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.

 

The Impossibility of CIT's Flyover... many SHOULD have seen it!

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Controllers that day weren't able to track the plane on 9/11,

So, at the time, they didn't have a clue which plane was approaching. In all the confusion were they even watching the radar screen for any other readings or were they sticking their heads out the window watching an alleged visual approach?

They could have been told anything on the day and believed it, by the sounds of it.



but when they went back and went over the radar data when they weren't under the pressure they were that day, they were able to track the flight the entire time it was in the air.

Too bad it was after the fact, huh?

In summary, the controllers were not aware of the alleged plane until it was 5 miles out, or about a minute away. They did not see the point of impact of the plane. They could not identify the plane as being AA77. They were not able to correctly recall the time that the phone call was made.

Did they get anything right that day? I wouldn't be surprised if they entirely missed a plane flying away from the Pentagon, with their confusion and the great pyro display that was taking place. They didn't have a clue what was going around them, so some details may have slipped their attention.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Trying to say that they missed a plane flying away because they couldn't identify a plane coming at them with no transponder makes a lot of sense. Do you even know how radar systems work with the FAA? Most radar sets won't even SEE a plane from just the primary return without the controller resetting it. If they don't know that they're looking for a primary return and reset the software they don't see it. As for the controllers at National, it's one thing to not be able to identify the plane coming at them at AA 77 without the transponder, and another to not even see the plane flying through their airspace visually. Not to mention that it would have appeared on their radar screens.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


How can the recorded radar prove that the plane was AA77 if the transponder was turned off during the journey? Without the transponder switched on, those radar blips could have been any other plane with its transponder turned off. Were they real transponder readings or part of the training drills that were operating that day?
Primary Radar. Secondary radar is what picks up the transponder beacon.




What time was the call made, Boone? It helps to know how much Stephenson was in error, from the 9.30 time that was mentioned.
9:37:05. That wasn't a direct quote from Stephenson, the reporter said "about" 9:30. Flight 77 wasn't noticed until after 9:32 a.m. Reagan Tower wasn't made aware of it until 9:37.


Boone's quote mentioned 'west' not 'east'. I'm presuming you made a typo here, unless there's more to the story that we don't know about?
Corrected.


I can't download or listen to any audio right now. If there's something you want me to hear, then type me the transcript. I'll listen to it when I am next able.
Fair Enough.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

What time was the call made, Boone? It helps to know how much Stephenson was in error, from the 9.30 time that was mentioned.
9:37:05.

Impact time was 9.37.44

Call was made at 9.37.05. How long did it take to answer the call and hear the message? Let's say it was instantaneous, so that's 39 seconds until impact.

The plane travelled 5 miles in 39 seconds, which gives an average speed of 461.5 miles per hour. Is that about right?

Why did the SS wait until 39 seconds before impact to call the tower?

What if they spoke for about 5 seconds, then it took Stephenson another 2 seconds to see the plane 5 miles out. That's 32 seconds to travel 5 miles, which is an average 562.5 miles per hour. Is that right?

I can't believe how useless air traffic control is, if a plane can approach within 5 miles or less than 40 seconds of crashing into the most secure building in the world, UNDETECTED! It defies belief!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Impact time was 9.37.44
According to the FDR. There is a 25.3 second time difference between the FDR and real-time according to the commission. Actual impact time was closer to 9:38 a.m.



Why did the SS wait until 39 seconds before impact to call the tower?
I don't believe the Secret Service ever called the tower. The phone call I'm referring to came from Washington TRACON located beneath the tower. Using secondary source information, such as the USA Today reporter, is an exercise in futility. "About 9:30" is a good example. Flight 77 was not noticed by any controller until sometime after 9:32.


What if they spoke for about 5 seconds, then it took Stephenson another 2 seconds to see the plane 5 miles out. That's 32 seconds to travel 5 miles, which is an average 562.5 miles per hour. Is that right?
Again, using an approximate distance of 5 miles with an approximate time from the recordings would be a useless method of calculating the speed of the aircraft.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
According to the FDR. There is a 25.3 second time difference between the FDR and real-time according to the commission. Actual impact time was closer to 9:38 a.m.

