The final 270 degree circle path of flight 77

[Woody Box]

Since 9/11 we are told that Hani Hanjour steered the plane down in a 270 degree circle:



The 9/11 Commission changed this to a 330 degree circle.

Such a path should have been observed and reported by many people. But I didn't find one single person who describes such a circle.

Can someone help me?

[demodewd]

1. just thinking

Why do I keep thinking missile?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. I don't know

The flying vehicle that did this is observable on primary radar from takeoff to crash.

[demodewd]

4. speaking of bases

Yeah I know bolo,you (think) you have all the bases covered.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Who's speaking of bases?

Let's see...

Passengers get into Flight 77.

Flight 77 is trackable on radar from takeoff until crashing into Pentagon.

The overwhelming consensus of eyewitnesses is that a large American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

No eyewitness now disputes that anything other than a large American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

The bodies of Flight 77's passengers are recovered from the crash site.

If you call that having all the bases covered, I'd have to agree with you, demodewd.

[demodewd]

8. I believe...I believe

I believe the bodies were recovered at the crash site. They were brought in by a faux 77 carrying a missile.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Not enough time for that to happen.

Living passengers get into Flight 77.

It takes off.

It never lands.

It is tracked on radar the entire time, from takeoff to crash.

It crashes into the Pentagon.

The bodies are found there.

There is no time or place to substitute a faux 77 for the real one. There is no time or place to transfer the bodies to this faux 77. Flight 77 is in the air the entire time. Your scenario, as described, doesn't match the facts.

[demodewd]

15. here is how it was it was done

The plane was brought down shortly after the decoy entered its air space,the bodies were transferred to the faux airliner with an attached missile,it reentered the air space of the returning decoy and flew into the Pentagon. Ergo bodies. Ergo time to do it.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. It could not be done that way.

The plane was never brought down. It never landed. It is on primary radar from takeoff to landing.

There is no radar signature for a decoy. Nothing approaches Flight 77. There is no question that Flight 77 takes off and then crashes into the Pentagon, not from the radar. Your scenario doesn't fit the facts of the radar.

Ergo, it didn't happen that way.

[spooked911]

20. Bullshit. Flight 77 was lost from radar!

They have no fucking idea where flight 77 wnet after it disappeared, it may have crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border or landed at some military base.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. The radar info for Flight 77 wasn't displayed on ATC screens for 8 minutes

There's a difference. The raw primary data was still available, and after 9/11, the radar signal for Flight 77 can be tracked from takeoff to crashing.

This is a fact. It is one lethal to Flight 77 denial, but it is a fact just the same. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[spooked911]

25. The problem is that you have to trust the commission to believe this

I don't trust them.

Sorry.

The radar data could have been easily fudged and they had a powerful motive to do so.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. A quick question

Why do you believe that Flight 77 was ever completely lost from radar?

[spooked911]

32. You just said it was completely lost for 8 minutes

and like I said, I don't trust the 9/11 commission

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Yes, but that's what the 9/11 commission says.

Since you don't trust the 9/11 commission, I'm wondering where exactly you're getting the idea that Flight 77 was lost by the ATCs for 8 minutes that day. Care to share?

[stickdog]

40. Where's the raw primary radar, bolo? Where's even a direct statement

saying the raw primary radar can be tracked from takeoff to crashing? Where's so much as a map of this supposed continuous radar track?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. See below. n/t

[philb]

33. Flights 77, 175, and 93 all were lost and confused with each other and oth

others, and its not clear that any of them crashed where they are reported to have crashed.

But the plane that hit the Pentagon was being followed on both FAA and Pentagon radar, and it is known that it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. The unresolved question is why?

Norman Mineta, Sec. of Transportation, testimony before 9/11 Comm.: on a meeting he was at with V.P. Cheney at the White House PEOC that he arrived at about 9:20:
“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out”; “The plane is 30 miles out” ; And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out” the young man said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

[stickdog]

41. I read that testimony only one way: “Do the standdown orders still stand?"

[stickdog]

39. Where is this radar evidence, bolo?

Just wondering.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. My post #16: All the documentation you need n/t

[philb]

80. Here's a radar track that shows Flight 77 could not have hit Pentagon

Radar showed Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon:
http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.htm

Its the only such thats been released that I'm aware of.

