It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Pentagon attack jet flew directly over the Navy Annex fatally contradicting the official story..

page: 2
6
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by johndoex
Morin cannot see the tail all the way to the pentagon.
But keep saying it if it makes you feel better.

Morin did not see 77 fly over the Pentagon! You can see the Pentagon from were Morin was. He watched the tail and then 77 hit the building. No fly over. He watch the tail fly through the area where it clipped the light post, he was watching tail as it clipped the light posts. Seeing the tail as he did, proves the "official", real flight path. If you support the non-paths of CIT, you should have helped them with physics of flight. Oops, you are the 11.2 G error guy. Never mind. (did you fix that massive error?) Morin proves your basic assertion for your error ridden path (or non path, no theory, no conclusion) false!

Then we have Boger, he saw 77 the same time Morin was watching the tail, and he saw 77 impact the Pentagon.

This makes a chain of custody from Paik, to Morin, to Boger! 77 hits the Pentagon proved by connecting the dots.
Paik see 77 near tower, and points directly toward the Pentagon impact zone.
Morin see 77 over him and parallel to the SOUTH side of the annex (recall the geometry definition of parallel) and watches as he can see the tail and witnesses the impact fireball with no flyover. The tail does not rise. 77 goes towards the Pentagon on a path that goes through the light posts, and Morin sees it go that way.
Boger sees 77 coming as Morin can barely see the tail, and Boger sees it impact the Pentagon.

Then we have other people who saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Some were in the Pentagon, and some were on the road. Some watched if fly right over them on the road. The all confirm the fast speed, just like the speed on the FDR. Since all these people are in an Airport Traffic Area, they know relative speed of aircraft.

Please state your theory, or conclusion. Oh, p4t does not have a theory, or conclusions. Cool; what is your point then?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by beachnut]

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by beachnut
The all confirm the fast speed, just like the speed on the FDR. Since all these people are in an Airport Traffic Area, they know relative speed of aircraft.

So you believe the speed from the FDR but not the flight path and altitude ?

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:18 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you believe the speed from the FDR but not the flight path and altitude ?

What's wrong with the flight path and altitude?

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you believe the speed from the FDR but not the flight path and altitude ?
Exactly what is wrong with the FDR? CIT says what? p4t says what?

The final speed on the FDR was 470 KIAS, and the witnesses confirm this speed by saying fast. If this was not near an airport, fast would not mean as much. Planes around this area are always low; to land normally, you have to be about 300 to 250 feet to make a normal landing from this area.

Using an interview by CIT, you can estimate the speed of 77 when a witness explained how he took so many steps after the plane passed and then heard the impact. That matched the FDR speed very well.

If you look at the FDR and the altitude, and believe it, then the FDR stopped taking data when the terrorist made his biggest push over yet. His previous push over was down to .2 G almost weight less, a 200 pound passenger would feel he was 40 pounds. The last push over was 2 or 3 times bigger stick input down. Maybe the generator drives tripped and the FDR had no data to record. There are time stamps empty on the FDR, what happen? Many FDRs have lost data. So missing data is not new. With missing date, this means 77 hit faster, it had time to go faster. As for the big stick down, there are witnesses that saw the plane pivot, pitch down. That was the last input of the terrorist, did he zero g the jet and send his buddies towards the ceiling, did they trip the generators on the top panel with their bodies or heads as the idiot on the stick was in a PIO? The ride in the plane was rough, the plane was erratic, but at 500 mph, what you see outside is not what you feel sitting on the .2 to 1.7 g excursions ever 2 or 3 seconds. Have you even looked at the data?

The main point is the FDR is not used to show were the plane went. If you find the FDR, you know where the plane went. This is silly for p4t and other groups to make up fantasy based on lack of knowledge of 77. The accuracy of the navigation on board read out, on the nav data of the FDR, is only accurate to 3000 feet (on 9/11, 3000 feet south of runway on take off). Expect ¼ of a mile at best. So, read the data, tell me where the plane was. I can tell you on 9/11 77's heading recorded on the FDR was accurate to 1 or 2 degrees, making the NoC FALSE. Airspeed was confirmed by RADAR data. The people making up stories about 9/11, continue to say the hard evidence is fake, now the military, FAA, NTSB, and others are all faking evidence to the people who make up fantasy. No evidence yet to prove the FAA, NTSB, military and others did the evil deed and covered-up.

