It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by megaman1234
If thats so then:
1) the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in." Walker Lee Evey
2) "The aircarft went southwest (...) picking off trees and light poles" Tom Hovis
3) "The plane clipped the top of a light pole" Stephen McGraw
************ Proof beyond a resonable doubt*************\
4) "It hit some lampposts on the way in" Afework Hagos
*************just to rub it in*************
So by your reasoning we have just proved that an Airplane knocked down the lightpoles. It seems to me - since you have written all other witnesses besides your 6 golden children off as being liars and thieves - that you would gain more credence by rechecking these out. Why don't you "independently corroborate" these people?
TFM: Can you describe what it felt like to see the Pentagon in person, for the first time after the attack?
LE: It was a shock. Everyone has seen pictures of the outer wall. Naturally, it was shocking to see on the front page of the newspaper and on television. But believe me, as shocking as those things were, they didn't come anywhere close to the visceral response I got when I saw it myself.
On this day of prayer I went to the Pentagon and prayed for those Americans that died at the hands of those evil monsters.
My office is 8 miles from the site. The recovery teams working 18 hour shifts are just now getting to the body of the aircraft that went right through the outer ring at full power according to eyewitnesses.. Being a former transport type (60's era) I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.
As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage. They are just now getting to the passengers today. The nose wheel I understand is in the grass near the second ring. Right now it is estimated that it will take two years to repair the damage. Ironically, the area had just been remodeled with most of the area was still blocked off and some offices were empty.
Originally posted by megaman1234
Also where did you come up with that definition of proof when it comes to eyewitness reports. Here is a very disturbing fact:
Seventy-seven percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S. involve mistaken eyewitness identification testimony, making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions.
Originally posted by megaman1234
Sigh - I should have seen this coming, I pulled a few quotes out at random. So I'll give you the fact that I really do not have the time or desire to go tit for tat. Just answer me these few questions.
1) How many witnesses say they saw the plane overfly the pentagon.
2) Forget the lightpoles for a sec - did you ever ask anyone else which side of the gas station the plane flew on. Was that a standard question in your interviews?
3) Who came up with the definition that 3 witnesses = a reasonable doubt etc...
Originally posted by megaman1234
OK - so what is the answer to my first question. It should be a number. Just a number. Answer with a number please.
1) How many witnesses say they saw the plane overfly the pentagon???
And that page you linked to? None of them say that they saw a commercial plane
fly past the pentagon. It’s funny that you try to use those quotes to prove your point,
but refuse to use other quotes that describe something else. Like a plane hitting the building...
Look at the words you have to use
"Since this isn't widely reported we can only assume"
"SOME reports of this shows that there is no reason:
Both of those are clear assumptions based on nothing "hard" or "concrete"
Your answer to #2 was
“Of course. Anyone that was in a position to see it. Most weren't. But everyone that was and could tell a difference said it was on the north side”
Of course? I would like to see your line of questioning please. I assume you had a list of standard questions that you asked each witness right?
Certainly you did not change the wording or order of your questions based on what they would say right?
Because if so that would be considered leading the witness your honor.
Also - who determined if they were in a position to tell? You? If people say the airplane flew right over their heads, and they were on the freeway, then aren't they JUST AS GOOD OF WITNESSES as your gas station people?
Forget the lightpoles! All the people sitting in their cars could see the plane! If it went over them - then yes they could tell which side of the gas station it was!
I am very very dubious at your answer above, and of your techniques of investigation.
Your answer to number 3 what I thought. It is your own standard, based on what you have. It has no solid basis in fact,
law enforcement, or investigative techniques in any way, shape or form.
They were interviewed by you and your biased viewpoint. Hallucination is not necessary, just a fuzzy memory and a leading questioner.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is a PRIME example of why direct confirmation of all witness accounts is imperative and how words printed by the media are erroneously used to support the official story.
The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building.
(as a side note his underlined account of where he was told the plane flew COMPLETELY contradicts the RADES and NTSB data yet supports O'Brien and the Potomoc River witness we just obtained. My how poignant of you to post his account in this thread!)
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Hi Craig. After our discussion the other day, I agree that I work better online.
One point regarding what you posted above:
Are you sure you're not doing the same to support your theory? Tom Hovis:
That guy's account is full of inconsistencies patched together from what he heard in old-sailor tall-tale style. Other accounts, like one Arabesque cited of a guy that wasn't there, conflate the plane over DC (the E4B white jet) and 77, as this on apparently does. Either of them could also have been looking at Koeppel's map. I'd have to check the dates, so perhaps not. Anyway... the significance.
Indeed, all credible evidence connected to the flight - radar, FDR - shows it never was over DC and ended at 9:38...
......while the E4B (it seems) only took off from Andrews 9:43 and crossed by DC at 9:46. Clearly an official alteration of the data to divorce the original flight paths that you think were from the same plane, right?
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but in essence, you think it flew down the river and circled DC for a bit, then crossed south and looped up north of the Citgo and impacted? So then what Hovis 'was told' happened must have been from an actual eyewitness account - or some very odd coincidence that his confused patchwork matches the real path. Like Koeppel's map showing this and based on nothing but error also agreeing. A lot of error hovering right around this truth that all these eyewitnesses are helping you see.
Do you find that odd?
The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have been much, much worse."
And, before you get the idea - no - there is no GPS onboard aircraft. It doesn't work through the varying altitudes. INS (inertial navigation system) is far more accurate, anyway. But, in such events, you're not taking down numbers off of your INS - you do that when you're lining yourself up for approach or making sure you're flying in the right direction over long distances.