CNN airs story about the Mystery Jet over Washington on 911 today 12/1/07

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

A download window pops up every time I access the thread even WITHOUT clicking on the link and I am not downloading anything.

I don't know anything about the pop up.

The link I'm talking about is directly below the image I posted. It says, "(open full image in new browser window) ". When you click on that, it opens the image above it into its full-size and you don't have to download anything. The image is hosted by ATS.

I have the same problem. As soon as the page loads, I get a pop up asking if I want to save or open image. This is the second time you've posted an image that it's happened to me with. Not sure what's causing it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's the control tower for the helipad. They're required to have one since they have helicopters landing there all the time, and since they're in the path of a major airport.

All the more reason they should have captured an in coming jetliner!

Really now!!

How do you figure? Look at the cameras that are visible on the tower. Most of them point DOWN. You can't tell if what's along the roof are cameras or what, because the resolution is too low.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How do you figure?

Because if it is a tower for incoming helicopters, then it would be even more reason to have its cameras, radar and personnel in the tower focused on incoming aircraft - of course.

I see the one camera pointing down that you are talking about but even that looks somehow conspicuously positioned to me. It could very well be a motorized camera and where it was pointing during the supposed crash could have been completely different than at the time of this photo.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

Control towers don't use cameras, they rely on human vision, and this particular one doesn't even look like it HAS radar. Not all control towers do. Especially with Reagan so close. If the frequencies were too close to each other they'd cause big problems with the airport radar.

reply to post by Zaphod58


If they don't use radar then that would be all the more reason to have some kind of electronic visual back up - like maybe - CAMERAS for instance??!!

When you're talking about a control tower that's going to be controlling an approach of two miles or less, simple BINOCULARS work just as well as having cameras do. That's what MOST control towers use. They put four or five pairs of binoculars in the tower with the controller/s and they sit there looking out the windows with them watching the planes.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
When you're talking about a control tower that's going to be controlling an approach of two miles or less, simple BINOCULARS work just as well as having cameras do. That's what MOST control towers use. They put four or five pairs of binoculars in the tower with the controller/s and they sit there looking out the windows with them watching the planes.

Hahahahaha

Oh my god - thanks for the laugh - that was fantastic!!!

I just had this image of the Pentagon using Flintstone technology to track incoming pentagon air traffic.

Well at least we know our trillions of dollars of tax money is being well spent on a few pairs of binoculars for the CIA .


[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

reply to post by Zaphod58


Do you think it's possible that they piggyback off the radar from Reagan National?

They could use a Unicom system like at most rural airports where the aircraft call in for an airport update, but it would make much more sense if they actually knew what aircraft was approaching for landing.

reply to post by CyberTruth


Come back laughing when you've been in a major control tower controlling hundreds of planes an hour and seen how high tech they are up there. The Pentagon controlled 10-15 helicopters a DAY maybe. They knew where they were coming from, who they were, and where they were coming from. There were only a couple of approach paths that would take them to the pad without conflicting with Reagan National, so the controllers already knew exactly where to look. Ever hear of KISS? "Keep It Simple Stupid" There's a LOT less chance for a failure using a simple pair of binoculars than a camera. Not to mention that trying to find a helicopter from two miles with a camera is almost impossible.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Boone 870


Reagan would control them to their terminal point, at which point they'd be handed off to the Pentagon controllers. Most military bases near a major airport like that, with a tower, monitor the airport radios just to keep an ear open for when things are coming their way.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm not doubting that they use binoculars in air traffic control towers, of course they do.

But you were insinuating that they did not use radar and that is ridiculous. As Boone suggested - if they don't have their own radar you can bet they have a direct feed from the nearest radar where ever that may be.

I'm sorry perhaps it was my imagination that made me laugh more than your actual point.

At any rate back to my original point- I just think there has got to have been a camera somewhere on those grounds that would have had a clear shot at an incoming jet.

