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.

 

Flashbang Theory - 9/11 Pentagon

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
First let me preface this post by saying this is only a theory and has not been endorsed and/or representative of the fantastic work being done by CIT and P4T.

Some who make excuses for the govt story continue to posit that since there arent any witnesses to a "flyover", that it must not have occured.

Well first, we all know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Although Roosevelt Roberts describes a "flyover" after the explosion event at the pentagon, and we know 911 calls which were confiscated could potentionally reveal more "flyover" witnesses, combined with the fact it is impossible to canvass such a large area without the resources of a major media conglomerate or investigative govt agency, i propose the following theory as to why there arent more "flyover" witnesses.

If NoC flight path as witnessed by multiple independent witnesses is accurate (we already know its aerodynamically possible and witness compatible thanks to P4T), it does factor a military deception as proposed by CIT.

Anyone who is familiar with military tactics are familiar with Flash-Bang to stun your enemy/opponent. Anyone who has even played any first person shooter video game is also aware of such tactics.

We know many witnesses described witnessing a "flash" at "impact". Terry Morin is a perfect example.

We also know that the Dod "5 Frames Video" captured a large flash at "impact".



Description of Flashbang.


....can be used to incapacitate people, generally without causing serious injury....

The flash of light momentarily activates all photosensitive cells in the retina, making vision impossible for approximately five seconds until the eye restores the retina to its original, unstimulated state. Subjects affected by flashbangs describe seeing a single frame for the five seconds (as if their vision was "paused") until it fades and normal sight returns.


Might be a plausible explanation for a deduction of "impact" by witnesses and another reason many have not come forward to a "flyover". They were blinded and "incapacitated" by the flash and loud bang on a much larger scale.

Something to ponder...




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Interesting theory. How bright and sustained do you think the flash would need to be to wipe-out sightings of the flyover?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Very interesting RockHound757.

That could have most definitely played a significant role.

This added together with all the evidence we have for a deliberately planted 2nd plane cover story regarding another plane that allegedly "shadowed" AA77 and flew away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion would most definitely account for the people who may have been in a position to see the flyover.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well... we already have solid proof there was a large flash. Its in the DoD video.

So.... with the description of "FlashBang", and setting aside the "flyover" for a moment, i dont know how anyone could even actually see an impact with the flash, let alone a "flyover". Unless of course a building were blocking the "flash", such as in the case of Roosevelt Roberts.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I have to admit that it seems very likely that vision was "tampered" with via flashbang techniques.

And I have to admit that the Official Conspiracy Theory is the least likely of any scenario offered to explain what happened that day.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Interesting theory. How bright and sustained do you think the flash would need to be to wipe-out sightings of the flyover?



6-8 million Candela flash and deafening 170-180 dB SPL blast


...according to the source in the OP.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
double post.. sorry

[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Lets not forget that most of the witnesses had heard about the planes hitting the towers in NY. Even Morin says he knew of it, and was thinking about it as the plane flew over his head and headed toward the pentagon.

So haveing the majority of the witnesses who probably ducked for cover, or covered thier eyes during the Bright flash and explosion, although they had not seen the plane hit the building. They put two and two together.

Then I'm sure their eyes were fixed on the damage of the pentagon and not what 500-1000ft up in the air, and a hlaf mile to the South side of the Pentagon (where the flyover plane was), by the time these witnesses got thier bearings.

Also as you both stated, any reports of another plane could be written off as the Military plane that was supposedly shadowing 77, or the doomsday plane ect.

Terry Morin says his only concern after the epxlosion he didnt see was to get water and run up to the impact site. I'm sure thats where most of the people who needed to be fooled (the people on the impact side), were focused after the explosion.

Is this the way it happened??, I'm not sure, but's it's just as plausible as the official story, which the FDR places the plane in impossible places, doing impossible things.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213


So haveing the majority of the witnesses who probably ducked for cover, or covered thier eyes during the Bright flash and explosion, although they had not seen the plane hit the building. They put two and two together.



