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.

 

Pilot Witness Comes Forward: A Global Hawk Crashed Into The Pentagon

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
After just seeing the news about the Pentagon deception taking shape, another rather interesting development, be it less mainstream.




Nearly five years after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the five-sided military fortress housing the Department of Defense.

Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Md, says he was try to get out of Washington on the morning of 9-11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd, the highway that passes the western side of the Pentagon, from where he says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack.


And...



Danner, who estimates that he was less than 500 feet from the path of this aircraft, noted that it was very quiet: "There wasn't the roar noise that you get with a jet at full throttle. This thing knew how to fly quietly--I mean I could hear the whine and I knew it was jet powered." Danner's description of the aircraft's small size is confirmed by early eyewitness reports. One witness, Steve Riskus, has previously confirmed to AFP that the plane was very quiet.

"There was a four-engine jet above us," Danner said, which looked to him like a Boeing 707 or a DC-8 at about 15,000. feet. He said this plane may have been controlling the windowless drone, which struck the Pentagon, by "flying it by camera." Danner noticed that people at the Pentagon were aware of this plane over head.

Danner said he had contacted some of the people he met on th lawn of the Pentagon to encourage them to come forward with their testimony.

Danner says the aircraft flew with remarkable precision as it leveled off and went right into the southwestern facade of the Pentagon. The impact created a "brilliant white flash" that he described as "a phosphorous kind of flash. "This suggest the UAV carried explosives or a depleted uranium (DU) missile. If a DU missile was used, this could explain the source of Danner's lymphoma. If he was contaminated by DU at the Pentagon crash sit, the other people in the proximity would also have been affected.



Source

Things are heating up.... I´ll bet before 2006 is over, a new and full investigation will have started...

I sincerely hope so.

EDIT: A few more (alas) non mainstream sources. Different words, same story.
www.total911.info...
www.rumormillnews.com...
www.mail-archive.com...@yahoogroups.com/msg04722.html

It is also worth mentioning that Danner was personally involved in the cleanup of the lawn. See picture in first additional source.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by HardToGet]




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Ya know, this guy would probably have alot more credibility in my mind, if he, oh I don't know, didn't wait 5 freaking years to bring this point up! It'd be the equivalent of a witness coming forward 5 years after the O.J. trial, gee thanks pal, that's helpful. I mean come on, ovbiously this guy didn't have too big of an ethical issue with the Pentagon attack not for half a decade anyway, but now he does? I suppose I'd be a neo-con if I questioned his motives.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Wow! That is indeed the first time I heard a witness say something about this that totally contradicts the official story. This is big news! I hope the guy lives long enough to reach the right ears. If this is true, I really feel sick to my stomach towards the truly unpatriotic people who participated in this. From the supposed crew, all the way up to the airlines, and personel. It really is very hard to digest the amount of people that had to be involved, and audacity to be involved in such treasonous crimes. If true, they all need to treated as if they were hitler. That is just deplorable. I mean, we all have reservations to the true story, but to actually have supposed travelers, pilots, stewardesses, airline owners, people at the scene...That's major. If true, it doesn't even begin to describe loyalty of Americans.

Say it isn't so!



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
It´s allright to question his motives.

It states in the article he is suffering from lymphoma patient and going through chemotherapy had motivated him to come forward with his testimony.

He´s crossed a threshold where he no longer wants to keep quiet it seems.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DbleTrble
From the supposed crew, all the way up to the airlines, and personel. It really is very hard to digest the amount of people that had to be involved


Well, I do not think any airline crew was involved.

The truth might be much more terrifying, i.e. the 757 was landed on a military base, and the crew and passengers were disposed of using toxins or nerve gas, and partial remains were planted at the Pentagon site, and other remains were directly flown to facilities for evidence gathering (DNA).

That´s what I believe.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Ya know, this guy would probably have alot more credibility in my mind, if he, oh I don't know, didn't wait 5 freaking years to bring this point up! It'd be the equivalent of a witness coming forward 5 years after the O.J. trial, gee thanks pal, that's helpful. I mean come on, ovbiously this guy didn't have too big of an ethical issue with the Pentagon attack not for half a decade anyway, but now he does? I suppose I'd be a neo-con if I questioned his motives.


I actually agree with this...to a point. Remember that ALOT of eyewitnesses were not included in the "9/11 Ommission Report". Maybe he did come forward years ago?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I had to re-edit this again.

That's another interesting point. The guy was actually there to help cleanup. That kinda lends credence to his knowledge, and testimony.

But, I don't know about bodies being dragged back to the plane. He did say, he didn't see any luggage, or bodies. Let's hope not. Otherwise...

That is truly a horrifying thought man! But, not impossible. Oh, I cringe at it. Tell me isn't so!



[edit on 2-8-2006 by DbleTrble]

[edit on 2-8-2006 by DbleTrble]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
What did the "authorities" do to the passengers of the 747 that actually never hit the pentagoon palace...? I saw internet footage of them supposedly being taken off the plane and into a building at a certain airport that everyone was forced to leave inconveniently prior to. Like animals led to the slaughterhouse. Trusting, ignorant, obedient, law abiding citizens. Were they told not to talk and released back into the public or just disposed of... ? After all, if a few thousand are done in at the twin towers scene what's a few hundred more?

