Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

03/13/08 - "Beware The Ides Of March" could not be a more appropriate introduction to this article as it appears the government story regarding the events at the pentagon is officially dead. Thanks to the hard work done by Citizen Investigation Team, they alerted us to review figures regarding topography and obstacles along the flight path of American 77 according to the government story. Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate.

According to the government, American 77 final approach to the pentagon is depicted below.

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

You'll notice the Virginia Department Of Transportation (VDOT) Antenna rising from the ground in the reported flight path of American 77. This antenna has been determined to be 169 ft above the ground with a ground elevation of 135 feet (FCC Registration Number 1016111).

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

For those who have seen Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight American 77, you will recall the government claims American 77 struck down light poles on Washington Blvd of which the first pole is 2400 feet east of the above antenna. The topography in this area slopes down significantly once east of the Navy Annex/VDOT Antenna on its way to the pentagon. The ground elevation of the pentagon is 33 feet according to USGS.

Based on this topography combined with the height of the VDOT Antenna protruding into the reported flight path of American 77, it is aerodynamically and physically impossible for this aircraft to have performed the way the government would have us believe.

Top of VDOT Height = 304 MSL (above sea level)
Top of Pole 1 height = 80 MSL

Difference = 224 feet descent required.

Distance between VDOT - Pole 1 = 2400 feet

2400/Speed 781 feet per second (according to Flight Data Recorder) = 3 seconds

224/3 seconds = 75 fps descent rate x 60 = 4480 fpm descent rate needed to reach top of pole 1 from top of VDOT Antenna.

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds.

97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's + 1 G = 4.0 G's needed to arrest descent within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically. However, 97.5 feet vertically is not available.

Top of pole 1 height = 80 MSL
"Impact hole" height = 33 (pentagon ground level) + 12 feet (center of pentagon hole height) = 45 MSL

80 feet (top of pole 1) - 45 (height of "impact hole") = 35 feet vertically available to arrest descent rate of 4480 fpm.

97.5/35 = 280% (G Load required to arrest 4480 fpm descent rate within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically needs to be increased by 280%.)

280% x 4.0 G's = 11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.

Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart.

This does not account for response time to initiate the arrest. Increased time is needed or higher altitude at pentagon in order to be within aircraft structural limits, or higher peak G loads. The VDOT Antenna was present on September 11, 2001, and was not struck by any object.

Transport Category aircraft are limited to 2.5 G's positive and 1.0 negative. Although there is a margin of error built into these limits, it is not anywhere near 448% or 11.2 G's positive. Aerobatic Category Aircraft have a positive G load limit of 6.0 G's. Some may argue that the flight path "just missed" the VDOT Antenna, in which case we also worked out the numbers if the aircraft were at ground level at the antenna. The G loads required would be ~4.3 G's. Still excessive for a transport category aircraft. Not to mention the aircraft certainly was not at ground level abeam the Navy Annex and such G loads were never recorded in the Flight Data provided by the NTSB. Feel free to input the numbers yourself using above calculations as a guide and ground elevation of antenna.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. for full member list.

Special thanks to the Citizens Investigation Team for bringing this to our attention and for providing above pictures.

Forum discussion -

Keep it civil.

If you can point out specific factual problems with this blog entry, please do so, and back it up with linked documentation. Rebuttals must follow this pattern.

Refrain from calling another user an agent; stick to the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

This applies to all parties:

If all you can do is make a comment about the other poster's intent, or character, then don't bother. Anybody can allege anything about another person's intent.

I have a feeling....

There won't be many replies!

The implications of this important evidence are undeniable.

Can "facts" break a psyops?

Can "facts" break a psyops?

The Pilots and Architects and Engineers and Theologians and some Scientists and some Military and Intelligence (mostly retired) are all doing great work in trying to break the psyops with "facts."

And many, many laypersons are doing their part - also trying to break the psyops with "facts."


A PSYOPS IS ABLE TO WITHSTAND "FACTS" THAT DISPOVE IT ---- BECAUSE IT IS A PSYOPS. A psyops operates at a level deeper than "facts."

And so - I ask again: WHERE ARE THE "PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH" ???????

The Antenna was Damaged on 9/11. What caused this?
Farmer writes:

(Quote)Paik says “…antenna broken.” Makes clear motions with his hands describing how the 2-meter antenna was broken over.>

Some folks are still having trouble making out the significance of the photograph. I took the tower top section and converted it to grayscale so that the dark and light contrast better. The enlargements were created using bicubic enhancement.

The antenna to the right appears bent over just as Paik describes it. In the original photograph, the bend is towards the smoke rising from the Pentagon.(Endquote)

The witness described the tower as being DAMAGED on 9/11. So I suppose this post will be retitled to "New evidence that the flight path as suggested by the FDR is CORRECT and a plane really did approach the Pentagon."

I've already explained in a lot of detail why your witnesses alleging that an alternative flight path are WRONG (including misplacing light poles and being seen on the opposite side of the Gas station in the CITGO video, etc.), but this evidence of a damaged tower is even stronger evidence that they are wrong. Let's not forget the light pole damage and generator damage (being knocked backwards) as well.

Your explanation that "it was for enhancements" is extremely suspect as far as I can tell. Let's see, a tower is damaged, and it is being repaired the next day and it lines up perfectly with the flight path and approximate altitude of the plane as suggested by the FDR. The tower was observed to be damaged by your own witnesses and you don't even mention this?

