Flight 77 - Official flight path

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Flight 77 - Official flight path
Topic Started: Jan 19 2008, 11:05 PM (744 Views)
bileduct	Jan 19 2008, 11:05 PM Post #1
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Could someone please direct me to an official source with an explanation of Flight 77's flight path into the Pentagon? I'm looking specifically for something with a diagram or details of the light poles that were hit and their exact placements, corroborating the "South of Citgo" angle of approach. Remember, official sources only please.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


terrorcell	Jan 19 2008, 11:23 PM Post #2
Not to be confused with Domenick from CIT Posts: 4 Group: BANNED! Member #36 Joined: 01/15/08	bileduct Jan 19 2008, 11:05 PM Could someone please direct me to an official source with an explanation of Flight 77's flight path into the Pentagon? I'm looking specifically for something with a diagram or details of the light poles that were hit and their exact placements, corroborating the "South of Citgo" angle of approach. Remember, official sources only please. I don't think this is "official" but I believe it pretty much represents what NIST concluded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8



Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 19 2008, 11:43 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	terrorcell Jan 19 2008, 11:23 PM I don't think this is "official" but I believe it pretty much represents what NIST concluded. NIST has not released anything on the Pentagon and the animation you made is not only NOT official but it is also ignores the official data such as the FDR as well as the topography of the area, speed of the plane, or any scientific values that would be required. A more accurate representation that actually considers these critical values see here: American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 19 2008, 11:45 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Jan 19 2008, 11:05 PM Could someone please direct me to an official source with an explanation of Flight 77's flight path into the Pentagon? I'm looking specifically for something with a diagram or details of the light poles that were hit and their exact placements, corroborating the "South of Citgo" angle of approach. There is nothing official whatsoever that documents the light poles. Much like how the 9/11 commission ignored building 7, the light poles are not officially documented in any report.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Jan 20 2008, 12:42 AM Post #5
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 19 2008, 11:45 PM bileduct Jan 19 2008, 11:05 PM Could someone please direct me to an official source with an explanation of Flight 77's flight path into the Pentagon? I'm looking specifically for something with a diagram or details of the light poles that were hit and their exact placements, corroborating the "South of Citgo" angle of approach. There is nothing official whatsoever that documents the light poles. Could you please explain this exchange that appears at 6:58 into the video Highlights of testimony from eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks, available at the PentaCon website. William: "None of these light poles over here were knocked down, [ Circles at "South of Citgo" angle of approach ] they were here. [ Circles "North of Citgo angle of approach ] None of these were knocked down, [ Circles at "South of Citgo" angle of approach ], they were here. [ Circles "North of Citgo angle of approach ]" Interviewer: "Official story says they were." William: "What official story? The only official story would have been the Arlington County Police report done after the event. There's no official story other than that." [ Graphic of The Pentagon Building Performance Report superimposed over William - This report says absolutely nothing about lightpoles and a "South of Citgo" angle of approach, and instead focuses solely on the damage sustained by the Pentagon ] William: That's the after action report that was written by Arlington County, the Fire Department and Police Agencies that responded, along with the United States Pentagon Police - at the time the Defence Protective Service. Interviewer: Mm-hmmm. William: That's the official story, anything else isn't official. It did not come on this way... I've never seen anything that says it was on the south side of that gas station, ever. Interviewer: Ok. William: Ever. Interviewer: Ok. William: That's the only, you know... I'm trying to maintain an (unintelligable) here. But these were the lightpoles, this is where the taxi cab was. Right here. [ Circles "North of Citgo angle of approach ] Not over here. [ Circles at "South of Citgo" angle of approach ]Nothing happened here. Period. Interviewer: Ok. William: I can't be any clearer about it. Please explain who exactly is promoting the "South of Citgo" approach that is the basis of your debunking of the official theory. Please explain the comment "the official story says they were" when you have now stated "There is nothing official whatsoever that documents the light poles." Please explain why the Pentagon Building Performance Report is shown when this report says absolutely nothing about the lightpoles. Edited by bileduct, Jan 20 2008, 12:45 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Deleted User	Jan 20 2008, 05:31 AM Post #6
Deleted User	bileduct Jan 20 2008, 12:42 AM Please explain why the Pentagon Building Performance Report is shown when this report says absolutely nothing about the lightpoles. Good catch. Well it don't mention poles, but the trajectory and altitude outlined therein do mandate pole clippage on the way... Also Lagasse's 'only official source' fails to mention the poles I believe and in fact shows an approach south of the Citgo and along the light pole path. I guess Lagasse never read that... The animation mentioned above is neither official nor shows anything really relevant about the general flight path. Regarding your OP The NTSB animation is essentially accurate except the rotated final map that - coincidentally - puts it north of the Citgo. video - full flight Also NTSB: Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation PDF link Flight Path study pdf link If you'd like any help reading these drop me a PM and I'll share what I know or help tip you where to find more info. Peace.
Deleted User


