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.

 

Mystery Flt 77 ?Fuselage? Part at Pentagon

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
'Pop' rivets fail in a variety of ways and we can plainly see examples of all of them in those pictures IE the rivet fails by breaking at either end or in the middle or by pulling through the material keeping the rivet intact. The broken end of the rivet can also remain trapped within the sheet it was holding.

As for announcement of the section being from AA77, I seem to recall a number of announcements about that being what actually happened (AA77 impacting a large building at high speed and being destroyed)




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

posted by Pilgrum
As for announcement of the section being from AA77, I seem to recall a number of announcements about that being what actually happened (AA77 impacting a large building at high speed and being destroyed)

Well unfortunately for you, that just did not happen. The official flight path damage pattern through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior 1st story is just not possible from the proven and now FAA admitted flight path over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo. You may just have to settle on pre-planted explosives accomplishing all the damage and deaths at the Pentagon building. Regardless that mystery object still looks like it was just gently placed there on the lawn.

Announcements are not always correct.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
The official flight path damage pattern through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior 1st story is just not possible from the proven and now FAA admitted flight path over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo.


I haven't been following fl. 77 that closely recently. When was this announcement made, and can you provide a link? thanks SP.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
The official flight path damage pattern through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior 1st story is just not possible from the proven and now FAA admitted flight path over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo.


posted by gottago
I haven't been following fl. 77 that closely recently. When was this announcement made, and can you provide a link? thanks SP.

Certainly.
The video was released by the FAA on 9-12-2008.
Apparently according to some research, the video was created back in June 2002 and the power structure has known about it that long. But the flight path is still incorrect because it still uses the fraudulent loop southwest of the Pentagon which not one person in the entire world witnessed and omits the actual flight path witnessed by many; across the Potomac, over DC, back across the Potomac, and banking around Reagan National.

The CIT eyewitnesses proved the flight path over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo and the FAA dug up an animation made over 6 years ago, and verified that portion of the flight path. Download the mpg to your hard drive; that version is a much better - much clearer version.

FAA video screen capture - aircraft just before impact



Link to update FAA video source - 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Find the file, right click on it, and download it to your hard drive



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
But the flight path is still incorrect because it still uses the fraudulent loop southwest of the Pentagon which not one person in the entire world witnessed and omits the actual flight path witnessed by many; across the Potomac, over DC, back across the Potomac, and banking around Reagan National.

How can you use a video to support your point when you only agree with one section of it?

The FAA, NTSB or any other agency has no verified data for this portion of the path, and this animation is at odds with witness accounts, physical evidence and released radar data.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this animation is supposed to be forensically accurate?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
No beginning without end, the new era!
It begins in small, beware of the Insignificant but Important!
Recognize the key!

08.11.03 - 1x:xx a.m. - 38°54'xx.xx N-77°02'xx.xx W
08.11.03 - 1x:xx a.m. - 40°44'xx.xx N-73°59'xx.xx W
08.11.03 - 1x:xx a.m. - 34°00'xx:xx N-118°14'xx.xx W

The first day!

The x-times and x-coordinates you can find the usual side! Happy Birthday and good luck for your restart, we see ourselves in Ammon. Chnum and Maat stands us in!

Я приветствую тебя
шакала



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by xJackalx
No beginning without end, the new era!
It begins in small, beware of the Insignificant but Important!
Recognize the key


This is obviously some attempt at a cryptological puzzle. You've given three coordinates, corresponding to LA, New York and Washington. However, these puzzles are rampant, and of course you cannot be held accountable when no event occurs.

Bet you $10 nothing happens



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
But the flight path is still incorrect because it still uses the fraudulent loop southwest of the Pentagon which not one person in the entire world witnessed and omits the actual flight path witnessed by many; across the Potomac, over DC, back across the Potomac, and banking around Reagan National.

The CIT eyewitnesses proved the flight path over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo and the FAA dug up an animation made over 6 years ago, and verified that portion of the flight path.


posted by exponent
The FAA, NTSB or any other agency has no verified data for this portion of the path, and this animation is at odds with witness accounts, physical evidence and released radar data.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this animation is supposed to be forensically accurate?