[John Doe II]

10. Trackable

Have you any source please that AA 77 was trackable on radar from takeoff until crashing into Pentagon?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. 9/11 Commission report, page 25 (pdf 42)

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical,arising from the way the software processed radar information,as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

Note 142 is referenced here:

Primary radar contact for Flight 77 was lost because the “preferred”radar in this geographic area had no primary radar system,the “supplemental”radar had poor primary coverage,and the FAA ATC software did not allow the display of primary radar data from the “tertiary”and “quadrary”radars.

The primary radar information from the tertiary and quadrary radars do show Flight 77 in this area. It does not land. It simply turns around and flies back to Washington.

Using all available primary radar, Flight 77 is trackable from takeoff to crashing. The bodies of the passengers who boarded Flight 77 are recovered from the wreckage of the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

22. Radar reconstruction could mean any number of things

including that they simply made it up.

Also, while the plane was completely lost, there could have been another plane that was switched in to take the place of flight 77.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. The plane was not completely lost.

The radar information for the plane wasn't being displayed on ATC screens for over 8 minutes. However, by looking at the recorded primary data, Flight 77 is trackable from takeoff to crashing. There was no switching, there was no landing, there was nothing of the sort.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. My post #16: All the documentation you need

Flight 77's path was unambiguously continuous from takeoff to crashing.

It wasn't apparent that day, but on later examination the evidence is there.

Save your bitterness for the people who have been selling you conspiracy lies in DVD and book form.

[John Doe II]

59. Your faith in the Commission

For 3 1/2 years it was considered that the plane switched off its transponder in an area with only primary radar so it was simply lost for the ATC. Then after 3 1/2 years the Commission presents evidence that of course nobody has seen. Why does this remind me of how the air defense time table was changed. Without any explanation. Without any bothering that this implied that NORAD people lied under oath, that NORAD 9/18/01 timetable was a lie that Myers lied on 913. Bolo you're putting your faith in this Commission which repeatedly has accepted lies under oath and presented lies in its report. You rely on evidence that nobody has seen and verified. That popped up out of the blue after 3 1/2 years.
But of course if the Commission say this is true then certainly it's true. If the Commission says the 19 hijackers were onboard it's simply stupid to ask for the presentation of evidence..........

[TomClash]

76. No one ever gets to examine 9/11 evidence

It's all summarized or filtered or not made available or destroyed.

The 9/11 Commission makes the Warren Commission look thorough.

[MrSammo1]

100. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Did it go through the overpass?

[sofa king]

102. Overpass is 300m SW of the Pentagon and parallel to the flight path.

Really, you kids need to come visit this place and see for yourself. Or better yet, fire up Mapquest and zoom in.

[MrSammo1]

104. like this?

[sofa king]

105. Great picture. Lousy sense of direction.

Are you doing this on purpose? And no, I didn't measure true north, nor is the flight path perfect, nor is my guess of where the camera was in your photo in post #100. But it's a helluva lot less misleading than your picture above.

[Kevin Fenton]

107. Plane came from the southwest

You have it coming from slightly north of west, but
"The hijacked aircraft, a Boeing 757-200 designed to accommodate approximately 200 passengers and 1,670 cu ft of cargo, approached the west wall of the Pentagon from the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s."
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

If you ask me, the plane probably came reasonably close to the overpass, but I really don't think this is a big deal.

[MrSammo1]

109. Looks like

it rode in?

[MrSammo1]

108. Doesn't match the

downed light poles.

But then again..........the Pre-collpase wall does match a 757 hitting it either!

[philb]

34. What about the bodies of the alleged hijackers?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. They were recovered too.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm counting the hijackers as passengers.

[philb]

79. then why the confusion over who the hijackers on the plane were?

wouldn't the DNA data resolve this?
Why hasn't it been clarified?
Its clear that many of the original alleged hijackers weren't on the
planes, but this hasn't been corrected or clarified.

[stickdog]

42. Let's see the "tertiary and quadrary" radar flight path reconstruction.

Oh, we can't? So the 9/11 Commission was just talking out of its ass again, huh?

Flight 77's path supposedly took the plane over several "holes" in our primary radar system. So how could its radar track be continuous?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Why? You'll just say that it's made up.