Your excuse that it was because the VDOT was "enhancing" the tower appears quite frankly very fishy. The fact that you wouldn't even mention that they were working on the tower when you knew this information is deceitful enough. If you have any documentation to prove that the tower was not being repaired due to an impact from the plane approaching the Pentagon, please supply it. You'll forgive me if I don't accept your word at face value, based on your past history of deceptive statements and trickery.

I'll also note that this image shows that the tower was far lower (in altitude) than many of your photos suggest.

Noteworthy is the fact that the tower would have been at the APPROXIMATE height of the Plane as it approached the Pentagon. The fact that the witness described it as being damaged only suggests that the FDR data is ACCURATE and that indeed a plane approached the Pentagon, descended further and knocked down the light poles and struck the Pentagon. This is all physical evidence, and the eyewitness accounts speak for themselves.

The image suggests the tower was damaged on 9/11. The witness said it was damaged--on 9/11. And yet here we are, a thread alleging that the plane didn't hit the tower and that this is somehow evidence of a government cover-up?

The only thing being covered-up here is the fact that CIT knew the tower was damaged! How low can you get?

In your words: "The implications of this important evidence are undeniable."

The evidence is undeniable, and that's not the only thing unfortunately...
Arabesque: 911 Truth

wow just wow.

The witness says he did NOT see the plane hit the antenna and specifically places the plane far from the antenna.

But the VDOT specifically told Russell Pickering and ALL of us that it was not damaged.

I already told you this.

If the antenna was damaged don't you think the VDOT would know?

Don't you think Russell Pickering would have reported this fact? Don't you think ANYONE would have reported this fact by now?

Why don't you call the VDOT and find out for yourself?

Why are you pushing false information that you haven't bothered trying to verify?

Why are you accusing ME of covering the information up while the only source of the information you have is a youtube clip that I created and uploaded?

This is getting ridiculous.

Your words:

Your words:

"The VDOT became emergency headquarters for the feds so they were merely adding extra communication to the antenna the next day which led the Paik brothers to think maybe they were repairing it."

Paik says “…antenna broken.” Makes clear motions with his hands describing how the 2-meter antenna was broken over."

Do you have any proof that this was merely "extra communication" and was not in fact repairs to the tower? I am well aware of Paiks account (5 years after 9/11). The relevant point here is that he claims the tower was damaged, and that they were working on the tower.

It makes perfect sense that this "extra communication" would be the "broken antenna" that Paik described.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Get your own "proof"

Call the VDOT Arabesque!

They will tell you. That is what they told us. All of us, Russell Pickering included.

Here is my full reply to this nonsense:

This exact same Edward Paik interview was included in Loose Change Final Cut as was his brother Shinki.

Dylan knew better than to report this proven incorrect information.

Hell just look at the image of the antenna from 2006 and you can tell they look the same!

You are DESPERATE to make us look bad but it's merely coming back to bite you in the rear over and over and over and over.

Get a grip man.


For the sake of discussion, can someone provide a link to the informtion utilized by the government that places AA 77 over the same coordinates as the tower and also a link to the information regarding the height of the tower?

Hi Aidan

Keep in mind the height we used is the lowest possible based on the antenna. If we really want to get technical, we could use the FDR altitude at this position which would cause the G loads required for the "pull level" to be astronomical. Right now we are using 304 MSL - 80 MSL. Feel free to punch in the numbers using FDR Altitude of 699 MSL - 80 MSL. Wow! Or even try 273 AGL (radar altitude) + 135 ground elevation. = 408 MSL. Both will require much more than 11.2 G's.

This article was written on the hypothetical that the aircraft was as low as the VDOT antenna. Basically giving the govt story the benefit of the doubt on altitude. According to the FDR, it was much higher.

But to answer your question, CIT looked up the numbers. I sourced the antenna with the FCC Registration code. Im sure you can google it.


Thanx Rob

Is there a link reference cited by the U.S. government, that places AA 77's trajectory along the same coordinates as the VDOT tower?

I think it would also be quite useful to post a photo

showing the locations of the downed light poles in relation to the VDOT Antenna.

This is an extremely valuable addition to our knowledge base regarding the events at the Pentagon.

Thank you and keep up the great work!

How can anyone still think we don't need a new and thorough investigation into what happened here?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Seems like another smoking gun to me

This should be sent to as many people who HAVE to be able to understand it as possible, and their responses, or refusal to respond, publicized.

Topography is commanding...

Robin Hordon

I am both an X air traffic controler and commercial pilot with only 1600 hours of flight time, but I'm no fool. In addition to the work I've done in other elemnts of the 9/11 Truth Movement and Peace Movements, I took it upon myself to visit the Pentagon site and check out the topography all around the area including sitting for some tme in the Naval Annex's parking lot, the gasstation, and getting a sense of the topography of the area. One thing that I can bring into this debate is how much room it takes to turn, climb and desend, and manuever high speed airliners with smaller load [G force] limitations...they just can't do what fighters can do...its as simple as that.

My conclusion after sitting at the Naval Annex is that I could BARELY get a light aircraft flying 200K down over the hill and highway and nail the Pentagon where the entry point is alleged to be. Airliners who fly at the speeds that we are talking need almost the entire state of Rhode Island to make even uncomfortable turns. Many folks look at this Pentagon event as they do driving their cars...this just isn't so. This is why so many professional pilots with hundreds of times the experience that I have, tell us quite consitantly that this manuever would be nearly impossible with such topographical limitations when added onto the speeds, weights, and reaction times that are common to flight.

Aircraft "swoop" left, right up and down...its not at ll like coming to a stop light with your car and taking a hard right turn at 8 mph. Its a completely different world in aviation.

