Flight 77 turn vs. wing bank in the evidence

Referring to the last photo in your post. I believe the person in the photo is one of the witnesses interviewed in the Pentacon.

The plane that was seen flying toward the Pentagon flew low over the place where he worked. His testimony in the video established that the plane was to the left (facing the Pentagon) of the road running along side the Navy Annex and would seem to mean that the plane probably flew almost directly over the Annex.

When I watched the video my own conclusion from this man's testimony was that the plane's trajectory was at less of an angle over that road and more parallel to it than your diagram would indicate.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Exactly! That's Edward Paik. His testimony put the plane angling over the Navy Annex as shown in the red line below. He actually drew three different versions, all close to this. For comparison I used Terry Morin's account, literally read, and the 'official' path both men actually saw.

The CIT swerve is deduced from Paik's account plus the others, even though Paik reported no turn at all. He did show a bank, but it's the OPPOSITE bank from what would be required for this turn.
Also, the right bank would have to be even sharper than this graphic shows. Considering eyewitness Hubbard actually SAW it somehwere east of here, the path has to be adjusted like this:

from almost due north to mostly east in just a few plane-lengths. I'm not gonna say a 757 can't do that because I don't know. But it WOULD require the left wing to be very high as it passed over the Annex.
Again:


So here's another bank-related point. Remember right wing low is a right bank meaning a right turn, and measured in degrees +. Here's what the FDR shows at semi-random points before and during its final turn from 9:34-9:37 (right bank for nearly a full circle) and end of data:
h:mm:ss - roll
9:32:55 – +3.5
9:33:46 – +1.1
9:34:01 – +8.1
9:34:38 – +29.5
9:35:55 – +37.6
9:36:32 – +16.9
9:37:10 – +10.9
9:37:20 – +2.8
9:37:30 – +3.2
9:37:35 – +2.1
9:37:40 - -0.4
9:37:41 - -0.7 (-0.3 change/sec)
9:37:42 - +1.1 (+1.8)
9:37:43 - +3.5 (+2.4)
9:37:44 - +6.3 (+2.8)

Yes that's the wrong bank for impact at the end. There's good evidence however that that data was recorded several seconds before impact and the last stretch unrecorded, or truncated... info

C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien estimated the plane as he passed it as "rolled up into about 30-40 degrees of bank, which is considerable for a commercial airliner." By radar he passed it around 9:35-9:36. We see high numbers there like 29.5 and 37.6. A match!

Now here's where a pilot might help, because there's some disagreement over what "77" was doing at that time - how big an arc gives it the bank recorded? If this official loop is correct and banks of app. 10-40 (tops) are involved, what kind of banks would be required for the swerve? Smaller scale, quicker, more extreme. Left turn/bank, level out, then hard right. That's amazing stuff to do without a single witness recalling a matching bank.
btw: this graphic is to-scale, but using the uncorrected path that still leaves Hubbard a liar. It's even sharper if she saw anything - see above.


[edit on 17-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 17-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 17-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

BTW to the mods: I liked the scroll-bar approach to picture sizing. Just cutting half-off, without new window views really sucks. How can I show a whole picture here?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

[cross-posted]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. You are misrepresenting our claims as you certainly know that Sean Boger was the only witness we report who was in a position to see the bank and that he most certainly DOES report it.

No I did not know that was your take. I got confused by, for example:
"Did you know that even Mike Walter claims the plane banked?" "A bank in his view AT ALL completely destroys the official story." "Ever speak to Mike Walter about seeing the plane in a bank?”

I’m having a hard time here keeping track of who you think could see what from where. The way I see it, head on (12:00) or from behind (6:00), and at eye level IS the best angle to see a bank, and this does come closer to what Boger saw than almost anyone else.
Hard hard left bank seen face-on – that roll is plain as day.

However - and I know this sounds crazy and convoluted - wing banks can be seen from other angles as well! Like almost any angle, though altitude, speed, etc. make it harder to read than these photos would make it seem, the witness would also see the plane moving, offering a changing view over a second or whatever that helps solidify such details. Using different craft, yes, but here are some sample angles and my determination of the banks of each.
1-Shallow left bank seen from 10:00
2-Hard right bank seen from 1:00 or 1:30
3-Mild right bank seen from 3:00
4-Hard hard right bank – near knife-edge - seen from 3:00
5-level bank seen from 3:00
6-level bank seen from 9:00
7-UA 175 – moderate left bank, seen from 10:00 or 10:30
These somewhat represent some of the different views the Pentagon eyewitnesses might have had - diff combos of side, belly, right wing, left wing, wings and engines lined up or offset, tailfin tilted or straigh, etc... plenty o' clues. Here’s another, better one, if simulated, from below and about 4:00:

If I were right there being fooled by the flyover, nothing could fool me about its bank – almost perfectly level.

Somehow several witnesses from different angles ventures some guess at a wing bank. Collectively they support a mild left bank similar to that created at impact. Are you saying none of these people – or very few - could actually see any bank and so are lying?

Craig, wherever you respond, can you show a photo of a single view from which a plane is visible but its wing bank is NOT visible?

