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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Do 'they' have or is there an NTAC(?) that shows the flight like the video

JFK JR had that showed the nose dive.

By now 'they' could make up one I suppose.

The Government can't give us satisfaction that for sure.

We Can't Get No (Conspiracy) Satisfaction.



Yeah, so its an N-Tap... anyone hear of it... it shows the path of
the radar blips of the planes.

I had to watch JFK JR again just to find it.

So there you have it, all the information you want.



I'm not quite sure what "all the information" means here... are you wondering if there was a published radar track thing... ? Well the Flight Path Study by NTSB has maps from the FDR and radar. This is the official path as used by the 9/11 Commission. For what it's worth, ABC's 20/20 showed this radar (reconstruction?) back in 2001, which seems to match that data regarding the 330 loop.



Dunno if this helps.




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Is that a real RADAR picture, or a mock-up?

The heading between the Pentagon and Flight 77 at that point looks less than 070 degrees (remembering that RADARs are orientated North up).



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Based on a video that I saw earlier. (Posted in the thread regarding the pentagon movie) Based on the offical story a jet hit the pentagon. For a person who couldn't fly the plane (based on the testmony of his flight intructor yet he managed to miss the highway underpass and fly two feet above the ground.

Yet why the video of the video tapes of 3 to 5 places- Why was the tapes suddenly taken by the FBI?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Leyla
 


His flight instructor didn't say that he couldn't fly the plane. As a matter of fact, his flight instructor said that he didn't have any doubt that Hani could have crashed the 757 into the Pentagon.

2 feet off the ground? Hardly. The light poles that were hit were standing on elevated ground and they were hit approximately 20 feet above their base. If you look at the Pentagon crash photos you can find images of a generator trailer that was struck by the right engine. The generator that was hit is the type that is pulled behind the tractor of an 18 wheeler and it was hit about 10 feet above the ground. The angle of descent has been figured at 5°.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


His flight instructor didn't say that he couldn't fly the plane. As a matter of fact, his flight instructor said that he didn't have any doubt that Hani could have crashed the 757 into the Pentagon.


Incorrect.

Marcel Bernard was not his "flight instructor" but he refused to rent Hanjour a Cessna 3 weeks before 9/11 because Hanjour's skills were so poor!

But here is what an employee from Hanjour's flight school academy said about his skills:

[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
source



You have erroneously called Bernard his "flight instructor" and have erroneously said he "has no doubt" that he could "hit the Pentagon" but you didn't source it because you are wrong.

So let me source it for you.

On September 17th, 6 days after the attack Bernard said this:


O'CONNOR: Hanjour didn't come back, and while landing a Cessna is far different from landing a 757, Bernard says keeping it in the air isn't.

BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility.
source


That is a far cry from what you said and Bernard does not specifically mention the Pentagon at all. In fact there were no specific details available about flights, flight paths, or topography within a few days after the attack. Bernard may have been referring to the towers without realizing what flight Hanjour was allegedly piloting. Details were very sketchy at that point and you are misrepresenting Bernard's claim by getting very specific when he was speaking very generally without knowing the details of the complexity of the flight path at the Pentagon.



2 feet off the ground? Hardly. The light poles that were hit were standing on elevated ground and they were hit approximately 20 feet above their base. If you look at the Pentagon crash photos you can find images of a generator trailer that was struck by the right engine. The generator that was hit is the type that is pulled behind the tractor of an 18 wheeler and it was hit about 10 feet above the ground. The angle of descent has been figured at 5°.


Oh really? Who figured the "descent angle" at 5 degrees? I'll tell you who. It was pilots for 9/11 truth and they did it based off the FDR.

The point that you completely missed is that this descent angle is COMPLETELY contradictory with the physical damage AND the security video which has the "object" and the smoke plume (which casts no shadow) coming in perfectly low and level.




So if you concede there was a 5 degree descent angle you have conceded that the security video was manipulated and that the physical damage was simulated.

Glad to see you're coming around Boone!



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The descent angle is the nail in the official Pentagon story coffin and is extremely important.

People can not deny that there would have to be an obvious descent angle with a plane that large because....

1. This is how large jets maneuver in real life.
2. The FDR reports a descent angle.
3. The topography is complex and REQUIRES a descent angle.


