New American 77 Flight Path video from Pilots for 911 Truth
Reprehensor Sat, 10/21/2006 - 12:25pm
This animation supplied by NTSB via a FOIA request, does not match the "official" flight path, according to johndoeX and others at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. According to this animation, apparently derived from Flight 77's FDR, Flight 77 did not hit the light poles.
Why?
- Login to post comments
Why? Because there is the truth and there is the lie.
The "official" flight path is no more "official" than the "official" reports from the 9/11 Commission and NIST.
Now is the time for the real 9/11 investigation, this time one with teeth. Its job will be to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those reponsible for this heinous atroctiy of mass murder.
Justice waits.
{And there is no Statute of Limitation on murder.}
Thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth!
Nice to see you in here,
Nice to see you in here, QntD...
Pilots: how did Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from...
Kentucky, evade the entire U.S. military, do acrobatics, fly through light poles, & hit the small renovated wedge of the Pentagon? That flunky was better than James Bond.
"Off topic"?
No, no..... please tell us how you know this to be so.
Please.... "a fake and a lier".....
Ignore which.... jdx, or you?
Why risk crashing through light poles when he could've...
just dove into the center of the Pentagon, and caused even more damage?
renovated wedge of pentagon
FYI: I have a family member who worked in that wedge. On leave that day. And nearly 2/3 of office. Friend should have been training 50 pfcs in conf room that morn. But trainer's husband told her to stay home, so training canceled. Luck?? Also, other friend worked helipad control. Had 'migraine', stayed home too. Coincidence???
ummm, this is huge right?
ummm, this is huge right? digg it!
Headline says "Fight Plan"...
Who stole the L ?
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Flight Path...
I think it should also say "path" instead of plan. The flight "plan" is simply a filling used to assist understanding of original intention... like "plan" to arrive in L.A., not Pentagon. Deviations from intended plan are used to initiate intercepts or crash searches. The path is what we are discussing. The FDR information released from the NTSB indicates something impossible to correlate with the popular narrative of hitting lamp poles, ends far too early, and reveals NO impacts or strikes against the airframe (such as lamp poles or building façades).
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
I think it could be shown
I think it could be shown that the result of a plane hitting a pole at 500 mph would not be the neatly knocked-over poles that we have seen.
Something else caused those poles to fall over. Another bit of planted evidence. But, for what?
The Real JDX!
Please be sure to visit the actual youtube page and get those ratings up!
Here is a link to our forums with the link to youtube.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=375
Also, be sure to sign up over at Pilots For Truth forums and check out our new look and new forum boards.
We have gone more "mainstream" 9/11.
For those calling me a fake and a liar, its obvious you cannot debate the facts. Many people know who i am on a personal level including my background and resume. Eventually.. you will too. You would be wise to check your facts prior to making absurd claims.
Cheers all!
Rob
"JDX"
"Back and to the left"...
LOL... Thanks to The Decider.
and JDX.
Yes, 5 poles no less! I would've expected major airliner damage!
!
Expected damage, and altered trajectory...
Slamming into the leading edge, or ripping under the cord (likely spraying highly ignitable, aerated fuel) WOULD have immediately caused a noticeable alteration in flight path (and registered in the FDR at the very first pole) sending the aircraft into SOME kind of measurable erratic behavior... even within the last hundred yards of its mass's general trajectory.
But no such thing is logged in the FDR released by the NTSB.... makes a thinking person wonder.
If someone thinks I'm incorrect about this... please comment: http://911blogger.com/node/3600
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Faster plane travels, more easily objects touched should neatly
be knocked over, I believe anyway. Slower the blane flies, the more the or a pole touched by the plane would tend to bend.
If correct, then it's related to impact, the amount or magnitude of it, along with how fast, instantaeous it occurs. The greater the speed of the plane, the greater and more instantaneous, or fast the impact occurs on the pole, and this then travels down to the bolts holding the pole in place. The greater the side-wise stress on those, the more easily they'll be broken, snapped, which'll make it all the easier for the pole to appear to neatly fall or get knocked over.
And you can probably rig yourself up an experimental test to verify this for yourself. You don't need an aeroplane for this.
There are probably examples from hurricanes of various velocities hitting trees; the lower the speed, the less a tree is likely to be uprooted and knocked over; the faster the wind, the more likely the tree'll be uprooted and knocked over; and with increasing speed, I suppose the few the branches that'll be broken or ripped off, before the tree itself becomes uprooted and knocked over.
You can still rig yourself an experiment like in your backyard, without needing an aeroplane or wind.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something in this, but believe to have the general idea or physics right.
Mike Corbeil
Quebec, Ca
Perps Can't Get Their Story Straight! ha ha!
This is a classic case of a confused alibi, poorly prepared. After all, we were supposed to have been under marshall law by now. These explanations offered as Official Documents/Data were never meant to be closely examined.
If criminals that can't keep the story straight among the conspirators, there will be consequences.
A longer animation at google
With some comments of a pilot who ask the most important question many time: Where is the intercept??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3221196662653785623
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=15
This makes you even think harder about what hit the pentagon.If the flight level is correct above the highway then there is no way for light poles to be hit down to the ground.Could the plane have levele up in the last second at the same time a missile struck the building making it quite difficult for anyone seing the plane passing over the pentagon before disapearing out of washington?
R.R4truth
Don't mean to spam...
...but please read this. Thanks.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3950
The only mainstream media
The only mainstream media entity I take half seriously is the BBC (my respect has dwindled these past years, but I suppose that they respect I have for them comes from the year I spent living in England and the amazingly eye-openning programs and news reporting I saw on British BBC). The BBC has quietly begun to address the issue of 911 (I've seen some broadcasts on youtube). Yes, it IS frustrating that they have not been forthcoming about 911 and it IS frustrating that they weren't forthcoming leading up to the Iraq invasion. But they remain in internationally respected organization. Anyway, the point of me saying this is to encourage everyone to go to bbc.co.uk Have Your Say and "have your say" about 911. If we can encourage the BBC to start reporting more on this, they may actually listen. There is no other news organization that is as globally revered as the BBC.
