It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:12 AM
a reply to: pale5218

Well I screwed that up.

09:44:41 (Tape 7982 B2A, Arrival Radar) Venus 77, heavy, set to go,talking to Washington ATC reported to Base Ops as 09:45 off Flight Strip 0945

The flight strip says off becuase there was no flight plan on file for his departure purpose. Listening to the tapes fromADW, they wanted off ASAP so they went VFR. The flight path to the north and northwest around the city was a delay tactic to the Military Command instructions but I think this was real world instructions versus an exercise they were planning for.

As soon as the flight worked it out, they picked up their IFR clearance and departed to the south. My experience has given me some military operational insight to the VEN77 actions, it's very similar to a scramble or a flush. Get airborne and adjust tactically.

That you can find in my post about the Miles Kara files.

I saw his notes on the transcript before, nothing unusual. I didn't see the documents below so I'll read those this morning on the stationary bike at the gym. A couple of quick comments on the transcript.

1) GOFER vs GOPHER is because military tactical call signs are 5 characters minus the flight number. Spelled this way to pronounce it correctly and stay within the 5 characters. Similar to the BOBCTs, should be BOBCAT but too many characters.

2) When WORD31 and GOFER06 are ready for departure out of ADW, the ADWs controller has to get a release from DCA. DCA is the controlling facility for the airspace and the Letter of Agreements (LOA) between them is for this release to be coordinated. This is done everywhere in the system.

That's 7 minutes before AA 77 slammed into the west wall.
Can you, pale5218, find out on the radar read-out, if GOPHER06 halted on the tarmac to do this, or if he performed that task in the air, while flying a holding pattern. I think on the tarmac of the start of the runway, it can however also be done in the air shortly after departure, a.f.a.I.k..

I can listen to the ADW Ground Control (GC) but I would only get the same info. Unless the pilot states what he was doing on the GC frequency, there's no way of telling either on the tarmac or airborne.

edit on 3/26/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/26/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:38 AM

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: pale5218

Gee , that's Odd , I thought it was Already Proven that a Cruise Missile Disguised with Airline Markings Hit the Pentagon and left a Perfectly Symmetrical Round Impact Hole in the Building .

To me the OP is old news, I had heard about it within a few months after everything happened.

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:54 AM
a reply to: Mark1456

Not sure what you are saying, you heard it was a missile, a theory of a missile, a coverup ?

I think no matter what you heard, there is still questions to what happened.

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:44 AM

originally posted by: LaBTop

Could you, pale5218, look into my BOBCAT14, BOBCAT17 and WORD31 (E-4B, Doomsday plane) remarks in this 2009 post of mine in there :

I went back over the older post and looked at you're questions you wanted answered. The INS question I'll leave for a pilot to discuss but I would think the fine tuning he wanted to do, he would want that done before getting airborne.

The BOBCTs (14/17) were flights flying through the DCA airspace as they departed and headed westbound to join their route of flight.

They were a non-standard formation flight of two, if they were a "standard" formation they would be very close together and treated as one airplane.

The route of flight and climbout suggest they departed from an airfield just north of DCAs airspace and they were handed off to DCA TRACON. DCA TRACON controlled up at least 17,000 and maybe higher in areas. Many airspace areas have differing altitudes, sort of shelves through out.

That isn't Washington Central, that's Washington Center which is one of 20 US Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs). All flights operating on an IFR flight plan will go from one controller to the next, from origination to destination.

This is accomplished by radar automation called a "handoff" and then flight gets a frequency change to talk with next controller. If you departed Bangor ME and went to San Diego CA, this would occur many many times while in the NAS.

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:32 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

If you have a known fixed point on the ground, you can align or refine your INS fix while in the air.

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: pale5218

You do the initial alignment on the ground, but INS wanders. Sometimes you align just fine on the ground, but you need to refine it a little after you get airborne. If you have pretty precise coordinates of a fixed point, you can do it in the air. You want to do it while on the ground, if you can, but depending on things, it can take awhile to get a precise alignment. We used to start fighters and bombers 45-60 minutes before their scheduled departure time so they could run engines and take all that time to align their INS system.

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 11:32 AM
Am I missing something? Why are there people insisting the flight approached the Pentagon in level flight? From the eyewitness reports, and from simple common sense, it was not at ground level when it executed that turn. Obviously it reached ground level when it impacted the building. To get from whatever altitude it executed the turn at to ground level, it must have descended. I don't see where people are getting the idea that it made it's approach to the building at level flight just above ground level and therefore was subject to ground effect. Obviously it flew down into the building at an angle, in a descent, not at a level approach.