Whoa, hang on. There should only have been ONE impact time, not a few of them. This isn't a multiple choice test. I got a time of 9.37.44 from Wiki. Granted, Wiki probably isn't an official source, but it was the first place I looked. WHY should there be a 25.3 second delay between the FDR and the REAL time? Wouldn't that suggest there is a problem with the FDR?

Can anyone tell me the alleged exact time of impact, or do I need to pick a value, depending upon whom I am told to believe?


I don't believe the Secret Service ever called the tower. The phone call I'm referring to came from Washington TRACON located beneath the tower. Using secondary source information, such as the USA Today reporter, is an exercise in futility.

Then why did you post an excerpt that stated the SS called the tower? I don't see the point of using that excerpt, Boone if you don't believe it yourself? Why?

I'll ask again.

What time did the alleged Flight AA77 allegedly impact the Pentagon?
What time was the alleged call made to the control tower, that Stephenson answered?
Who made this alleged call?
Where was the alleged call from?
How long did this call last?

I'm not willing to accept "maybe" or "around" or "about" or "one source says this, the other source says that". All of those words are CRAP. It should all be known, without error.

I wish the believers would get their story straight.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Boone 870
The controllers reported that the aircraft crashed.

If they couldn't see the plane, how could they report that it crashed?



Do you believe the fireball and smoke cloud expanded far enough and fast enough to the east to obscure the view of a fast flying 757 from the controllers that were located 1.25 miles from the Pentagon?

I wasn't there, so I don't know. Were you there to see how much vision the fireball and dust cloud obscured?


From a distance of 1.25 miles, a 757 (155 feet long) could be obscured in a fireball that shoots hundreds of feet into the air and produces a dust cloud lasting several minutes.

I've already dealt with this. See: www.abovetopsecret.com... above.

People were in a position to see a jet over the Pentagon from 360 degrees around the Pentagon except for those who would be on the approach side where smoke would obscure a plane.

Since there is not a single eyewitness nor a single media report of any jet flying away from the Pentagon, in a geographic area of thousands of people, you have to explain why.

In fact, we all know why, including Craig Ranke, who has run away from this thread because he knows why too. There were no eyewitnesses because AA77 crashed into the Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Craig Ranke....where are you?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I've already dealt with this. See: www.abovetopsecret.com... above.

jthomas, I was specifically asking if the controllers in the tower saw the crash. According to Boone's quote - they did not see the crash. You can read that as many times as you like, but it won't change the fact that they did not see the crash. They saw the alleged plane disappear behind a building, then they saw an explosion. They inferred that there was a crash, they did not see it.

Boone's quote also stated that there was a phone call from the SS, alerting the tower to look for the plane - yet Boone doesn't believe that it was the SS who called. Why would Boone use a quote, that he does not believe is true, to support his story?

jthomas, what was the official impact time at the Pentagon? Please quote as many sources as you need and decide on the one that you think is correct.

jthomas, was there a call made to the tower? If so, what time? Who made it and for how long were they speaking?


Originally posted by jthomas
There were no eyewitnesses because AA77 crashed into the Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates.

Well, we know that unless the alleged wreckage is identified, it doesn't prove that the alleged Flight AA77 crashed. You can't count that as evidence. It's unidentifiable scrap.

We know that we don't have any video evidence, so you can't include that.

We know that NONE of the eyewitnesses were able to identify the plane as tail number N644AA, so you can't include that.

Boone stated that the FDR has got the impact time wrong. In which case, we don't know what else the FDR got wrong - it's dubious at best. You can hardly call that solid evidence. If it can't keep proper time, then how can it keep a proper flight path?

Remind me again, what evidence do you have that the alleged Flight AA77 crashed?

[edit on 20-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Craig Ranke....where are you?

Why are you baiting a fellow member to respond?

There's terms and conditions against that behaviour.

Your post added nothing to the topic.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
I've already dealt with this. See: www.abovetopsecret.com... above.

jthomas, I was specifically asking if the controllers in the tower saw the crash. According to Boone's quote - they did not see the crash.


