It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Looking at this professionally produced 3D representation of the official NTSB Flight 77 FDR Black Box flight path, what do you think? Could the aircraft have hit the light poles with a phenomenal 8,346 feet per minute linear descent rate (dive) and still been able to pull up at the lawn to fly low and level into the Pentagon 1st floor? Could a 90 ton 757 have survived an enormous high G pullup from such a dive?

What do you think?

The NTSB provided this information and the NTSB refuses to comment.

The FBI refuses to comment.

This 3D animation is produced from the NTSB provided data.


Google Video Link




Three Dimensional view of American 77 Flight Path according to data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Removing altitude and NTSB northern plot data as a variable (see pilotsfor911truth.org... for more information), we use the "impact point" as point of origin working outwards based on heading, descent angles and bank angles to analyze if the data can account for the physical damage path. Please visit pilotsfor911truth.org... for in depth analysis of complete data provided by US Govt Agencies who claim was generated by the aircraft which struck The Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

video.google.com...

Flight 77 FDR Black Box


The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon

pilotsfor911truth.org...






This is the final maneuver performed by the aircraft which hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 according to the govt story. This animation was provided by the NTSB and is accurate in terms of the flight data recorder on board this aircraft. It has not been altered by anyone after it was received from the NTSB. Whether or not this animation is authentic, i defer inquiry to the NTSB. Please pay attention to the end of the video, as the altitude is too high to have hit the light poles that were reported to have been struck by the same aircraft which hit the pentagon. The video comment inserts are provided by an experienced Airline pilot.

www.youtube.com...


American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data


Google Video Link




Please view Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77 prior to watching this clip to get a better understanding of what is analyzed here. Addressing common arguments of those who make excuses regarding altitude, vertical speed and position conflicts between American Airlines Flight 77 Data Recorder (Black Box) and the Govt story. The Flight Data Recorder information provided by The National Transportation Safety Board through the Freedom Of Information Act does not support the govt story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. For higher quality video, please use the download button on this page above. Visit pilotsfor911truth.org... for more details

video.google.com...




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I like that propaganda flight path video by the government loyalist where he has the plane flying perfectly level off the ground! Ha. That one was a riot.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Some believe the official story, some pretend to believe it and some just don't believe it. The "pretenders" aren't going to change their point of view whatever you show them. Disney Pixar could make a gorgeous animation in 4D with 7.1 digital surround sound and it still wouldn't make them change their minds because that's not why they're here!

*Edited for spelling*

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Mark_Amy]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
That was fun.

Just look at the three pictures in my avatar that Rob Balsamo, CIT, Turbofan, SPreston, and other 9/11 Deniers claim eyewitnesses should have seen. The top picture is from Balsamo's own animation of what he claims the pilots saw as they began "the flyover" of the Pentagon. Then ask yourselves why Balsamo and company get very upset when they are asked to provide any statements from those hundreds of people all around the Pentagon - on the freeways, on the bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots, in other buildings, many of whom would have been looking at a jet flying directly toward them.

In three years of asking these so-called investigators
for those statements, Balsamo, SPreston, and CIT have whined, had hissy fits, stomped on the ground, screaming, We don't WANT to, we don't HAVE to, you can't MAKE us - I'm telling my MOMMY on you."

Look closely at my avatar. That is what Balsamo, CIT, and SPreston are begging you to believe - yet they can't provide a stitch of evidence that any flyover ever took place, when, in fact, a flyover would have been easily seen by all those people around the Pentagon.

That, my friends, is the fraudulent nature of 9/11 conspiracy theories. These fools depend on YOU not paying attention to reality and blindly accepting their claims at face value.

AA77 hit the Pentagon and Balsamo, Ranke, SPreston, and others have known it all along.



[edit on 3-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

posted by ATH911
I like that propaganda flight path video by the government loyalist where he has the plane flying perfectly level off the ground! Ha. That one was a riot.


Oh you mean Mike Wilson. Yes his silly animation does not quite jive with the NTSB provided data does it? His 757 glides so daintily across the road and lawn, gently easing each light pole down to the ground, without a scratch or smudge. And he does the heavy white smoke trail so well.


Google Video Link


Integrated Consultants and SolidWorks Techniques are lucrative profiteers from the Military Industrial Complex which they lie for so easily. Endless wars are so profitable. Gee it just makes you rub your hands together in ecstasy. Mike Wilson admits in the animation that his case study is a continuation of the 9-11 military psyops campaign.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Why thank you jthomas. I had forgotten your superlative photoshopping abilities. Did you photoshop the Pentagon parking lot security videos for the Defense Department too?

Were you mad when some confounded leaker insider released the five frames to the American public before you were finished photoshopping the videos? Don't you just hate it when you are forced to release a lousy quality unfinished product?

Did you photoshop out an aircraft above the roof similar to the aircraft you photoshopped in, inside the image below? Were you planning on photoshopping in an actual 757 aircraft ahead of your photoshopped heavy white smoke trail before you were so rudely interrupted from completing your parking lot videos?



