Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

More cartoons, huh? Any "flight path reconstruction based on witness testimony" would be based on only the witnesses CIT choose to accept - hardly an acceptable nor credible base of data. There are dozens of "witnesses" that do not adhere to CITs preconceived and prejudged record of events that CIT choose to discount for any number of hilarious reasons, many of which could be applied to their OWN witnesses. CIT is the non-aeronautical bookend to PfT. Their aeronautical analysis is only slightly worse than yours.

We're all still waiting for you or CIT to bring these "witnesses" and your "experts" to a grand jury to start the trials. Instead you choose to flog affidavits for a lawsuit where someone who received money from the 757 plane crash is suing that there was no 757. Not to mention your aeronautical acumen regarding published departures, NOTAMS and P-56 flight restrictions.



Nice link to a 55 second trailer that says squat. I'd ask what else ya got, but I know all you'll come up with is more unverified and unvalidated cartoons.

reply to post by scott3x

---

Laugh :-p. I got on Joyce Street; perhaps there's a spot where you can see the pentagon on it, but if so, I didn't find it.

Yeah...put 'Joe' just a bit South of the gas station. I did it, and it gave an address of "834 South"...then turn right to look East.

Of course, you can also put 'Joe' on the big curve of Columbia Pike, about where Joyce St meets it....where Southgate Rd is coming from your West. And you can see the Pentagon easily from there too.

BUT...for the CIT fantasy to stay in place, you have to zoom out and take it all into account. CIT agrees (I think) that the airplane came along Columbia Pike --- where they want us to believe some crazy theory is that the airplane turned slightly North to pass over the Annex, THEN turned back to the right...and of course the CIT claim that NO airplane hit, that this maneuver was done by a "decoy" that then climbed above and "overflew" the Pentagon...even though NO ONE saw this happen!!

Not only did no witnesses near the area see this, the Air Traffic Controllers at National Airport didn't see it. Look how close they are....to find the Control Tower, zoom in and look at the Metro station platform. Just at the North end of the platform, where the covering stops, look right and there's the Tower...OR, notice the two large Northernmost terminals on the airport, the two that are about the same size. Tower is mid-way between them.

NOW, it is true that the actual Pentagon building can't be seen from the Tower, even up as high as they are, because of buildings in Crystal City.
(I used to live in one of those two curved apartment buildings there, along the railroad tracks, when I first moved here...)

However, any airplane that passed OVER the Pentagon, and continued Eastward would be in plain view...and just think of all the people in DC who would have seen/heard it!!!! Because, nothing flies over the city in that manner...except maybe Marine helicopters. Even CIT haven't claimed that it was a helicopter! (yet)....

For Weedwhacker Warren Stutt's Home Page

[edit on 1-10-2009 by waypastvne]

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

I assume the proof would be in the data files that you don't yet have...



Not sure how the above relates to the PFT video transcriptions...





Ok.




What's VVI info? And would Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have this?

reply to post by scott3x

---

What's VVI info? And would Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have this?

I did it again...'VVI' would be the term for the instrument that measures Vertical Velocity (speed).

You will also see it referred to as the VSI, ('Vertical Speed Indicator'), IVSI and IVVI. The first 'I' in the last two means 'Instantaneous', and it is standard in today's modern high performance airplanes. {Older purely analog, not digital inputs, had a certain 'lag' when displaying changes in vertical speed trends...)

We all still call it 'vertical speed' when referring to it...the 'velocity' terminology came along from somewhere....I think some "genius" somewhere in Human Concepts Engineering thought that it was too "confusing" to use the term 'speed' anymore, because we stupid pilots might get confused...I was sarcastic, but it's probably close to the truth...

Reason I brought it up was to dispel one of the P4T myths they bring up, about the "incredible" rate of descent of AAL 77, and the "impossible" pull to the nearly level last few feet of the flight path. This they "calculate" the way I did, just from watching the animation video; timing the change in altitude to determine a rate of descent in feet per minute. IF they have the actual FDR data from the IVVI then they're ignoring it. Maybe they don't have it.

