People who believe in a 757 impact, whether official story believers or 757 impact "conspiracy theorists", would have to logically and universally believe that the FDR is valid and that it was physically found inside the Pentagon.

The biggest problem with the official story is that a physically necessary descent angle runs counter to the physical damage, the official reports, and the dubious security video data controlled and supplied by the perpetrators.

The FDR has the plane at a -5.0 degree descent.

This is fatal to the official reports which have the massive 757 as coming in at a perfectly low and level approach as depicted in the security video:



With a thick smoke plume only visible in the March, 2002 "leaked" version that doesn't even cast a shadow and is not reported by a single witness.


So put that together with the fact that the generator damage is completely anomalous added with the Citgo witnesses and the case for military deception is closed.

But let's forget about government provided data such as the FDR for a moment and consider 3 dimensional reality.

The approach to the west side of the Pentagon via Arlington includes a complex topography with the Pentagon sitting at the bottom of a hill that descends quickly after the Navy Annex. The following images will illustrate this for you perfectly:







Real life pilots in a "3 dimensional world" do not suggest that a 757 could be easily maneuvered to a perfectly level position on it's approach to hit the necessary target in this scenario.

Does the truth movement understand how important that descent angle and all 3 dimensions of physical reality are when considering this point?

Do you now understand how the aeronautically necessary descent angle demonstrates the officially described low and perfectly level approach as invalid?

Doesn't anyone like discussing the evidence anymore around here?

Discuss the evidence?

What you keep saying is that they badly faked stuff all over the place.

Its quite slipperey to engage in a discussion with that as a pretext.

Badly faked generator.
Badly faked FDR.
Badly faked flightpath (impossible to fly the plane there)
Badly faked flightpath (flyover plane supposedly didnt even fly according to damage angle)
Badly faked wing, engine and stabilizer damage.
Badly faked lightpole damage X5
Badly faked witnesses account.
Badly faked taxi cab.
Badly faked media reports.
Badly faked complicit C130 flight.
Badly faked damage inside the Pentagon.
Badly faked video footage.
Badly faked sprinkiling of debris.

racerX, i think you missed a couple 'badly fakeds'

Oh I'm sure of that.

Why are you refusing to directly comment on the evidence presented in the OP? Do you not understand how descent angle would be physically required in the real world with the Pentagon at the bottom of a hill? Do you not understand that there is a descent angle reported in the FDR?

9/11 was a complex operation and yes there were lots of mistakes. This is why the truth movement exists. So in essence if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job you too are asserting that the attack was "faked". Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

p.s. CIT does not believe that the C-130 pilot is complicit because he did not ever claim to see the plane hit the building and did not ever claim to "shadow" the jet as was reported by a very few dubious and clearly fabricated stories to cover for the flyover.

Please stop asking if I understand stuff or not when you reply to a post that implies I do.
Thats very annoying.

Why dont you trace a line on your picture where you think the FDR places the plane and we'll go from there.
In the current form you are basically saying in typical vague disinfo way that they picked a spot where its impossible to fly the plane so back it up... :rolleyes:

Actually your post shows that you do not understand what I am talking about. Drawing a line on a picture is 2 dimensional and has nothing to do with the necessary descent angle which is clearly 3 dimensional physical reality. And why do you always point blank refuse to answer my question? Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job? It's a fair question to ask because the discussion changes radically if you do not. So do you?

The short answer is yes for the first question but my definition is probably very different than yours.

For example I would never imagine in a billion years that the same secret service agents that are responsible for Dubya personnal security would also be considered and used as a lightpole planting devices, or even just covering it up. Something like that, which you have said, sounds utterly grotesque to me.

BTW, you NEVER answered any of my questions honestly so cry me a river.

I try to answer all questions so if I missed one please let me know. I am not aware of any that were missed.

Nobody asserted that Secret Service agents actually planted the poles. The point is the area would be secure and controlled enough to pull it off. Since you believe 9/11 was an inside job you must understand that Bush is aware of this correct? How is it so hard to believe that evidence would be planted in such a secure and controlled environment?

Also; since you believe 9/11 was an inside job you are asserting that the official story is "faked". Now that we have established this, in addition to addressing the OP directly, can you also please point out specific evidence presented that you believe to be faked and whether or not you think it was badly faked or faked well? I am quite curious.