Of course they do not. The FAA, NTSB, FBI, NASA, and any other Federal agency do not have physical evidence to support any portion of the official Flight 77 flight path, except for a dubious FDR and dubious RADES 84 data which conflict with actual eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence.



The flight path over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo, including the bank to the right, has been proven by the CIT eyewitnesses beyond any doubt. The C-130 flight path from the west-northwest and minutes behind the north path aircraft, has also been proven by the same eyewitnesses thus proving the 84 RADES data (manufactured long after 9-11) a complete and utter fraud. The FDR is also a fraud regardless of any supposed magnetic misalignment because the loop shown southwest of the Pentagon by the FDR and RADES never happened. The actual loop crossed over east of the Potomac and over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House (according to the NORAD Tapes) and back across the Potomac (according to Steve Chaconas); in no manner resembling the fictional FDR/RADES fabrications.

The CIT eyewitnesses at ANC and the Citgo were not witness to the aircraft loop across the Potomac over DC and back across the Potomac banking around Reagan, nor to the fictional loop southwest of the Pentagon. The FAA apparently agreed with the CIT eyewitness accounts over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo and banking to the right, and released an animation mpg almost exactly reflecting that flight path the CIT eyewitnesses had witnessed to.





posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


This post, while impressive in its verbosity, does not address the questions I asked.

Once again:
Do you have any evidence to suggest this animation is supposed to be forensically accurate?

How can you use this animation as verification of your beliefs, despite you disagreeing with part of it?


I would like an answer to both of these questions please.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

posted by exponent
Do you have any evidence to suggest this animation is supposed to be forensically accurate?

Yes. The portion of the animation showing the aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo has been absolutely proven by the honest eyewitness accounts of the witnesses from the Citgo and the witnesses from ANC and Sean Boger in the helipad control tower.

Note that is the Naval Annex down below. It looks strangely flat without any upper storys. That looks like Edward Paik's A-One Auto down there too and the aircraft is just about where he said it was. I guess the FAA liked his truthfulness also.


Note the bank to starboard as attested to by numerous eyewitnesses. Note also that the aircraft is passing north of the Citgo station. Arlington National Cemetery lot and maintenance is just over there a bit to the left where those excellent and honest eyewitnesses had a good view of the aircraft. Isn't it great that we have so many good decent Americans willing to tell the truth? Hmmmm. Does anybody wonder why the mainstream media reporters did not find these guys and interview them?


Note the aircraft still banking to starboard and showing the wingtip up off the ground and the aircraft much too high to hit the 1st story. Note also that the light poles would be far away over to the south. We told you guys the aircraft did not hit the light poles nor the Pentagon wall and it looks like the FAA is coming around to the truth. Give them time and they will show us an actual flyover and maybe even a landing on the north tip of a Reagan runway. And the FAA will fix that silly loop southwest of the Pentagon and give us the real loop on the eastern side of the Potomac.



posted by exponent
How can you use this animation as verification of your beliefs, despite you disagreeing with part of it?

I would like an answer to both of these questions please.

I'm not. The honest eyewitness accounts of the CIT over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo eyewitnesses are quite adequate to prove the north flight path, thank you very much. I was just using the video to show that it is quite obvious that the FAA also strongly believes the CIT over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo eyewitness accounts. Support by highly trained aeronautical people within the FAA is greatly appreciated. I expectantly await the FAA soon correcting the remainder of the decoy aircraft flight path and their next video.



[edit on 10/6/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Sorry, we are your forum for coordination assistance have been used as forums for years, based on use. In order to prevent speculation from the way to go, this is a mere coordination of our private organization against hostile Muslim forces.
On the data will not happen because there are people to watch. Never again a 9 / 11 !!!. We pray for an end to this war, but unfortunately, is yours and our struggle against these forces mercilessly and leaves and little sleep. Damn it were, our earth with our blood stain on us and spit.

Sorry
шакала



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
But the flight path is still incorrect because it still uses the fraudulent loop southwest of the Pentagon which not one person in the entire world witnessed...


Bullcrap. See below.


and omits the actual flight path witnessed by many; across the Potomac, over DC, back across the Potomac, and banking around Reagan National.


