NTSB Releases American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Path Study

NTSB Release August 22 2006 - 911myths.com

On the 2nd of July we submitted an FOIA request to the NTSB, asking for the document "Flight Path Study - American Airlines Flight 77", as cited in footnotes to the 9/11 Commission Report. The idea was to get a clearer idea of the final approach trajectory, and we were hopeful of success, as it seemed hard to imagine why this information could possibly be witheld any longer.

We weren’t alone, though, and a few days ago this same report (and plenty more) was released to the National Security Archive. If you’re interested in the details and haven’t grabbed their documents yet, then read those first.

It seemed our application was suddenly irrelevant, then. But maybe not. Soon afterwards a package turned up from the NTSB, and it did have more information than we’d expected.

Thanks JT for the heads up!

Document 4 show reported fuel amounts @ impact for 77 & 93

77 = 5,300 gal (36,200 lb)

93 = 5,500 gal (37,500 lb)


remote control of AA77 and AA93

do these documents indicate that either AA77 or AA93 were under remote control at any time from take-off to crash? If not, is there another variable which would indicate if they were under remote control at any time from take-off to crash, and how do we gain access to it?

Beacon Codes

Hey Killtown, have you got the beacon codes for the planes. I have them for United 175, but not for the other three. I'd be especially interested in United 93's beacon code if you come across it. Thanks.

I don't, sorry.

There is also on the FDR that mentions 93 crashed at a "40 deg" angle (which is BS), but I can't find it. If anybody knows where that's mentioned, please holler.

United 175

You can find the beacon codes for United 175 here on p. 4:

If you look at, say, page 20 of the Specialist's Factual Report for United 93, then you can see that the plane descended about 7,500 feet in the last minute. If it was travelling at, say, 7 miles a minute, then that puts the "summary" angle for the last minute under 40 degrees, although the final angle could be very different. How does the altitude from the FDR tally with the eyewitness accounts? Didn't they say the plane was flying low? Didn't some of them also say it crested a ridge or something? I don't see that on the NTSB's printouts.

EMP at WTC?(not an endorsement)

One of several highlights from a new, sure-to-be-controversial paper by Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood as posted to NoMoreGames.net August 23, 2006:
"The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground?

A: Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.
B: Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive.
C: Blistered car with unburned upholstery and unburned plastic window molding.
D: Front half of a car burned with an unburned rear half.
E: What burned and dragged these cars and mangled the left rear wheel?


Read more like a hit piece

Read more like a hit piece on Dr. Jones.

I've lost a lot of respect for Reynolds.

FIG.2 for Flt 93

Can't say if this means anything, especially coming four years late and posted at "myths".com.... Thus the following point is to be considered highly suspect, as is the material referred to because it jumps off the page. Is it meant to?

FIG.2 for Flt 93, portends a selected altitude at 10K vs. a pressure altitude of 35 and 40K. If the cabin pressure is being selected to maintain AS IF at 10K, when in fact the aircraft is at 35 to 40K altitude... Seems that people are going to be awful short on oxygen to be yammering on the phone, let alone rushing the cockpit.

This stinks no matter how I look at it. ESPECIALLY coming from "myths".

"Red Herring", or genuine clue? Tough to say, coming from this government.... too bad they can't be trusted.

This needs an honest, type-rated pilot for more feed back. THAT pilot will also need to be veted for his or her loyalty and dedication to truth and honesty, "no matter how ugly it may be."


"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.

The silence is stunning


Only becuase this is official NTSB data, and it succintly kills a large part of the official story, I see a lot of people who supposedly DO want a new investigation, run away.

I have been analyzing this data (and more that 911myth doesn't have(yet)) for 4 weeks now. The implications are absoluting a death shot to any official tripe involving AA77. It is very sad to see webhosts and companies I used to trust compeltely ignore this information as if it didn't even exist.

The gift of flight is completely wasted on cowards!

It makes me want to puke that so few other pilots have spoken out. I thought I was joining a rare and special brotherhood of inspired people. Was I so wrong?

Cowards they are. Simple f'n cowards they must be.

Mastery of flight IS MINE! It is NOT for such pathetic and cowardly people who hide from tyrants and dictators who wish to control and "regulate" the gift of wings.

There must be so many more pilots JUST LIKE GEORGE, than I ever thought there could be.

"Pilot error?".... well he's gotten that one right so far.

"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.

Just a little tid-bit of

Just a little tid-bit of info. I do not know what material you are referencing to. However what I know is that aircraft start pressurizing at 8K ft + - 100, and maintains this pressure up to 23K ft with a pressure differential. At 23K ft and higher the pressure differential is maintained through the regulators with a 1.5 pSI differential. However for recording purposes as with black boxes/ transponder signals - there is a + - error factor where as the binary data stream will vary too much due to the fluctuations in regular flight. Some aircraft are more sensitive than others, the one I am familiar with has a plus or minus 650 foot error factor however this military jet does not transmit that except in Mode "C" altitude reporting. And airspeed is usually plus or minus 37 (011 111) to 77 (111 111) knots in most aircraft.


"I do not know what material

"I do not know what material you are referencing to."

You could've stopped right there really...

757 Video

I need some help with something since I live on an island and have dial-up. On google Video (New) do a search for 757. There are two videos of a 757 doing hi-speed low level fly-bys. What is interesting, is that in one video as the aircraft passes by there are people around a C-130 and other aircraft. The C-130 does not look like a US aircraft and either do the people. Both films look as if they were made in a foreign country. Please review....



PS: I am military,,,,, and all that implies.

Shhhhhh..... Coffeelover



My god...it's full of stars...

remote controlled for sure.

remote controlled for sure.

Sustained Compression Of Ground Effect.

Remote control or not, aerodynamics apply equally to "foreigners" as well.

Nothing I've seen in those videos, demonstrates conclusively an ability to sustain a compression of ground effect produced by wing and speed. One of the hardest points for me to swallow about the purported speed and flight path of the Pentagon attack. Too fast, too low, too long a distance.

Does not compute.


"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.