For instance; do you believe the Osama confession video is real? If not do you think it was badly faked or faked well? Any other examples of what you believe was "faked" would be appreciated. Thanks.

I wouldnt start to state what Bush is aware of on any topic. I really have no idea.

You are slowly but surely making this about me and my beliefs, which means you're a real replacement for CIT, PFT, Terrorcell and co.

I'm not surprised.

Lets go back to your initial topic. Can you find a way to illustrate how the flightpath is impossible?

Use your pics and google earth if you need a 3rd dimension. (and by god you sure do.)

Yes.. that was a question.

Interesting. You believe the official story was faked but are unwilling to point out one thing that you agree was faked. You are the one who came into this thread trying to make it seem absurd that evidence was "faked" even though you believe the entire official story is faked. I simply find that to be quite contradictory behavior and would really like to know what specific evidence you are willing to concede was deliberately faked. Perhaps I'll start a thread about it and you can participate.

At any rate the OP provides you with multiple images as well as a very detailed animation using google earth in 3D. I don't understand why you are asking for more.

The Pentagon sits at the bottom of a rather significant hill. That means the massive 757 jet airliner would have to make a radical descent at 535 mph in about 2 seconds before it reaches the building. There is no time for it to completely level out. Large jets do not maneuver this way. This is supported by the government supplied FDR. But strangely enough the security video and physical damage does not reflect this. Do you have an explanation or do you concede that this is quite odd and indicative that their story does not add up?

Since you have not replied perhaps you think I didn't answer your question directly so I'll go ahead and do that. My claim is not that the "flight path is impossible". Certainly it would be hypothetically "possible" for a 757 to hit the building. But the topography requires a descent angle just like the FDR reports particularly at the speed the FDR indicates. This is the physical reality of this situation. The fact that the security video and the physical damage are irreconcilable with this physical reality is very strong evidence that there was a deception involved here and that things did not physically happen as reported. This notion shouldn't be a very far stretch to accept for someone like you who believes the official story is fake. So do you concede that this throws the security video and the physical damage into serious question?

How about you Russell?

I think painter has a point that needs to be looked at a little more. If you go back and look at the photos of the VDOT pole, and the tree, and then think about when you see the white smoke plume in the video, the plane did have to get down very low very fast then level out in a short distance.

The plane is over 150ft long and the distance from the tree to across the street to be in frame of the video is less than twice the length of the plane.

So how did the plane get over the tree yet low enough and level out to be level (as the smoke looks) in the video at over 500 MPH?

That's a good point fretwire. I'd have to say that this 3 dimensional demonstration of the FDR in comparison to the security video is one of the most alarming contradictions I have witnessed in regards to the 9/11 attacks yet. And that says a lot because there sure are many! The fact that government would completely control yet still release 2 pieces of hard data that are so completely irreconcilable is truly perplexing. Based on this alone there is quite a strong case for deliberate deception.

There is not enough room for the 150' long aircraft to come down the steep slope at 400+knots and level off quickly enough to appear on the security videos already flying a parallel path with the ground just a few feet off the ground. It is flatout impossible, unless the videos are fakes. But if the videos are fakes from your offical flight path standpoint, why would they have to fake the videos? Can't you people see these facts or are you all just being stubborn and in a pathetic state of denial? :D

As I said in the thread I just made here I was surprised to see how Russell Pickering was so heavily quoted in David Ray Griffin's latest book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". It was quite impressive indeed to see that and remember how he is a frequent poster in this forum. The quote is quite relevant for this thread as well so I will repost it here:

Russell,

I'm curious, did you make that quote based on your own observations or you were already aware about how the FDR contradicts the security camera and depicts a necessary descent angle just as you described?





Either way it's an excellent quote. Kudos to you and DRG!

I am still very impressed at the significance of this evidence. Don't others here find this as important as I do?

Certainly. At the alleged official 530 mph (1 mile every 7 seconds or 754 feet per second) Flight 77 speed of impact, it would be very risky to attempt to dip down below that angled flight path trajectory you have shown with a precise fingertip movement to the controls, in order to flatten out at the bottom in order to match the parallel to the ground flight paths shown in the security videos. But aside from the FDR, the aircraft still had to come down that 104 foot hillside at 530 mph (1 mile every 7 seconds or 754 feet per second) and attempt the same tricky manuever at the bottom. With a 150 foot aircraft length, it is not possible to match the security videos. B)

You make a very good point here indeed. Never thought about it that way. Mix that with the contradictory FDR data and, well, it doesn't add up. So the flyover could still be real. But why would it not show on the security cam footage? Maybe it was above or they removed it from the frames...