If you'd like to see it, file a FOIA request. But you'll just claim that the radar information was forged, so why go to all that trouble? Let's just eliminate the middleman, stickdog.

There are four radar systems in America. The primary one is the one that has the radar gaps. But all four have primary data, and the primary radar data from the tertiary and quadrary radars show Flight 77 during the 8 minutes that it was not displayed on ATC screens. It was lost for longer than that, because while lost from the screens, it turned completely around. ATCs looked to the west to find it, when it had turned back to the east.

So there's three things to remember here:

Flight 77 was lost for a while (30 minutes?) because the transponder was off and no one could spot it.

Flight 77's radar signal wasn't displayed on the screen for over 8 minutes, and wasn't recognized for some time after it came back. As the report explains, the ATCS in that sector were unable to access the tertiary and quadrary radars' primary data.

But Flight 77 was tracked post-9/11 on the primary radar information, from takeoff to landing. It is unquestionably Flight 77, because the transponder was on for half the flight. It did not land. There was no swap with a decoy. It flew back to Washington and crashed into the Pentagon.

I understand the frustration these facts may cause Flight 77 deniers. But facts they are, and facts they remain, and "the 9/11 commission is talking out of its ass again" is not a rational rebuttal of these facts.

[stickdog]

50. Where are these claims documented? You're just making this up. (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

55. My post #16: All the documentation you need

Stop pretending that I haven't sourced this claim.

[kerry_s]

88. Against All Enemies

"Flight 77 was lost for a while (30 minutes?) because the transponder was off and no one could spot it. Flight 77's radar signal wasn't displayed on the screen for over 8 minutes, and wasn't recognized for some time after it came back. As the report explains, the ATCS in that sector were unable to access the tertiary and quadrary radars' primary data."

The transponder was off in all four planes, but only one disappear from radars in a middle of its way, and not only from radars but also from flight trackers, which are independent from transponder data, but maybe I'm wrong? So tell me how internet flight trackers DO work? Why there is no flight data of flight 77 near Washinghton on FTrackers?

Look at this exception from Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" (Pgs 13-14, Paragraph 5):

"..Dale Watson, counterrerrorism chief at FBI, was waving at the camera, indicating he had an update. "Go ahead, Dale."
"Dick, got a few things here.
Our New York office reports that the Port Authority
is closing all bridge and tunnel connections into
Manhattan. We have a report of a large jet crashed in
Kentucky, near the Ohio line."

Interesting, isn't it?

WHY flying so far to west? To be caught red-handed? Isn't it stupid and irrational?

But the real issue is FLIGHT TRACKERS data. Is it forgered? Is it real? What does it proof?

[stickdog]

60. Here is the primary radar map.

Here is Flight 77's flight path until 8:57, at which time the plane was located on the Ohio/KY border:



At 8:57, Flight 77 was well within the range of TWO separate primary radar stations.

It was only much later -- after the flight supposedly turned around -- the it flew across a giant hole in primary radar coverage over central West Virginia & northwestern Virginia.

1) Considering that at 8:57, Flight 77 was well within the range of TWO separate primary radar stations, what exactly was the “supplemental” radar that had poor primary coverage and why weren't either of the long range primary radar data stations used instead?

2) What "tertiary and quadrary" radar systems were used to continuously track Flight 77 when it flew east across the giant hole in primary radar coverage over central West Virginia & northwestern Virginia?

[hack89]

3. What kind of missile?

and why did nobody see one?

[demodewd]

5. location

It was on the undercarraige of a jet airliner.

[hack89]

7. So where did the airliner go after it fired the missile? (nt)

[demodewd]

9. it exploded too

The missile was fired first and the explosion created by the missile(probably timed to explode right at the very front of the building)set off the jet fuel explosion by the plane.

[Frederik]

19. The problem with the missile theory

is essentially this: What's the point? Why the missile? Why not just crash the plane into the building?

[spooked911]

23. Greater penetration into the building with the missile

it helps explain the exit hole.

Why they needed this isn't clear, but could have been they wanted to make sure they took out a specific inner section of the Pentagon.

Note-- I'm not saying there was definitely a missile, I'm just giving a reason why they may have used one and why it looks like a missile was used.

