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.
Originally posted by Gamolon
weedwhacker,
Is there other flight information out there that people can look at to see similar inaccuracies for comparison?
It sounds like this would be a common thing yes?
Originally posted by JFrickenK
Originally posted by Gamolon
With all the "North of the Citgo" eyewitnesses placing the plane "North of the Citgo", can anyone please tell me which of those eyewitness are incorrect about the flight path up to the "North of the Citgo" point the jet was supposedly visually seen at by all of them?
I have looked at the top down picture of the Pentagon with the flight paths of the witnesses drawn in yellow. How come the incoming flight path for most of them do not match?
Simple. Variances in depth perception.
You will notice however that not one eyewitness puts it south of the Citgo on followup interviews.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
JFK, are you "JohndoeXLC" over on YouTube???
For everyone's amusement, again. Here's an example of the NTSB video re-creation from the FDR. This was solely a representation, not intended to be accurate to the centimeter.
What is amusing about it, you ask??
It is the stupid and inane text screens inserted as 'commentary' throughout. At :09 --- the airplane is about 8000 feet, just a few miles from the Pentagon...and the genius who posted this asks "Why not just push straight down, into the Pentagon straight ahead?" Every pilot on this forum knows why that would not have worked.
Well, the rest of the 'commentary' is equally laughable, and just shows ignorance of reality.
Oh, and do be sure to, as "JohndoeXLC" suggests, to watch the 'yoke' (that's the ocntrol wheel depiction). It does show a guy flying the airplane, not smoothly at all, but rather dramatically moving the control column in spasmodic jerking motions, just as you'd expect froma rather inexperienced pilot.
Who, BTW, despite another idiotic text frame, DID have "time in type"...in a simulator, at least.
Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by Gamolon
Actually I was looking at it to prove that it is real.
Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by thomk
I have never made a single penny off my 911 research nor the thousands of dollars worth of DVD's I have given away over the years.
I intend to keep it that way.
For your insinuation you have earned the right to join farmer and the other idiots in my ignore list... Have fun in there guys.
Cool. Then by extension of that reasoning it could have easily been North of the Citgo and no one would be the wiser.
Originally posted by Gamolon
Originally posted by JFrickenK
Originally posted by Gamolon
With all the "North of the Citgo" eyewitnesses placing the plane "North of the Citgo", can anyone please tell me which of those eyewitness are incorrect about the flight path up to the "North of the Citgo" point the jet was supposedly visually seen at by all of them?
I have looked at the top down picture of the Pentagon with the flight paths of the witnesses drawn in yellow. How come the incoming flight path for most of them do not match?
Simple. Variances in depth perception.
You will notice however that not one eyewitness puts it south of the Citgo on followup interviews.
I'm sorry, but left and right location is not depth perception. I can look at something from a distance and tell you if it is left or right of a certain object. If I have one hand over my eye and look at the same object, I'd have a hard time with distance.
These flight paths differ left to right from viewpoints in line with the incoming flight path. The viewpoints are not perpendicular to the flight paths, which would affect depth perception and actual placement.
Regardless they all have placed the plane North of the Citgo.
Originally posted by JFrickenK
The majority of the witnesses were either port or starboard of flight 77 as it passed, therefore it would require depth perception to guage the distance at it's nearest point of passing.
77 pages and still no proof the door was opened in flight for a hijack to occur, no proof N644AA was the aircraft responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, no proof the PA is in error, no proof of the object from which RA is measuring. Just more and more proof that those who make excuse for the govt story have nothing better to do than bicker with people they think are nuts, from behind their screen. Sad.
Yeah I know it has changed names since... And before.
... Many years prior to 9/11.
WTH was it back then ? Amoco or something?
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just remember it's not about me, or you, or anyone else posting in this thread.
Agreed. But if you are gong to offer your opinion based on your expertise you claim to have, you may want to put a name behind it for some weight so others can verfiy.