Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
The directional damage path is off in that video.
????
The direction of damage has been shown clearly in the Pentagon Building Performance
Report
Calm yourself.
I was talking about the ridiculous path plotted in the "Perspective 77" video. Or do you think it's correct?
There were NO actual witnesses to the "North of Citgo" path. Craig Ranke and his delusions come out of his butt, and he had to selectively
cherry-pick, and coach with leading questions in order to get the *results* he desired. The actual witnesses (including the pilot and crew of the
Minnesota Air National Guard C-130) saw the true path of the jet, American 77.
I think that the witnesses interviewed would beg to differ. Even when told of the ramifications of what they described, they didn't change their
stories. In fact William Lagasse was adamant about what he saw and told Craig Ranke so in an e mail.
"¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."
~Sgt William Lagasse after watching The PentaCon and responding to the ASCE (and ultimately Pseudoskeptics)"
O'Brien is on record as saying that he lost sight of the aircraft and when he finally reached the Pentagon basin area 3 minutes later, he had to try
and make out the Potomac River to get an estimate of where the smoke plume was coming from.
Here, Mike Wilson compiled a 3-D computer animation, based on the known damage path, and the facts:
Mike Wilson contradicts the ASCE Report claims regarding the aircraft being in a 8-9º tilt when it allegedly struck the building. And, as with Purdue
he neatly squeezes the 170 odd feet wingspan (at an angle) into that hole without addressing the extremities. Particularly the 40-50ft vertical
stabilizer.
The left engine is problematic too.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
It's also based on a trajectory that nobody witnessed. That's the real problem.
Purdue University created a simulation, using super computers:
Purdue had the aircraft slide in on its belly minus the engines. Surely they could have come up with a better depiction with their super duper
computer?
And of course, there is the on-board Flight Data Recorder (FDR). This is the record of the entire flight, the video begins when the jet taxis into
position for take-off at Dulles. It stops just moments before impact, because the final portion of the info was garbled.....this video was made by
NTSB as a preliminary version, because so many were clamoring to see it. The last moments of data have subsequently been deciphered:
"It stops just moments before impact". Which is why it has no bearing on the NOC testimony.
The Legge 10th (or 11th?) paper is a joke. He couldn't get a single pilot to back his claims.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Maybe that should tell you something?
Apart from the fact that this alleged FDR data from "Flight 77" is allegedly "missing seconds" (which nobody has explained as to why or how), there
are other considerations.
Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook
indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving
us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.
Why so many different stories as to when and where the alleged black box was found?
pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...
The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be
the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.
9/11 huh?
Craig Ranke is a fool, and attention whore......
Is there any need for that?
edit on 9-11-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: urls
edit on 9-11-2011 by ThePostExaminer because:
(no reason given)