Also - come on - the Pentagon has got to have some kind of missile defense or early warning system. And a plane moves a lot slower and is a lot bigger than a rocket powered missile.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

reply to post by jthomas


jthomas,I'm not defensive and if I came off that way I apologize.I'm replying to your post from page five BTW.
What we have are witnesses and some of those witnesses said something other than a "757" or "American Airlines".I'm not sure where I've contradicted myself and would be happy if you pointed out where exactly.
The evidence(not proof) is heresay,that being AA77 hitting the Pentagon.
So far I've seen pictures of some shiny metal scraps,ONE wheel,ONE questionable engine part,ONE questionable landing gear piece, and ONE picture with a charred body in a seat.Given the physical evidence any number of aircraft could leave that little amount of debris.
How many wheels are on a 757?Seats? The list goes on.
What I'm looking for is an official, and verifiable document stating AA77 hit the Pentagon.By verifiable, I mean serial numbers and other artifacts that prove it was this aircraft.
If you're genuine in your questions to me I'm sorry for appearing to be rude.I've come across a lot of skeptics on here who like to play games and lumped in with them.
I still don't see any links (yet).I haven't read the last two pages.
Edited to add.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by citizen truth]

Originally posted by CyberTruth

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's the control tower for the helipad. They're required to have one since they have helicopters landing there all the time, and since they're in the path of a major airport.

All the more reason they should have captured an in coming jetliner!

Really now!!

For both of your information.....

CIT has interviewed Sean Boger who was the witness that was INSIDE the heliport tower at the time of the attack.

Guess what?

He saw the plane on the north side just like the CITGO witnesses did.

Details here:
2 more north side witnesses revealed!

reply to post by CyberTruth


Where? There has NEVER been a picture of the Pentagon with any kind of fixed missiles, because of two very good reasons. Number one, it was most likely going to be the target of an ICBM, which we couldn't stop no matter HOW many missiles we put around it. And number two, the thinking was that we were going to be attacked from OUTSIDE the US, and they would have to get through groups of fighters that were sitting armed, ready to launch, until cutbacks in the 1990s shrank their numbers to less than 2 dozen.

There's a third reason for not having them, and that's the fact that any kind of automatic system would be too high risk, because Reagan flies almost directly over the building (look at the Patriot in the Gulf. Shot down at least two friendlies that were broadcasting IFF signals), and a manual system would have to wait too long to identify it as the threat before firing. A Stinger is NOT going to stop a 757 at short range, if the 757 is flying along at 500mph+. Yes it will damage it and given enough time it will tear itself apart, but it's not going to blow it up or out of the air right away, unless you get a lucky shot in with it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm just talking about detection of an incoming jet or missile at the very very least. I mean - red alert sirens should have been going off all over the pentagon before that thing had chance to hit.

I can't say that the heliport tower has radar but we know for a fact there are security cameras all over the Pentagon and plenty of footage of the event that will never be released.

Think about it......the President regularly traveled from the heliport and in fact he had taken off from there the day prior and was scheduled to land there on 9/11 at 12 noon!

Obviously they would have heavy security including cameras in place at all times and we believe that his scheduled arrival gave "secret service" reason to "secure" the area by blocking all of the pedestrian paths etc in anticipation for Bush's arrival giving them plenty of opportunity to plant debris and/or light poles unhindered.

Check out this witness account recently released from an FOIA request by John Farmer:

[blacked out] “So you were forced, or herded in certain directions. Who, again, was the police that were directing you, you know, go here, go there?”

[blacked out] “It was – it was DPS, the guys in the black coats. Like I said, I’m calling them Secret Service because I don’t know who they were. I don’t know where – they were all around here. I don’t know where they came from, but they were here.”

[blacked out] “How quickly did they –“

[blacked out] “They were here right – right then and there. That’s why I don’t understand, where did they come from. I saw them, and I said who are you, you know, and just other people that were helping out as well.

[blacked out] “So maybe they were better informed than everybody else and –“

[blacked out] “Yeah, maybe they knew something. I don’t know”

[blacked out] “But you don’t think they were working here, they came from somewhere else here?

[blacked out] “Yeah, because I mean – I don’t know who they were, but – I mean they were helpful.” Pp 21-22

Again, Reagan would get in the way for one thing. If you have two radars operating in close proximity, they're going to jam each other if they're even close to the same frequency. And it probably wouldn't have worked in Flight 77s case anyway, since it was operating without transponder. You would have to have a primary radar set, and the software would probably keep you from seeing it at long range, because it would be so faint. And when it got closer, if you had a cluttered screen the OPERATOR would be the problem with seeing it. Reagan National didn't see it until just before they made the turn to hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Somehow - I don't think Washington DC air space defense would be allowed to be compromised by Reagan International. If anyone is using radar in that vicinity, I'm quite sure it would Andrews Air force base. But it is my understanding that both airports can view radar over Washington.