The HI PERPS "know" that the public does not know these truths and their "psy-ops" were designed to make "the first impression" impression that defies the facts of aviation life. The HI PERPS have Intelligence Agencies and budgets to set all this "psy-ops" up, as most of us in the 9/11TM know too well. So, it takes some good work and constant digging into facts that will counter their lies. This is a great example, and I feel that you can take this info to the bank.

Also, I'm doing more and more work on looking at other "radar" aspects of AA77...THE "Achilles Heel" of their entire scheme. AA77 will not go away, and I personally see the flight as the TRUE "false-flag-fight" of 9/11. This is because the WTCs didn't actually have to come down for this country to attack Afghanistan-Iraq, and many think that the actual "mid building crash points" are pretty special feats of aviation. [ I'm not one at the moment...]

The HI PERPS who planned/allowed this event most likely KNEW of the possibility of some "misses" and I postulate that they established the "one airliner" in the various War Games that day that would serve in a fashion that was described in Operation Northwoods. Before P4T got any info out about the FDR, I had found it way too coincidental about Burlingame at the controls, and him being involved in schemeing or debugging similar "attack scenarios" at the Pentagon a few years earlier. Plus, as an air traffic controller, it is CRITICAL to remember that AA77 was the ONLY airliner that was lost to positive radar contact on 9/11, and that NOBODY ever positively re-radar identified any aircraft as being the missing AA77. Some folks have only "presumed" that the primary target in question was AA77. I do not "presume" anything...nor do air traffic controllers.

I look at what Bush said: "Looks like I hit the trifecta..." much differently than most folks the pundits who were fed that crap tha it was popularity, the ecomony, and testosterone flowing in the cowboy from Maine and Connecticut making the trifecta. Maybe it was three buildings?

MORE...If we hadn't been successfuly "psy-opted" to believe....

If one were to look at some other available evidence about the Pentagon crash, and that person had NOT been pre-conditioned to think of an airliner being the vehicle that crashed into the Pentagon, one would look very, very suspiciously at:

...the streak in the Pentagon's lawn that is virtually the same flight path as the airliners...
...the FAB FIVE FRAMES and notice that there is NO separation between the "vehicle" and the ground...
...and then consider the white exhaust coming from this vehicle...turbojet engines do not create this plume...

...and then one would perhaps consider or think that the vehicle that was in the FAB FIVE FRAMES that crossed the lawn was a steam or rocket powered sled of some sorts. What it wasn't...was an airbourne airliner flying in OUR atmosphere which has KNOWN physical characteristics when it comes to flight.

Weed Whackers...

The light poles have always been very problematic to me..if the speeds of the airliner? were as noted in this stage of flight, it just seems tome that these thin aluminum poles would be sheared right off without that much curvature imparted upon the hollow tubes themselves. Someday, someone will run a test on this aspect of the story...

Anyway, another layer of the 9/11 ONION gets peeled away...

Robin Hordon

Even if the laws of physics were suspended for one day

there is no way someone who has never flown a Boeing 757, would be able to fly it into the Pentagon the way the Official Myth claims he did.

In regards to the light poles, those were easy. The majority of light poles on US Hwys are call 'break-away poles'. There are designed so that if a vehicle crashes into them, they will 'break-away' at the base and fall away from the roadway. It would have been a relatively simple task to preset small explosive charges at the base of a few of them, to create the 'evidence' that a plane hit them, when it flew into the building, leaving a trail of fallen poles to conveniently mark it's flight path.


Agreed about the laws of physics having to be suspended for the official story to be true but you might recall my thread on the light poles from a while back.

In summary the damage to the poles themselves (and of course the cab that was allegedly hit by a pole) is inconsistent with a real-time downing so I think we can pretty accurately rule out explosive charges.

The tops of the poles were severed and look "pinched" therefore had to have been pre-fabricated.

That could not have been done with explosives.

And if you look closely at the "breakaway" base when compared with the same style pole from the same area that actually did break away you can see that the uniform damage that has a sooty appearance indicates it was removed with a torch.

Buuuuuut....let's not digress.

This thread is about the aeronautically impossible descent angle required for the jet to overcome the topography and obstacles.

Great post!

Thanks for the expert insight Robin!

Why so many non-experts within the movement seek to marginalize and divide us on the Pentagon issue that offers a cornucopia of smoking guns I will never know.


verifying the VDOT Antenna was present

Someone please demonstrate that the VDOT Antenna was present on 9/11. Are the photos above from 9/11? It would appear they were taken before or after, as there is no smoke in the picture.


The VDOT employees told us as did eyewitness Edward Paik who was working across the street but here are a couple of images.

Quite an important point

"Someone please demonstrate that the VDOT Antenna was present on 9/11."

did you miss my post above?

It was there.

Yes I missed it

I think I started writing my question before your post appeared. Thanks for clearing that up.

you are quite welcome Vesa.

Thanks for staying on top of all this complex but critical information.

Excellent. Good work and

Excellent. Good work and thanks.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Show "Navy Annex Approach" by Arabesque

Why don't you respond to the topic?

Not a single thing in that convoluted post addressed the topic.

You have posted blatant deceptions and I would have no problem addressing them all but it would only serve to throw the discussion off track.

Why do you insist on derailing the thread with irrelevant propaganda?

Care to meet me in the CIT forum to discuss your off topic claims in detail?

Show "Hmmm, Not so Fast" by AirlinePilot-

I see Myriads JREF Calculations have made it here...