Got any hard evidence of that there, Preston? Aside from your one "witness", the boat captain, who can;'t tell the dfference between a C-130 climbing through 3,000 feet and a commercial airliner? And don't give me the "southeast of the White House" malarky. That statement was corrected immediately after it was said, and every other.....*every other* piece of data as well as eyewitness accounts (see below) has the aircraft coming in from the northwest, crossing I-66 at the Beltway intersection, turning south, then looping back around through west to north east toward the Pentagon.


The C-130 flight path from the west-northwest and minutes behind the north path aircraft, has also been proven by the same eyewitnesses thus proving the 84 RADES data (manufactured long after 9-11) a complete and utter fraud. ...The actual loop crossed over east of the Potomac and over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House (according to the NORAD Tapes) and back across the Potomac (according to Steve Chaconas); in no manner resembling the fictional FDR/RADES fabrications.


What's your "evidence" of this "southeast" loop, Preston? Again, just because you don't like what the RADES data says doesn't give you carte blanche to say it is false. The C-130 flight path matches perfectly with the RADES data and the ATC recordings - Camp Springs 1 departure, flight path due west and south of the Anacostia River (as per published departure rules), cross the Potomac just south of DCA, all the while starting to follow vectors from Reagan Departure to follow AA 77.

To reiterate, just because *you* and your PffT boys don't like that doesn't give you the right to say it is fake. You know - you need silly stuff like physical evidence to prove something, not a "I don't like that evidence so I'll make up my own - besides, we can't sell our tee shirts if that was correct" approach.

As far as AA77's loop southwest of DC, that has been proven to be the actual flight path time and time again, from RADES to transcripts eye witnesses (Tower Operator Chris Stephenson saw the aircraft from the Reagan tower "5 miles west") to Reagan TRACON operators.

What's next, Preston?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Yes. The portion of the animation showing the aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo has been absolutely proven by the honest eyewitness accounts of the witnesses from the Citgo and the witnesses from ANC and Sean Boger in the helipad control tower.

Am I correct in understanding that you believe this animation to be accurate because it agrees with your claims excepting that the plane does not pull up or level out before the pentagon?


I was just using the video to show that it is quite obvious that the FAA also strongly believes the CIT over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo eyewitness accounts. Support by highly trained aeronautical people within the FAA is greatly appreciated. I expectantly await the FAA soon correcting the remainder of the decoy aircraft flight path and their next video.

Are you really trying to suggest that the FAA believes the damage at The Pentagon was faked?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
Yes. The portion of the animation showing the aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo has been absolutely proven by the honest eyewitness accounts of the witnesses from the Citgo and the witnesses from ANC and Sean Boger in the helipad control tower.

posted by exponent
Am I correct in understanding that you believe this animation to be accurate because it agrees with your claims excepting that the plane does not pull up or level out before the pentagon?

No. It shows that the FAA believes that the aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo eyewitness accounts are accurate. Perhaps the FAA is right this very minute in the middle of another video mpg verifying the remainder of the decoy aircraft flight path east of the Potomac and flying over the Pentagon and landing at Reagan. Hmmmm. I wonder if there has been a 'split' within the Bush Regime?


posted by SPreston
I was just using the video to show that it is quite obvious that the FAA also strongly believes the CIT over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo eyewitness accounts. Support by highly trained aeronautical people within the FAA is greatly appreciated. I expectantly await the FAA soon correcting the remainder of the decoy aircraft flight path and their next video.

posted by exponent
Are you really trying to suggest that the FAA believes the damage at The Pentagon was faked?

I don't know what they believe. Why don't you ask them? Why did the FAA release this video mpg as is? Poor pinch Paisley is all riled up and upset over it.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
People trust their eyes so easily. They trust 'common sense' so quickly. They want the truth but they do not know how to go about obtaining it. That piece may have been moved. Just because you think you are explaining the photograph does not mean you are at all. There was no inside job but you want there to have been one. Then you can make anything you want the truth. If it looks, sounds, walks, smells, it must be... This argument is valid but not by any means sound. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists but they aren't doing a very good job. There needs to be an improvement of quality because this is not at all a challange to write. But I'm a sheep for thinking this, right?

Wow that was an incoherent post.



