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.

 

AF Memorial on 77's Flight Path

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
A Fork in the Road

I feel silly for missing this giant object before. It's an Ar Force memorial, built Feb-Sept. 2006, at the east end of the Navy Annex very near the Pentagon attack flight path. Bush dedicating it October 14 2006.

Its location relative to alleged flight paths:

It supposedly had noting to do with 9/11, the site having been offered in October 2000, considered for a while, and then decided on just after 9/11. construction began in 2004.
Here it is seen from the west:

And for what it's worth, here is Edward Paik's flight path drawn in August 2006 I believe:


Perhaps it sounds reachy, but the timing of the memorial's construction with CIT’s 2006 research trips means there was a brand new, gaudy, overwhelming structure being built right in the zone people were remembering their flight paths through. With the monument often cited as being ‘right on the flight path,’ it can’t be ruled out that it could have inserted some distortion into their recollections of where the flight path was.

Just something to add. See link at top for more details.


[edit on 5-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Perhaps it sounds reachy, but the timing of the memorial's construction with CIT’s 2006 research trips means there was a brand new, gaudy, overwhelming structure being built right in the zone people were remembering their flight paths through. With the monument often cited as being ‘right on the flight path,’ it can’t be ruled out that it could have inserted some distortion into their recollections of where the flight path was.




It's BEYOND reachy since Lagasse and Turcious didn't even see the plane until it had passed that structure and you can't see the structure at all from Paik's POV!



The structure has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER with the placement of the plane in relation to the citgo station.




Plus what about Boger and Stephens?

You are DESPERATELY reaching.

Besides this structure has nothing to do with 9/11 at all so really you have no legitimate reason to post about it in this forum.

Your obsessive behavior towards me and my research is troublesome.

It does not inspire discussion.







[edit on 6-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
How did I know you would latch onto that one phrase?

It's BEYOND reachy since Lagasse and Turcious didn't even see the plane until it had passed that structure and you can't see the structure at all from Paik's POV!

It has nothing to with their witnessing of the attack of course as it didn't go up till years later. But It's been said to be right on the flight path, so it might affect their MEMORIES of the path. True, Lagasse and Turcios never point to it and their paths do not go over it. But for some reason Paik draws a path pointing right towards it, as it's going up. He could see it from any elevated view, or on the TV news, etc. and might have been TRYING to draw a line to it thinking that was where the plane went, his own memories less clear. Also Brooks FIRST indicates a path coming right from it, just after it was dedicated. That's where I first noticed it in fact. His finally line tho matches Lagasse's, and passes totally north of the monument.

Again, maybe it's nothing, but I think it's worth considering. Can you somehow PROVE the monument wasn't a factor in their recollections? Because if not then we are right were we were.





[edit on 6-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

He could see it from any elevated view, or on the TV news, etc. and might have been TRYING to draw a line to it thinking that was where the plane went, his own memories less clear.


You are desperately reaching because you can not refute what we present and you feel you must say anything to cast doubt on this important evidence so you can support the official narrative.

He could not see it from his POV or during the interview at all.

Why would he think about a brand new structure that he could not see and did not exist on 9/11 and wasn't even finished being built when he was being interviewed?





Again, maybe it's nothing, but I think it's worth considering. Can you somehow PROVE the monument wasn't a factor in their recollections? Because if not then we are right were we were.


The proof is in the fact that he could not see it during the interview and therefore it could not have affected his memory during his recollection.

The monument was not raised as a reference to 9/11 or any flight path.

You made this up and suggested it purely from your imagination in a desperate attempt to make this structure relevant to their accounts.

Can you prove that the Washington Monument on the other side of the river was not a factor in their recollections?

Can you prove that the Grand Canyon was not a factor in their recollections?

Can you prove that the Eiffel tower was not a factor in their recollections?

If they could not see it and it was not where they describe seeing the plane it is pretty clear that it did not have a factor in their recollections.







[edit on 6-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
He also couldn't see the roof of the Annex, but guess what, his line goes right across the roof!


He couldn't see the memorial, but his line on the roof points right to it.


Now if YOU had seen the bottom photo in you local newspaper for example, knowing the Annex, working right by it, with a caption "the new Air Force Memorial right along the flight path of AA77" and then had some interviewers show you the top photo, you would not be able to recall the image you saw because you can't see it at the moment you're drawing? What are these witnesses to you, humans or guppies? They have the power of memory, that's the whole point.

Yes that implies the guppy-like response of forgetting what you actually SAW 5 years ago to be eclipsed by what the paper tells you, but they're human, not computers or guppies.

And again I don't claim this PROVES Paik and maybe Brooks were confused by the memorial. But you falsely- and despaerately, reachily - claim it's proven they weren't. It's just out there now in the realm of possibilities and I don't think you can recall it now. We'll have to let others decide for themselves what factor, if any, this fork in the road represents.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join