A 757 is perfectly capable of making that kind of decent at that angle and that speed. Not for a long period of time of course due to the speed but it can be done and obviously it was done. Ive been flying the 757 for almost a year now and the plane can do amazing things. It is by far the most maneuverable airliner. It is the Ferrari of planes. The terrorist put the plane in that configuration knowing he had only one chance. Once it was in that angle at that speed that was it. I posted this video in another thread but you can get the idea of the capability of the 757.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s

I think you missed the point. Nobody is denying that a 757 s capable of making that kind of a descent at that angle. In fact the topography requires it and the FDR reports it. Unfortunately for the official story the physical damage and the security camera requires the plane to have ZERO descent angle.





This is what we are saying is impossible due to the steep descent after the Navy Annex.

See:

"The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan. Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html

Quote:

"if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH."

I do not think that this video makes demonstration that Nila Sagadevan makes a mistake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s

Yes it could be flown at 400 mph that low. Controlled on the other hand might have been difficult. The plane was used a missile. It was lined up and powered into the Pentagon. There was no need to control it once it was put into that configuration and angle. You cannot base anything with that video of the actual impact. Its far to grainy. It's recorded in seconds and was not continuous therefore we are missing over 2 seconds of footage. One thing that is visible it the tail of the aircraft. Also it is not impossible to fly a 757 without proper training. Landings and takeoffs may be a challenge, however these people did neither.

You still don't get it. The aircraft or whatever it is in the security videos is flying parallel to the ground; no descent angle to be seen at all. In reality the 150' long alleged Flight 77 had to come down the hill into the depression the Pentagon sits in at a descent angle first and there was no room left in its flight path to assume the parallel to the ground flight path shown in the security videos. The official speed into the Pentagon wall is 530 mph; not 400 mph. :D

Quote:

"The official speed into the Pentagon wall is 530 mph; not 400 mph. :D

Indeed and the Boeing 757 was at a distance from the ground of only a few feet, if one must believe the official version.

See:

Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe...160907Pilot.htm

" Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory...

RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

But there will be always people to claim the opposite.

The descent angle necessary to be flown from the official Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder.
Look how high above the roof of the Pentagon the aircraft is. The elevation of the aircraft is 180 feet plus the local pressure discrepency of 300 feet.
At 480 foot elevation, the aircraft is 403 feet above the Pentagon roof. The height of the roof is about 77 feet. NTSB AA77 Animation 9/11 Pentagon

You cannot base evidence from that security video. It is incomplete. Like I said its grainy and only recorded once a second. To gain that kind of speed in a 757 at low altitude the airplane would have to be in a dive. There is no question about that. The angle of the dive cant be determined from that video. It looks level but that is the final second your seeing before impact. If only the that camera was continuous we might see a better angle in which the plane was traveling. I can look at that video and think it was hitting from an angle judging by the silhouette of the tail.

There's certainly no way to tell angle when you're not even looking at the plane. Here's the Pilots "level" argument with some notes by me:

I'm in the white plane/gray smoke school. Comparing both frames, separated by what I figure is about .1-.2 seconds, it seems a slight descent angle is possible. As I measure it, about -3 degrees would account for the pole damage and effectively level appearance of the white blur Rob, like so many others, can't even see.

Painter, or anyone: How thoroughly debunked is the notion that the data recorded for 9:37:44 and 45 is actually showing what the plane was doing a second or three earlier? I've heard this around and it's intriguing for two reasons -

A) It's true the recorded pitch and bank angles are inconsistent with the physical evidence
B) Unlike some, I would like to see this all make sense.

Possible? It's quite clear the object and the smoke plume in the video is level. You do not change this fact by simply by stating that it's "possible" for it to not be level.

It is level and it does not cast a shadow:



The strange thick squiggly smoke trail that appears in only one frame and in only the view from the 2002 leaked version of this video is quite clear, quite thick, and quite level. But instead of dissipating like the rest of the smoke trail it magically disappears in the next frame.

It doesn't matter what you would "like". It doesn't make sense and you just admitted it.

