John Farmer has a "new" FAA released flightpath for flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, linked on his latest FOIA page:
The controversial FAA/NORAD animation made by AGI's daughter firm STK:
1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
A MUST see! Download and open it with Windows Media Player, let it run one time, stop it just before it ends, and slide the slider slowly back to see
the landmarks (crossing roof of NAVY Annex building, north of Citgo gas station, aside Arlington Cemetery with its maintenance buildings) and the
right bank of the plane just seconds before "impact".
The video is too fast, but you can slow it down this way very well, or use the slow-down functions of Media Player.
To me it looks much more like a slow flying plane on a perfect landing course to the north tip runway on Reagan International.
If it impacted, it would have cut its right wing 5 meters deep into the Pentagon lawn, before impacting.
If not, it could never have impacted leveled out already a few hundred yards before, as seen in the toll boot cameras DoD videos, at the ceiling of
the first floor. Just look up the length of its right wing.
Let ever, to hit that diesel generator as depicted in all those Pentagon photos.
And last but not least, it is totally impossible to have hit those 5 lamp poles at the clover junction roads on a non-existing south of Citgo
To obtain some expertise, I went to the PilotsFor911Truth site, and found this informative post in their latest thread:
This NORAD/FAA data streams-based flightpath has been prepared from May 2002 to June 2002 by AGI, and is already earlier shortly addressed in a
PowerPoint presentation of that AGI firm, who made the flightpath video:
As being at that time, 2002, for internal use.
See their PP-presentation here:
The PowerPoint presentation seems to have been presented to NORAD officials at 11:30 on 06-03-2002.
As an internal memo at that time.
Why did they, the Headquarters of NORAD, knew already at such an early time (March 2002 is the earliest date on the AGI.com papers, six months after
9/11), that flight 77 flew at the North side of the CITGO station, at nearly exactly the same flightpath as described by the 13 witnesses interviewed
by the CIT team, and kept quiet about it ALL THESE YEARS ?
Knowing that the basis of the interpretation of the official flightpath, South of CITGO, being the downed 5 light poles and the internal Pentagon
damage, which must thus be very questionable also.
And why did NORAD HQ let us getting obsessed in those following six and a half years by all these anomalies in the officially released events
timelines and explanations, which turned out now, to be fraudulent from the beginning.
Why did someone decide to give this information free in a FOIA request, at this point in time? Normally the issuing institutions would black this sort
of information out, so why not now?
Are some real patriotic Americans being pushed too far and too often over a certain threshold, which they couldn't accept anymore?
A big list of white papers published online by AGI:
This is an interesting white paper published by Analytical Graphics, Inc. :
Statistical Analysis of military and civilian navigation error data services
Sept 2005 (180 KB):
My results show that for the military planner, an
operational signal-in-space threshold of greater than 78
centimeters would lead them to choose either the military
or civilian navigation error data service – there is no
statistically significant reason to do otherwise. Below an
operational threshold of 78 centimeters, the military
planner would do better to choose the military data
service. That is the case for only the very near future
however. Within the next month or two, modifications
will be put in place within the civilian navigation error
data service that will bring the level of statistical
significance to approximately 20 centimeters. That is,
with an operational threshold of 20 centimeters or greater,
there is no statistically significant reason to choose one
service over the other.
An additional consideration, based off of the data in
Figures 3 and 4, is the greater variability of the military
errors over that of the civilian errors. While this
increased variability was not enough to affect the
outcome of the statistical tests, it is cause for further
I hoped to find a likewise researched white paper for other than GPS based data, but until now to no avail.
Reheat wrote that flight 77 had no GPS based navigational systems on board.
I would like to see some references to that, because if they had, than this white paper would be very informative to what amount of error we could
base any calculations on. If it had GPS on board, the mean error would be around 78 centimeters minimum to 6 meters maximum (fig 9) in flight data
One screen shot from the STK PP-presentation, showing the plane flying diagonally over the roof of the Navy Annex building:
The above AGI-STK video is much better in showing all landmark details and behavior of the plane.
Edit: free PowerPoint viewer:
[edit on 25/9/08 by LaBTop]