A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

a reply to: LaBTop

You mean JP-5? That's only used in Navy aircraft. They use it because of the flashpoint.

I was posting about the lack of smoke plume......us pilots are kinda fly what ya see common sense.....approved by the normals.....

The normals want to know where the others let their mind out down the road somewhere....

We don't want to plow too deep when we see the multinational corporate media pulling scramble techniques, we recognize this stuff right away.

How long did the black smoke last?....I'm curious to see if any respond with " a long time "

Not expecting any details, because without generalizing, we get squat for logic and judgement these days....may I have some more Squat, go find some Squat logic to lay on the thread. In Texas, we have a different paradigm.....model of doing things......we don't mess, we candy.

High order detonation....with little heavy film fuel......start there

LabTop I didn't miss the post. What I am saying is the chart there is a recreation from radar data. They were able to plot this after they pulled the radar data but it was not observable during the the real time event. This data is captured in radar in the form of data files that can be displayed, after that fact, which is what you are showing, a recreation of the track from the data files. The radar does not display an altitude to an aircraft unless they have a transponder, the altitude is a derived measurement from the captured data.

This radar data from Oceana system was like any other radar system in which the primary target was being tracked but it was undetectable on that day just like the Indianapolis and Washington ARTCCs radar systems, they captured it too but because they had the filters that enhanced secondary radar and degraded primary radar, they weren't able to pick it up.

It wasn't until the data from the files during the recreation did it become known. That's how this chart was made, in a post analysis recreation and this is how they were able to establish altitude readouts, from Oceana radar in the recreation. Radar systems the FAA use do not have any ability of displaying altitude until the data is collected and plotted.

That aircraft they were discussing on page 147 is the inaccurate reporting of AAL11 still airborne and headed for Washington. This was a error in reporting from NY and picked up by NEADS and Giantkiller.

They didn't think AAL11 was one of the aircraft that impacted the WTC. They thought it was continuing south. They weren't talking about AAL77 at this time.

Pale5218, I also supposed at first that it was recreated data, and in principle it seems you are right, reasoning from within your expertise at the FAA.
You could not switch to transponders-off mode at the FAA radar stations.

However, do you really think the military radar techs at the long range main radars, the defensive frontline of your country on that day, after it became obvious that already two planes which had switched their transponders off, did not switch some of their screens to transponders-off mode.? Not all, but a few, so they still could track also transponder-on flights, which could have been another tactical approach by more sophisticated hijackers : mix both modes.
Just switch off all filters and erase all transponders-on signals, and you were left with only the off ones, the primary targets.

My sources told me that this was standard procedure for the military radar operators, since the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans were not expected to launch a surprise attack with transponders on (they never had), and this was a comparable situation, an attack on the US East coast in its first half hour, while the sky was full with normal passenger planes.
And it was crystal clear between 09:09 and 09:17 that it were transponder-off attacks.

And NORAD (page 149 top) said at that early moment in the conference already this :

And, concur that hijacked aircraft is still airborne heading towards Washington,D.C.

Concur in this setting means they agreed, of course after checking the first mention of it on page 147 its bottom part by DDO.

My sources, decennial old experienced military radar operators and one AWACS radar operator who flew race tracks along the Iron Curtain in Soviet times every day, tell me it is standard procedure, to erase all flutter to see the Russian primary targets move in for an intercept, as happened all the time in the nineteen eighties. They even saw the Soviet fighters or whatever they called them then, depart from Moscow airfields to intercept them, all in between all the passenger planes traffic. And kept easily track of them, all the way towards them along the Curtain. That's how far they could see over the horizon.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
A reply to: LaBTop

You keep talking about surveillance and mentioning the E-4B like they had something to do with it. They had nothing to do with the surveillance that day. At best they would have been a relay to NORAD and the command posts. They certainly wouldn't have increased the existing surveillance in any way.

It were the AWACS that relayed it to the E4-B, and that one relayed it to Cheney and Bush in Airforce One, I suppose.
And to NORAD and god knows where else.