BBC, revered, internationally? You have to be American.
You are American, spent only one year in Britain, and you think that this makes you an authority on BBC?
Come again?
You're kidding, right?
You should be.
Mike Corbeil
Quebec, Canada
Tooooooooooooo EASY
If anybody really was concerned about light poles and the such -- go look are new ones there -- was a work order in plance ??? TO O STUPID to post: ))
Flight 77 went right over the freeway, yeah right?
Hope this link proves that a low flying jetliner "does" kick up a bit of turbulence.
This video was done in San Francisco by United Airlines. Really makes you wonder how all of those cars stayed on the road?
Regarding Jet Blast
The aircraft in the video is stationary with its engines blaring. Not to mention the vehicle it blew over was relatively lightweight.
As we all know, American Airlines Flight 77 was in motion, traveling over 350 miles per hour above various sized automobiles. Due to these factors, the airliner's jet blast wouldn't have created any significant damage.
Now quick, this is where you "truth seekers" spin it.
ummm, link?
I am familiar with videos of cars in jet wake. I am also familiar with the physical evidence at the Pentagon. (and also "what the TV says happened") Do you have any examples of large wake aircraft travelling at high speed near ground level?
If you wish to prove something we'll need more than your opinion.
As I see it (IMHO) the light poles, cars being present, and witnesses not being deafened (or even hearing much noise) are just more evidence to add to the huge pile of stuff that doesn't match the official alibi.
"Staged Demonstration"
b_smart,
please be smart, and read the subtitle: "Staged Demonstration". Staged. Staged!
You know what the "staged" portion of the demo consists of?
* The plane is not moving. Which means that the ejected jet stream is full speed relative to the ground (and the car).
* The car affected is relatively light-weight.
As soon as you have a moving plane (flying low above ground), it does not have the same effect from its ejected jet stream upon objects on the ground. Basic physics.
It's called "actio et reactio". And just take into account the relative speed of the plane and the ejected jet stream....
Whatever happened at the Pentagon with light poles, cars and other stuff -- this video is no proof that cars should have been blown off the road.
Don't use fake arguments, please.
Perhaps b_smart sent a bad video example
Notwithstanding, stagged really doesn't mean we should consider absolute simularity. I think b_smart might have found a better example. However, I am sure he was only trying to bring to question certain invisible forces at work. More discussion on this at:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506doesntfly.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm
I still feel that one of the sources is to listen to qualified pilots. Moreover, and totally aside from jet blasts and the like, how does a commercial jetliner "squawk" (on their transponder) a military code?
All of my reading seems to point out that unless you are US military, Pentagon defenses are automatic and ready to take you out. Not squawking is even more questionable since radar would still receive a Doppler image.
So, if you are in "P" airspace, not squawking US Military or you have the transponder off, shouldn't this illicit a response?
New American 77 Flight Path video from Pilots for 911 Truth
I find it iteresting that before 911, when a small aircraft even approached the no-flight air space near the Pentagon and other Washington buildigs, there were F14 fighters at the scene within a minute or two. These interceptor aircraft are always ready to be in the air in less than a minute.
Yet none to be found on 9/11. WHY??
Also the Pentagon has anti-aircraft missles ready for such an occasion. Some are perminately mounted on the roof and some are able to be fired by trained personal.
Yet none to be found on 9/11. WHY??
In the past when any commercial aircraft even looked like it was approaching the no-fly zones the anti-aircraft missl launchers locked onto the aircraft.
Yet not on 9/11. WHY??
Well, I would first say,
Well, I would first say, give an example or two of small planes violating these areas prior to 9/11. I said,
BEFORE 9/11. Secondly, on 9/11, the US was not on a war footing. There was no constant air coverage with armed fighter jets circling around Washington. I am sorry to say, in reality, there is no Batman that instantly comes swooping in from the clouds to save the day. Can you privide a pic of these aint-aircraft missles permanently mounted on the roof prior to 9/11? Can you please give a link to the trained personnel that can describe how these missiles locked on to any commercial aircraft that even looked like it was approaching, prior to 9/11? Lastly, please read up on how air traffic control works, and what it took for ATC to ask for military assistance, and how long the response took, prior to 9/11.
instead of holding your
instead of holding your hand, you can actually find most of that information yourself. you will find that the official story of 9/11, after close scrutiny and a critical look, is laughable and not possible. please wake up, its not too late. (ps, asking questions like, "can you provide this, and provide that, oh and also provide this" is an obvious shill tactic and gives you away. but then, so does using the handle Anonymous.)
Possiblities for flight 77
We are still following the movie script for 1991 film Executive Decision. Flight 77 was just a casualty of that decision of possibly the executive office to down the plane by one of two method. The second C-130 could have destroyed by air based laser (yes we have to have that technology by now) or two, fighter jets could have forced it out over the Atlantic and destroyed it there.
Go see the movie and learn that there are at least 7 exact comparisions of things the terrorist did from the movie, and seven improvement on this bad movie plot that worked. The plot itself was hatched by terrorist locked up in a supermax prison here in the United States who saw the movie back in 1996 -1998. Guess who their accomplises could have been.
You guessed right Timothy Mcvey and Ted Kachinski (The Uni-omber). To fing your proof find the Time article that looks at the beginnings of the terrorist study. Also ABC did a special on the fact that many terrorist were communicating with outside sources in Arabic that was not screened. Again these are only speculative and yet common knowledge items.