Oh and don't forget....the point of this thread is not just that the "recorded pitch and bank angles are inconsistent with the physical evidence."
It's that the topography aeronautically requires a descent angle due to the significant descent after the Navy Annex.

A 757 at over 500 mph would not have time to level out.

Lyte/Aldo

The plane wasn't able to "level out" but was able to perform a "flyover?"

How do you reconcile that?

You are comparing two different aircraft flight paths. The official South of the Citgo aircraft has to match the security videos just inches off the ground and parallel to the ground in order to impact the 1st floor between the cable spools and 2nd story floor slab. Not possible. The North of the Citgo aircraft isn't in the security videos and needs to only fly just below the 77 foot off the ground height of the roof to level out and then pull-up in order to complete a flyover. Just like the 1st video below. Easily possible. :D

What the North of Citgo flight path, pullup, and likely - --South Of Citgo flight path 757 had to be
flyover probably looked like from the vantage point - - - parallel to and just inches off the ground. :rolleyes:
of the Citgo Station witnesses. B)

Okay, so it does look effectively level. 3 degrees is clearly too much to ask for here. BUT... this is all about 600 feet away from the camera and only 300 feet from the building and it's at the edhe of a fisheye lens field of view, so there's much distortion and it's possible it's not perfectlly level. But close enough. Agreed, I'll call it level.

Am I the only one that sees darkened pixels benath this thing? Remember it's a ways away and close to the ground. And at the edge of the lens. I'm almost surprised this much shadow actually came through.

Another sign of fakery? Oddly of course, this disappearing smoke is the same color as the nosecone from the 2006 video, which also is there only one frame! And both are followed by gray smoke lingering (again, level) for several frames.

IF these are all the factors at work, which brings me to the question of data timing. Some have said it's possible the data recorded for the last second had actually been from an earlier moment but written to the FDR late. This way, the final bank and leveling out would have been in the buffer awiting recordind at impact. I apologize if that was already covered here, and I'm sure someone has links or answers for that.

Yes, the hill requires a descent angle. But airplanes work on large scales by which the drop down that hill is a drop in the bucket.

by the FDR, the plane was at a pitch of about minus five degrees here (zero being level). This is too steep to account for all pole damage AND impact AND level on cam appearance.

But it gets more complex IF the data here is seconds older. Shift these points further back up the hill and it leaves more time to level out.

How big is that if?

And either way, that puny slope would have little to do with it.

[ed to remove too-big graphic with an error]

Hi Painter:

Congratulations for providing us with the excellent 911Truth Opening Post presentation. I believe my recent PentaCon investigations might shed some light on your findings. Please allow me to give comment on your statements:

Please forgive, but many new readers have no clue about what FDR means. Painter is talking about the Flight Data Recorder ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flightdata.html ) evidence contained in the ‘black boxes’ that are actually orange. :0) This data includes the pitch angles and altitude numbers required to make the excellent OP video.

We disagree. The biggest problem with Official Cover Story is the verifiable E-Ring Wall Damage does not even begin to tell any story of a 100-Ton Jetliner crashing anywhere.



Even if you disagree with my time stamp from the Sundial Data ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=15882 ) Engine 331 (not mentioned once in the Arlington County After Action Report ( http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Fire...fter_report.pdf ) is seen spraying a wide-angle mist against the E-Ring wall where “100-Ton Jetliner” theorists claim their Jetliner made impact. We do NOT see any 125-feet wide gapping gash ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter...tcnorthhole.jpg ) clearly displayed just minutes earlier at the North Tower. The descent angle contradiction seems very small in light of the actual E-Ring wall damage, which clearly debunks the Official Cover Story.

Thank you for introducing the famous Pentagon security camera evidence in your OP presentation. In other words, Painter is saying the Jetliner had to make a nosedive descent to fly above many obstacles on the Official Flight Path AND alter course to be seen perfectly horizontal by these two security cameras. Pilots know that 100-Ton Boeing PIGS require ‘time’ for altering these descent angles. While you can change course in a dingy very quickly, an ocean liner requires a lot more time to alter even one degree from the current course. A five degree change in descent angle on the Official Fight Path is very much IMPOSSIBLE and every pilot knows it. However, the object to actually strike the Pentagon was capable of making these very tight transitions in course, because the E-Ring wall was struck by one of these at 9:32 AM:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html#_SLCM



Your video failed to show this missile approached from the north to take this flight path:



