Reply #22: Look closer? You bet

[William Seger]

> However, if you look at the initial phases of flight (particularly the take off), it is lined up perfectly with the taxiways and runway as the aircraft taxi's out for take off.

Bullshit! That "runway" is just another graphic added to the animation! There's no logical reason to assume that if that runway graphic looks correct, then the satellite image at the Pentagon must be oriented correctly, particularly in the face of the fact that the image at the Pentagon is definitely wrong.

> Also, we have further evidence which confirms the flight path.. including witnesses, which will be put together in a report.

So, five years after the fact, you found a couple of (alleged) witnesses and used the animation to convince them that the plane must have passed north of the Citgo (BTW, what does Russel Pickering mean by "manipulated" witnesses?), then got them on tape saying, yup, that's exactly what they saw. On the basis of that and the clearly wrong orientation in an animation, you're going to claim that dozens of other witnesses were outright lying or just wrong about a plane that flew right over their head and knocked down the light posts. And of course, on the basis of this "logic," the knocked over light posts must have been faked, as was the path of damage inside the Pentagon, and the airplane parts must have been planted, and the real AA77 must have flown over the building and landed somewhere else, and all the witnesses who saw the damn thing happen are either confused or are accessories to murder. Is that your story? How much are you selling this "report" for?

> Tell our friends at DU that the flight path in terms of true <b>course</b> (not heading) is 061.5 degrees according to the Flight Data Recorder. Not 059.5. Also, please remind them that the professionals at the NTSB dont make mistakes in terms of magnetic variation...

Okay, for the moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that the true course was 061.5 (despite the fact that you haven't yet demonstrated any expertise at interpreting the FDR data, e.g. the altimeter data). It's not hard to put that course on my graphic, and to also show where the animation would appear to show the flight path if the graphic had simply been rotated the wrong way:



Okay, so what precisely is your claim about the true course? That 061.5 would be north of the Citgo?

> it looks like you are assuming both flight paths hit the same spot on the pentagon. I'm not sure how you can assume that considering the NTSB animation stops prior to impact.

Yes, I'm "assuming" that I know where the plane hit the building! I'm not assuming anything whatsoever about the image in the animation except that it's compass orientation is clearly incorrect. If it's orientation is that far off, why should I assume anything about exactly where the animated plane would hit the Pentagon?

> Also remember you have to account for wind (which is obvious you did not).. The NTSB did.

Did they? But the issue is still whether or not the path in the animation bears any resemblance to reality, isn't it. Okay, I've now taken into account your claim that the plane was pitched 2 degrees so the true course was 061.5, and that course still goes right over the bridge. What's your point?

> Your analysis is completely inaccurate.

Oh, I think it's more than accurate enough to figure out what's going on here, especially with you coming here to blow smoke instead of clearing up the matter. How much is your new "documentary" going to sell for? Will it be $9.95 like your first one, or do you figure this one is worth more with all this "explosive" new "evidence"?