You should really credit the source, but i can understand why you do not.. I'll post our reply here which should be on JREF shortly... or perhaps you can post it there "Airline pilot"? JREF bans P4T from posting.

Thank you for your replies.

R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's from the VDOT antenna to the pentagon

Myriad has the aircraft at 1 G from the VDOT antenna to pole 1 and then pulling 3.2 G's from pole 1 to the pentagon.

R Mackey numbers make more sense. However, very different requirements from what the FDR shows. Same with Myriad numbers.

When told JREFer G requirements do not appear in the FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops in for his usual "Debunked" speech.

Anti-Sophist claims there is up to "2 seconds missing" from FDR data -

When confronted with FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops a link to the above thread (as do many of his "colleagues" at JREF) and yells "Debunked!".. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that his own words place the aircraft too high.

Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.

Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims. (starts at post 102)

Video presentation based on 1.5 DME
Beachnut impersonates the NTSB leaving his typical debate style comment - "Pilots For 9/11 Stupid". Its possible it wasnt Beachnut, but the signature is there.

R Mackey's or Myriads numbers do not show up in the FDR data at all. The last second of data shows less than 1 G. Myriad and R Mackey both require more than 3 G's sustained over a period of time. Mackeys requiring more time based on speed (VDOT to Pentagon). Some may make the excuse that the FDR is missing data (as seen above from Anti-Sophist and Beachnut), yet the NTSB themselves have refused to explain "time missing" and in fact say they want everything "as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA". They account for the clock annotation error and Autopilot MCP errors. They do not account for any other possible errors or "time missing".

The NTSB produces this type of information on a regular basis. They show vertical accel recorded up till time of "impact" in which they calculated based on FDR, Radar and ATC transcripts.This data shows less than 1 G. The fact that the vertical accel was recorded up till time of "impact" as calculated by the NTSB is consistent with claims made by the manufacturer, ED-55 and TSO-124.

Since it was mentioned in this thread, the FDR recovery and location are also in question.

It would be interesting to see R Mackey plug in the numbers based on NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna (699 MSL), last data sample (480 MSL) and Radar Altitude (273+135= 408 MSL) in place of VDOT Antenna height.

With that said, we do thank R Mackey and Myriad for your time critically analyzing the math and we will be re-checking our calculations and revise the article if required. The english police can save their criticism for your regulars on this board. The rest, feel free to continue the ad homs.


Scientific not faith based arguments please.

>>>>>>>>>>the fact that the FDR of Flight 77 along with ID'd remains of those on board were found AT THE CRASH SCENE.

Prove it.

You make this statement out of nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government.

Nobody knows where any of it really came from.

The people who found the alleged black box did not analyze the data and the people who analyzed the DNA did not recover it from the Pentagon.

The suspect completely controlled the chain of custody and provided all of this information on their own time therefore it is invalid evidence in support of their story.

No court of law would accept DNA analysis reports that were conducted solely by the defendant!

Rob: A Couple Of Questions


Is there any info utilized by the government that places the tower coordinates within AA 77's trajectory toward the Pentagon?

Can you expand upon this coment?:

"We also worked out the numbers if the aircraft were at ground level at the antenna. The G loads required would be ~4.3 G's."

If anyone can provide a link to info indicating the height of the tower, it would be appreciated.

This is where i found VDOT Height

CIT looked up the numbers. They do appear to be accurate and i did source the FCC registration number. CIT, specifically Aldo, will have to expand on this further. I'll drop him an email.

The govt does not have a particluar site which shows the flight path crossing the VDOT antenna, or any site with flight path except for the NTSB sketch we have all seen which contradicts Mineta and Belger from the FAA. Of course, the NTSB animation places the path on the North side of the Annex and Citgo, so that isnt of any help. It is based on heading provided by the FDR csv data working backwards from the "impact hole:. However, we all know how many different paths are, and can be, drawn based on heading data to fit bias. Some may argue the plane "just missed" the Antenna, in which we have already stated this as a "hypothetical" using the lowest possible height. Does anyone think the aircraft was lower than 169 AGL crossing the VDOT and Annex? If so, i refer you to the FDR Data provided by the NTSB.

The above photo can be found linked at right margin under "Full Approach Path".which was one of the first links put on our site back in Aug/Sept 2006.

This article is a very complex issue. Many calculations have been attempted which contradict each other, even from within the "opposition". However, it is good we have some type of dialog regarding this issue. Bottom line now is that even the "opposition" calculations and requirements for G loads do not support the data provided by the NTSB as shown in my comment above.

We are still working on this issue and have linked "Common Arguments" on the article itself to our forum discussion so visitors can see both sides. Its unfortunate the "opposition" refuse to sign up to our forums to discuss this article civilly. However it appears they cannot escape the use of attacking the individual (organization) instead of the argument mixed in with their calculations. Which in fact appears to break their own forum rules.


Additional images and video of VDOT radio tower

Video from the VDOT roof:

This shot from the roof shows the significant descent to the light poles but obviously the antenna is much higher than the roof of the VDOT:

Show "Impossible Debunked" by Arabesque

Farmer needs new batteries in his Calculator

Farmer Quote - "The elevation at the tower is 135 feet and the tower height has been estimated at ~170 feet, for a total of 235 feet."

Really? 235 feet... huh? hmm.. my calculator shows 170+135=305 feet.

But the VDOT says 169 feet. 51.5 meters. So we use 304 Feet total.

The rest of his article shows he is really confused at what we are demostrating. Too much of a waste of time to show him where he is wrong. But for starters, he still is avoiding the DME.