Isn't life just terrible when everybody refuses to fall into line and cooperate? Sorry jthomas, but some people just don't like traitors, and that is probably why the leaker stuck it to the parking lot security video photoshopper. Would your 757 airplane finished product have looked about like this?





[edit on 8/3/09 by SPreston]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Look closely at my avatar. That is what Balsamo, CIT, and SPreston are begging you to believe - yet they can't provide a stitch of evidence that any flyover ever took place, when, in fact, a flyover would have been easily seen by all those people around the Pentagon.

Another thread dealing with a potential flyover and predictably, another contradiction made by jthomas.

Casual readers to the thread, please note that jthomas has already proven his own claims wrong.

In this thread, jthomas stated the following:

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

jthomas has stated that he doesn't have the magical power to know what an unknown number of witnesses would have seen. He doesn't know. Yet, he chooses to contradict himself by stating that a flyover would have been easily seen.

How can you believe a person who has stated two vastly different claims about the same event?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas
 


Why thank you jthomas. I had forgotten your superlative photoshopping abilities. Did you photoshop the Pentagon parking lot security videos for the Defense Department too?


Why thank you, SPreston, for bringing up that canard again and showing how desperate you really are.

Of course everyone has known all along that I added the AA Jet in the bottom two photos to illustrate what you all claim eyewitnesses should have seen from that particular location according to CIT's and Balsamo's claimed flight path.

Of course, you don't want anyone to know that the implication of a flyover is that AA77 would have been seen from all around the Pentagon.

What a way to make a fool of yourself, SPreston. Then, to top off your desperate evasion, we have a screen shot from Balsamo's very own animation showing the pilot's view of what he would have seen as he pulled up to "fly over the Pentagon."

By Balsamo's own claim.

Thanks for sticking your foot in your mouth again, SPreston, to illustrate that you have to deny the implications of your own claims.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Look closely at my avatar. That is what Balsamo, CIT, and SPreston are begging you to believe - yet they can't provide a stitch of evidence that any flyover ever took place, when, in fact, a flyover would have been easily seen by all those people around the Pentagon.

Another thread dealing with a potential flyover and predictably, another contradiction made by jthomas.

Casual readers to the thread, please note that jthomas has already proven his own claims wrong.

In this thread, jthomas stated the following:

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?


And people understand what I was responding to:


Originally posted by ipsedixit

"Have you ever stopped to consider that a lot of those drivers on the roads may have been actually doing what you are supposed to be doing while driving, that is, watching the road and the other traffic?

Some of them may have been on cell phones. What do you have to say to that?"



Do you understand that people on cell phones in their cars are not looking at their cells phone?

Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

No, 9/11 Truthers have to speculate unrealistic scenarios to explain away the obvious: that there is NO evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as CIT claims.


Gosh, your desperation is amazing, tezz.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


And yet you jthomas are stuck with the fact that multiple real living eyewitnesses with faces and names that can be verified, have placed the actual aircraft at the Pentagon, on a flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles which it did not knock down, and high above the Pentagon 1st floor which it could not possibly have entered.

This actual aircraft could not possibly have flown your precious south flight path, and knocked down the five light poles at 530 mph, nor flown inches above the pristine Pentagon lawn at 780 fps, nor hit the generator trailer with the right wing, nor entered the Pentagon 1st floor creating the alleged damage pattern, nor created the bogus Exit Hole into A&E Drive, nor left behind the bogus FDRs without serial numbers either near the entrance hole or the Exit Hole depending on which liar is telling the tale, nor left behind the bogus passenger/crew/pretend hijacker DNA which should have been destroyed by the jet fuel fiery flames.

Your fairy tale is all bogus jthomas.

Your precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is bogus jthomas, and you and your fellow duhbunkers cannot find any real living eyewitnesses with real faces and real names to verify, no matter how many times you travel to Arlington County desperately seeking help.

Perhaps nobody wants to publicly put their faces and names in public telling lies for you, when there might be public hanging of traitors sometime in the future. Or maybe you have not offered enough good hard $$$cash$$$ for light pole through windshield fabrications and 757 knocking down light pole fabrications and Flight 77 into Pentagon 1st floor wall fabrications. Maybe you should offer more money for witnesses jthomas. The CIA with all their black funds could easily afford it. And you could always skim a little bit more for yourself. How would they know when the funds don't officially exist?

The CIT investigators don't seem to have any trouble finding eyewitnesses willing to give their testimonies live on camera with their real names and faces, and I see no indication that CIT had to pay for their Over the Naval Annex eyewitness accounts. There can only be one truth jthomas, and truth does not seem to be on your side, and so all you are left with is lies.

So what we need is a proper investigation into 9-11 to separate your lies from our truth, no matter how desperately you duhbunkers and pseudoskeptics drag your heels.

Do you finally agree now jthomas? Or are you heading back to HQ for more instructions?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Ladies and gentleman I give to you the best `How to stick your own head up your ass` evidence of irony I have ever seen.....

Jthomas in his sarcastic best tries to ridicule the truthers, via some frames released by the Alphabet Agency by altering them, without having the slightest idea of the dates in these frames, released by the backbone of the Official Story evidence altering Agency.

LMFAO.