These images right next to the Navy Annex demonstrate the steep decline required to reach the Pentagon at all let alone underneath the bottom two floors:





No pilot would suggest that a 757 could be maneuvered perfectly level at so quickly (536 mph) like the physical damage AND the security video require.

It doesn't matter how skilled of a pilot you are.

So where is the descent angle of the alleged "smoke plume" and why does this alleged smoke plume cast no shadow?


Oh and why is there not a single witness who reports this alleged smoke plume?

Mod Edit: Resized very large images only.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Nice gif, something was heading pentagon way.




From my last post, it looks like I did not have an example of what an
N-Tap looks like.

So JFK JR called in the start of his flight with the FAA and his flight path
was recorded for all time. Any legit airliner flight should have the
same immortalized N-Tap. So where is it?

Thats what I am talking about.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Nice gif, something was heading pentagon way.



Actually there is plenty of reason to believe that the video was manipulated so no, I would not take that security as valid evidence that anything at all was headed towards the Pentagon.

I believe they released that video partially to support their story but also to throw people off track with bogus claims of a "missile".



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Does anybody know when the C130 guy first spotted flt. 77, and how long he trailed the 757. Also what is the C130s pilots name again.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Leyla.
As Craig has pointed out, in fact, the information I posted was erroneous. Marcel Bernard was not Hani's flight instructor and he did not say no doubt. I apologize for posting in haste and without details.

In my defense though, you posted this."For a person who couldn't fly the plane (based on the testmony of his flight intructor ". There is more to that quote, but I'm going to assume that you forgot to put in the parentheses. His flight instructor does say "He could not fly at all." Maybe his former flight instructor was exaggerating a little bit.

from www.private2atp.com



You must be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English Language

You must be able to obtain at least a 3rd class FAA medical certificate

You must be 16 years old to obtain your student pilot license

You must to be 17 years old to obtain your private pilot license

You have to acquire 40 hours total flying time

10 hours of the 40 hours must be solo (alone) flight time

5 hours of the 10 solo must be cross-country (flying from one airport to another)


Obviously, the flight instructor was exaggerating a little bit or he wouldn't have been able to acquire the most basic pilot's license.



O'CONNOR: Hanjour didn't come back, and while landing a Cessna is far different from landing a 757, Bernard says keeping it in the air isn't.

BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility.
source

As you can see by what Craig posted, O'Connor clearly says "it". It refers to a 757. So that means Bernard is referring to a 757. As we all know there were only 2 Boeing 757 aircraft involved that day. Only one of them hit a building. The building that was hit by a 757 was not either one of the World Trade Center towers.


originally posted by Craig
In fact there were no specific details available about flights, flight paths, or topography within a few days after the attack.

Now Craig is the one erroneously posting information. Click on this link from theWashington Postand look at the date that it was posted. It was posted 9/12/2001 which clearly indicates that there was information on which flight and aircraft hit the Pentagon. Here is a small clip of what the article says.

9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77, carrying 64 people from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the west side of the Pentagon.



Maybe Bernard knew exactly what he was talking about.

One more question Craig. If they didn't know the details, then why were they asking Bernard about Hani Hanjour?

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Boone 870]

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 



The pilot's name is Lieutenant Colonel Steve O'Brien and he flies for the Minnesota National Guard/Minnesota air National Guard, one of those two. I'm not exactly sure about the other details and I don't want to speculate and post anything erroneous.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


One more question Craig. If they didn't know the details, then why were they asking Bernard about Hani Hanjour?



This is your only relevant question and the answer is because certainly some information was instantly disseminated but relatively obscure facts such as the exact flight path and complex topography of the area certainly was not.

Bernard was not a citizen of Arlington and therefore would not naturally be familiar with these details even if they were disseminated which they weren't.

The fact that he does not specifically reference the Pentagon attack actually supports the notion that he was erroneously referring to the WTC since that is the default point of reference in regards to 9/11.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
My question about when exactly Colonel O'Brien spots flt. 77 seems to be important for this reason.

If he's trailing when Hani starts his 330 degree turn, then does he also do this 330 degree turn? And if so, a C130s turn capabilities are better and its decent capabilities are also better so he could have gained on flt. 77.

If he's trailing so far behind when Hani starts his turn and doesn't also do the turn then I think he loses sight and only sees the post impact smoke.