All of their "reasoning" is flawed from the start, since they're taking the NTSB animation as an iron-clad and to the microsecond and millimeter accurate depiction, when in fact it was meant only as an illustration of the event.

But, like a dog with a bone.....well, you know.
______________________________________________________

Found a pretty good photo for the intrument panel (USAir in this case):

airliners.net...

The IVVI is below the altimeter, just right of the EHSI (lower CRT screen there).

They're at the gate, it looks like...the FMC is programmed, but I can't read it on my monitor...(those small computer screens with green lettering, have the flight plan info and other stuff). BUT the photog says they were in MCO, sothe 353 HDGand 5000 Altitude setting soudns right. I don't know their checklists, but since they have the lower EICAS screen showing the flight control position indices, and the hydraulics aren't turned on yet, I'm guessing they've completed their "Receiving Aircraft" (or whatever they call it, that's what we call it) checklist. Probably real close to push back. SO, the "Engine Start and Push" (or similar) checklist will be run, hydraulics turned on (and anything else on their checklist) and the flight control movement verified, THEN the lower EICAS screen will be switched to display the rest of the engine instruments to monitor the engine starts.

TMI????

( Just noticed the Parking Brake is off...AND the Captain is turned slightly, probably to talk to the photog. SO, still some minutes away from pushback...not sure why the door lights are all out...maybe they have a delay on the gate, waiting for clearance to push...because we start getting paid as soon as ALL doors are closed, AND the Parking Brake is released... )


[edit on 1 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by turbofan

---

I assume that by "this" you were addressing the part where I said;
"2- The plane approached the pentagon from the north side of the nearby Citgo gas station. This would concord with 13 credible witnesses and would also be aerodynamically possible, as explained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I can try to look up the link where they do this later if requested)"




I am fairly familiar with CIT's work, but I think linking to their sites in the OP would have been better. So here are the links to their work:
www.thepentacon.com...
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...



That's the video I had wanted to link to :-). For those interested, the above was the trailer; here is the video itself:
9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

That might happen at some point in time, but I think that turbofan knows a fair amount; certainly more than me. He posts over at PFT fairly regularly and is in fact a moderator there as well. You could, ofcourse, create an account there. Ofcourse, I did that and am now banned; and I -agree- with their position :-p. Being a pilot yourself, you definitely know more about airplanes than I do, but you disagree with their position. Well, it's your call.




Hopefully turbofan or someone else can provide that as well...




I wish I could understand what you're saying here :-p. MSL?




I too am hoping he has a linky ;-).






Where's the linkies ;-)?

reply to post by ATH911

---

It would seem that both PFT and CIT place the count as:
NoC witnesses: 13
SoC witnesses: 0

However, PFT, CIT and I have discussed at length alleged South of Citgo witnesses with a certain poster who calls himself Q24. He made cases for various witnesses that he thought favoured a South of the Citgo approach. I believe that PFT and CIT debunked this claim of his fairly well, but I went ahead and did my part as well. Admittedly, he never finished with his list, but judging from his track record, I don't think any other witnesses he was going to present would have been credible either.

If you'd like to see the debates I and the aforementioned groups had with him, a few of them are here:
One from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side?

One from CIT's forum:
South Approach Eyewitnesses?


And perhaps the final exchange on the subject with Q24 (the flight path bit really gets going near the end):
General of all American Intelligence

I see more stars, but I don't know why. It's probably because people
are not technical enough to understand the data and apply it to the
real world evidence...either that, or they are just GL's looking to fluff
your 'credibilty'

So let's begin the slaughter of logic and tech. This shouldn't be hard as
Weedwacker is talking from opinion rather than fact.

HE HAS NOT LOOKED AT THE NTSB DATA!



WRONG! FREAKIN' WRONG!

YOu know why? Becuase you have a determined flight path based on
the "physical damage" we were told about on 9/11.


REMEMBER those light poles that were *cough* knocked over? Remember
the ACSE report and damage path through the PENTACON?

Well guess what, if the plane really made that damage, then it must have
flown along a path IN LINE with the damage.