Back to those Pentagon fires.
These 9 questions are still nagging me :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the lost photo in that post, (see this thread's page 28 too) but without the yellow square by Bsbray11. No people to see. Very distorted photo. Wind blew smoke to the top right.
Hold a ruler under the grayer, southern part of the blackish fence, then move it up until it touches its ripped out corner at the north side. That line reaches the west wall at the very southern border of the HEAP of debris outside and partly inside that wall.
The fuselage impact hole is about two windows to the left of that whitish "H" inside the scorched black facade, now read my question nr 4 its conclusion that it looks much more like a heads on collision sooth marks :
files.abovetopsecret.com...



On closer inspection, one thing is obvious : the angle between the light pole tops along Route 27 and those along the clover leaf exit to that Route 27, at the level of the lawn. That plane must have dived at quite an angle. So why do we see a perfectly level smoke column following the right jet engine in that video frame from the last half second of flight of AA 77.?
It could not have leveled out, at that crazy speed and short distance (150 meters max).

It could however have been easily leveled out already when it had arrived at 230 MPH from a NoC flight path, flying really really low over some cars in the POV lane of Route 27 there (Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas, to name a few) much more towards a 90 degree angle to that west wall.

This is another zoomed portion of that early photo, also with no people in it, note the tree :
files.abovetopsecret.com...



This is my proposed NoC incoming flight path, the three blue lines, that pass over those two ladies their cars, and impacts at a much more to the perpendicular angle.

The originally drawn-in plane (not by me) would have gone with its right jet engine straight through the whole generator trailer body. And that is not a security building, it was the heliport tower plus firetruck garage under it :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Its right wing's third winglet, or more likely, the right, lowered tip of the aileron that is at the very right end of the right wing still scratches the generator trailer roof.
The plane impacted under an angle of 3 to 5 degrees, as is evidenced by imprints on the right side of the impact hole, so at the last moments its right aileron will have been used downwards to lift the right wing.
The two yellow 3's indicate the 3 winglets at each wing its underside. They are a bit further left situated, see this :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread title : 911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At the White House, the video teleconference was conducted from the Situation Room by Richard Clark, a special assistant to the president long involved in counter-terrorism. Logs indicate it began at 9:25 and included the CIA; the FBI; the departments of State, Justice, and Defense; the FAA; and the White House shelter. The FAA and CIA joined at 9:40.

Realize immediately that this Richard Clark instigated video conference at 09:25 is NOT the by NORAD (Command Center) and Capt. Leidig, DDO at the NMCC (National Military Command Center), instigated combined Air Threat and DDO Conference.!
It commenced MUCH earlier on already, logical reasoning says around 9:10, one minute after The Plains radar picked up AA 77 again as a non-transponder type national security thread, the third from four that day.
The FAA joined that first military conference MUCH later than 0910, namely at 09:40.
As if any professionalism was suppressed from the beginning. NORAD was also the one who constantly garbled up flight numbers and attached them to the wrong incoming threads.

It comes from this website, 911justicecampaign.org... and this page there :
FBI agent Combs and Fire Chief Schwartz manipulated 911 Pentagon Firemen.
I do not convene myself with missile believers since then they must have used sub-sound speed ones, since no one heard any sonic booms during the attack.
But this page is probably for a lot of them the Holy Grail, it gives some sentences on Pentagon attacks by missiles (from Raytheon) and a Sky Warrior attack plane, but gives no further linked evidence anywhere, for such serious allegations.
The rest of it however, gives some solid links and timelines on its main controversion, the fires and the collapse timings.
Please read the short Editors Note at the page its bottom part.

That poster there, neither did give any links or reading material to his following remark, however many of us have believed for a long time that such a defensive weapons system could have been in place, despite the very near situated Reagan Intl. Airport runways :

There is no way that the FAA notified any WFO Command Center that UA93 was hijacked at 10:15 AM, because C-130 pilot Steven O’Brien made the ‘black smoke’ declaration just two minutes after the 10:03:11 crash that was established by air traffic control operator communications.
However, all of this ‘hijacked airliner warning’ business is a smokescreen, because the Pentagon has five sophisticated anti-missile batteries and a MK 15 Phalanx Close-in Weapons System that automatically engage to protect the Pentagon against any missile or plane attack. The only reason those automated defense systems were offline on 911 is because Dick Cheney gave the infamous “Stand Down Order.”

