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.

 

How Did the Hijackers Find the Pentagon, Anyway?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I don't remember where or when, just that I remember him saying that he didn't see the actual impact. I didn't know that they weren't sure it even came from the Pentagon. But I do remember hearing somewhere that he didn't see the actual impact. But if you read into some of his other interviews you can get a picture that he didn't, even without him saying it. He talks about seeing the plane hit the ground, not the building. If he had seen the impact into the building you would expect him to say the plane hit the building.



National Geographic, BBC, History Channel, and I've seen one other with a local news station.

Never does he say that he saw the plane hit the ground so I am calling you out on that one. Please quote him or retract it.

He did not have it in his sight at all when the explosion took place.

In all interviews I have seen they were real ambiguous about what he saw in regards to the alleged impact creating the impression he WAS a witness to this.

I would be VERY interested in an interview that made it clear he wasn't a witness to the attack.




[edit on 31-8-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Man, you can believe me or not, I'm done fighting over this whole thing. I've got my life falling apart around me and am trying to pick up the pieces. I still dabble in this, but nowhere near as much as I used to, and mostly for escape value. I still stand by what I said about reading into his interviews and him never saying he saw it hit the building, but instead the ground. Sorry I'm not going to spend hours looking for one interview where he says he didn't see it, I've got more important things to do right now.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'm not "fighting" bro.

This is a civil discussion based on facts.

If you are unwilling to back up things you claim as fact then readers should be sure to note it as conjecture/hearsay.

For the record......I have had direct contact with the pilot and he claims he did not even know it was the Pentagon that was attacked when he first saw the smoke and did not have the plane in his sight at the time of the attack.

This runs counter to the unsupported contention from Zaphod58 that he claims he saw the plane hit the ground.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I admit to misspeaking when I said he saw it hit the ground, however, I still stand by stating that he wouldn't have said "It hit the ground" if he had seen it hit the building. Saying he saw it hit the ground was wrong on my part, but it still doesn't change the fact that if he had seen it hit the building he PROBABLY would have said "It hit the building". That's what you would expect someone to say if they had seen it impact into the building.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Ok.

But that doesn't change the fact that he never said it hit the ground and DID say that he didn't have it in sight at all at the time of the explosion.

Cheers!



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Uhm, yes he DID say "it hit the ground". HE even says that he told the Washington tower that.


In a recent interview, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, commander of Gopher 06, says he remembers seeing a big explosion. He says this fireball was quite a bit bigger than the one he'd seen when a classmate crashed.

"I just remember telling Washington, 'Washington, that airplane has hit the ground.' And right away, I got real upset inside, because you know it was like a fellow aviator had just crashed an airplane in front of me again, or aviators, in this case," says O'Brien. "It's like a part of you dies when somebody in your own business has a mishap like that."

news.minnesota.publicradio.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I think that by the phrase "hit the ground", O'Brien was simply saying that the plane was no longer in the air and that "the ground" includes any buildings, roads, etc. That's the way it seems to me, anyway.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Ahhhh!

Thank you for the source.

Now I get what you/he meant.

He saw the smoke and figured it crashed in general.

But he was not claiming he saw it "hit the ground" as opposed to the Pentagon.

Glad we cleared that up.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tuning Spork
 


It could be, but if he knew it had impacted the building, then I would have expected him to be a bit more excited about it, and say it hit the building specifically. That would be a pretty monumental event to be witness to, and IN MY OPINION (want to be specific here), a person would be a lot more specific and would PROBABLY say something more like "Oh my god it hit the building!" or something along those lines.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
I think that by the phrase "hit the ground", O'Brien was simply saying that the plane was no longer in the air and that "the ground" includes any buildings, roads, etc. That's the way it seems to me, anyway.


Precisely.

He had lost sight of the plane completely before he turned around to "follow it" as requested by ATC and by then the explosion had already taken place.

He was far enough away that he did not even know the explosion came from the Pentagon.

At that point O'brien was flying towards the source of the explosion and the flyover would be long gone.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Hey Zaph, don't get to bent out of shape over Craig's transparent refusal to accept or acknowledge any evidence that contradicts his fly over theory.