What have you found wrong with the FDR data? I have found nothing wrong yet.

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by beachnut
What have you found wrong with the FDR data? I have found nothing wrong yet.

I have the FDR data from the NTSB.

The data shows a different flight path then the official story.

The data shows the altitude to be over the building at the impact time.

The data shows altimeters were reset.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:55 PM
If the plane was directly over Terry Morin as confirmed by Paik and others the official story has been proven false.

This is irreconcilable with the NTSB data and the physical evidence but matches the NoC flight path perfectly.

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
...
The data shows a different flight path then the official story.
The data shows the altitude to be over the building at the impact time.
The data shows altimeters were reset.
[edit on 21-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

No the data does not show a path different from were 77 went on 9/11. The data is accurate to 3000 feet. But please show your work. What mathematical data shows your story to be right?
No the data shows the last reading on the FDR, looks like data is missing; many accident have FDR data missing.
The altimeters were not reset. The FDR shows pressure altitude the whole flight, if you are talking about the NTSB animation, they set the local altimeter setting offset on takeoff but then 2992 at 18,000 feet, then never finished what the pilots would see and misplaced the Pentagon patch. The FDR recorded pressure altitude (PA), so? That means you have to correct it for real altitude; the pilots set the altimeter to do this for them and it is accurate to 75 feet. And?

The data matches path. The data is confirmed by witnesses. The final heading does line up with the down light post.

You must select some numbers and show people. Talk is cool, but the 61.2 degree true track does line up to knock down each lamp post. So you have what, some words, and no real analytical work to present.

Show me how the 61.2 true track heading does not line up with the lamp posts. I will tell you more, in the last 20 second of flight the heading did not vary for more than 1 or 2 degrees, and the FDR headings are good to 1 or 2 degrees accuracy. As a pilot that checks. What do you have? Show me why a 61.2 degree heading can not hit the lamp posts.

Take the final heading of 77 and show me.

(*note, Morin says parallel to the Annex, and he watched the plane to the Pentagon, barely seeing the tail, so 77 did not go over the Annex, it was south of the Annex, parallel to the annex. Geometry helps)

[edit on 21-4-2008 by beachnut]

[edit on 21-4-2008 by beachnut]

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
What have you found wrong with the FDR data? I have found nothing wrong yet.

I have the FDR data from the NTSB.

The data shows a different flight path then the official story.

The data shows the altitude to be over the building at the impact time.

The data shows altimeters were reset.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

That's a really interesting claim; at least to me.

When will you share the information you have obtained through a FOI request?

[edit on 21-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

So, the omnipotent government/NWO/boogyman/whatever managed to fool thousands of eyewitnesses, flew the plane over the Pentagon (with no witnesses to that claim), sneak the plane to……..who knows where with the explicit participation of tens (at least) of FAA employees, landed the plane……somewhere with not a single witness to any of this (not a airline employee, FOB employee, tower operators, people on the ground, etc, etc, etc) presumably off-loaded the passengers and crew, executed them all (unless, of course, they are in on it) but let these ‘devastating’ witnesses slip through the cracks? And you found them but, the NWO can’t?

So on the one hand our government/illuminati/NWO/Spooks/MOSAD/"them" orchestrated the biggest cover-up in all of history, involving literally thousands with first hand knowledge and tens of thousands with second hand knowledge and forgot to silence a few witnesses who contradict the "official story"?

Also, Beachnut's take is spot on. You, literally, put words into peoples' mouths and relate their narrative(s) in a way that is completely detached from reality and what they actually said.

The conclusions your drawing, from your very "own" witnesses is deceptive, dishonest and propaganda IMO. The thing that strikes me is you discredit your claims with the evidence you, yourself, supply in your own threads. In this particular thread you are claiming people have said things they just didn't. As evidenced by simply reading your conclusions and actually listening to what they had to say.