[Frederik]

27. Yeah, I understand it explains the exit hole

I just can't see the point of shooting a missile into the building one second before the plane is going to hit it anyway.

[demodewd]

29. containment.

It dampened the effect of the fuel part of the explosion by containing it into a smaller area and towards the fore of the building than would be otherwise.I've always wondered why north of the entrance hole as you further penetrated into the building and eventually out through the exit hole there is a definite lack of fuel damaged areas.The missile explosion created a pressure area that pushed the secondary fuel explosion to the south ,to the fore of the building and out onto the facade and roof.This minimized the fire damage and allowed the fire to be relatively easy to contain.

[hack89]

30. Sometimes when I read your posts...

I never know if you are serious or have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek.

[spooked911]

31. I agree that seems a bit silly

[philb]

36. And the majority of pilots say that the plane was flown by remote control

Col Donn de Grand-Pre and a group of military and commercial pilots were unanomous in agreeing that the planes that hit the buildings were flown by remote control; and that the alleged hijackers could not have been flying the planes.

See the Grand-Pre thread

[LARED]

53. A majority?

Has anyone read what they said? How many pilots? 2? 5? 20? 100? Are they credible?

[philb]

81. I've read what they said. I think it was credible- but not proven

The majority of pilots on record do say they don't believe the alleged hijackers could have taken over and flown the planes.

[LARED]

96. The majority of pilots on record

What record is that?

[TomClash]

97. Do you think Hanjour

would have been able to fly that plane in that manner? If so, why?

[philb]

82. What caused the radiation at the Pentagon

Radiation in debris at the Pentagon suggests depleted uranium involved
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon

[hack89]

69. Because you have an innate ability....

to ignore or discount the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of people.

[Andre II]

74. Eyewitnesses

As eyewitnesses are important to you:
Do you have any that saw the turn?

[hack89]

78. No I don't..

I was directing my comments towards Demodewd's missile theory. The 330 turn would make sense if you assumed an inexperienced pilot would use landmarks to navigate by. In this case he would fly down the Potomac river until he reached the Pentagon and then turn to the right. The problem with an eyewitness is who notices airliners around a busy airport? What would make some pay attention and follow it for its entire path? I think the 911 commission took snippets from different accounts and tried to meld it into a path that made sense.

[MrSammo1]

70. Cause.......

that's what Rumsfeld told us!

That's enough for me not to believe it.

[John Doe II]

11. The question of this tread:

Where are the eyewitnesses of this circle?

[Bolo Boffin]

13. The question of this thread is moot.

From other evidence, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Therefore, the question of who saw this circle is moot. It wouldn't matter if no one saw the plane at this point. Its flight is tracked on primary radar from takeoff to landing.

[John Doe II]

14. Excuse me

once again:
Do you have any source that proves the plane was tracked from take off till the crash into the Pentagon?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. See above. n/t

[stickdog]

43. Please back up this statement with SOME sort of evidence.

The fact that some tertiary radar supposedly tracked Flight 77 for the supposed 8 minutes that it was supposedly lost to Indianapolis ARTCC, doesn't mean that Flight 77 was continuously tracked on primary radar throughout its entire flight path. The 9/11 Omission Report never made such a claim.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. What do you think was claimed, stickdog?

Nobody at the time of the attacks tracked Flight 77 from takeoff to crashing. Nobody I know, including myself, has ever made that claim. Leave that straw man alone and come back to the table.

What the report claims is that after the fact, they went and looked at all the radar evidence. On the tertiary and quadrary radar recordings, the primary radar data shows Flight 77 the entire time it was in that sector, even during the eight minutes that it was not displayed on the ATC screen.

[stickdog]

51. You are only ASSUMING that 77's radar paths are somehow

continuous and unbroken -- whatever that means when you are piecing together all kinds of segmented radar returns. The 9/11 Commission Report never makes that claim, and no one has ever even so much as summarized this supposed body of evidence in ANY format: textual or graphical.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Flight 77 is trackable from takeoff to crashing, via radar evidence.

Yes, it is necessarily "pieced together", but that is the nature of all human evidence. The 9/11 Commission does claim that Flight 77 is trackable the entire time - see my post #16. Stop misrepresenting them.

