It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Zaphod58...

A question...

I read a second hand account that one of the ordinance handlers said the one scrambled air craft returned without one of it's missiles. Did anyone ever see a statement by the first hand person(s) about that issue? Or is it a proven false "internet" story.

I would imagine something along that line might be kept very hushed up though, by one means or another, if true.
edit on 3/12/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

please make sure you scroll all the way down until you see all of the ones that were happening directly on 9/11.

there are plenty. just look at all of those diverted resources.

it also goes against your assertion that they aren't really concerned with terrorist hijacking scenarios and turned off locators. i would assume these scenarios expect a transponder/locator to be completely shut off. thoughts on that?

and not to be crass, but how are you so sure that these military personnel and resources "didn't involve the military units that would respond"?

it looks like you're saying that these war games were taking place using manpower and technology that is *exactly* what we didn't have use for on 9/11. if this list of war games is spot on, that would mean you're wrong about that.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Interesting thread. S&Fs.

I didn't see it discussed but I wondered why there is an overlap of what seems like two aircraft before Flight 77 does the 360° turn towards the Pentagon?


That's the only moment I saw anything like that and noticed it was in the second similar video you posted, too:


If you already explained this, forgive my asking....this is all very technical and new to my eyes.
edit on 12-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: pale5218

Interesting thread. S&Fs.

I didn't see it discussed but I wondered why there is an overlap of what seems like two aircraft just as Flight 77 does the 360° turn towards the Pentagon?


That's the only moment I saw anything like that and noticed it was in the second similar video you posted, too:

If you already explained this, forgive my asking....this is all very technical and new to my eyes.


Not explained yet, but this is not unusual for the radar data tags to do this. I also see where this is in the pic and AAL77 still has another five miles to go before the 360 turn. I didn't notice it happen anytime but this is not interference or anything.

This could actually happen if the tag was the only one, it correct itself right away.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: pale5218

Interesting thread. S&Fs.

I didn't see it discussed but I wondered why there is an overlap of what seems like two aircraft just as Flight 77 does the 360° turn towards the Pentagon?

That's the only moment I saw anything like that and noticed it was in the second similar video you posted, too:

If you already explained this, forgive my asking....this is all very technical and new to my eyes.


You know Mother, after I responded I thought of the tags, this is one of the important things about the transponders. When the radar gets "confused" ex two targets cross each other, the tags shift a little. It's the transponder that ensures the tag with the correct airplane.

Now, if this happened to the AAL77 target, this would most likely not re-acquire because there was no transponder. It would have to be watched closely. If this transponder goes off when a controller is not looking and gets distracted, sometimes it's very hard to re-identify a primary. This was one of the issues controllers had when the transponders were turned off.
edit on 3/12/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/12/2017 by pale5218 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Exactly.

Examine this particular set of evidence and adjust opinions accordingly, even if not so.

Stating already held opinions without detailing evidence that contradicts the OP is wrong.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Ha...you'll have to give this to me in more basic language.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

The military usually doesn't respond for an FBI training event. Or NYPD. Unless it involves either military assets, or military intervention, the military has absolutely nothing to do with many of those organizations.

An FBI training event for a hijacked airliner is most likely going to involve the investigation into the aftermath, and figuring out who did it, or hostage rescue after the aircraft is on the ground in one piece. Until the aircraft is down, one way or another, those organizations are spectators.

The DIA is an intelligence agency, which means their exercises probably revolved around some aspect of intelligence, not intercepting and stopping an aircraft already hijacked.

How do you now they turned the transponder off during the ones that were military? Without knowing what the scenario was, beyond "hijacked airliner " there is no way to know for sure. They also train to intercept an aircraft that is non responsive or showing hijacked that isn't being used as a weapon.

In those exercises, I'd be willing to bet they had an E-3 involved, to train their radar controllers in tracking and intercepting hijacked aircraft. Something they didn't have on 9/11.

Among all the units in the Air Force, there are,as of now, 192 F-15s, and almost 1,000 F-16s alone. In 2001 there were probably an additional 300 F-15s that were retired after a 2006 crash. Granted not all of those were on the East Coast, but the First Fighter Wing in Virginia, in 2001 was the biggest F-15 wing in the world. They probably had at least a third of those types. Not all of them were flying in exercises that day. There were plenty of other aircraft and pilots available to launch, but they would have launched unarmed.

Hijacking was on the threat list, I didn't say otherwise. It just didn't have the priority of other threats in the eyes of the leadership.

That isn't what I'm saying AT ALL. On 9/11, and on any other day, NORAD is using FAA radar stations for their radar picture. During those exercises, many of them were using airborne radar sets designed to track aircraft by skin paint, and we don't know if they were flying transponder off or not. There was no AWACS flying near NYC or DC, doing active command and control work when the attack happened.
edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: pale5218

here's what I'm getting from your reply:

- the pilot saw the plane hit the pentagon but didn't see it take down 5 light poles. this means you still have to resolve the problem of what happened to those poles if you are to believe a 757 did it. if a 757 did not down those poles, what did? eyewitness reports state that the object that hit the pentagon also took those poles down. this is a huge issue.

- if you have no clue what the angle was, how do you know from which direction it was coming from? all of the information from official reports, when corroborated with one another, contradicts itself just like those two snapshots I posted. this is also a massive issue.