Priceless, absolutely priceless, trying to prove truth by using something released, by those, responsible for the truth, which has been edited the day after.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas
 


And yet you jthomas are stuck with the fact that multiple real living eyewitnesses with faces and names that can be verified, have placed the actual aircraft at the Pentagon, on a flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles which it did not knock down, and high above the Pentagon 1st floor which it could not possibly have entered.


So, you are just confirming that there should have been eyewitnesses to a flyover form all around The Pentagon.

Gosh... What have I been telling you all these years?

So, SPreston, WHEN are you going to finally present the eyewitnesses to an actual flyover from all around the Pentagon?

You 9/11 Deniers can never put your money where your mouths are.

Sheesh...



[edit on 4-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by SPreston
 



Ladies and gentleman I give to you the best `How to stick your own head up your ass` evidence of irony I have ever seen.....

Jthomas in his sarcastic best tries to ridicule the truthers, via some frames released by the Alphabet Agency by altering them, without having the slightest idea of the dates in these frames, released by the backbone of the Official Story evidence altering Agency.


You mean to say that AA77 never flew over the Pentagon as SPreston, Rob Balsamo, CIT, and other no-planers claim?

Gosh... Way to stick your foot in your mouth.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Originally posted by jthomas



You mean to say that AA77 never flew over the Pentagon as SPreston, Rob Balsamo, CIT, and other no-planers claim?

Gosh... Way to stick your foot in your mouth.


No i`m saying look at the date on those clips, way to not read what I wrote.



Get it yet?.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by jthomas



You mean to say that AA77 never flew over the Pentagon as SPreston, Rob Balsamo, CIT, and other no-planers claim?

Gosh... Way to stick your foot in your mouth.


No i`m saying look at the date on those clips, way to not read what I wrote.


And you still can't articulate what in creation the time stamps have to do with the point I am making?

Do you understand what the term "reading comprehension" means?

Get back to us when, and if, you actually can address the subject matter.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

posted by Seventh

Priceless, absolutely priceless, trying to prove truth by using something released, by those, responsible for the truth, which has been edited the day after.


posted by jthomas

And you still can't articulate what in creation the time stamps have to do with the point I am making?


Those five leaked 2002 still frames were definitely edited the day after or later.



The 2006 released by FOIA videos had no such time/date stamps on the bottom.





Obviously the still frames and the videos were edited and photoshopped even more than just the time/date stamps. But jthomas knows that. He is just being difficult like a spoiled rotten little kid.

The leaker on the inside just screwed the 9-11 perps real good. Sure do hope they never figured out who he was. It sure wasn't jthomas. Leaking the still frames would require a patriot.


[edit on 8/4/09 by SPreston]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

And yet you..... are stuck with the fact that multiple real living eyewitnesses with faces and names that can be verified, have placed the actual aircraft at the Pentagon,



.... actually hitting the Pentagon.

At least, according to CIT's witnesses.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by Seventh

Priceless, absolutely priceless, trying to prove truth by using something released, by those, responsible for the truth, which has been edited the day after.


posted by jthomas

And you still can't articulate what in creation the time stamps have to do with the point I am making?


Those five leaked 2002 still frames were definitely edited the day after or later.



The 2006 released by FOIA videos had no such time/date stamps on the bottom.





Obviously the still frames and the videos were edited and photoshopped even more than just the time/date stamps. But jthomas knows that. He is just being difficult like a spoiled rotten little kid.

The leaker on the inside just screwed the 9-11 perps real good. Sure do hope they never figured out who he was. It sure wasn't jthomas. Leaking the still frames would require a patriot.


[edit on 8/4/09 by SPreston]


Now SPreston is all atwitter. Shall I take it that SPreston is now claiming there was no explosion at the Pentagon? You're sweating heavily trying desperately to claim that timestamps have some relevance to your fanciful claims that AA77 flew over the Pentagon.

Are you now backing down from your claim SPreston? Are you upset that I illustrated using the security camera video that you have always accepted showing the explosion you claim was staged as a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon?

All of a sudden you are extremely anxious that I showed what YOU, CIT, and Rob Balsamo claim.

What's the matter, SPreston? Are you struggling to build up the courage to confess that you know NO JET flew over the Pentagon like you claim?

A simple photoshop to illustrate your claims and you get all worked up in a lather.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Originally posted by jthomas





And you still can't articulate what in creation the time stamps have to do with the point I am making?

Do you understand what the term "reading comprehension" means?

Get back to us when, and if, you actually can address the subject matter.

Thanks.




Ah, 1st post I made regarding the dates you completely ignored, second post - you mention it was intended to get your point over, WoW couldn`t see that coming, would be kinda hard to admit.. That whilst trying to get a point over in a condescending way whilst blatantly editing a video, to guys whom think that there was some blatantly edited videos from that day, you did not notice that the video you chose had been blatantly edited.

Oh my, what will they say down at teh debunking club?.

Address the subject of *Pwning oneself*, well and truly addressed, was there anything else?.

Appropriate name btw lol.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Aye bless him, does like to side step, mind you, you can feel his cringing across the whole forum
.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join