Show "I'll check the math on that," by Arabesque

Fourth set of Data

Now we have 4 sets of data.

1. P4T showing 11.2 G's from pole 1 to pentagon (under review currently as linked from our original article)

2. R Mackey - 3.49 G for full duration Antenna to above pole 1 to pentagon (Claims to be a NASA Engineer)
3. Myriad - 1 G from Antenna to Pole 1.... 3.2 G's for segment pole 1 to pentagon (admits to using high school math)
4. Farmer - 1 G from Antenna to pole 1.... 3.5 G's for pole 1 to pentagon (of which Farmer missed his mistake on 170+135=235 until it was pointed out)

The one that makes the most sense right now from the "opposition " is Mackey's. Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's for the full 4.3 seconds (where the others are 1.3 second duration).. We are currently reviewing the calculations based on the original article premise of 1 G from Antenna to pole 1, then pull level. As you can see with Mackey's numbers, those G's will increase significantly if combined all in the last second.

We will post a revision on the original article if required. However for now, we have a "Common Arguments" thread linked on the original article for visitors to see rebuttals from the "opposition".

Again, this is a very complex issue and we do want to get it right. We will certainly amend the original article if required.

However, we now have conflicting sets of data/duration from within the "opposition". We are currently reviewing it internally with outside help/colleagues.

We will also compare the G forces required with FDR altitudes plotted by the NTSB. The data provided by the "opposition" as it stands now does not support FDR Data. It will be in further conflict once using altitudes provided by the NTSB as it will be higher than the antenna.


More details on the G calcluation

From Farmers blog:

I found this cool acceleration calculator today on the net. It is set up for meters, but since the units are the same for all the variables, it works just fine without conversion. It is just a way for those of you who are not math literate to determine who is correct; Rob the pilot, or John the engineer….

Of course, some might argue the point about the meter units, so to convert to meters the feet units must be multiplied by 0.305.

80 ft/s2 * 0.305 m/ft = 24.4 m/s2

Add a 32.2 ft/s2 and then multiply by the conversion factor to get the equivilant g-force, (80.4 + 32.2) ft/s2 * (gs2/32.2 ft) = 3.5 g’s.

It is always good to get a second opinion….
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Correct numbers

Using the correct numbers and the above calculator, it comes out to 4.4 G's.

However, i dont think this is the correct way to analyze this data. For a quick example, plug in 273 AGL as shown in the radar altitude for distance, with 75 f/s veloctiy to zero. It comes out to 1.3 G's . No way is that accurate based on the last data point of radar altitude. Not to mention this data (all of it, including opposition), is not represented in the FDR. Johns excuse that the data terminated well west of the pentagon wall is completely bogus, thats why he removed it, so i hope he doesnt try to use it again... but he is certainly entitled.

Mackey (claims to be a NASA Engineer), seems to be on the right track and his numbers make the most sense, but his analysis is very different than the premise the article was based on, is in conflict with all other "opposition" data, including John's, and Mackey has a strong bias for the govt story. We have also caught him making several false statements (nothing new to those who know JREFer tactics im sure)..

As i said, we're working on it, and if "the opposition" would like to represent their side which is linked to the artilce itself, they have that opportunity. For now, we have been copy/pasting opposition arguments. Again, this is a very complex issue and not as simple as adjusting an altimeter to local pressure (which some feel is complicated in itself).


Not matter of eyewitness

This is not matter of what the eyewitness saw, who made the interviews, when and how.

It's a much simpler thing. Was the approach possible, considering the latest read out at ~2000m of distance, and 164m ASL, the topography of the area and the light poles damage?

We have a broken path to join. Can we do this without breaking the law of physics?

baseless accusations, false libelous claims

Can someone please do something about this?

>>>>>>>Like the the time it was exposed that you recorded a witness statement without permission and then blocked a poster and his messages when this was exposed. I guess when you run the forum, you can do things like this and get away with it. I know this because this individual directly contacted me with his story. Unfortunately, this is not untypical of the kinds of dishonest and underhanded behavior I've come to expect from CIT. But I wouldn't want to "derail" this thread with your juvenile antics, so let's get to the subject at hand, shall we.

This is an absolutely false, completely unsupported personal attack.

I have done nothing of the sort which is why you cited NOTHING.

You have chosen to not only derail the topic but completely attack me with an unsupported, vague, lie.

This is EXACTLY what Reprehensor opened this thread forbidding.

I completely missed this FALSE attack.....

>>>>>Just a "careless" omission, I suppose. So, I don't suppose this makes the south path approach even more credible now does it Craig? What, with the light poles AND the damaged tower lining up so nicely. So what's the definition of disinformation again? Deliberately misleading information? You mean, like omitting the fact that the tower was damaged? Par for the course for CIT.

The VDOT antenna was NOT damaged Arabesque. If you had done ANY research into the bogus information you are copying and pasting from Farmer to personally attack me you would know this.

Call the VDOT and they will tell you. They had already told Russell Pickering and the rest of us this so we knew that this deduction that we first heard from Edward's brother Shinki Paik (who didn't see the plane) was incorrect.

The VDOT became emergency headquarters for the feds so they were merely adding extra communication to the antenna the next day which led the Paik brothers to think maybe they were repairing it.

But look how little research either of you is willing to do while you publish and repeat patently false information in a desperate effort to cast doubt on me and label ME as "disinfo" which is EXACTLY what Reprehensor specifically asked you not to do.

Nothing was "omitted". Edward described the exact same flight path in BOTH interviews and we simply featured the one that was filmed on location for accuracy and since that was the interview that I filmed and owned. The footage from the first interview is Dylan's. Are you going to accuse him of omitting the same info from the same interview that was featured in Final Cut?