The fact it clipped a few light poles only proves it was near the ground for the final few seconds of flight, if that. At the speed it was going, the distance between those light poles would've been covered in a very short amount of time. It doesn't suggest that a super skilled pilot flew the plane for a long period of time at ground level, fighting ground effect the whole way. Where are you guys getting this idea from?

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:19 PM
a reply to: face23785

Yes you're missing something. According to the official radar data AA77 was overhead the building at 7000'. He began a right descending turn and less than 3 minutes later he struck the building.

If we do the math on the vertical speeds necessary to complete the maneuver in the required time frame, his rate of descent would have to be more than 2000FPM. That's a pretty tricky maneuver for a guy who could barely fly a Cessna who just slit the throats of US crewmen and had now assumed command of his first ever Boeing.

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 04:50 PM

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: face23785

Yes you're missing something. According to the official radar data AA77 was overhead the building at 7000'. He began a right descending turn and less than 3 minutes later he struck the building.

If we do the math on the vertical speeds necessary to complete the maneuver in the required time frame, his rate of descent would have to be more than 2000FPM. That's a pretty tricky maneuver for a guy who could barely fly a Cessna who just slit the throats of US crewmen and had now assumed command of his first ever Boeing.

What radar data? The radar recording pale posted didn't show his altitude. This is a serious question, not being a smartass, is there other radar data besides what he posted?

Also, is there any evidence that he descended during the turn? I don't see why he couldn't have done the turn at altitude, a pretty basic maneuver, and then dove it into the building after he straightened out. Nose diving into the ground isn't an expert maneuver, as far as I know.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:17 AM
That data is from the FDR as I recall. There's an NTSB animation of the entire flight and it indicates the pilot reduced altitude approaching DC until the Pentagon could be visually identified then did the wide turn to reduce altitude the rest of the way and line up for the strike. I have the animation but it's too large to upload here (67Mb flv file). It shows he was at around 8200' commencing the right hand turn and around 2000' exiting the turn at 330knots to accelerate into the building.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 02:25 AM

originally posted by: Pilgrum
That data is from the FDR as I recall. There's an NTSB animation of the entire flight and it indicates the pilot reduced altitude approaching DC until the Pentagon could be visually identified then did the wide turn to reduce altitude the rest of the way and line up for the strike. I have the animation but it's too large to upload here (67Mb flv file). It shows he was at around 8200' commencing the right hand turn and around 2000' exiting the turn at 330knots to accelerate into the building.

Here it is

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:41 AM
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes that's the one I was thinking of

I have the raw and decoded FDR data here somewhere from years ago when I looked into all this in detail but that was about 3 PCs and 2 house moves ago so would take me a long time to locate it, if the HDDs and files are still intact that is. 2000fpm vertical velocity at a forward speed around 300knots is really nothing aerobatic, something like 33'/sec at that speed only amounts to 3-4 degrees nose down.
edit on 27/3/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:18 AM
This is another factual interesting Miles Kara page, titled : Category: Mystery Plane

The Quit 25 text on the above picture indicated the 3 Langley fighters (Quit 25, 26, 27) and the B747, Venus 77 indicated a "Knee Cap", NEACP flight (National Emergency Airborne Command Post).

False flag proponents like me, will see the same operation going on for UA 93 (which crashed at 10:03 or 10:06 in Pennsylvania) as enfolded as the "reception committee" for AA 77.
AA 77 : in the air, before 09:38, one E4B (WORD31) and two fighter jets (BOBCAT14, 17).
UA 93 : in the air, before 10:03/6, one E4B (VENUS77) and three fighter jets (QUIT 25, 26, 27).
And GOPHER06 flew near ( a few miles) both AA 77 and UA 93.

And Viola Sailor saw a very low flying huge passenger plane passing over her house (1.5 miles north of the crash site), while she stood with her sister just outside her backdoor. Both say the plane was flying just a few meters higher then the tops of the oak trees in the back of her garden.
Just Search ATS with : " LaBTop Viola " and you will find a few other eyewitnesses for the same event, also living very near to Viola's house. Mr Peterson comes to mind, who stood outside his house situated just south of the road crossing a few hundred yards further east from Viola's house. He reported the same very very low passing passenger plane.
The OS has it flying at least 2000 feet higher above those two houses, according to "recovered" DFDR data....