[stickdog]

62. Here is the primary radar map.

Here is Flight 77's flight path until 8:57, at which time the plane was located on the Ohio/KY border:



At 8:57, Flight 77 was well within the range of TWO separate primary radar stations.

It was only much later -- after the flight supposedly turned around -- that it flew across the giant hole in primary radar coverage over central West Virginia & northwestern Virginia.

1) Considering that at 8:57, Flight 77 was WELL within the range of TWO separate primary radar stations, what exactly was the "supplemental" radar that supposedly poor primary coverage according the the 9/11 Commission's footnites? Why weren't either of the two long range primary radar data stations shown clearly on the above map used instead?

2) Exactly what "tertiary and quadrary" radar systems were used to continuously track Flight 77 when it later flew east across the giant hole in primary radar coverage over central West Virginia & northwestern Virginia?

[John Doe II]

48. If nobody

would have seen a plane crashing into the Pentagon would you then estimate that asking for eyewitnesses would be a moot question because a radar RECONSTRUCTION shows that the plane was trackable....?
So, I ask you: Can you come up with just a single eyewitness?

[rman]

103. "other evidence" such as

government's claims.

You can't mean the inconsistent eyewitness reports, nor the damage to the pentagon.

[spooked911]

21. Also, the transponder was miraculously turned on as the plane started

this spiral descent.

[philb]

35. UA93 had transponder on and a new flight path to DC 3 minutes before

it was shot down; some speculate that a Commercial Pilot had to be in control of the plane at that time for that to happen.

[John Doe II]

47. Hey, what's up people?

We are now at post 46 and nobody, nobody came up so far with just a single witness who says "Yeah, I saw the plane making almost a full circle".
I went through all witnesses I could find and nothing.
Is there not a single eyewitness that saw the plane doing an almost complete circle?

[Zaphod 36]

49. Look here

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

"As I was looking across the river towards the direction of the Pentagon, I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it." Joseph Candelario

"I did see, myself a plane, about half hour ago, circling over the Capitol, now whether that may have been..." Kate Snow

I didn`t found more "Circle-Witnesses" now.

[Old and In the Way]

61. Low flying?

I thought 77 was tracked into DC flying at 7,000 ft? I wouldn't consider that low flying...

[philb]

65. At what point was the plane heading towards the White House and where is

the right turn on the map?

[philb]

83. What was correct time Pentagon was hit & how does that match up

with the military C130 that was a major part of the "official story"?

[catnhatnh]

58. What I haven't seen adressed here...

...is the additional 60 degrees of turn.What does this mean and how does it effect existing theories and how was so large a discrepency in public perception allowed to persist for over 3 and a half years??? I mean an actual pilot error of just a few degrees could of caused all the (planes,missiles,ufos,whatever) to miss their targets-and our "sophisticated" air control radar somehow missed 60 DEGREES of deviation??? I suspect this change in purported flight path has major implications to whatever the regime is hiding-find out how this change supports the official story and you may be able to reverse engineer to the truth...

[philb]

66. Where is the documentation for the extra 60 degrees?

Who said it describes what really happened?
Who is the Commission quoting? Surely it must be based on someone's testimony?
Likely due to a close verification of the original version would show a consistency problem with the known facts.

[Andre II]

67. Yes,

based on which information did the 270° turn into 330°?

[Kevin Fenton]

72. Turn angle

If was flying east, then it turned 60 degrees to the southeast and flew straight for a bit. Then it turned 270 degrees. If you don't count the initial 60-degree turn, the angle is 270. If you do, it's 330.

[Andre II]

73. Assumption or fact

Ar you assuming this based on the change from 270° to 330° as being a logical explanation or are you basing this on eye official statement?
And do you have any eyewitness for the turn?

[Kevin Fenton]

75. You can see

the 270 turn from the map in the OP. Previously the plane was heading east, then it turned onto the heading that it is on when it enters the map in the OP. AFAIK there are no eyewitnesses for the first 60 degree turn (although if you found a radar map it should be there) or the whole of the final 270 degree turn (most of the eyewitnesses report only its final approach). I guess nobody noticed it before because it was copying the usual flight path of planes coming in to land at Ronald Reagan National airport.