[edit on 6-10-2008 by newagent89]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89
That piece may have been moved.

Prove it.



The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists but they aren't doing a very good job.

Prove to me that any of that alleged wreckage was from the alleged flight AA77.

If you claim that it is, then you should have no trouble supplying me with the proof.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Prove that the piece may have been moved?

Don't worry, I know where you are coming from.

My statement: "The piece may have been moved" is a 'maybe'. It is not an assertion of fact other than that it is possible that it was moved. I cannot prove that it was moved or that it was not planted there, or that we are not misinterpreting the picture. Again, trusting one's eyes is dangerous. The same thing happened with the bombing in Pakistan. People stated that there should have been no crater. They induced that because every picture they have seen of a car bombing up to the point of the Pakistan bomb had little or no crater that there should be no crater. What they needed to do was deduce what had happened and come to a conclusion based on reason.

The argument that I present is that the alternative (secretly planted) to my maybe statement is absurd. To make that argument sound would take a thread all its own.
Understanding proof is interesting too.

I am convinced by the Pentagon video of the plane. It is clearly an American-airlines plane. Don't say that you cannot see it. That reverts back to the old "I-don't-see-the-plane-therefore-it-is-not-there" fallacy. Just because you cannot prove that 9/11 was not a conspiracy does not mean that it was. There were over 100 eyewitnesses tp the plane strike. The plane struck the wall, some pierced through, a ton of it sprayed on the outside. NO ONE has come forward saying they saw anything planted. Beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, the wreckage was from flight 77.

Even if their was a piece of the plane that said Flight 77 on it, there would be people that would say that it was a set up.

When it comes to your proof method, you would likely say that even if all of the pieces were identified as AA77 all the way back to the plane factory, if one piece did not identify, then there is a massive cover-up.


(btw, cool profile picture. I am a fan of miniatures! What model line is that? GW 40K?)

[edit on 6-10-2008 by newagent89]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by newagent89
Beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, the wreckage was from flight 77.

This is not proof.

I asked you to prove to me that those alleged pieces of wreckage were from Flight AA77.

You haven't done so. Please, show me the proof.



(btw, cool profile picture. I am a fan of miniatures! What model line is that? GW 40K?)

GW, WH40K, Eversor Assassin. He's an arsekicker, a one-man army, sent in to cause maximum disruption at vital positions. When he's not needed, he's biofreezed so the toxins in him don't kill him. He's thawed out for the next war, as required.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by newagent89
 


One relevant point is about parts tied to the aircraft that was 77 that day.....Out of all of the huge number of pieces that would have been blown outwards of the pentagon by the blast, probability suggests that there would have been one found with a part number, which could therefore be tracked to the specific aircraft. Where are these parts? (No, they were not all "melted" or destroyed, that is not what happens in major airline aircraft accidents)....btw, I was an ALPA accident investigator....



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

posted by habu71
One relevant point is about parts tied to the aircraft that was 77 that day.....Out of all of the huge number of pieces that would have been blown outwards of the pentagon by the blast, probability suggests that there would have been one found with a part number, which could therefore be tracked to the specific aircraft. Where are these parts? (No, they were not all "melted" or destroyed, that is not what happens in major airline aircraft accidents)....btw, I was an ALPA accident investigator....

ALPA - Air Line Pilots Association
ALPA responds to the crash of Pinnacle Flight 3701

Tell me, would ALPA conduct a sloppy crash investigation like the FBI did at the Pentagon?
Would ALPA be satisfied without identifying every single piece of aircraft evidence?
Would ALPA somehow manage to not identify one single part by serial number or maintenance record?
Would ALPA be moving parts around from their original locations from one photo to the next?
This time a wheel
This time a wheel and tire
This time neither object

Would this object have ALPA footprints under it?
Alleged flight data recorder image from official Pentagon 9/11 book

Would this ALPA evidence be sitting there without an evidence or crime scene tag for 3 days?


Would this FBI agent be carrying ALPA evidence away from the van without an evidence tag?


Would this ALPA evidence be sitting out there in the open unprotected and without an evidence tag for a long long time?


Would these untrained persons be picking up ALPA evidence at an aircraft crash scene without gloves?

Are they picking these pieces up or planting them?



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join