Want to know something else? The 1.5 nm radius +/- 0.1 mn MUST
interesct that flight path.

PRESTO! We have all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position!




NO.

It means an error of +/- 0.1 nm, or +/- 607 feet. A value Plus, or minus
607 feet....not a value +/- 1,214 feet.

Got it? 607 feet or less (typically calibrated for zero error by the MFG.
These are worst case values).

Without going through anything else (because lengthy replies seem to
confuse you), you can deal with all the above fact.

When you comprehend all of the above, I want you to answer why
the final altitude in the CSV file is different from the final altitude in
the animation.

I'll even show you how to correct for local pressure and properly figure
the result for the animation's final P.A.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by scott3x

---

All the RADAR ALT data, and deconstruction of the NTSB data can be
found at the same link I presented earlier (sub forums of Pentagon,
and AA77).

There are videos with explanations, diagrams, etc. to help clarify all the
research.

If you want specifics I'd be happy to explain them here, but I wont
copy all of the data that is readily available for everyone at P4T.

reply to post by scott3x

---

JREF



That confused me for a long time.

reply to post by waypastvne

---

LMAO!!!

Did you read the end of that thread? I've already schooled the JREF
members on that topic.

You know what their final conclusion is after about six different failed
excuses?

A BRID STRIKE CAUSED THE DATA LOSS IN THE FDR!!!

That has been DEBUNKED TOO!



Tell Mackey I'm still waiting for him to debate me live on camera. We
were going to set it up, BUT HE BACKED OUT!

See here:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

He proably chickened out when he realized I was a technologist, and not
a car mechanic

"Ark"? radius? Really, once is a typo, 6 times is "I don't know what I am talking about". Round file.

reply to Mark_Amy's post #16

---

I would contend that the people behind 9/11 would -love- it if we left things up to the "experts". This isn't to put down experts, but rather to point out that those who are too trusting of others can be easily fooled. There is also the fact that when arguing something with someone, one tends to focus on the weakest links in their arguments. Clearly, if we leave the technical stuff to the respective experts, be it the official story experts or the truth movement experts, the other side will easily be able to point out our own ignorance. I personally dislike relying on experts when it comes to things that are so important, which is why I've been asking experts questions concerning various aspects of 9/11 to further educate myself and to thus ameliorate the weaknesses in my knowledge base.



I agree to some extent. However, I would contend that it wasn't -that- sloppy, or else people wouldn't be arguing about it 8 years after the event.




We definitely agree there.



Not so; in fact, CIT has mentioned that there is no evidence of a missile being fired and PFT, despite initially considering the possibility, apparently has now backed out of it. Wall breaking kits are good at making nice round holes like the ones observed at the pentagon, as SPreston has mentioned here in the past, complete with a video a wall breaking kit in action, as well as a comparison of it to the pentagon "exit" hole.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #25

---

Lol :-). It's understandable. So much to say, and then there's the emotions involved in this type of a discussion as well, which can get one to just try to say what one wants to say as quickly as possible ;-).



Ah ok.



Ok.



Lol :-)




That's not my understanding. My understanding is that they calculated the necessary pull up based on the CSV file.



My understanding is that they have all the FDR data. I'm not sure why you think they're ignoring it.



Thanks for the picture; however, since I don't know where the altimeter or the EHSI is (what's that stand for?), don't know where the IVVI is ;-).




I see :-). So what's FMC, EICAS and TMI ;-)?

Not that I mind this lesson, but.. how does this all relate to what the PFT video said?

reply to turbofan's post #30

---

Can you link to it again?



Ofcourse.

reply to waypastvne's post #31

---

Thanks. I assume the MS in Electrical Engineering is in that thread, but what's his name?

reply to post by turbofan

---

Your style is becoming more and more typical, in its arrogance even when proven wrong. It is Attack, Attack, Attack....and no manner of logic nor sensibility will stop you.





That's right. Following backwards from the very thoroughly investigated and reported line of damage INSIDE the Pentagon, the ground track can be extrapolated out...OVER the intersecton of Rte 27 and Rte 244 (where the lightpoles were) and South of the gas station.