Analysis by Steve Koeppel Palm Springs, CA ( http://web.archive.org/web/20021214150709/...es-analysis.htm ). I am very interested in seeing the pilot’s analysis of just how a 100-ton Boeing Pig descends from 7000 feet in 150 seconds on this circular flight path to strike the only Wedge with a newly installed sprinkler system just 5 feet off the ground. :0) Your flight data evidence should show a very steep descent angle for this inconceivable flight path and remember this was done by a Bearded Jihadist Radical never to even sit behind the wheel of a 757-200 Jetliner. Let’s take a look at the Pentagon security camera data:



Everyone can see the flying object is approaching the Pentagon on a level plane just five feet off the ground. Your video accurately identified the flying object as making the final approach ‘level,’ but your data does not focus on the 911Truth that this security camera is also held ‘level’ on the same 5 feet elevation plane. This part of my explanation requires you to take off the pilot’s hat and put on your construction foreman ( my specialty = http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php = search ‘Terral’) hardhat and imagine you are looking through a building transit level ( http://www.bobvila.com/HowTo_Library/The_T...vel--A2060.html ). Every builder's transit level has a ‘crosshair’ ( http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/...arCrosshair.jpg ) with horizontal X-axis and vertical Y-axis coordinates. The Frame1 picture above shows the Horizontal X-Axis Plane intersecting the Y-Axis Plane exactly at the top corner of the right-hand column where the ‘nose’ of our flying object is entering the frame. This means our flying object’s nose is just 5 feet off the ground AND (looking at the blowup on the right) the Diameter is Smaller Than the Clearance underneath. :0) This object (missile) cannot possibly be larger than just under 2 feet, which just happens to the be the diameter of our Tomahawk Missile that ‘can’ make these quick course and altitude adjustments in the blink of an eye.

Your Official 60 degrees approach angle needs work, because the real approach angle is nearer to 45 degrees IMHO.



Move your approach angle over to match a line directly down the center of your five ‘breakaway’ light poles. The Tomahawk Missile was pushing a large ‘bow shockwave’ that only need extend 25 feet to impact the poles with equal force of a VW Rabbit at very low speeds. The missile was photographed by the security cameras going perfectly level, because that is a very easy maneuver for a 3000 pound state-of-the-art missile that detonated just inside the E-Ring wall.



Note very carefully that the fencing material is thrown back in our direction and is covering the hood of the white Nissan from the original 9:32 AM missile strike. We have nowhere near the damage required from a real 100-Ton Boeing Pig that should have taken out windows all the way to the fourth floor. The evidence shows only 2 windows missing from the second floor and none broke on the third floor. :0) The second story inner masonry wall is bulging back in our direction from the missile detonation on the ‘inside.’ However, note that all the columns from Column Line (CL) 9 to CL 12 are missing, but we have no signs of the 21-inch square concrete column debris present anywhere. Why? The reason is that the Pentagon was struck for a ‘second time’ at 9:37 AM by a radio-controlled twin-engine jet ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=16120 ) in a second failed attempt to take the E-Ring roof down. :0) Note the white blotches by my “59-Feet From Center Line Of Column Line 14” notation. This picture has been photoshopped to remove evidence of the ‘plane’ part of this ‘second’ 9:37 attack that almost killed members of Engine 161 already on the scene:

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Fire...fter_report.pdf

If Engine 161 from Station 61 ( http://www.fmfd161.com/ ) was already on the scene for the real 9:37 AM ‘plane’ attack, then what brought them to the Pentagon in the first place? This plane carried the 'decoy' transponder and FDR simulating a Flight 77 return to Pentagon airspace. Engine 161 was in the area at a car accident ( http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa.html = "ARFF [Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting] Crew") and arrived on the scene just three minutes later (9:35 AM), just in time to almost be killed by the ‘second’ attack on the North of Citgo Flight Path. Our witnesses never saw the missile attack, because the approach was much too fast and the exterior E-Ring wall damage was not that severe. Examine your security images ( http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/e.../dodvideos.html ) very carefully "frame by frame" down this page to realize the 'first attack' had very little E-Ring damage and no fire at all. However, many people did see the second plane attack, because the approach was much slower and the fire spread over a 250 feet area ( http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/2.jpg ) along the E-Ring wall. THAT is where your construction trailer was damaged by the same flying debris that almost killed members from Station 61. :0)