Edward described a path irreconcilable with the official flight path and headed straight to the north side of the citgo in both interviews. The image you used to represent his flight path is fabricated and untrue. Why didn't you use the image that Edward drew himself?

North of the citgo:

First interview......coming from here:

going this way:

Second interview....coming from here:

going this way:

Both irreconcilable with the physical damage yet fully corroborating the north of the citgo claim 100%.

Sorry for derailing the topic but blatant lies are being shamelessly pushed in this thread and they should not be unaddressed.

Show ""The VDOT antenna was NOT" by Arabesque

>>>>>>It's too bad you didn't point this out before.

Point out that the antenna wasn't damaged?

Why should we? It wasn't damaged. YOU are the one accusing me of "omitting" the incorrect notion that it was damaged!

That is a direct, baseless, unsupported, and completely false personal attack in ADDITION to your other false personal attack about us being unethical in our investigation. If you had a shred of integrity you would publicly retract both attacks.

The witness did not claim to see the plane hit the antenna and the antenna wasn't hit.

Yes he was mistaken about the notion that "repair people" existed because the plane hit the antenna.

The fact that he places the plane far from the antenna underscores this.


Arabesque, do you have linkable sources for these claims?

" recorded a witness statement without permission and then blocked a poster and his messages when this was exposed. I guess when you run the forum, you can do things like this and get away with it. I know this because this individual directly contacted me with his story."

Otherwise, that is not cool.

He said he was "contacted" by someone

And I know who it was. Some anonymous poster who went by "plan271" who came to our forum attacking us about a particular witness who he seemed to have an intimate connection with.

The witness is Dawn Vignola and she talked to us on the phone twice and offered to allow us to come up to her apartment to get images and video of the POV from where her and Tim Timmerman allegedly saw the plane.

We did and it was a perfectly civil exchange although she did decline to give us an on camera interview. Obviously while we video taped her POV with her consent after being invited to her home our discussion with her at the time was recorded by the video camera.

And we most certainly did record our initial conversations on the phone with her as we do with EVERY phone call we make in our investigation.

But we only publish them when we have permission.

There is nothing deceptive, underhanded, OR illegal about this.

We have not published ANYTHING about Dawn Vignola nor have we accused her of anything. She was actually adamant that the plane was white and therefore supports our hypothesis. There is no reason for her or anyone associated with her to be mad at us but for some reason this "plan271" character has chosen to try to make drama about it and has actually been caught in serious lies in the process.

We have already been accused by John Farmer as treating this (or some other) witness "roughly" when nothing could be farther from the truth.

That's another reason we have recordings of our conversations so nobody can falsely accuse us of behaving inappropriately or saying or doing something underhanded or deceptive.

oh and....

We only banned "plan271" to PRESERVE his incriminating posts so he couldn't edit them because we caught him in serious lies. We even stated that right away and told him he could re-sign up if he wanted to continue the discussion. Needless to say he never did and apparently decided to contact all the CIT detractors that he could find on google.

If anyone is interested in the train wreck it's all here completely intact forever:

CIT has nothing to hide.

Ask us anything and you'll get nothing but the complete unsugarcoated truth and we usually have the documentation and hard evidence to back all of it up.

Show "According to him you banned" by Arabesque

who is "him"?

An anonymous person who attacked us out of the blue and emailed you?

ANYONE can contact witness Dawn Vignola as her number is listed.

plan271 was fully caught lying in our forum and the entire conversation is preserved as is. We never edited or deleted the context of any of his posts.

I never said that Vignola gave us permission to video tape HER and in fact we did not video tape her since that is what she requested. She invited us in her home and gave us permission to video tape her POV which we did. It was a completely civil interaction just like all of our conversations were with her on the phone and just like all of our conversations have been with each and every one of the dozens witnesses we have spoken with.

We had no plans to release any of the conversations with Vignola (even though legally we could since only one party consent is required in Virginia) but the point is that we have proof of how they really went down in case someone like you, Farmer, or "plan271" decides you want to lie and suggest that we behaved inappropriately with her in ANY WAY.

It's a good thing to because it is quite clear now how you and Farmer had every intention of deceptively using this against us with innuendo and hollow accusations.

Bottom line you have NOTHING and the fact that you are making these baseless and completely FALSE personal attacks against us in this thread that has nothing to do with ANY witness or CIT at all is absolutely shameful and quite predictable.

Show "Email" by Arabesque


At the top of this thread, I asked users to "back it up with linked documentation".

If you do not have permission to publicly post the email then you have nothing to gain by bringing it up in this thread.

Thank you Rep

I'd like to further add that he also specifically called us "disinfo" in regards to the completely separate (but also incorrect) claim that the VDOT antenna was damaged.

He claimed we deliberately "omitted" information but posted a youtube video that I created and uploaded as his source for the information!

Plus apparently he forgot that I already posted images of the antenna on 9/11 after the attack showing it still standing and undamaged.

It makes no sense.

Clearly he is desperate to attack us personally (against your specific request) and failing on every level.

Arabesque's libel

Why is Arabesque allowed to influence people with innuendo?

Plan271 came to our forum (with an Arlington, VA IP mind you), youtube, and even the stevewarran blog on a personal mission to vindicate Dawn Vignola and Hugh Tim Timmerman.

Plan271 had intimate knowledge of their experience, knew the husband's story and even claimed he/she interviewed Timmerman on 9/11.
He was trying to defend them on the "coaching" allegations floating around on the internet.