Of course, that is irrelevant. We have all the evidence that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon whether any specific person saw it or not.



They inferred that there was a crash, they did not see it.


The evidence shows their inference was correct.


Boone's quote also stated that there was a phone call from the SS, alerting the tower to look for the plane - yet Boone doesn't believe that it was the SS who called. Why would Boone use a quote, that he does not believe is true, to support his story?


His story? The evidence, despite your persistent denial, is that AA77 hit the Pentagon


jthomas, what was the official impact time at the Pentagon? Please quote as many sources as you need and decide on the one that you think is correct.


Irrelevant. We know AA77 hit the Pentagon. It doesn't matter if different people reported slightly different times. The evidence still demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon


jthomas, was there a call made to the tower? If so, what time? Who made it and for how long were they speaking?


Give me one good reason why anyone cares?


Originally posted by jthomas
There were no eyewitnesses because AA77 crashed into the Pentagon as ALL of the evidence demonstrates.



Well, we know that unless the alleged wreckage is identified, it doesn't prove that the alleged Flight AA77 crashed.


Why do you still refuse to report the statements of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the records. Why do you claim still claim one needs serial numbers from the wreckage to know that AA77 crashed into the pentagon when you know full well that is nonsense.

Do you think being intellectually dishonest helps you?


You can't count that as evidence. It's unidentifiable scrap.


Prove that statement. You can't because, like the fraudulent CIT, you refuse to provide any statements from the over 1,000 who had direct access to the wreckage.


We know that we don't have any video evidence, so you can't include that.


Again, you are being intellectually dishonest since you know any videos are not needed.


We know that NONE of the eyewitnesses were able to identify the plane as tail number N644AA, so you can't include that.


Entirely irrelevant. You're striking zero.


Boone stated that the FDR has got the impact time wrong. In which case, we don't know what else the FDR got wrong - it's dubious at best. You can hardly call that solid evidence. If it can't keep proper time, then how can it keep a proper flight path?


Where did the FDR come from, tezzajw?


Remind me again, what evidence do you have that the alleged Flight AA77 crashed?


You struck out again, tezzajw. You have no statements from the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage; you continue to knowingly lie that you need serial numbers, videos, and a tail number as proof AA77 hit the Pentagon; you have absolutely no eyewitnesses or media reports that AA77 flew over the Pentagon, and, without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever, you claim that there is nothing but "unidentifiable scrap."

So, once again, I caught you in blatant contradictions and misrepresentations of the facts.

Now, to redeem yourself, I want to see your interviews from these guys telling us what wreckage was seen, removed, and sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn in the days and weeks after 9/11. If you continue to refuse to provide any evidence of what wreckage was seen and recovered from inside the Pentagon, I expect you to retract your claims publicly in this forum.

Start here:


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions

Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...


No excuses this time, tezzajw.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


If some people need exact times and serial numbers, how can one go about doing anything productive? When investigating the past, very often numbers aren't there and cannot be proven at all. Inferences have to be made. Some people are meticulous, some are not. You have to work with what is available. We will not know every single minute event that happened on 09/11/01 because not everyone who was witness or investigating, immediately snapped into "record-everything" mode when the attacks happened. There was so much confusion and it can be expected.

How can we prove there was a Battle of Hastings in 1066? Check out the 'alleged battlefield'? And find what? Alleged battle artifacts? Alleged corpses? And yet we accept it as fact and make decisions about the future based upon it. Many many things in life you have to take partly on faith partly on evidence. A critical eye in serious matters is important but oftentimes the anal-retentiveness of people is ridiculous and unhelpful.

Lastly, people trust their eyes too much. They think that they can analyze pictures just by superficially looking at them. They often don't know what to look for. Again there is compromise here. When 1000 people witness a plane striking a building and a majority have the same story coming from different witness angles, their collective account should be used as evidence.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

WHY should there be a 25.3 second delay between the FDR and the REAL time? Wouldn't that suggest there is a problem with the FDR?


Because all of the times from the commission are correlated with the 84 RADES time for the purpose of commonality. 84 RADES clock was 25.3 seconds slow.
aal77.com...