Just trying to clear this up.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Just as interesting,is why would the pilot fly in at an impossible angle,"hugging the ground." (no burn marks on the grass btw.)
Any fool knows that all the important stuff is underground,the buildings above ground have no imprtance.so surely it would make more sence to do a nose dive,and therefore do damage to the core,not the shell.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Oh,and for those who watched the whole thing live,i don't know if you noticed this.after the plane had flown into the pentagon,and its flight path had been established,did you see anything strange?
Well.on the supposed flight path,all the lamps and telephone/graph poles were still standing and the cars all had intact windows.impossible is it not for these things to still be standing directly in the path of the plane? and being so close to the cars would have shattered the glass windows....
Fast forward to the next morning,the lamps and poles have been removed!! (knocked down in the most unconvincing way.)and all cars had been taken from the site!



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
My question about when exactly Colonel O'Brien spots flt. 77 seems to be important for this reason.

If he's trailing when Hani starts his 330 degree turn, then does he also do this 330 degree turn? And if so, a C130s turn capabilities are better and its decent capabilities are also better so he could have gained on flt. 77.

If he's trailing so far behind when Hani starts his turn and doesn't also do the turn then I think he loses sight and only sees the post impact smoke.

Just trying to clear this up.


1. It wasn't flight 77 and "Hani" didn't pilot it.

2. O'Brien NEVER "trailed" the plane at all. He passed by it as it was moving into it's turn/descent, it was after that when ATC asked him to follow it so he THEN turned around to try and find it again but had lost sight of it and it was too late because he noticed the smoke. But he was still too far away at that point to even know that the smoke was coming from the Pentagon until he got closer.

This is how he described it to us. Hope that helps.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Think about these facts: The side of the Pentagon hit by the cruise missle or Global Hawk type craft was the side that held the accountants that were trying to unravel where the 2.3 TRILLION dollars had gone that Rumsfeld announced on 9-10-01 were missing. Also, it housed the Naval Investigative Service which handles a lot of very highly classified data that may have been tracking the truth about what was happening..like the ABLE DANGER program and others that had a handle on Atta and others long before the 9-11 ' attacks '.

Now, stop and give this a long hard thought: We have been asked to believe that among eight pilots in the cockpits of the four jets, in closed cockpits and with military training and a history in aviation of NEVER giving up the controls to anyone else, no matter what..that not ONE of those pilots were able to flip a switch and activate the highjack alarm. NOT ONE!! We are asked to swallow the fairy tale that the cockpits were swarmed so fast, so suddenly, that not one pilot could either radio a warning or activate a simple switch.

Pilots have testified here on ATS that it takes a SECOND to flip the switch..yet not ONE pilot did so. That is impossible odds. That alone tells us that all four aircraft were taken by remote control instantly. There is no other conclusion possible. How on earth could lightly armed ( boxcutters supposedly got thru the metal detectors..along with gas masks, guns, bombs, navigational aids and GPS units..right?) Of course they left their flight manuals and wills and such in the car at the airport..right? My God, how much boloney will some people eat?

Does anyone really believe that? HOW could a highjacker : 1. Break down the cockpit doors so fast that not one alarm was sent. 2. Enter a cramped cockpit, disarm both pilots, haul their bodies, dead or alive, from the cockpit area without affecting the controls and without even ONE pilot sending the signal. 3. Get into the seats and take command of the craft and then steer them to their destinations, all without fail, excepting Flt. 93, which met a fate we are all guessing about since NO evidence at the scene shows us a plane at all.

NO highjack alarms despite the FACT that to get thru a cockpit door and remove pilots no doubt willing to fight to the death to keep their aircraft safe would have been a process that would take more than a split second, which is how long it took; recall the tapes of Flt. 93 talking to Cleveland Tower and then just two seconds later, nothing. Dead air. Then the preprogrammed tapes begin broadcasting the supposed ' keyed mike' nonsense to prop the story up.

The physical logistics of getting thru a cockpit door, getting both pilots out of their seats and dealt with and then occupying and steering the flights, flawlessly, to their desired locations is an impossibility mathematically. It just makes NO sense in any way. Who could believe that cockpits could ALL be overwhelmed that fast in all FOUR cases? Not ONE highjack code sent, not one among four planes and eight pilots, not to mention the other locations on a plane that the other staff can use to activate that same alarm..NONE were activated and THAT is a smoking gun if anything is.