What gets me is if this is the "evidence" you put forward, and it's so completely, easily debunked.........how much cheery picking VIA editing did you have to do to produce this post?

EDIT: I think I am supposed to add that your evil for selling crap.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by beachnut

(*note, Morin says parallel to the Annex, and he watched the plane to the Pentagon, barely seeing the tail, so 77 did not go over the Annex, it was south of the Annex, parallel to the annex. Geometry helps)

1. Over the Navy Annex property OR parallel to it BOTH contradict the FDR/official flight path.

2. It would be impossible to see the tail of the plane from the Navy Annex property when it reached the Pentagon if it entered the first floor as reported.

You can only see the top floor of the Pentagon so if he really saw the tail it had to have been flying over the building.

Why do you keep denying the photographic evidence we have proving this?
click for closeup

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:01 PM

Argument from personal incredulity and straw man as well.

We have never claimed that nobody saw the plane. That's why there was an elaborate 2nd plane cover story and they permanently sequestered the 911 tapes that would have shown what people really first reported.

It seems like you haven't even watched our latest presentation since you are not accurately referencing our claims.

Pseudo-skeptics love logical fallacies.

But we provide evidence.

Sorry you are unable to refute it with or accept the implications.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

1. Over the Navy Annex property OR parallel to it BOTH contradict the FDR/official flight path.

What is your theory, and why does p4t say they have no theory?

There was no decoy plane, you made it up.

Over the Annex means the altitude, parallel means south of Annex. This is the real path, that goes right through the light posts. Morin watched 77 go right through the light posts, he saw 77. Then Boger watched 77 crash into the Pentagon as Morin barely saw the tail as Boger watched it hit. Paik even points to the Pentagon impact point!

Your work proves the official flight path. Good job. Your own research proves the official flight path. Outstanding. Now help rob fix hit physics errors, or please ask for help.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Argument from personal incredulity and straw man as well.

Personal incredulity? You've got that right! So, the omnipotent government/NWO/boogyman/whatever managed to fool thousands of eyewitnesses, flew the plane over the Pentagon (with no witnesses to that claim), sneak the plane to……..who knows where with the explicit participation of tens (at least) of FAA employees, landed the plane……somewhere with not a single witness to any of this (not a airline employee, FOB employee, tower operators, people on the ground, etc, etc, etc) presumably off-loaded the passengers and crew, executed them all (unless, of course, they are in on it) but let these ‘devastating’ witnesses slip through the cracks? And you found them but, the NWO can’t?

So, the answer to my question is "yes"? Also, a straw man? I am asking a question, not forming a conclusion.

We have never claimed that nobody saw the plane. That's why there was an elaborate 2nd plane cover story and they permanently sequestered the 911 tapes that would have shown what people really first reported.

Really? And what did 'they' have to 'really' report? Perhaps some of these quotes from, you know, people you have never bothered to interview will help you out:

I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. - Bauer, Gary

I saw this plane right outside my window… Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon… It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). - Anlauf, Deb & Jeff

The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.” - Evey, Walker Lee

The plane] impacted the side of the building. - Bouchoux, Donald R.

The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. My first thought was he’s not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction - Sucherman, Joel

I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. - Anderson, Steve

I saw an American airlines jet come overhead and slam into the Pentagon. - Thompson, Phillip

I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon. - Carroll, Susan

I [saw] an airplane descend into the side of the Pentagon. - Kelly, Leslie

The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking ‘whoomp’ as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon. - Munsey, Christopher

I saw it crash - Perry, Scott

So, to recap, there are hundreds of eyewitnesses that directly refute your conclusions; a few of their statements, from their own mouths, are cataloged here. In addition, three out of four of your own witness disagree with your conclusions and believe the plane hit the Pentagon.

What was that you said about evidence?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:00 PM

You have no clue what you are copying and pasting because you have made zero attempt to actually research or validate the claims.

Lee Evey was the renovation manager and not a witness to the event at all because he was at home at the time of the attack.

Susan Carroll was at the metro station and could not see the Pentagon at all from that location.