Then why did you post an excerpt that stated the SS called the tower? I don't see the point of using that excerpt, Boone if you don't believe it yourself? Why?
I linked to the USA Today article because it is the only linkable source of Stephenson's account that I'm aware of. I did not link it to point out the phone call or how far away the airplane was from the tower, I linked it as a reference to point out that Stephenson was in the tower.

There is a more detailed account in the book Touching History if you're interested.


What time did the alleged Flight AA77 allegedly impact the Pentagon?
What time was the alleged call made to the control tower, that Stephenson answered?
Who made this alleged call?
Where was the alleged call from?
How long did this call last?


Get back to me after you've listened to the audio recording and let me know if you heard any mention of a fly over.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I linked it as a reference to point out that Stephenson was in the tower.

You sure proved that he was in the tower, just like you proved that he never saw the alleged plane crashing.


jthomas

tezzajw
jthomas, what was the official impact time at the Pentagon? Please quote as many sources as you need and decide on the one that you think is correct.

Irrelevant. We know AA77 hit the Pentagon. It doesn't matter if different people reported slightly different times. The evidence still demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon

It's hilarious, reading the amount of handwaving and evasion that you do, jthomas. The spin that you put on your argument is amazing. I'm sure some people even believe it.

Read your answer above, what do you see that's wrong with it? You're claiming to everyone that a plane crashed, but you don't know what time it crashed? You're saying that it's ok if different times were reported, as though it wouldn't make a difference.

Wrong, jthomas. It does matter. We're not dealing with a keystone cops investigation, or are we? The exact moment of impact should be known, without question. Man has had the ability to tell precise time since the dawn of the nuclear age, yet you can't give me a precise time for when a plane allegedly crashed into a building?

Hmmm...

By the way, have you managed to identify any alleged parts for me yet? All that you do is handwave and avoid me when I ask you.

By the way, have you found a SINGLE witness who saw and read that tail number N644AA, as the alleged plane was allegedly crashing into the building?

Keep up your good work and stop waving your hands. You might come back to me with some proof one day.


[edit on 20-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
"many SHOULD have seen it!"

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence.

Why won't you confront the witnesses and tell them they are wrong about the NoC approach, TY?

Why?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence.


Where are the flyover witnesses?

You claim that there was a "flyover," why do you continue to promote a theory without evidence?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig. I looked at ALL the evidence. I know for a FACT what hit the Pentagon. I do not need to interview anyone. It has been done. It's called "reinventing the wheel."

The more important question to you sir;

Why do you waste your time here or on lunatic internet radio broadcasts?
If your proof is so solid, take it to MSNBC and see Keith Olberman. He himself stated the Bush should be tried for criminal negligence. Find some media outlet outside of the United States. God knows how many countries hate us now.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Where are the flyover witnesses?

You claim that there was a "flyover," why do you continue to promote a theory without evidence?

Where are the witnesses who saw tail number N644AA crash into the Pentagon?

You claim that N644AA crashed, why do you continue to promote a theory without evidence?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
problem solved I have seen video from several different angles of the plane hitting the pentagon there is nothing else in the sky anywhere. only one plane that was that low. on top of that pentagon employees and drivers on 395 would have seen another airplane regardless of the direction of travel. 395 encircles the pentagon and there is a great view of it in either direction



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence.


Where are the flyover witnesses?

You claim that there was a "flyover," why do you continue to promote a theory without evidence?



It's listed in this very thread. Why do you choose to bypass it and pretend like it doesn't exist?

The plane approached on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up into an ascent.

This, alone, is enough to prove the plane did not hit the building. Unless you would like to explain how the plane hit the 5 light poles, showed up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video, hit the generator trailer/fence with it's right engine, and caused the directional damage to the C-ring hole as outlined by the ASCE report all after approaching from the north side of the Citgo and pulling up to an ascent.

Can you?

Would you like to tell Roosevelt that the plane he saw was a C-130 propellor cargo plane he saw 3 minutes after the event?

I didn't think so.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join