't the "official" flight path, that is a flight path that you have deduced based on the physical damage and witnesses like Wanda Ramey who claimed to have witnessed the line poles being knocked over.

Could you please quit stalling and direct me to the "official" flight path that demonstrates how that plane would have been obstructed by the Navy Annex when viewed from BigSarge's position.

You have repeatedly made this claim, now back it up or admit that you are deducing what the "official" flight path is.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator

The NTSB data is considered to be the "official" story and, fraudulent or otherwise, puts the plane considerable higher than the Navy Annex.

Considered that by whom?

You?

You accept this data as the be-all-end-all "official story" and the reported altitude doesn't bother you?

We have never accepted it as such. As stated in National Security Alert we very clearly cite the 9/11 commission, the ASCE report, the physical damage, the Integrated Consultants video, and the NTSB data as what establishes the REQUIRED official flight path.

We also cite how Pilots for 9/11 Truth have proven that it's physically impossible even if you hypothetically lower the altitude from what was fraudulently reported by the NTSB.

Funny how none of that bothers you even though you are unable to refute any of it.

Could you please direct me to the "official" flight path showing that shows how that plane would have been obstructed by the Navy Annex when viewed from BigSarge's position.

BigSarge (if he is honest) and all the witnesses prove the altitude as reported in the official DATA fraudulent.

Do you believe the witnesses or the official data?








[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig, I find it continually disappointing that when prompted you can never provide the evidence to support your statements.

I have repeatedly requested for you to provide:

1) Video evidence supporting your claim that you confirmed Joel Sucherman's location. We subsequently found out that you didn't (you admitted it) and that Joel believes you have misrepresented him, and his subsequent confirmation of position places him in a position that a) is wildly different from your deliberate deception, b) is completely consistent with an American Airlines plane impacting with the Pentagon.

2) Video evidence supporting your claim that Lloyde England "virtually confessed" to involvement in 9/11. Additional video would show the true context of the conversation you were having with Lloyde, and I highly suspect it has nothing do with a confession of any sort. Others have asked for this information and you have also refused to provide it.

3) A simple point in the direction of the "official" flight path that demonstrates how the plane would have been obscured by the Navy Annex when viewed from BigSarge's position. What precise altitude does it say the plane was when it was passing by the Navy Annex? You're deducing the flight path, aren't you?

If you were telling the truth I don't see why providing anything that I have asked for would somehow hurt your case.

It would strengthen it.

Are you prepared to provide the evidence to support your claims?

The helipad at the Pentagon sits at 39 feet ASL. The area where BigSarge was attending the funeral is a maximum of 50 feet ASL. The Naval Annex is 4 stories tall and sits on a 150 foot ASL high hill.

ANC Topological Map

reply to post by discombobulator


We make one simple claim that proves a deception. That claim is this:

All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.

Another similar question for discombobulator:

Do you believe the FDR data to be legitimate or do you believe that the light poles were hit by the airplane? The two are mutually exclusive, as shown here:

Google Video Link

Choice A: FDR data accurate, light poles not hit by plane
Choice B: FDR data fraudulent

Which is it?

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Ligon]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


If anything proved my point, it was that post. Thank you.

The disturbing realization is not that several events on 9/11 did not happen as was officially reported, or as implied. I've learned to accept that. The disturbing realization is that the more hysterical, delusional theories are overshadowing the facts and the coherent investigation and drive to gain momentum and public support.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We also cite how Pilots for 9/11 Truth have proven that it's physically impossible even if you hypothetically lower the altitude from what was fraudulently reported by the NTSB.

I would like to see the maths associated with Robert Turcios' testimony.

You see, the problem with Turcios is the mound in front of him. From the position Turcios claims he was standing at on 9/11 he is able to see the top floor of the Pentagon. The mound obscures the rest. Your video demonstrates this, and I believe someone (either you or him) had also said previously that the mound was actually lower back then.

In his testimony he says that he lost sight of the plane when it dropped below the mound (from his perspective) and that he did not see the impact.

Could you please show me the maths that allows this plane, travelling at between 350-400 knots according to Terry Morin, to drop out of sight and then suddenly pull up and fly over the building? What are the approximate G forces there?

reply to post by discombobulator


We do not rely on any single witness since we know that all witnesses are expected to be fallible within a reasonable margin of error due to different perspectives and numerous other factors concerning what they were doing at the moment etc.

That's why we only rely on them for general details that can be confirmed via the scientific validation process of independent corroboration.

We make one simple claim that proves a deception. That claim is this:

All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Ligon


He won't answer.

He'll just keep throwing out irrelevant questions of his own while ignoring the full context of all the presented evidence.

He's a good thread bumper though!

Originally posted by Ligon
Another similar question for discombobulator:

Choice A: FDR data accurate, light poles not hit by plane
Choice B: Light poles hit by plane, FDR data fraudulent

Which is it?

It is possible that there are additional scenarios here.

For instance, how about these additional choices:

Choice C: The data has been misinterpreted. The NTSB is certainly wrong due to the issue of magnetic declination. To me that indicates it is highly probably that further mistakes were certainly possible.
Choice D: Pure speculation with a layman understanding of aviation instruments, but perhaps there are controls which, during flight, require manipulation from the pilots to remain precisely calibrated which were ignored by the hijackers. I think weed mentioned something about air pressure adjustments? (Perhaps Reheat or weed could provide more information here. I am not an expert. I design IT systems.)

For all I know, there are another half a dozen possibilities, but I am not an expert in reading FDR data, so wouldn't like to say with any certaintly.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator

 

We make one simple claim that proves a deception. That claim is this:

All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.

firsthand witness accounts = rock solid scientifically validated evidence?

These are the type of statements that really tend to discredit your entire theory.

So here's my new theory. My theory is that CRAIG is a government agent/plant/shill. He has been directed to trump up this fake flyover theory in order to divert attention away from what could be a real conspiracy involving this event.

The ENTIRE FLYOVER THEORY is predicated on "eyewitness accounts" and absolutely not one shred of hard evidence. When the truth of the matter is, everyone remembers this event differently. Reading through, listening to some of the released tapes/documents of the Military Historian interviews this comes through even more clearly. Read through, listen through and you will hear the MANY differences. Yet, this is scientifically rock solid VALIDATED evidence?

This is akin to the Police Detective, who believes his prime suspect is guilty. Therefore he overlooks other possibilities, even if he has DNA evidence that shows his suspect was not the perp. That detective will continue trying to disprove that the DNA was tampered with or some other BS.

I think the question should be, why will Craig and/or his CIT group not allow any other possibilities other than a theory based 100% on unreliable witness accounts. That is a conspiracy in and of itself. I don't care what path you THINK or what the witnesses THINK they saw. I want to know how the plane was allowed to fly into Pentagon airspace to begin with. Why is it that you will not turn your attention towards that discrepancy? Hmmmmmmm

Originally posted by BigSarge

I don't care what path you THINK or what the witnesses THINK they saw. I want to know how the plane was allowed to fly into Pentagon airspace to begin with. Why is it that you will not turn your attention towards that discrepancy? Hmmmmmmm

Hum
Unfortunately (for you it seems), your own first words in this thread added credibilitiy to CIT theory. Now you just seem to want to deflect the subject of this thread.
I agree entirely with you that a plane over pentagon without air-force reaction is more than suspect. But it has been discussed in many other threads.

cheers.
TheTilde