Your testimony here requires some tweaking. Look at my Frame1 picture again ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter.../a1-Frame1a.jpg ) to realize the shadow should not be in the frame at all. The dark shadow under the missile is from the 4-inch slab having nothing to do with the flying object. Draw a similar angle from the nose of the missile backwards to your right at the same angle you see from the shadow of the Pentagon wall in that location. A quick look at my Pentagon Sundial ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter...agonSundial.jpg ) shows we are just 30 minutes beyond the “45 Degree Angle” AM period, so draw a 45 degree angle line from the nose of the missile in the same direction to realize your shadow is not supposed to be in the frame. :0)

Everything about this Pentagon case says the government has been lying about everything. Look at their evidence for a 100-Ton Jetliner crashing in Shanksville ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg ) and all we see is an empty hole. These government pinheads think we are stupid . . .

I looked at all the pictures, but we should be looking at pictures showing E-Ring damage assessments. Surely you realize that a 100-ton Jetliner going 533 miles per hour is going to create more damage than a tiny 18-feet diameter entry hole. :0)

Why not just come out and say nobody on earth could maneuver a Boeing Jetliner PIG, according to the Official Cover Story? :0) I am no pilot, but can determine that a 100-Ton mass going 533 miles per hour cannot possibly change direction in the one second required to justify the Official Cover Story nonsense.

Again, I believe the descent angle argument is overshadowed greatly by the evidence from the actual pictures showing NO WAY any 100-ton PIG struck the Pentagon.



Where would the 100-Ton PLANE people like to say their Jetliner struck this wall? A picture is worth a thousand words and this picture is shouting that “NO 100-TON Jetliner crashed here.” :0)

Absolutely! Anyone who has traveled on a real 757-200 Jetliner ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/boeing2.jpg ) knows we trek up many stairs to board the PLANE. The real damage to the Pentagon wall simply is not high enough to be from any Jumbo Jet. Period! Has anyone here seen one picture of Flight 93 or Flight 77 crashed anywhere? No, and you can take that to the bank, because none exist. :0) Senor Bushie and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Larry Silverstein and Rudy Giuliani and their whole 9/11 Inside Job gang think 911Truthers are a bunch of idiots and that they will get away with murdering innocent Americans. While some of We The People were fooled, an ever increasing number of 911Truthers are waking up to realize 9/11 Was Definitely An Inside Job and the 911Truth Train is going to run them all down like dogs. :0)

Terral

I'm curious as to why you think they put the FDR on a missile yet had the data show something completely different from where you say the missile flew.

According to the NTSB the FDR shows a quite different flight path that never flew over DC or east of the Potomac at all.



Please explain.

You have not backed up a single claim you have made with a source or revealed your credentials to make such claims. The descent would be "puny" if the distance wasn't also so "puny" and the speed so fast.

We are not talking about a hypothetical situation here. Hani Hanjour had about 2 seconds to complete the maneuver with military precision and not hit any obstacles. Even if it were "possible" for him to pull it off it is highly unlikely. And of course the fact that the FDR shows something different will always come back to haunt you (and the perpetrators).

Hi Mr. Science:

Please forgive, because my statements above are inaccurate. The Attack Path Diagram ( http://www.pentagonresearch.com/017.html ) was taken from the Pentagonresearch.com website ( http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html ) and this represents the 9:32 AM ‘missile’ flight path. The decoy transponder and FDR were carried by the 9:37 AM radio-controlled twin-engine jet.

Analysis by Steve Koeppel Palm Springs, CA >> http://web.archive.org/web/20021214150709/...es-analysis.htm

Thank you for pointing out my error. I will go back and edit my original comments.

Terral

Mr. Science: Okay, it's not perfect but this is how I decided that - vert measurements im feet above sea level

That's about my credentials. The timeline is a bit rough, and if it were lower, theoretically, the hill would be more important. Final angle is roughly the same as the hill's slope, interestingly. Of course the scale here is way off, but the plane drops about 800 feet in the last ten seconds (via csv pressure alt), and the terrain drops about 150 feet in the same distance. Ignore rad alt here - I didn't do it right.

And no one can answer the time lag question? That has the potential to throw this all back and yet no rebuttals?

Terral: If you're curious how Koeppel the expert decided on this flight path, check here:
old 270 loop explained. Otherwise, ignore.