Gary Bauer is a high ranking republican and member of the former PNAC who signed the document lamenting for a "new Pearl Harbor". You might as well cite Bush himself.

Most of the people you cite did not have a view of the Pentagon and simply saw the plane and perhaps the explosion.

This demonstrates why unconfirmed 3rd party quotes out of context are NOT valid evidence while first hand accounts are.

The evidence we present proves a military deception.

We know that the media published quotes from many people who were deceived as intended.

The notion that there are 100's who witnessed an impact has been proven false and you have nothing to back up this ludicrous claim.

We know that the citgo witnesses were deceived as intended.

Their unanimous placement of the plane proves it and you have no evidence to counter this.

You are speaking on nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government as a means to dismiss confirmed evidence that challenges your faith.

The NoC, ONA, and EoP claims independently prove a deception and you have provided nothing to refute this hard evidence.

Keep the faith!

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:23 PM
don't forget guys, speaking of the conspiracy in which the physical damage 'is the crime' as craig says... after it's the only thing that killed people at the building... no matter how many witnesses say what, whatever one proves or another implies or contradicts or whatever logic/word games you wanna play... someone cut down those light poles and stashed them. someone smashed lloyd's windshield, probably knowing they were helping cover for mass murder. someone tore a chunk outta the generator, spun it aside, and started it on fire. someone tore out that fence, presumably before, damaged the vent wall, warped a lid in the shape of an engine, scuffed the vdot mast, clipped off parts of a tree in the shape of an engine, faked all the radar data, altered all the video, fabricated all the fdr data but for whatever reason turned the animation map to show almost the true heading, hurled a giant fireball against and into the building, set up mirrors or whatever to get everyone seeing the flyover to mistake it for a low impact, scatted light plane parts outside and heavy ones inside, blew over 50 columns inward, except three on the outside that accidentally blew out, left column 14, forgot to damage the foundation, forgot to leave tail marks, forgot to scratch lloyd's hood or lay the poles at the right angles, and a few other things.

and all this is possible, who knows how, but proven since five witnesses now have come forward and said it was north of the citgo. so it couldn't possibly be the plane that did all that, why can't you people get it?

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Caustic Logic

Oh the classic Russell Pickering technique of sarcastically listing the physical damage (and of course completely mischaracterizing our simple explanations to seem more complex) in one big convoluted argument from personal incredulity.

A sure sign that you have given up trying to refute the evidence just as your ridiculous disinfo conspiracy theory that writes off all the contradictions to deep cover operatives indicates.

An equally hard to believe sarcastic list can be made pertaining to the official story Larson.

I'm simply not inclined because this lame debate style is nothing but a logical fallacy and I choose to focus on independent evidence.

What a concept huh?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
[
The NoC, ONA, and EoP claims independently prove a deception and you have provided nothing to refute this hard evidence.

Keep the faith!

Claims do not equal Hard Evidence.

No matter how hard you yell and scream and kick.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:35 PM

Very true.

You provide "claims".

I provide multiple lines of independent corroborating verifiable evidence.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I provide multiple lines of independent corroborating verifiable evidence.

What you provide, of course, is some evidency-type stuff and endless repetitions of the assertion that 'we provide multiple lines of independent corroborating verifiable evidence.' in this case even 'I provide...' Is that a healthy bit of ego showing through?

...logical fallacy... pseudo-skeptic...verifiable evidence...proof... logic...
[cue Grace Slick] and the white knight is talking backwards...

Oh the classic Russell Pickering technique of sarcastically listing the physical damage (and of course completely mischaracterizing our simple explanations to seem more complex) in one big convoluted argument from personal incredulity.

Craig, all these things happened, all beneath and unrelated to the plane in your scenario, did they not? They would HAVE to be faked individually to achieve the right effect, correct?. You say you've got 'simple explanations' for all this? There's only one simple ad logical explanation I've seen - big hurking plane. All you've offered is 'they could do that...' and that... and that... but you hate seeing it all put together with a reminder that all this had to be done by people or machine and by some plan, some before, some during or right after, and you have no direct evidence of anyone doing it. not one part. and you scream about arguments from faith, etc...

and what DID they do to warp everyone's optical perception of the plane's altitude? holograms? smoke and mirrors? or just plain smoke and a prayer?

don't even bother answering that since i know you don't have an answer. this has all gotten really boring and i'm not even checking for a response. it is time for caustic logic to go home, at least from this debate here.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

What you provide, of course, is some evidency-type stuff and endless repetitions of the assertion that 'we provide multiple lines of independent corroborating verifiable evidence.' in this case even 'I provide...' Is that a healthy bit of ego showing through?