If you listen to the call she made to WUSA, you can hear Timmerman in the background making statements and Vignola repeating it nearly word for word.

In the midst of our heated discussion, Plan271 posted an image that he/she claims illustrates what DAWN VIGOLA described to him as the plane's flight path.

Clearly that is NOT the official flight path.

Clearly that is NOT the north side flight path.

Plan 271 then proceeded to note the WRONG apartment as her apartment, one that was closer to the flight path with a closer view. In amazement, we actually corrected Plan271.

We saved the image because of the bizarre improvised flight path, then corrected Plan271 by telling him/her that they had noted the wrong apt. They then changed the image and then when we called them on it and posted the original image he claimed we edited his picture and were being dishonest.

If you notice, Arabesque is here trying to steer people back to the old HIGHLY debunked south side light pole flight path. He is simply repeating mantras and using the power of suggestion over and over and over. He uses innuendo. Pretty much every trick in the book.

I leave it to you all to guess who or what Arabesque and Plan271 are. I can tell you they are anonymous and they seem to be dedicated to attacking and purposefully misleading people about CIT.

Rant that was going to be posted to JREF thread

Forgive the rant, but im sure most of you will understand its purpose and why i am posting it here. It was going to be posted in the thread linked below, but the mods closed it before it had a chance to get there....

Quote -
You people have made every excuse in the book to not sign up for P4T to discuss this when P4T has linked Common Arguments from the article itself so visitors can see your point of view. You first use the excuse for not registering by implying you might get "shot" in an obvious attempt to discredit and derail. When called on it, you say you arent worried about it and move the goal posts to "you just arent interested" and claim we are trying to derail. Anyone reading this thread (and the other that was removed) will see your amount of "interest", spin, abundance of ad hom and personal attacks, attacking the individual/organization instead of the argument, breaking forum rules. It is also clear (which we have been saving for this occassion) you have amended the numbers to fit your bias (using top of pole 1 yet using bottom of of pentagon to decrease G Load). If you are going to argue based on the govt story, the "bottom of aircraft" struck pole 1 at roughly half its height (remember the "shrub" you guys like to trot out so often?) 38.7 (actual pole height) /2=19.35+40 (ground elevation) = 59.40 - 33 (ground elevation of pentagon) = 26.35. (If you say its higher, then you can no longer use your "shrub" argument elsewhere)

Instead, you use top of pole 1 while adjusting height at pentagon in your favor. Why are we not surprised. We are on the JREF after all.

Looks like Mackeys initial 3.49 G pull for duration of entire segment Antenna to pole 1 to pentagon just went up significantly.

Your numbers conflict with each other in terms of duration and G Load itself.

You people are told none of your numbers match the FDR and will in fact increase load, conflicting further, if you use altitudes plotted by the NTSB. The usual suspects run out and drop links yelling "Debunked!" regarding the FDR. When shown it is not "Debunked" using their very own words in those links, we are suddenly "off topic". Do you really think people are that stupid and cannot see your game? Even your own people realize your spin on the subject. The man who started SLC forums IIRC ( questions your motive for evasion. The tags on this thread itself refer to the FDR! But somehow its suddenly "off topic" when shown your own words do not support the govt story and/or FDR data when you claim "Debunked!". Some of you even claim we have "hidden the FDR data" when we posted it right here in this thread! (However, one thinks the animation reconstruction produced by the NTSB, uploaded to google by a JREFer, is a "cartoon". And this guy claims he is a pilot...!)

Beachy claims P4T is a FAILURE because he cannot distinguish between meters and feet, did not bother to check his initial claims which place the antenna fully underground, writes a second post claiming he meant meters when his initial post cleary states feet, then edits his second post when someone obviously PMed him for a heads up for looking so stupid and still does not realize that we are, and have been using 304 feet! Is it any surprise this is the same guy who deletes his post content when proven wrong? His only debate style is ad hom, and when he does show some type of substance (albeit incoherent mostly), he constantly has to amend or delete his posts! Why do you let this guy continue? He only hurts your position. Ohhhh.. thats right. He is a "Forum Donor".

Yes, we will admit our use of terminology was not accurate at in one post. We have also addressed that in the common arguments thread if you care to look.

You people know the article can represent your side. You do not sign up to P4T because you know you cannot debate without the use of personal attacks and ad homs as is readily apparent in this thread and the one that had to be removed. No doubt if you register for P4T, you will once again show why such people get banned from P4T employing the same exact rules on the JREF forum which many members break constantly without recourse (unless they are a "twoofer"). This whole subsection breaks your own forum rules. Im sure you also know you will readily be exposed for your spin when registering for P4T. You would much rather stay in your "gang rape" group think style community instead of venturing out. We understand, but we come here anyway (until most of our side is removed or banned based on a clear double standard).

We will be coming out with a revision to the article. We are not sure when it will be published. We have many individuals working on it but schedule conflicts are abundant. We will also demonstrate in the article "opposition" extreme bias in amending their figures to fit their obvious agenda and argument from incredulity. In the meantime, If you would like to represent your side of this matter to all who visit the original article itself, you know where to find us. Thank you for participating and for showing your obvious interest only when you are surrounded by "friendlys". :-)


Junk Science

I have watched this thread humorously since it first appeared and I’m rather surprised that many seem to be taking it at face value without doing any fact checking or review. The first significant assertion is that the plane did a maneuver that required g-forces of 11.2 g’s. This is completely bogus and the author knows it.