[Zaphod 36]

63. Cemetery

Does the Commission`s 330 degree circle mean that the plane flew over the cemetery as shown in the image?
In this case - is it possible to land at the Reagan Airport in this angle?

[philb]

64. Were there witnesses who saw the plane come in along the river?

At what point did the plane start its decent from 7000 feet?
Seems that maneuver would have been unusual enough to have been seen, since lots of people were around?

[Andre II]

68. I think help is still needed

Does anybody have any source where somebody states that he actually has witnessed this amazing turn?

[Old and In the Way]

71. Amazing how little we know about 77.

No clear pics of the actual crash event.
No defining evidence of a 757 on the Pentagon lawn (many tiny pieces, no big pieces).
No real documentation of the approach. Strange that. This is the HQ of our military and intelligence agencies. There are millions of civilians, too. No documentation of the plane flying in Washington, DC space.
No radar documentation showing the complete track.

What's not to believe?

[philb]

84. FAA air traffic controller described it- but said it must have been milit

military plane as airliners normally couldn't perform those maneuvers

[LARED]

77. Can someone help me?

Yes. Planes in the air are like birds in the air in DC. Reagen Airport is right next the Pentagon. It is not surprising that no one noticed,as aircraft just become part of background noise. I would guess the only ones paying attention would be the ATC's at Reagen.

[philb]

85. Hadn't planes on the east coast been grounded by this time?

there was a question about why the C130 was allowed to take off from Andrews AFB in violation of the grounding order?

[sabbat hunter]

86. planes grounded

i believe the order to ground all flights had gone out by this time, but planes dont land instantaneously. they have to get back to an airport where they can land. in some cases they finished their flights because they were very close to the destination. some landed at the originating airport.
people may not, repeat MAY not have noticed the flight circling because with all the insanity going on, it could have been just another plane waiting to land at the airport, awaiting runway space.

david

[philb]

90. Why didn't Cheney order that Flight 77 be shot down? He had 43 minutes.

8:50 bridge call between FAA, DOD, DOT, NORAD, NMCC re: “all planes of interest”
8:50 White House Secret Service has a continuous connection to FAA after Flight 11 hit WTC1
8:55 transponder off on Fl 77 and plane turned around over NE Kentucky
8:55 a plane assumed to be Fl 77 seen on FAA radar heading east over West Virginia: Senator Levin during testimony of Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25
8:57 report by FAA that Fl 77 crashed or landed near Kentucky/Ohio border/ lost on radar
9:03 a plane hits WTC2; notification sent out by FAA
9:04 FAA closes down all air traffic takeoffs in Northeastern U.S.
9:04 FAA Controllers in New York and Washington are briefed to watch for planes whose speed indicates they are jets, but which have transponders turned off or are not responding to radio.
9:03 Secret Service calls Andrews AFB and tells them to prepare jets to scramble
9:05 3 F-16 jets from Andrews AFB were on a training flight in North Carolina but could have been recalled to D.C. before 9:00 AM as the trip takes less than 15 minutes.
9:17 FAA shuts down all New York area air ports
9:21 FAA contacts NORAD and says a plane is still heading towards D.C. (confirmed, page 21 of 9/11 Comm. Report)
9:26 FAA Head Jane Garvey initiates a national ground stop, grounding all U.S. air craft. Transportation Sec. Mineta, who was in the White House operation center with V.P. Cheney, also indicated he took part in this decision.
9:27 V.P. Cheney in the White House operation center is told that a plane is 50 miles out heading towards the capital.

[Woody Box]

87. Doesn't work

"No one noticed"?

Sorry, what about the dozens of eyewitnesses who have seen the plane? Not one person who has seen the plane is talking about a plane flying a full or nearly full circle.

By the way, the reason they changed it from 270 to 330 is probably because the evidence that the plane was coming up from southeast, Columbia Pike, is overwhelming. The picture has it coming from north which doesn't fit the witness statements at all.

[mirandapriestly]

89. and this was supposedly executed by Mr. Hanjour:

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
And according to a report on CBS News:
"Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA. They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad.... hey didn't think he should keep his pilots license. "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager"

New York Times, May 4, 2002, and CBS News, May 10, 2002, quoted under "Was Hani Hanjour Even on Flight 77 and Could He Have Really Flown It to Its Doom?" in Killtowns "Did Flight 77 Really Crash into the Pentagon?"