bileduct	Jan 20 2008, 08:47 AM Post #7
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: Well it don't mention poles, but the trajectory and altitude outlined therein do mandate pole clippage on the way... This is not in dispute. At 5:55 in the video Highlights of testimony from eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks, the interviewer asserts that light poles underneath the south side approach were knocked over by Flight 77. Furthermore, at 7:05 the interviewer claims that the "official story" makes this assertion. When William refutes these claims a brief shot of the Pentagon Building Performance Report is shown in an attempt to support the assertion made by the interviewer that the "official story" (with the implication being that the Pentagon Building Performance Report is the official story) states that light poles had been knocked down underneath the south side approach flight path. William adamently states that the interviewer has placed the light poles and taxi in the wrong location, and that they were further to the north in line with the north side approach. The Pentagon Building Performance Report very briefly mentions light poles as anecdotal evidence on page 13, which is again referred to in a summary on page 18. At no point in the Pentagon Building Peformance Report is the placement of the light poles described in any exact detail, including the locations of the light poles that were struck. Yet the image of the report is used to imply otherwise. Why? Furthermore, the Pentagon Building Performance Report describes Flight 77, on page 12, as having a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon. Pull out your protractors, because guess what... The "official story" (or at least the Pentagon Building Performance Report) puts the path of Flight 77 right over the Citgo gas station which co-incedentally fits the testimony of Robert Turcios, Edward Paik, and the dozens of witnesses that reported seeing Flight 77 appear over the Navy Annex. My original post was an attempt to determine where the evidence detailing the exact location of the light poles had been obtained from. I have now been told, by members of CIT, that despite the interviewers claim in the video mentioned above there is no "official story" on the location of the light poles. Huh. This is fairly critical to the argument, especially when the "flyover theory" exists purely based on the assumption that Flight 77 could not have caused the damage purported in the south side approach when there are eyewitnesses that place Flight 77 either over or to the north of the Citgo station, wouldn't you agree? So back to my original post - Who exactly is suggesting that light poles were knocked down in a manner consistent with a south side approach? Quote: Also Lagasse's 'only official source' fails to mention the poles I believe and in fact shows an approach south of the Citgo and along the light pole path. I guess Lagasse never read that... The Arlington County after action report makes no such claim. Did you read it? Edited by bileduct, Jan 20 2008, 10:12 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Deleted User	Jan 21 2008, 05:31 AM Post #8
Deleted User	bileduct Jan 20 2008, 08:47 AM Quote: Well it don't mention poles, but the trajectory and altitude outlined therein do mandate pole clippage on the way... This is not in dispute. At 5:55 in the video Highlights of testimony from eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks, the interviewer asserts that light poles underneath the south side approach were knocked over by Flight 77. Furthermore, at 7:05 the interviewer claims that the "official story" makes this assertion. When William refutes these claims a brief shot of the Pentagon Building Performance Report is shown in an attempt to support the assertion made by the interviewer that the "official story" (with the implication being that the Pentagon Building Performance Report is the official story) states that light poles had been knocked down underneath the south side approach flight path. William adamently states that the interviewer has placed the light poles and taxi in the wrong location, and that they were further to the north in line with the north side approach. The Pentagon Building Performance Report very briefly mentions light poles as anecdotal evidence on page 13, which is again referred to in a summary on page 18. At no point in the Pentagon Building Peformance Report is the placement of the light poles described in any exact detail, including the locations of the light poles that were struck. Yet the image of the report is used to imply otherwise. Why? Furthermore, the Pentagon Building Performance Report describes Flight 77, on page 12, as having a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon. Pull out your protractors, because guess what... The "official story" (or at least the Pentagon Building Performance Report) puts the path of Flight 77 right over the Citgo gas station which co-incedentally fits the testimony of Robert Turcios, Edward Paik, and the dozens of witnesses that reported seeing Flight 77 appear over the Navy Annex. My original post was an attempt to determine where the evidence detailing the exact location of the light poles had been obtained from. I have now been told, by members of CIT, that despite the interviewers claim in the video mentioned above there is no "official story" on the location of the light poles. Huh. This is fairly critical to the argument, especially when the "flyover theory" exists purely based on the assumption that Flight 77 could not have caused the damage purported in the south side approach when there are eyewitnesses that place Flight 77 either over or to the north of the Citgo station, wouldn't you agree? So back to my original post - Who exactly is suggesting that light poles were knocked down in a manner consistent with a south side approach? Quote: Also Lagasse's 'only official source' fails to mention the poles I believe and in fact shows an approach south of the Citgo and along the light pole path. I guess Lagasse never read that... The Arlington County after action report makes no such claim. Did you read it? Ooops... First, you need to locate the right impact point, then a 70 degree line traced on a north-oriented map will be just about over the Citgo, this is true. HOWEVER you need to know 70 magnetic is not 70 degrees from north on a map. It's 70 degrees from MAGNETIC north and as I found the hard way (erring on my FDR analysis by not knowing this) I have determined the difference at that time and locale to be -10.08 degrees. This must be subtracted from mag heading to get map headings. The resultant heading of app 60 degrees REAL looks like this: Seminal image around for years, by Coop Research I think based on Ron Harvey, or something... The Citgo is not in this, but you can do quick comps and see this cannot also place it north of the Citgo. Confirm these points however you like (PBPR is the source for column damage) and you're at level 2. As for the ACAAR, I have not read it front to back and never will. But it does offer this graphic: Take your protractor to that and see if it's not about 60 degrees real, or 70 magnetic and then you're confirmed at level 2 unless you decline the honor. .
Deleted User


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · American Flight 77 · Next Topic »