We also have the eyewitness account of Mrs McElwain, who saw a small and whitish aircraft (not bigger than her van), made from a synthetic material, with a smooth surface and a long, horizontal tail fin, dive low (about 10 meters higher) over her van, when she braked for an upcoming crossroads.
Just a mile south of the UA 93 crash site.
It then ascended (hopped) over a row of trees in front of her, and disappeared from view, and a few seconds later she saw a black smoke column rise from the spot where later UA 93 was found in the refilled soil, from a once open deep coal mine pit there. That spot was out of view for her, since it was behind the trees and bushes in front of her, along the road to her right, she then turned on, on her way back to her nearby northerly situated house.
This logically indicates very careful timing, planning and foreknowledge around the ultimate UA 93 crash site.

Everything points at some immensely precise planning, nearly impossible without help from an entity that was already in 2001 in possession of some sort of newly exploited very sophisticated AI (Artificial Intelligence planning software), which were at that time only developed by f.ex. big funded intelligence agencies like the NSA (National Security Agency), CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), FSB (Federalnaja Sloezjba Bezopasnosti), BND (Bundes Nachrichten Dienst), MOSSAD ( המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים), MI5, MI6, Guóānbù ( 国家安全部) and Unit 61398 部队, DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure), etcetera.

And we have now 25 eyewitnesses who's written and oral histories from the day of 9/11 and the days or weeks after, all indicate a NoC flying plane that flew about 230 MPH and not 527 MPH like the DFDR indicates.
You can falsify a DFDR, quite easy by the way, but you can't falsify a recorded eyewitness account.
That's why so many posters here come up with rebuttals of the false flag idea, based on their stale argument that we can not trust any eyewitness account.
Yep, dismiss 98 % of all courts globally, they clearly have more faith in them then the OS trusters here propose.

Again : fresh or old 9/11 doubters, just use the ATS Search, and fill in some of the names or/and words you find in my posts (or all other serious posters in this thread or other threads their posts), and you will find all the extensive facts I, and many others, collected over the passed 16 years.
For example, use the words : LaBTop ATC
Then choose and click at the top of the results page, the blue alternative search sentence, with LaBTop in it, instead of the LaPTop one, it's a Google glitch they still can't solve.
Or use : pale5218 ATC , or Zaphod58 ATC , or _BoNez_ ATC , or facedye ATC , take your pick.
Or a combination with any other interesting names or words.

Then you will develop from a side stander, who now and then asks a question, towards a serious 9/11 researcher.
It will keep your brain sharp, and your reading skills in an ever cautious mode.

edit on 27/3/17 by LaBTop because: Pic did not fit.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:37 AM
Back to the Miles Kara files :

pale5218, do not ever forget please, in your timing of radar records, to include the (very very strange) 25 seconds discrepancy between radar recordings : only the NEADS radar atomic clock was 25 secs set wrong on 9/11 ( + or _ ? ).
SEADS radar times need no time correction, those were precise :

--snip-- The time separation is precise, six radar returns, one minute and twelve seconds. I’ve made the 25 second correction necessary for the NEADS radar clock for the individual crossing times. The radar clock adjustment is irrelevant, however. The two flights were also tracked by the Southeast Air Defense Sector, whose radar clock needed no correction. --snip--

Next, in my opinion, the new directions given to the QUIT fighters team give more weight to the conclusion that these fighters were at that moment placed in the path of the still flying UA 93 over Pennsylvania, clearly on its incoming path to Washington DC. They maintained a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) mission over there from 10:00 on.
UA 93 then crashed at Shanksville region at 10:03 (OS) or 10:06 (Alternative Story)
See :

--snip-- The following NEADS audio clip describes what happened at 0953 EDT just as the Quit flight was approaching the crossing point. It is conclusive that Quit 25 had been given the wrong coordinates and heading and that was corrected with the correction emphasized by Quit 25. Immediately, the Quit flight began its turn back to the North just as it crossed well behind the path of Venus 77. --snip--

Pale5218, there are 4 more (from 5) articles, highly interesting and offering additional ATC and military information for your opening post, a bit lower in that specific Miles Kara page.!

edit on 27/3/17 by LaBTop because: Added last line.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 08:46 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Bobcat Flight weren't fighters, they were Buckeye trainers for the Navy.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:08 AM
a reply to: face23785

I treat it as a serious question. Serious questions are refreshing to encounter.

To answer seriously, all I can say is that about 10 years ago when I was discovering the many deceptions of the official story regarding 911, information in several locations, notably Pilots For 911 Truth, the data and accompanying diagrams showed AA77 overhead the pentagon and commencing a right hand descending turn, then streaking across the front law of the pentagon and crashing into the building.