However, that also could have been part of Cheney's answer snapped at the poor guy after he asked : Do the orders still stand, Sir.?
Cheney : "Did I say otherwise.?"

Do not forget to read my NoC witnesses explanations in the below linked to, many pages in total, especially the still partly-OS doubting readers here, like pale5218 and many many others.
I still stand firmly behind my 2015 written words, and give HEAPS of evidence in that specific thread made by me.
This plea for logic comes right from my heart, it is posted at page 22, so imagine how much NoC evidence, that devastates the official story, is compacted in that thread and at many other places here and elsewhere I posted my NoC new eyewitnesses info, like at Pilots for Truth, one thread only that got trashed to a separate forum by that dictator there :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

EXCERPT :
On top of that we have the additional evidence from the 4 ANC personnel, from multiple EARLY interview sources per person.
Especially the other, 2 Pentagon Police officers interviews are devastating for the official SoC theory.
Since its utterly impossible for an eyewitness like Sgt Lagasse, standing under a wide ceiling, with the whole northern front of the station's shop behind him, two low foliage trees to his right and a row of high trees on the other side of Joyce Street to his left, while looking northwards as seen in the FOIA freed CITGO video, to mistake a NoC flying plane for a SoC flying plane, flying THUS behind his back and fully blocked from his view by that building.
It was physically impossible for Sgt Lagasse to even see a glimpse of that officially proposed SoC flying plane.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

And all of you OS-trusters can throw as many psychological witness reliability reports at us as you want, not one sane reader will believe you, after viewing all these videos of honest men who saw that plane flying to the north of the CITGO gas station, let it be, after additionally reading all my explanations of the earliest impact witness statements from Route 27, which clearly indicate a NoC approach by that attack plane.

And you can also keep on trying to confuse other readers by constantly posting clearly wrong air speeds for a NoC plane, while all these sane witnesses saw with their own eyes that specific NoC plane flying at the north of the CITGO, which thus instantly proves that it could fly a NoC trajectory, and also instantly proves that it had to be flying much slower than the officially proposed SoC plane, with its offered crazy end speed of 470 KTS, around 815 km/hr or 0.8 times the sound barrier speed. In densest air at ground level, not 30,000 feet up in the air, where the air density is much thinner.

And the moment you start understanding, that all these eyewitnesses were just as patriotic to the max as you, and still not one of them ever withdrew their statements about what they witnessed on 9/11, you should start wondering why the positional data from the NoC witnesses are in complete disrespect of the other positional data for the SoC physical evidence.

If this text has triggered your curiosity, then first start to read the post above and the one under the above one. Those 3 posts in total should give you sufficient interest-trigger drive, to be willing to read that whole thread.

This was also a good one, i.m.h.op., from another thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
pale5218, sadly that "the-movement.com" link is a dead one now, but there are other places where you can find those zero radar coverage regions (radar holes) on their posted map, copied from their site.
It was every time exactly there, that plane swaps could have been done, since it were radar holes.

This is the picture from the lost picture post above :



I added text to lamp head 1 (the lowest one) and lamp head 2 (the highest one), so you can see the height distance between a light pole along Route 27, and one at the entrance level to the South Parking.
To show you the dive angle as must have been exercised at this point, by the officially endorsed AA 77 flight path south of the CITGO gas station.
I also added two red lines along the northern and southern fence tops, to show the immense distortion of this photo.

Here you have that 5 poles picture again, now you can calculate for yourself if that OS plane could have executed that dive from post 1 to post 5 at that angle, by reasonable guessing the cut positions in those shown 5 poles.



Good luck lazy b.rds.

a reply to: Informer1958


"ETA : this was not intended to be directed at Informer, I was really just responding and it looks as though it was directed there.
I apologize if that's how it came across."


What I am presenting here and following up with is from the data that is included.

I am not speaking for, or against the OS nor am I speaking about how many lies or who thinks the story is true.