Hi Craig. Did you ask Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien if he saw a 757 fly over the Pentagon after the explosion? If you did, what was his answer? Also, did you ask him how close to the Pentagon he flew after the explosion?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Hey Zaph, don't get to bent out of shape over Craig's transparent refusal to accept or acknowledge any evidence that contradicts his fly over theory.


Not sure what you mean. The only "evidence" he posted was an article and I fully accepted it.

However it did not contradict the flyover.



Hi Craig. Did you ask Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien if he saw a 757 fly over the Pentagon after the explosion? If you did, what was his answer? Also, did you ask him how close to the Pentagon he flew after the explosion?


He flew through the over minute old smoke plume high in the air.



Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but....

He did not see the plane approach the Pentagon. He did not see the explosion come from the Pentagon. He did not even know that the smoke was coming from the Pentagon at first. By the time he turned around to head back towards the Pentagon, the plane would have been was long gone.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

maybe I haven't been paying attention but this is what I gather so far. Let me know if I get anything wrong.

You believe a 757 flew on the North Side of the Citgo.
You believe the same 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but flew over it.
Any eyewitness that says a 757 hit the Pentagon was deceived or lying.
You haven't found any witnesses to the 757 fly over.
You believe the C-130 was there as a cover story to help confuse eyewitness testimony of a second plane.
You believe all the Pentagon damage was caused by pre-planted explosives.
You believe the five light poles were planted before the attack.
You believe that all aircraft debris was planted.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

maybe I haven't been paying attention but this is what I gather so far. Let me know if I get anything wrong.

You believe a 757 flew on the North Side of the Citgo.
You believe the same 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but flew over it.
Any eyewitness that says a 757 hit the Pentagon was deceived or lying.
You haven't found any witnesses to the 757 fly over.
You believe the C-130 was there as a cover story to help confuse eyewitness testimony of a second plane.
You believe all the Pentagon damage was caused by pre-planted explosives.
You believe the five light poles were planted before the attack.
You believe that all aircraft debris was planted.


Well, hey... this all follows as logical necessity if you believe Lagasse et al. So are you saying you DON'T believe the groundbreaking north-of-Citgo flight path?
Craig: We need another picture of Lagasse or Turcios in here. Or that animated gif. We have doubt!
Also I have the foundation damage info together but I'll take that to the
proper forum.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

You believe a 757 flew on the North Side of the Citgo.
You believe the same 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but flew over it.
Any eyewitness that says a 757 hit the Pentagon was deceived or lying.
You haven't found any witnesses to the 757 fly over.
You believe the C-130 was there as a cover story to help confuse eyewitness testimony of a second plane. (but that the pilot himself is a dupe and didn't witness the attack and is not in on the operation)
You believe all the Pentagon damage was caused by pre-planted explosives.
You believe the five light poles were planted before the attack.
You believe that all aircraft debris was planted.




Yes with simple modification added.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870

You believe a 757 flew on the North Side of the Citgo.
You believe the same 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but flew over it.
Any eyewitness that says a 757 hit the Pentagon was deceived or lying.
You haven't found any witnesses to the 757 fly over.
You believe the C-130 was there as a cover story to help confuse eyewitness testimony of a second plane. (but that the pilot himself is a dupe and didn't witness the attack and is not in on the operation)
You believe all the Pentagon damage was caused by pre-planted explosives.
You believe the five light poles were planted before the attack.
You believe that all aircraft debris was planted.




Yes with simple modification added.


ETA: it may or may not have been a 757 but it most definitely WAS a twin engine passenger jet of some sort.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Oh and there may have been eyewitnesses that weren't decieved or lying but that their testimony was suppressed via control of the media and the permanent sequestering of the 911 calls.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


A couple of things I forgot to add.

You believe Lloyd England is mistaken, lying, and/or a government operative.
The flight data recorder recovered at the Pentagon is not from flight 77.
The flight data recorder that was planted has falsified data.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Yes to all added.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Of course in regards to 9/11 it was a complex operation no matter how you look at it.

It would be just as easy for me to create a list of things that seem absurd but yet still fall right in line perfectly with the official conspiracy theory.

But that does not matter because as we all know......the 9/11 attack was quite real regardless of how it was carried out.


Arguments from incredulity are a logical fallacy regardless of what side of the fence they swing.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join