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.
Originally posted by micpsi
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses...............
Originally posted by micpsi
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses...............
Originally posted by micpsi
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses, whose diagrams of the approach path of the plane indicate that it hit or passed over the Pentagon more or less at right angles to it.
The various engine components are similar to that of a Boeing 757. But, until someone provides the factory numbers stamped upon them and proves they are identical to what Flight 77 had, such photographic evidence does not amount to proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon because these parts could have been planted.
Don't underestimate how far the plotters could have gone to create the false scenario of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. Hell, we know now from the PentaCon witnesses that the light poles must have been blown up to create the bogus story that a large, low flying plane hit them. If the plotters could think of THAT, they sure could have also planted dummy engine components amongst the debris before too many people arrived on the scene.
This is for me the Proof that evidence was PLANTED, and therefore NO 757 was even there...
Originally posted by ThreadTrekker
John,
Very interesting post... but I was wondering if you could put some of this in layman's terms. What is the normal purpose of setting field barometric pressure. And what does FL180 mean?
The story of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon is an urban myth not supported by the facts and certainly not supported by anyone who has flown the Boeing 757 and/or has an aeronautical engineering degree and/or has participated in any kind of large airplane accident investigation.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I wish I could say that I was suprised by that, but I am not. Very few people want to do research into the witnesses at the Pentagon that day. For me, I just have to call the men and women that I have served with and asked them what they saw that day.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I wish I could say that I was suprised by that, but I am not. Very few people want to do research into the witnesses at the Pentagon that day.
Sure you served. We know where you served, Now go get me another Big Mac and Fries.
Are any of these eyewitness accounts the ones in which you are referring to?
Hey Swamp you must have this info in your files somewhere, like bookmarked or something?
Lets see these witnesses that saw a 757, or again you're just making empty claims. See how that works?
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yes I make it a point to record conversations I have with my friends. Its not files or bookmarks or anything on the internet. Its called talking to a friend, you should try it sometime.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
LOL, this is funny. So how do you pick and choose who you believe on the internet? I mean you accept John Lear's statements without question, but you question mine? Not that it means anything, but I have 20 years in aviation working on everything from SH-60B's, EA-6B's, P-3C's, F/A-18C/D's, C-9's, C-12's, C-130's and F-16's, I have also helped in several accident investigations.