Even if the ' highjackers ' had started assaulting the cockpit doors, the pilots would have flipped the switch, they would have had PLENTY of time to do so if in fact the scenario was played out as the ' official lie ' states. Then, even if the ' highjackers ' had actually violated the cockpit, how to disarm and disable two able men at the same time in a tight and cramped space before the switch could be flipped? THEN, supposing all that silliness was true, then they had to have the skills to fly heavy aircraft ( for the first time in their lives ) with great accuracy into their targets. That is a fairy tale.

There is NO group of Americans, men especially, who would allow people with short blades to overtake and kill everyone on board. No way. Small boxcutters and ' plastic knives ' ( Rumsfelds words ) would not intimidate a group of men determined to stay alive..no way. The highjackers would have been swarmed and overtaken by a dozen men and the event ended if in fact that is what happened. But it did not happen that way, and we all know that. There are too many suppositions that account for too many anomalies to believe a word of the official story.

NO HIGHJACK CODES BEING SENT BY FOUR (4) airliners despite the ease of doing so and the one second needed to accomplish this.

This fact ALONE screams out that the entire story is a lie and a total fabrication from the start. NO names of the supposed ' highjackers ' on ANY flight manifest OR on any autopsy reports. No experience for the highjackers on heavy aircraft. The HUNDREDS of ' anomalies ' that are a fundamental part of the story. Taken alone, any one of these facts would prove beyond a doubt that the official story is a total lie, but taken together, it is an indictment against the entire military and political establishment of this nation.

A COUP was pulled off on 9-11; don't you know that we are not alone in believing that the 9-11 events were staged and managed by the shadow government, the military leaders all know and the politicians all know; only a fool would accept the official story. The decent and moral and law abiding people in high positions are well aware that we have been taken by enemies from within; what they can do about it is another story but have no doubts that there are a lot of fine military and civilian people who are as sickened and horrified as we are about the OBVIOUS nature of the events and what they mean for us as a nation.

ONLY a massive and fair investigation is done and the perps brought to justice will save this nation; I can only hope that since the politicians are all too weak and bought off and scared perhaps a contingent from the military will overthrow the Bush cabal and restore democracy and the Constitution to prominence and undo the horrific harm that the plotters like Cheney and the Noecon murderers that pulled 9-11 off have done to us. treason has been committed, murder has been committed, and we know why and how it was done and basically by whom.

But until the real Americans and patriots have the nerve to stand up and speak truth to power, we will remain in a state of bondage and danger as the perps are allowed to remain free and continue their nefarious deeds unchecked.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Craig, it turns out that I was right about Marcel Bernard saying that he had "no doubt'' about Hani being able to do what he done.

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

Link to Newsday.com article from pentagonresearch.com




originally posted by Craig
Bernard was not a citizen of Arlington and therefore would not naturally be familiar with these details even if they were disseminated which they weren't.

Are you suggesting that Mr. Bernard is not familiar with the topography of the Pentagon? Could it be possible that he has driven by the Pentagon? Could it be possible that he has passed near while flying? The airport that he worked at and flew out of is approximately 20 miles from Washington, DC.




originally posted by Craig
The fact that he does not specifically reference the Pentagon attack actually supports the notion that he was erroneously referring to the WTC since that is the default point of reference in regards to 9/11.


Again, why would they be asking Marcel Bernard about Hani Hanjour if they did not know that the downed flight was flight 77 and that it had hit the Pentagon and that Hani was the hijacker?
They didn't just pick out some random flight instructor for his opinion. They went directly to him because they knew that it was Hani.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
That's a very good question. As an American I couldn't locate the pentagon no matter how hard I tried or no matter how long I flew around the US. Not because i'm ignorant or unedjucated, but because I heave never had any business in going there! Hell 1/5 of Americans don't know where America is, when we have a suppossedly top-notch edjucation system. I dont see how they found it either.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The descent angle had to exist because the ground itself was going downhill. The other thing to remember is that as an aircraft accelerates, the pitch angle reduces to maintain altitude, so if the FDR was recording -5 degrees of pitch, whilst he might have been descending, not all that pitch is being used to descend.

I know that is a bit of an over-simplification, but the bottom line is that zero degrees of pitch will not always result in the same rate of descent as it is very dependent on speed.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join