The data I showed on the OP as well as the additional data or answers, subsequent to the OP is what I have read in the presented documents, heard on the audio tape or observed in the replay data.

I'm not a pilot, argue all you want about the "ground affect", the steep diving turn or the capabilities of Hanjour.

I'm not a mortician or first responder so you discuss all you want about bodies, airplane parts or the lack of enough debris.

I'm not in construction so I can only tell you the Pentagon had 5 sides, (I took math in school)

I was not privy to, or listening in, on any secure phone lines during this event so speculate all you want about what was said between higher echelon of military and government.

What I am saying is my background experience gives me the opportunity to digest what this data is telling us and I am trying to explain it terms that folks can understand.

I may not be conveying it correctly. If not, ask me to clarify the lack of understanding of what I am stating, I'll be glad to readdress the topic.

I can't answer for anyone else, just what I know from my experience, many years. I'll even add that I have worked at three of the facilities that are in these tapes and were stuck in a position of dealing with this event that day.

I have also worked at the FAA academy teaching radar and radar procedures.

I am also saying from observing these threads for years , before I joined, I know that there are multiple theories, ideas or thoughts about all the different aspects of this event, let alone the different perspectives of the totality of this day.

a reply to: pteridine

No, imo there were no bodies found.

What happened to the passengers? I have no idea. There is circumstantial evidence that the passengers and crew were players in the deception. Cell phone calls were impossible and theatrical, so their being players is certainly possible.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

No, imo there were no bodies found.

What happened to the passengers? I have no idea. There is circumstantial evidence that the passengers and crew were players in the deception. Cell phone calls were impossible and theatrical, so their being players is certainly possible.

So you claim that pictures of bodies in airline seats are faked and you have no coherent theory as to what happened to the passengers. I understand that you have no evidence that supports your theory but theories should explain all of the details. By saying that "the passengers and crew were players in the deception" you also imply that all relatives of the passengers would play in the deception. In addition, first responders and those that recovered the bodies would also have to be part of the deception. You should rethink your position and come up with a plan that does not include magic.

originally posted by: LaBTop

You could not switch to transponders-off mode at the FAA radar stations.

However, do you really think the military radar techs at the long range main radars, the defensive frontline of your country on that day, after it became obvious that already two planes which had switched their transponders off, did not switch some of their screens to transponders-off mode.? Not all, but a few, so they still could track also transponder-on flights, which could have been another tactical approach by more sophisticated hijackers : mix both modes.
Just switch off all filters and erase all transponders-on signals, and you were left with only the off ones, the primary targets.

The radar energy is sent from the radar site as a transmitting signal similar to many high frequency radio signals. As the radar antenna spins in a circle and sends this signal. When these transmitted signal hit a object that highly reflects these signals, the signals bounce back toward the radar site where it came from. The antenna, as it spins also picks up return echos bounced or reflected signal. This is radar, primary radar, the simplest explanation. A speeding car caught on radar, same thing, they are just timing the sent and returns in milliseconds. You can't turn radar OFF and expect to get any thing back.

Secondary radar also known as a transponder is a radio beacon with a code assigned, a four digit beacon code. These transponders are tune-able to enter different codes. The most important role of the transponder is to significantly enhance the tracking of the radar return. It also provides real time data flow such as altitude. This is the only way these radar systems provide the altitude readouts.

When ATC assigns this code, it is a temporary assignment for that flight. The radar computer connects this radio signal to this stored (temp) beacon code so it can provide the controller with the needed information to 'track' this flight. As long as the transponder is on and working correctly and the receivers are working correctly, data flows

The target itself, if you turn down the illumination of the information tags, you can see both primary radar 'blip' sitting on the secondary radar 'slash', larger and more pronounced than the primary. If you turn off transponder, the slash is gone and the code is no longer received, the computer no longer associates all the flight information with that code no altitude readout either. Now what happens is the radar system attempts to keep this tag associated with the airplane, but this doesn't last long.


This is what the hijackers did, they turned off the transponders, the secondary radar or "slash" disappeared, the data tag no longer tracked the airplane and essentially went to a primary target only, no altitude, no tracking data tag, no artificially generated beacon code slash, just the radar reflected 'blip'. They were attempting to go stealth as much as possible.