This is what someone posted on a forum. I'm going into some deep research here to verify this statement.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
i've been here a year and have been very hesitant to comment on this subject because of a combination of the high emotions and close minded comments from individuals on both sides of the argument. however, after reading this particular thread i have two comments:

1. i know for a fact that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. i know an individual who, as far as i am concerned, is unimpeachable. he was there and saw the whole thing.....cant prove it (and i know i will never be able to convince any of you), but as i said, i'm convinced.

2. if, indeed, the supposed global hawk used depleted uranium, it would be the easiest thing in the world to test. as mentioned, it has one helluva halflife. seems like it wouldnt be too hard to test this theory with a simple run of the mill radiation detector. so i say put up or shut up people.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
so i say put up or shut up people.


I agreed with you until this point. Why the animosity? Isn't it better to question than to just accept? Can you give more details where, when and what your "friend" saw? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Ya know, this guy would probably have alot more credibility in my mind, if he, oh I don't know, didn't wait 5 freaking years to bring this point up! It'd be the equivalent of a witness coming forward 5 years after the O.J. trial, gee thanks pal, that's helpful. I mean come on, ovbiously this guy didn't have too big of an ethical issue with the Pentagon attack not for half a decade anyway, but now he does? I suppose I'd be a neo-con if I questioned his motives.


YOU ARE CORRECT!
This is proof of, nothing more than capitalism! After watching LC, his civic and patriotic duty brought him forward?? It was where for five years.? As far as witnesses go, there are lots of posts here, that show people not in the commission. All saw a plane, but a couple, the rest are daft in your research? BUT Nooooo the..... CTist cherry pick the evidence. Pleeease! He saw the $$, and got a concience! Credible ......whew...gotta give ya that! Sarcasm off! Happy Hunting!

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh

YOU ARE CORRECT!
This is proof of, nothing more than capitalism! After watching LC, his civic and patriotic duty brought him forward?? It was where for five years.? As far as witnesses go, there are lots of posts here, that show people not in the commission. All saw a plane, but a couple, the rest are daft in your research? No CTist cherry pick the evidence. Pleeease! He saw the $$, and got a concience! Credible ......whew...gotta give ya that! Sarcasm off! Happy Hunting!

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]


Nothing more than capitalism? Please show proof that this person is trying to make money. Then and only then I will refute the rest of your post.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Thought you had me on ignore? Just can't stay away, hunh? Ok, if it isn't seeing Dylan and crew cash in,why now? All the great out of context simili, and flat out lies in LC? Made his concience scream ? Doubt it!I know quite a bit about human nature. IMHO! Happy Hunting! Soo enjoy the article!

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i've been here a year and have been very hesitant to comment on this subject because of a combination of the high emotions and close minded comments from individuals on both sides of the argument. however, after reading this particular thread i have two comments:

1. i know for a fact that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. i know an individual who, as far as i am concerned, is impeachable. he was there and saw the whole thing.....cant prove it (and i know i will never be able to convince any of you), but as i said, i'm convinced.


Thanks for sharing this snafu. It means a lot to me.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
(The impact created a "brilliant white flash" that he described as "a phosphorous kind of flash.)

If this is true than the video released from the pentagon does not show such a bright light and must be fake.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Thought you had me on ignore? Just can't stay away, hunh? Ok, if it isn't seeing Dylan and crew cash in,why now? All the great out of context simili, and flat out lies in LC? Made his concience scream ? Doubt it!I know quite a bit about human nature. IMHO! Happy Hunting! Soo enjoy the article!

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]


So, you've automatically assumed that this person watched Loose Change? And your whole theory of why he has come out now is based on this incorrect assumption? Like you like to say....nice detective work Sherlock.

P.S. I never said I was putting you on ignore...just that I was ignoring you. There's a difference.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
i remember one of the original debates was there wasnt enough evidence on the lawn. i remember everyone pointing to the one engine pic in defense of that staement.

what are the chances that ONE engine from a 4 engine plane would survive?

and i had one hell of a time with this when i first researched 911. the problem is that the plane that hit the pentagon had several choices for engines. that made determining if the turbine piece was from a civy aircraft or something like that hawk almost impossible.

also one of the key things i remember from my initial investigation was that several eyewitnnesses had similar stories to Sam.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
If it was a Global Hawk, how come the Rolls Royce engineer stated that this:



Was not a part manufactured in the factory where Global Hawk engines are made?

How come?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
what are the chances that ONE engine from a 4 engine plane would survive?


Uhm, it's not a four engine plane. The last four engine plane made by Boeing was the 747. The 757, 767, 777, and soon the 787, are all two engine planes. So the odds of only finding one engine just went way up. The engine that was found is WAY too big for a Global Hawk. That's just the hub, and doesn't take into account the fan blades, that make it up to twice as big as the hub depending on the engine.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I agreed with you until this point. Why the animosity? Isn't it better to question than to just accept? Can you give more details where, when and what your "friend" saw? Thanks.


sorry griff, i wasnt trying to be a smartass. i was simply stating that those who believe the global hawk with a DU warhead theory should simply go check out the radiation levels. no amount of cleanup would completely irradicate the radiation from a blast the size required to create the damage at the pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join