[hack89]

91. Couple of things...

Perhaps none of those witness were in a position to see the entire approach of flt 77 - either because they were in their cars and were focused on driving or simply because the surrounding building, trees, etc did not allow for the entire approach path to be see.

Who ever said that the turn originally was 270 (honest question by the way)? The picture in the OP is not an official picture - it is the product of a google engineer taken off the internet. One reason a 330 degree turn makes sense would be if an inexperienced pilot was using landmarks like a river to fly and orient himself. A flight path down the Potomac with a right hand turn opposite the Pentagon would account for a 330 turn. Why are you so certain this could not have happened?

[Kevin Fenton]

92. I actually went to the Pentagon

and what struck me was that there were lots of low-flying jets coming in to land at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport. They came in from the north, along the line of the river and then turned right to land. This is fairly similar to the first part of American 77's flight path; I guess they initially tried to copy the normal flight plan for planes in the area so as not to attract any unwanted attention (and not be shot down by the automatic missiles - if they really do exist).

[philb]

94. Its documented that there is a battery of anti-aircraft missiles

I gave URL before

[hack89]

95. That is nonsense ... documented my a**

I assume you are talking about Griffin's statement:

"the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder"

However, the below (which I have posted at least 10 times)applies to other "documentation" as well:

This is nonsense on many levels. First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport whose airplanes fly within hundreds of yards of the Pentagon hundreds of times daily. These airliners do not have military transponders - how come the automated defense system hasn't shot down one of these planes? Surely over the years at least one has strayed off course and passed over the Pentagon. Secondly, Griffin has no understanding of surface to air missiles. A missile big enough to destroy an airliner is a big missile - a Patriot would be the best example. A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars, missile launchers and control facilities. How do you hide them in such a crowded metropolitan area as Arlington? I challenge you to show me any evidence of missile sites around the Pentagon. Patriot missiles are also long range missiles - they have a significant minimum range inside of which it can't intercept a target. In order for Patriots to protect the Pentagon, they would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development. If Patriot missiles are remove from the equation, you are left with short range, shoulder launched Stinger missiles that could be fired from the roof of the Pentagon. The problem here is that the Stinger has a 7 pound warhead. This tiny warhead will not stop a 757 heading at you at full speed. There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their bases. Such missiles will protect the Pentagon from a Piper Cub but not from a 757.

[Kevin Fenton]

98. Hijackers thought there were missiles

I think there were missiles at the Pentagon at one point, but whether there were on 9/11 is open to question. Quite possibly they were removed years (or even decades before). In any case, if they were automatic missiles, then they would be programmed not to fire at a plane coming in to Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is perhaps why the hijackers were following the usual flight path into the airport, and they would not have been able to hit the plane on final approach because it was at tree top height under the radar. So I guess the hijackers thought there might be missiles there.

If there were big missiles, then there would have to be underground silos or some other way of hiding them. Given that the US was basically postured against a Soviet bomber threat, I really don't think they would use stingers (shoulder-fired or otherwise)- what use would they be against a bomber or ICBM? If the Pentagon is ringed with missile batteries, then this should really refer to a wider area, basically meaning that DC is ringed with missile batteries, like Moscow is (or was).

[hack89]

99. I think you have to go back to the 1960's and the Nike missile sites..

for when DC (and most of America) was last defended by missiles.

[LARED]

93. That image

(if memory serves we well) was originally posted by a pilot shortly after 9/11. He said it was a 270 degree turn. I don't recall how he concluded it was 270 deg.

edit; I found the guy that made the image

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

[Make7]

101. Well at least that map gives us the scale.

It looks like the first 180 degrees of the turn has a diameter of approximately 4 miles. Doing some quick calculations, that gives us an airspeed of about 377mph for a Standard Rate Turn.

Do we have information on how fast the plane was supposed to be going at this point in the flight path? (I'm too tired to look it up right now. I just hope I did the math ..yawn.. right.)

-Make7

[spooked911]

106. "Interesting" analysis here:

"When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon."

Yep. That's exactly what happened.

:eyes: