Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But why would he lower his landing gear at that speed ? an experienced pilot is not going to lower the gear at that speed. Also the plane was still an good distance from the airport.

Of the good chunk of accounts I've see, Sepulveda's is I believe theonly one saying gear down. Others said othing or specifically noted it was NOT down. He was wrong for some reason and that's it. And I think Damocles and I are about right on how it did finally come down and out.

As for how it punched that hole, I'd look at wall construction if I didn't already have too much to do.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

If you haven't seen that film, it is worth taking the time to watch it. Considering two of the interviewees are Police officers, I'd say the chances of them being bribed or otherwise lie about what they saw is just too far out.

Have you not seen the film Serpico? Nevermind. Point is, two Pentagon cops testify to this plane: Lagasse saw a silver American Airlines 757, Brooks saw a beige (?) United Airlines 737 - the two planes were on two slightly different flight paths.

There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).

I'd like to see a full cataloguing of evidence to bear that out. It'd take too much time, of course, but somehow I doubt that conclusion.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me your evidence of flight 77 being remotely controlled. I have only seen talk about the remote control of planes in case of hijackers but that is only recently been discussed by Boieng and other companies.

I've been lurking on the other active what-hit-the-pentagon thread here, and the posts analyzing the flightpath and the the pilot maneuvers, resetting altimeters, etc. very convincingly indicate either a very experienced pilot or RC. It's a slog but worth it.

I simply can't believe any pilot who could fly that plane as it was reported to have crashed was the green arab hijacker, and if he was a real pro, as the evidence indicates he was, why would either the govt, al Quaeda, or the pilot himself want to sacrifice such a valuable person?

So I go with RC. Especially considering that I firmly believe 9/11 was an inside job and the Pentagon attack was meant to be a bit of kabuki to make people believe it wasn't the Pentagon that cooked it all up, when obviously it was.

As for the ability to RC a commercial jet, that technology has been around for some time in defense circles, it was easily rigged up and probably so for all the flights involved.

There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).

I'd like to see a full cataloguing of evidence to bear that out. It'd take too much time, of course, but somehow I doubt that conclusion.

Well, it is in the PentaCon video of him running to his car then backing out of there pretty quickly (unless they fabricated it??).

I haven't seen the film, and know that cops can be bribed, but when they're showing CCTV alongside what they're saying, unless the whole thing is a total fabrication, then I'd say the chances were pretty remote.

Regarding what they saw, they say that they do agree with each other, so whilst one officer saw what he thought was a beige 737, and the other an AA 757, considering the guy who thought he saw a 737 wasn't sure to begin with what it was he actually saw, but knew it was an aircraft, and agreed the flight path, the inaccuracy of his report with regards to the aircraft type is insignificant as the major details (number of engines, time, flight path etc) are consistent with the other witnesses.

I remember a time when I could not tell the difference between a 757 and a 767, but now I can. If the aircraft is sufficiently far enough away, and you aren't expecting to see it and have poor visual references to distance, I can fully appreciate why he thought it was a 737 initially.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).

I'd like to see a full cataloguing of evidence to bear that out. It'd take too much time, of course, but somehow I doubt that conclusion.

Well, it is in the PentaCon video of him running to his car then backing out of there pretty quickly (unless they fabricated it??).

I haven't seen the film, and know that cops can be bribed, but when they're showing CCTV alongside what they're saying, unless the whole thing is a total fabrication, then I'd say the chances were pretty remote.

Ah, yeah, that's what I shoulda realized you meant - his phys position is I think the only one verified by video, whereas the other witnesses were not videotaped standing or sitting in traffic where they said they were. This could raise the suspicion they were trucked in after the strike, or simply that there were only so many cameras - that we've seen - pointing at people we can identify. And the fact that he was there doesn't mean his account of what he saw there is. That's a whole other story.

But Lagasse's case is interesting for this feature and others - I think he's the core of the PentaConstruct. He's always said he was there at that station, facing east, and the plane came in over his left shoulder. As far as I know, noone ever made the connection that this flight path implied. I feel the video is based around Lagasse's aberrational - yet semi-verifiable - testimony, the other three tacked on to flesh it out.

Oddly enough, Lagasse got in some verbal feuds with flyover-promoting Dick Eastman back in 2002-03, earning anti-CT creds - now that the question is only about his northern flight path, somehow both Eastman (thanked in the credits) and Lagasse have "come together" to help craft this new flyover theory. Coincidence? Or evidence of a disinfo chain? I dunno.

Regarding what they saw, [...] the inaccuracy of his report with regards to the aircraft type is insignificant as the major details (number of engines, time, flight path etc) are consistent with the other witnesses.

Fair enough, and could be so. It's not the 737-757 confusion I'm worried about - I still couldn't tell off the bat - but the beige (painted matte finish vs. brilliant silver) and blue letters vs red, UA vs AA. Could be just confusion, but I think it's interesting how far off memory can be, yet these memories are said to disprove the attack unequivocally due to the traumatic nature of 9/11 searing accurately into their brains... I think Brooks may have been added, if this is calculated disinfo, to demonstrate this was not scripted (or else they'd be coached better, right?) That's just a passing thoght however and not a case I'm making.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by gottago
I simply can't believe any pilot who could fly that plane as it was reported to have crashed was the green arab hijacker, and if he was a real pro, as the evidence indicates he was, why would either the govt, al Quaeda, or the pilot himself want to sacrifice such a valuable person?

The British just recently put a system in thier Tornado fighters that will be able to take over a commercial jet by remote control if it is hijacked.

Yes Boeing and other comppanies have been working on these types of systems for a while, they have been in the military for some time but have not made it to the commercial airlines yet.

Originally posted by gottago
I simply can't believe any pilot who could fly that plane as it was reported to have crashed was the green arab hijacker, and if he was a real pro, as the evidence indicates he was, why would either the govt, al Quaeda, or the pilot himself want to sacrifice such a valuable person?

While agreeing with your general argument, this is not a terribly logical conclusion. "Sure, lets sacrifice three skyscrapers and the whole WTC complex, all the just-compleeted renovations the Pentagon, four airliners, a few thousand citizens, and all hope for peace in our time. But four ace pilots? No, we gotta draw the line somewhere, let's go with remote control..."

So I go with RC. Especially considering that I firmly believe 9/11 was an inside job and the Pentagon attack was meant to be a bit of kabuki to make people believe it wasn't the Pentagon that cooked it all up, when obviously it was.

Kabuki. Good way of putting it.

I can still see RC as a distinct possibility - if you want it done right, yknow... they've been flying planes by remote control (another nearby plane) since the early 1940s, and from the ground since the late 50s. With modern flight management systems in the 1970s, it got easier. Computer, satellite, GPS innovations since then make it laughably easy. After 9/11 I remember people up in arms to get a system like that to stop suicide hijacks, and people were saying it'd take decades. This can be read as "we totally, totally don't have such a system, and really really didn't have one on 9/11 'cause it would've been used to save people - or carry out the attacks, so not only do we not have it, we couldn't for years and definitely didn't have it last month."

Was 9/11 Raytheon's program unveiling gone awry? Can we belive in faked calls or a mock attack mixed in or something to explain the reports of hijackers on board? Yeah, I think that's possible, but troublesome... I still don't think its honest to rule out the official hijackers altogether tho.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

both Eastman (thanked in the credits) and Lagasse have "come together" to help craft this new flyover theory. Coincidence?

In the version of the PentaCon video I saw, Lagasse (if he's the officer who was on CCTV) seemed adamant on that video that he saw it hit the building, and not fly over. He even describes how it yawed at impact.

Did he change his story after that film was made??

No. Lagasse has always maintained it flew to his north, that, as he said in the video, he's 100% certain nothing happened on the official flight path, and yet it did hit the building. This doesn't add up, something he doesn't seem to get.The perceived effect is that he's NOT a conspiracy kook, and so his core contribution is not marred by a percieved CT agenda. He just saw what he saw, and can't put two-and-two together, but luckily the CIT guys are there to do it for him...
I do find this supicious, but then again I'm pretty paranoid.

Ahhhhh......... I'm going to have to watch that again - there is something I'm not getting.

I thought Lagasse was the cop on the Citgo premises, as seen in the CCTV, who was adamant that he saw it go where he saw, away from the official flight path, and crash into the Pentagon.

What is it that he's not getting, that I'm not getting?