If you listen to the testimony of Boston and New York controllers, they were tracking these flights. Tracking the primary takes visual attention and if you turn your head for a few seconds, its sometimes difficult to reacquire your primary target.

When AAL77 turned the transponder off, it didn't have the strong primary return needed to track visually and in essence did completely disappear. It didn't hide the hijacked flights from Boston that hit the WTC, it didn't hide the flight from EWR that was in Cleveland Centers airspace (UAL93) but it did hide/mask AAL77.

In this scenario, you don't go to 'transponder off mode' you have to turn up your signal gain and reduce any filters that were applied to suppress background clutter and other radar interference's. This does not mean you have enough radar signal to pick out primary targets.

When AAL77 turned off the transponder, the controllers did the logic thing by visually scanning ahead on the flight path. This is a normal reaction because this occurs occasionally when an aircraft's transponder goes off by mistake or needs a recycle/restart. Then when you couple this loss of transponder, loss of radar contact AND loss of communication, this is indicative of an airplane crash. This is what they started doing next.

There is nothing unusual with what I have heard or seen. I don't observe anything that raises concern or questions with what is in this data except for Minetas testimony. I have not seen or heard anything that supports the FAA or military knowing enough info to inform the PEOC where Cheney and Mineta were.

a reply to: pale5218

Thank you for your hard work and great responses. Just remember, some people don't understand the truth movement will do and say anything to stay relevant. The truth movement will post anything on YouTube that will generate likes and notoriety. The 9/11 conspiracies are more about faith than truth at this point.

You know the Pentagon conspiracy theories are weak when somebody believing in WTC CD thinks the obsession with the pentagon is tearing the truth movement apart.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Essays, Science, US | 169 |

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.

About the author

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...
John D. Wyndham
John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator. You can contact him at [email protected].

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Essays, Science, US |

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The continuous radar data matching the FDR data indicates that assertions of tampering, as well as suggestions that a plane swap took place, are mistaken. There is no reason to doubt that Flight AA 77 traveled from Dulles to its impact at the Pentagon. The radar track of AA 77 is continuous from Dulles to the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel and is supported by the FDR data. From there, the FDR data and many eyewitnesses tracked the plane all the way to impact at the Pentagon. The eyewitness and physical evidence fully support impact by a large plane with dimensions matching a Boeing 757.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pale5218

Thank you for your hard work and great responses. Just remember, some people don't understand the truth movement will do and say anything to stay relevant. The truth movement will post anything on YouTube that will generate likes and notoriety. The 9/11 conspiracies are more about faith than truth at this point.

What do they gain from it?

I see it as an insult to the people who lost their lives that day.

The first of the 27 newly released FOI Pentagon debris photographs posted 3/31/17 by the FBI.



The rest are Here

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pale5218

Thank you for your hard work and great responses. Just remember, some people don't understand the truth movement will do and say anything to stay relevant. The truth movement will post anything on YouTube that will generate likes and notoriety. The 9/11 conspiracies are more about faith than truth at this point.

What do they gain from it?

I see it as an insult to the people who lost their lives that day.

Last I heard AE911 turned over half a million dollars a year out of which Richard Gage paid himself eighty five thousand a year.

a reply to: charlyv

Isn't that the same lamp ballast we had pics of years ago (subject of some discussion and disagreement at the time) ?

It does actually say AA and provides a serial number as well, flying in the face of those who claim those things don't exist

a reply to: pteridine

Just as Bob Dylan doesn't need a weatherman to tell him which way the wind is blowing, I don't need a newsman to tell me if I've been deceived, especially 15 years after the event.

That is, I don't know what happened to "the passengers". Neither you nor the government can prove that any passengers boarded. In this case you cannot prove that AA77 hit the building, and the bulk of the evidence available contradicts that claim. The "passengers" may be nothing more than actors in an elaborate play.

Exactly what happened to them does not change the fact that a great deception was pulled off that day. You must not yet realize that you too were deceived, but I do know I was deceived.