Most people who have had basic physics in college would spot the methodology failures right away and I posted the appropriate math for those who are interested.

Now I don’t expect people to take my word for it, since there are many simple web-based calculators which allow someone to plug in the variables for themselves and determine the acceleration load. Here is one that is rather easy to use.

I invite everyone to go plug in Rob's values (-35 feet drop, -75 ft/s vertical velocity, final velocity 0 ft/s). The result will be 80 ft/s2, which translates to 2.5 g. Add to that the 1 g required for vertical flight and you have 3.5 g's, NOT 11.2 g's.

I sent this information to Rob, yet even though he has the proof now that this is junk science, he has not made a correction or pulled the post. I'll leave it to others to speculate why. I normally don't comment on other blogs or forums, so this will be my only comment on the subject. As to the VDOT antenna, I don't know if the wing clipped the tower or not. I do know that one witness says it did and describes the bent-over antenna that was repaired. A high quality photograph of the tower seems to support his assertion.

Paik: "I heard… a very big jet sound… it [looked] like it was up to here [holding hand above his head]… I just [ran] out… two or three seconds [later]—boom! …I saw the large smoke and flame—everything. It almost hit my roof… [it felt] like that… a two meter antenna—it hit that antenna and it ended up broken… [Craig Ranke asks: 'You're saying it did hit the cell tower?'] Paik: Yea… the antenna tower. The top of [it] a two meter needle antenna. The wing hit that and it [was] broken, and the next morning, the repair man is all the way up there installing a brand new one. If [the plane was a] little bit lower… it would have hit the [Navy Annex] building almost it seemed like. [The wing] knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that's why it hit the Antenna… The next day I saw them [working on the tower] and that's why I thought [the plane hit the antenna]. At the time I didn't see [the plane hit the tower] because the next morning [I saw] the repair guys go up there. [Question: Was the plane as high as the tower?] Paik: Yea… The next morning [I thought] 'Oh my God… Yesterday [the plane] hit that one.'"

The VDOT people said that they were only making "enhancements". Yet CIT posts a poor quality photo in response claiming that the tower was "exactly the same". So where are the "enhancements"? VDOT are the same folks who said that the security system cameras do not record. Strange, in response to a FOIA they supplied contracts for a system that does record. These are the same people who assert that the VDOT cameras along Route 27 were not recording on 9/11. To date the only evidence we have is their word, and we all know that a government agency with close ties to the Pentagon would not lie or anything like that.

Take this comment for what it is worth. But I would invite readers to do some fact checking on information, regardless of the source.

BCR, your analysis is completely incorrect

For instance, take your "calculator" and put 3000 feet distance into it (eg, pole 1 was 3000 feet tall) Tell me the G force. Are you telling me that is the G force required to stop a 75 f/s vertical velocity to zero from an altitude of 3000 feet within the horizontal distance from pole 1 to the pentagon? Do it from 10,000 feet altitude.

You are completely confused on the "science". Mackeys numbers however do make more sense as i have explained above. However, he is missing the premise of the article (most likely intentional, he is a JREFer after all). We have several people working on this now with much more credentials than you claim to have, and they are verified. We will publish the revision as time permits.

In the meantime, and as i described ad naseum above, the article is linked to common arguments for those who wish to express their grievances for those lurking. The article is not coming down. If i am in error, i'll take my lumps, unlike you who just delete your whole site.



>> Mackeys numbers however do make more sense

Griffin's sick attackers' numbers make sense? Scary to see anyone defending that monster on here or anywhere, just to make a point.

I agree with you Vicky

It makes me a bit ill as well. But Mackey does have a bit of a reputation to protect within his own. So he certainly is not going to post anything way outside of the scope of the problem. His overall scope of tackling the problem, the formulas used, the parabola.. .etc appears to be the correct way of doing this problem. However, his extreme bias of the govt story and the fact he probably uses this type of math on a regular basis affords him the opportunity to tweak numbers to his bias. Which he did. Not to mention make statements, draw conclusions which are completey false. Which he also did and his "supporters" will never be the wiser.

So, im not really "defending" him here per se, im just saying if John and the others want to see the correct way to tackle the problem, Mackeys makes the most sense. Once we remove the catalyst of his bias, his tweaking of the numbers and fit it into the premise of our original article, you will all see it come together. I promise.

I will admit i rushed to get this article out, made many mistakes i had to correct while writing the article including many distractions (confirming new applicants, phone calls, nurmerous emails/questions on other topics.. etc etc), prior to it being published, but that is still no excuse. As i said, if i am in error, i will take my lumps.

I hope to have the revision done sooner than later. But again, this is not as simple as adjusting altitude for local pressure.


Rob: 11.2 still? And why straight?

Rob, as you know my own thoughts on this non-issue are here:

You said: "Glad you got your article out before our revision."

Does that mean there's been a revision, or will be, or what? I'm still seeing 11.2 Gs in the OP. Is this still your centention? I'm not worrying about the mat since I don't know it and it's disheartening to see such disagreement, but I'm curious where that debate stands.

I don't buy that it was damaged or that it wasn't or that the plane even flew on exactly that line. If we're talking about a 5-foot wide obstacle making stuff impossible here, we'd better not be making false assumptions. Most importantly, how do we know the plane was right over the tower at 305 msl +, a presumption on which all this math is based? Are we quite certain it wasn't 62 feet + north or south of it? Then the altitude could be significantly lower, like about 100 ft AGL ike Morin reported.

Would these flight paths, green or purple, be a problem from a turn and G-force perspective? Is there any way to absolutely rule out that either of these is what actually happened?