- the speed of the craft, again, based on all official reports available, was ~530 mph before impact. what this tells me is that the information you're referencing and citing is entirely incomplete, and non-inclusive of all available data.
I have no idea why this reconciles anything for you. it just adds more fuel to the fire.




the pilot reported seeing the aircraft in a descent on a flight path into the Pentagon. If you look at the video and see where the C130 was when the B757 hit, I would say 7-8 miles in trail. That being said, easy to see an airplane, easy to see it hit the building at this distance. What would not have been AS easy to see is the plane hitting the light poles.
The other thing is, who said he didn't see the poles get taken down. Maybe he never mentioned it because he didn't think it was a needed detail. Is there anywhere the this pilot actually says he DIDN'T see them taken out? I don't know if I have seen or heard this.

did you watch the video because you can see what direction it comes from, clear without a doubt. The angle is not known because you have to see how the building is situated. I mean are you asking descent angle? lateral angle?
The angle isn't needed from what I described the direction is clear.

I am stating what I see on the radar, 370knots across the ground.


US agencies refuse to release more than 5 frames of CCTV footage from within miles of the Pentagon, any of which could help to prove the official story.

In the meantime, this poster investigates like a total bitch and comes up with real factual evidence leading towards a conclusion that is not easily disprovable.

It is lucky that governments don't lie or I would question their story.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

Just got finished with a similar presentation of the Dulles Airport IAD and TRACON radar. The primary target is clearly going through the airspace and is concise with what we observe in the DCA radar replay for the track and the traffic in the area.

I then listened to the tapes and there wasn't any traffic calls on AAL77 to aircraft that they were working. In other words, no flights were given the opportunity to look for this target and corroborate the type aircraft. At least I didn't come across any calls.

I did hear background conversations about the fast moving target through the airspace and one reference of AAL77 lost radar contact. This is all in line with the reports we have read.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mersaultdies

i'm of the opinion that discussing the nature of war games on 9/11 is directly presenting an interesting monkey wrench to OP's well researched findings.

if there was an intentionally subversive operation(s) that was disorganizing and diverting our military, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would have been confusing for air traffic control as well.

you can also safely assert that the information being fed to air traffic control/NORAD could have been manipulated as well.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: pale5218

Ha...you'll have to give this to me in more basic language.


Oh I thought I was going to make a controller out of you...

So, simple term. airplanes (fuselage, skin of the plane) get hit with a radar signal and it bounces back a return to the site that converts this to a track - able target on the radar scope. These are commonly known as "blips"
But is doesn't give you any information. This is how AAL77 is being displayed at first.

A transponder is aircraft equipment that transmits a signal to the radar site which gives the radar system and the controller information in the form of a data block tag. This aircraft gets a beacon code assignment from the controllers and they put this 4 digit code into the transponder. This identifies this airplane with that tag and information.

If an airplane has the transponder on then turns it off, the radar system will stop tracking this flight with the tag. The radar primary signal is still there but no tag. If the airplane then turns it back on, the signal is received by the radar system and knows what the code is and assigns the "lost' tag back to the airplane.

When two aircraft pass over each other, different altitudes, the radar gets confused, it goes a little retard but then gets the signals straight again. The picture you took is when it was in retard mode for a few seconds.
edit on 3/12/2017 by pale5218 because: clarity



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

edit on 3/12/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)


Primary radar as I said is the radar signal reflecting off a surface.
Secondary radar is the transponder signal, this makes identifying and tracking much more accurate.
edit on 3/12/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

If the radar is a secondary set, which a surprising number of FAA control centers are, turning the transponder off makes the plane completely disappear from radar altogether.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I know there are a billion 9/11 threads on this site, including this one, but I am curious. Has anyone ever seen pics of the light poles right in front to see if a few were taking out by the wings? Looks like the plane would have had to hit them as low as it was where it hit the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

None that I've ever heard.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yeah, you definitely missed it. there's only one "I don't know" that you've gotten from me, and that's in reference to where the few pieces of supposed wreckage came from.

and unfortunately those photos that you're referring to don't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. why? because the nature of those photos, the 9/11 commission report, the NTSB, and the official pentagon report gives any common-sense adult the feeling that something's not quite right about this "plane crash."



Just regarding the photos of wreckage on the Pentagon lawn:

I was watching live news channels on the day of the 'attacks' (getting ready to go off to UNI!) and am fully aware that the initial reports from the Pentagon that I saw stated that there was no wreckage to be seen, disregarding flight path damage.

Later I saw the same channels showing obvious large pieces of wreckage debris that were NOT there immediately after the crash.

I cannot prove this obviously and it is the prerogative of everybody to disbelieve me but the lies of '9/11' were what originally got me involved in questioning things seriously rather than believing what I was told by the powers that be. If it wasn't for the lies around this topic I would probably still be a sheep. I don't know what happened but what we were fed definitely did not and this post is an excellent effort to explain specific things.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unthought Known
I know there are a billion 9/11 threads on this site, including this one, but I am curious. Has anyone ever seen pics of the light poles right in front to see if a few were taking out by the wings? Looks like the plane would have had to hit them as low as it was where it hit the pentagon.


There are quite a few threads on that topic alone.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

OK thanks. I will do some research. Quick glance at some photos looks like they aren't bothered by any angle but I am sure that is discussed. Thanks again.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pale5218

If the radar is a secondary set, which a surprising number of FAA control centers are, turning the transponder off makes the plane completely disappear from radar altogether.


Yes, the other thing about the different radar systems for example this presentation we see with DCA is a single site radar. This is because it's a smaller area to cover. With the ARTCCs, or Centers they cover much more real estate so their systems are from multiple sites, lay out in a mosaic arrangement.

The important thing is, no secondary (transponder) very hard to see. This is why in the radar replay, the controllers in DCA tagged it with the S track. So they could at least have the radar assist them in tracking it.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join