2. Edward reports no bank because he was not in a position to see the bank just like […]

Hyperbole aside, again, Ed couldn’t see the bank. Alright, help me see what I’m missing. He saw the plane – from beneath – he saw the wings, which seemed black. I understand that’s not the best angle to see a bank clearly, and I’m finding no illustrative photos here. But it seems to me he’d quite possibly be able to tell if the plane were tilted steeply for the turn you have right over him there. He talks about a wing over here and over here, over the station – not one wing over the other.

You are following suit with this ridiculous "opposite bank" claim that came out of nowhere based on nothing said by Edward. You simply took a completely irrelevant and random screen shot of him and made this erroneous claim.
He did not say OR gesture such a thing in the least.

(embed – link) Folks, I don’t need to put up all the screen shots – just watch the video yourselves.
The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version
He’s never ASKED about bank, and doesn’t TALK about it. His lines are essentially straight.
– 11:42 describing the black wings he extends his arms, right hand high, relaxes the gesture then repeats it the same.
- 12:52 – striking a jesus pose, facing the OTHER way he somehow puts his LEFT hand higher to indicate the right wing. He even seems to think about it a moment first.

Coincidence?

I have no reason to reply in your convoluted, incoherent, rambling threads and blogs that offer nothing whatsoever to counter the fact that we have scientifically proven the plane came from east of the Potomac and flew north of the citgo.

So reply at your distraction thread and I’ll just cross-paste it here. It saves the forum some bickering, and you from losing in person, and me from having to decipher the logic by which any of these things are ‘scientfically proven.”

So McGraw didn’t see a flight path at all, and probably wasn't even there, certain other people also couldn’t see a direction (even tho they described them to you), now Paik couldn’t see the bank of the wings – only ONE witness among the many you’ve interviewed was able to see this (coincidentally the ONLY one who describes the bank you need), and still NO ONE among the many who thought the plane actually impacted was in a position to see the flyover, and only one I guess was in a position to see the pull-up.

Oh and now it's East of the Potomac... 6 miles SE of the WH, right? Wow. You guys just keep going.




[Mod Edit]
Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 18/2/2008 by Sauron]

Alright, I'm sorry for implying ... what I did there. That was uncalled for since Craig's sig does say 'CIT: we ain't playin' and an alternate reason for their trainwreck of reasoning must be looked for. The looping punch-yerself image also removed I copied straight From Craig using it against ME btw at this old post.www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just in case that matters. I guess it's his thing and I shouldn't use it back. Whatever.

If Craig continues to avoid this thread anyone else can pop in and help. I'm waiting to see a single vantage from which a plane is visible but its wing bank not visible and if possible some evidence that MOST angles yield this effect as CIT seems to be implying.

Or is this all just a big terminology mix-up where they're still calling a turn a bank and confusing the issue? Some clarity would be nice.

Value-added bump:
Craig has clarified when CIT hears or says 'bank' they think or mean TURN.
They use the term 'tilt' to refer to bank.

So he's saying few witnesses were in a good position to see the turn over the Annex. They don't talk much about wing tilt, aside from Boger, who uses that term. I'm talking about tilt, like the left one illustrated by Ed Paik over the Annex.

More witnesses:
- Storti, apartment, Crystal City: 'he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex...'
- Elliot, south-southeast of impact, watched it for several seconds: "I looked to my left and saw the plane coming in [...] It was banking and garnering speed.

Terry Morin:
Bank as it passed him at the Annex is unclear from his account, but it was about 100 feet up and almost directly over him. Nonetheless, he describes this:
"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."
1) This does not match 'the White Plane.'
2) If he could see stripes on any side it'd be the the right, since it seems to have passed just barely south of him, officially. To see this side from beneath indicates... yes, a left bank.
3) If it really did fly as CIT shows, he'd see the right side plain as day. Perhaps a witness they should talk to...

Regarding the word bank as synonymous with turn, I read Penny Elgas' account closer and found this:
"it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport."

This as it passed on an unspecified sid of the Citgo station... We have a report of a bank in the official path that clearly means a turn, and it doesn't specifically contradict the NoC claim!! Some would say this is more fatal than Walter's bank report! Like Walter she saw the bank off to the west. Like Walter, she was northbound on 27 south of the plane's passage. Like Walter, her clues indicate a mild bank - 'slightest turn' - not hairpin crazy right turn like CIT drew. Walter had a left bank in the distance, unclear over 27. Elgas is opposite - unclear far away but banking left over 27 ahead of her: "It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me [right] and the underside of the other wing [left] as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground."

Like Walter, Elgas is also a suspicious witness. There's a lot of those around.

Take a google earth with the yellow path from Pentacon! You then find the radius of turn. From the radius and the speed from the FDR you get the need for something like 80 degrees of bank and 8.7 gs with the wings falling off in a big snap!

Just take the radius and speed and look up an aircraft turn equation. Makes the turns required by the CIT to be impossible; as in made up.

reply to post by beachnut

Impossible even? Wow. Thanks Beachnut - that was more confirmation than I expected. I ususally shudder when people say 'wings would fall off.' That's because it's then followed with 'there was no plane.'

80 degrees of bank tho... 80 this pilot says! Ed Paik says wing over here, wing over here. Not wing over wing.

CIT will need some pilot opinions themselves on this, and luckily they know a few who can apply their expertise to either explaining these invisible and impossible banks or, failing that, to question my motives again.