Yes.....+/- the 0.1 NM margin of error that YOU admitted to...correct???

Later, we will see how you (again) twisted my EXACT words. Reading and comprehension? Zero points. Arrogant attitude because there is NO WAY you could ever be wrong? A big whoppin' TEN!

Now, this:



Oh please, 'Sky King', explain to all of us the geometry...not only in TWO dimensions, but now you assert in THREE? How can you determine, with only one line, and one arc, "all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position" (your words).

Let me make it simple, first. Draw a line. Pick a focus, draw an arc. You will find TWO places on that line that are the same length (in this case let's use 1.5NM)

Where is the vertical component? Well, the actual true airplane altitude is in doubt, has been debated...I guess you could try to use trigonometry and the slant-range angle...but still you're guessing.

There are a multitude of errors that will be accumulating, because of several uncertainties...the true altitude AND as mentioned below, the DME error margin....so still we have to approximate position, it won't be accurate to an inch...

NOW...here is your comprehension = Zero point:



MY exact quote, in its entirety. To reiterate: ....

Let this sink in a bit.........

..............because, YOU wrote:






See it yet? It went by pretty quickly, and those not paying attention might have been left (again) with the impression that YOU are always right... there's that arrogance problem once more....


YOU:

See it now? Twist and shout, twist and shout....was that an old Chubby Checker song?

Got it? 607 feet or less (typically calibrated for zero error by the MFG. These are worst case values).

Oh, I GET IT, allright. I get your game, here... and I suspect so does everyone else.

Example as exhibit....let's see, I've used up so many already...this is Exhibit 'J':

Without going through anything else (because lengthy replies seem to confuse you), you can deal with all the above fact.

Your witness......


[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

I will just back these quotes up by confirming that if one researches the subject they will find there are approximately three times as many eyewitnesses to the South of Citgo flight path and/or impact than there are to a North of Citgo approach. If you attempt to present this evidence on the P4T or CIT forums you will be suspended/banned/censored (speaking from experience). I believe that says it all about the methods employed by these groups and the lack of support for their theory.

reply to post by scott3x

---

LOL!!! TMA = Too Many Acronyms!!!

Oh, and "TMI" is just "Too Much Information"....that's the easy one....

Adding...'MSL' = Mean Sea Level. Sorry 'bout that one. maybe I'll look for a compete compendium of avitaion acronyms for you...there has to be one somewhere.

If I screw up and type 'AGL' know in advance it means 'Above Ground Level'....(simply, the difference between the ground's elevation above MSL and an airplane's altitude. That's one reason we always refer to the airpane "altitude", and fixed objects' "elevation"...( and remember, 'elevator' is not the Otis box in a building ... they're the flappy thingies that go up/down on the tail of the plane )


The EICAS is the 'Engine indicating and Crew Alerting System'. On the B757/767 it is the two CRT (cathode ray tube) screens in the center panel. Actually, the EICAS is described in brief on Wiki.

You may have heard the term "Glass Cockpit"? The B757/767 design is a sort of in-between 'glass' concept --- actually in General Aviation, including modern Business jets, the advances are more pronounced than in Transport category jets...FAA is slow to approve (and the customers - airlines - less likely to accept) new concepts and technologies. Of course, FAA approves in other segments of aviation...smaller fleets, different training syllabi and esptablished procedures...but, I digress.

'FMC' is 'Flight Management Computer'. The computer inputs are from various instrument sources, and from the crew via the CDU (Control Display Units) that I pointed out with the green characters on the little screens.

Why is any of this relevant? Well, partly to show I actually DO know what I'm talking about, and to help assist in describing the clues that lead me to believe that the American flight 77 was piloted by Humans...the real pilots until the hijacking, and then the terrorists until impact.

Knowing the full complexities of the various systems, how they interact and are programmed and utilized means that I can look for inconsistencies in the "story"...and it seems to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to "fake" all of this so well, IF that was the true plan all along.

It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Each time I bring something to the trhead I'll try to check to see if it's also online somewhere...and then ADD to it just where clarity might be needed.





[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]