As typical you have chosen to wallow in a bad attempt at witty rhetoric in a blatant effort to posture yourself since you clearly have no substantive response.

No it's not ego on my part at all, it's fact that you know is true but insist on ignoring the implications.

This is all one big verbal dance for you as the levels of intellectual dishonesty you have had to embrace to keep this exchange going for so long has been exponentially growing the entire time.

It's no wonder you are giving up just like Pickering!

Craig, all these things happened, all beneath and unrelated to the plane in your scenario, did they not? They would HAVE to be faked individually to achieve the right effect, correct?. You say you've got 'simple explanations' for all this? There's only one simple ad logical explanation I've seen - big hurking plane.

Uh huh.

You've made it quite clear how you choose to accept what you have been told in spite of the evidence based on nothing but your unrelenting faith.

The minuscule damage you sarcastically list is mere child's play for the perps in their own backyard compared to what they pulled of in downtown Manhattan on live TV.

Oh yeah....you're a LIEhopper and actually believe that building 7 was a random unplanned collapse.

No matter how you slice it virtually all of the tiny bits of damage you listed could have EASILY been pre-fabricated in advance without anyone being the wiser.

Timed explosives would take care of the rest.

You're darn right the physical damage is the crime. It's anomalous, admittedly "counter-intuitive", and downright irreconcilable with a 757 impact.

That's why we are all here in the first place.

All you've offered is 'they could do that...' and that... and that... but you hate seeing it all put together with a reminder that all this had to be done by people or machine and by some plan, some before, some during or right after, and you have no direct evidence of anyone doing it. not one part. and you scream about arguments from faith, etc...

Why do you insist on telling me what I think, like, or hate? Your sarcastic little list of cookie cutter yet anomalous damage means nothing. It's utterly laughable considering the incredible amount of evidence we provide.

and what DID they do to warp everyone's optical perception of the plane's altitude? holograms? smoke and mirrors? or just plain smoke and a prayer?

The Pentagon is a LOW RISE structure. There would be very little difference in perceived altitude for a plane anywhere near the building.

The human mind is easily deceived. The event was a complete surprise and over in seconds yet people were mentally conditioned to think that planes were flying into buildings due to the attacks in New York.

Oh and if you forgot how we provide significant evidence that there was a 2nd plane cover story and a deliberate cover-up of what was really first reported in the 911 calls.

Perhaps before retiring from your Pentagon studies you ought to set aside some time to really pay close attention to our latest presentation since you are acting like you haven't a clue about the extent of our hypothesis and the extent of the information we present backing it up.

don't even bother answering that since i know you don't have an answer. this has all gotten really boring and i'm not even checking for a response. it is time for caustic logic to go home, at least from this debate here.

Yeah right!

You'll not only read this but you'll be back.

You'll continue to check our forum and website regularly and wait in anticipation for our next release.

Junkies always relapse.

You aren't giving up because you are "bored" you are trying to give up because you are finally starting to realize how your admitted "ego" driven "obsession" with us is negatively affecting your life on a daily basis and forcing you to publicly embarrass yourself time and time again in this debate.

You keep getting served with facts, common sense, and mountains of evidence while floundering in wild speculation, faulty logic, spin, goofy rhetoric, and disingenuous nonsense.

It's so bad that you have resorted to pushing a wild disinfo conspiracy theory (that in essence proves a conspiracy) in order to cover up for the fact that there was a conspiracy! Talk about spin!

We have been forcing you to realize the horrible implications of this important information but strangely and rather sadly, as you have admitted, you are more concerned about the damage done to your ego because you know deep down in your heart that we are right.

top topics

6