Nothing supports that, and I am certain it did not happen, but that's what the official story was 10 years ago.

Several, including Stutt and Legge, have analyzed the government data in the FDR.

In August 2004 Senator Mark Dayton said in public that NORAD lied, and he made that statement after examining the NORAD data as presented to the 911 Commission. Perhaps you already know that the heads of the Commission stated in public that the commission was set up to fail.

So in saying that AA77 was overhead at 7000', I'm not saying it's true and accurate, I am saying only that the official story claimed that, at least 8 or 9 years ago.

If they have changed it since, well I can understand. Mark Dayton was saying what everybody knows--those in the pentagon are simply telling a story that cannot be proved.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:10 AM
A reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, I know now, it's more a remark to show the "kamikaze" possibilities that day.
I have no clue if these Buckeye trainers were jet powered planes or propellor planes, nor if they were near enough and could have reached AA 77 to ram her, like real military schooled patriots without ammo on such a day do (and use their ejection seats a second before impact, like logical thinkers between them will do just before).

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:17 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

They were jets, but would have had a hell of a time trying to do anything to stop an aircraft the size of a 757. Their top speed was just over 500 mph at 25,000 feet. They entered service in the late 50s,so were second generation jets.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:22 AM
Zaphod58, can a B757-200 fly for about 5 seconds in densest air just above ground at 530 MPH without falling apart.?

We have seen videos from passenger plane wing stretch tests, done in a construction hall, where a remarkable amount of force was exposed on that wing, before it gave way with an explosive-like sound.
One thing that amazed me, was the enormous curve it was bend into, before it gave way.

What is your guess about the wing tips stretch-up distance above the normal wing constellation position, for a B757-200 flying at the 9/11 Pentagon OS speed of up to 530 MPH in dense air, in the last 5 seconds.?

I vaguely remember some discussion with Weedwacker (a former 757/767 pilot, we miss him) about the subject, but can't find it so quickly.
You are no Boeing pilot, but have a lot of knowledge through your work to know the solutions for some of these really nagging questions, one pilot says its impossible to fly that way and not forced upwards, what's your opinion.?

Moreover, see also my second posted excerpt text in THIS post of mine.
What do you think, if you see NO steering column movements made in the DFDR data, how can this be not true then :

Lawrence A. Dickerson says: To force it into the building more or less at the base of the wall where it hit, on the ground floor level, the hijackers would have had to be using FULL NOSE DOWN PITCH to do this.
Not true, says the FDR data given to us by the N.T.S.B. No aircraft in GROUND EFFECT wants to descend further into it at high speed. They all want to climb and even with 10 or more degrees of commanded nose down pitch, a plane of that class would still want to climb out of ground effect due to a huge surplus of lift it was generating. Any pilot wants to challenge this, be my guest. Simply is not disputable here. It cannot be done. This particular aerodynamic fact is irrefutably the most damning road block to the whole cockamamie story about the final portion of this outrageous flight.

To me it seems at that speed so low, the plane would have to be forced nose down with ultimate force on the steering column, and 5 seconds flight time at 530 MPH is a damn long distance...!
It is 5 secs x 0.1611 = 0.8055 miles.! That's 1.3 kilometer.!
I guess that's about with its left wing over the Wing 1 building roof from the NAVY Annex building, following Columbia Pike, when it had just past the Sheraton Hotel.

See my diagram with those inhumane fast, up and down vertical force movements on the plane from that DFDR :

Btw, Lawrence A. Dickerson texts seem to me as coming from a double Net-name by Rob Balsamo.
However, he's not always wrong.... And I could be wrong, and this is in fact another, experienced B757 pilot.

edit on 27/3/17 by LaBTop because: Calculated distance flown.

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:37 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Yes. A 767 in a vertical dive reached near Mach 1, at relatively low altitude, and pulled back up into a climb without breaking up. Aircraft are both stronger and weaker than people realize.

Wing deflection is complicated. The flex test demonstrates that the wing can handle stress up to 150% of the maximum expected stress on the wing. Larger aircraft have had their wings flex close to 30 feet before letting go, while smaller aircraft have gone 15 or so.

I'd say they would have been flexed up a few feet, but nowhere near their maximum. Somewhere around 8-10 feet at maximum maybe. They would have changed as the aircraft oscillated.

It's been a long time since I've flown, but I remember calling trim tests from the ground where the trim took the elevator almost to the stops, without touching the control column, except to adjust the trim button mounted by the pilots thumb.

new topics

top topics

<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in