Yes great point.

The ANC witnesses were very clear about how they were running for cover away from the scene.

This VERY poignant statement from ANC witness Darius Prather sums this up perfectly....



"Nobody was thinking about whether it was going to hit the building or not hit the building. Everybody was running in the opposite direction for their lives."





posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Is this OP for real?
This has to be a joke, right?
I thought Captain Bobby got banned from ATS?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I agree, great points.

And for those lurking, thank you for linking this thread. It saves us some time.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
First let me preface this post by saying this is only a theory and has not been endorsed and/or representative of the fantastic work being done by CIT and P4T.

Some who make excuses for the govt story continue to posit that since there arent any witnesses to a "flyover", that it must not have occured.

Well first, we all know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


On the contrary, Cap'n. The absence of evidence necessary and required to support your theory renders your theory invalid.



This "new" theory of your just demonstrates that you know you are running away.


Although Roosevelt Roberts describes a "flyover" after the explosion event at the pentagon, and we know 911 calls which were confiscated could potentionally reveal more "flyover" witnesses, combined with the fact it is impossible to canvass such a large area without the resources of a major media conglomerate or investigative govt agency, i propose the following theory as to why there arent more "flyover" witnesses.


Sorry, Cap'n, checkmate:

You, your members at P4T, and CIT were unable to refute this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I will ask you to think more carefully and deal with more realistic scenarios.

What facts we do have are clear:

1. The freeways around the Pentagon and the bridges nearby were congested, full of morning traffic, at a standstill in some spots.

2. Many drivers had unobstructed and different views of the Pentagon from many different locations.

3. NO one can claim to know what those drivers did or did not see.

4. ANY jet flying fast and low over the Pentagon as claimed and required by CIT's "theory" would be visible to a large number of people, particularly those people face on to the jet's flight path away from the Pentagon. There is no way anyone can claim they would not see or hear the event.

5. The jet would have appeared as very large. It would be making a lot of noise.

6. Neither the government nor anyone else would have had any ability to restrict or prevent anyone from seeing or reporting that jet flying away from the Pentagon as an explosion was taking place on one face of it. NO one can say how many people could or would have seen the event.

Now, let's look at what CIT is telling you.

Just imagine it was you stuck in traffic on one of the bridges in the direction of the Pentagon and you see the explosion and this "flyover" jet flying away towards you. You KNOW that the flight characteristics of this jet are completely out of characteristic for any departing or arriving jet at Reagan in direction, altitude, and speed.

Not only do you witness it but so do those stuck ahead of you and behind you. What would you do?

Say you call 9/11 and report what you saw. So do others from the bridge and freeways around the Pentagon. You might get out of your car and compare notes with others who witnessed the event or you might not.

You may have been listening to the news and have known about the New York attacks or you may not know. You may or may not associate the twin-engine jet with the explosion. Did it drop a bomb or shoot a missile? The jet flew right over you and you couldn't see any markings. Was it a military jet, perhaps? But other people saw the event from the side on the freeways and they could see the markings easily? But CIT claims it was a so-called "decoy" jet painted solid white.

So you have an unknown number of people in perfect position to have witnessed the event of a jet doing what any jet has done before flying low, fast, and away from an explosion at the Pentagon. Nobody knows what in hell is going on.

But you, being of sound mind, want to find out what happened, and turn on the news. All day long, you hear no reports of any jet flying away from the Pentagon. You turn on the TV, switch channels -- all networks are covering 9/11 -- and they are all reporting that a missing American Airlines Boeing 757, flight AA77, had been hijacked and was seen heading toward and crashing into the Pentagon.

Amazingly, there is not one single report describing what you witnessed and reported and what you know others witnessed too. How could the media not report this extraordinary event?

Days go by and still nothing. You are flabbergasted. There is something wrong. There are no reports anywhere of any jet flying away from the Pentagon! Is there some conspiracy going on here?

What do you do? You know exactly what to do. First, you start calling the media, all the TV and radio, and newspaper stations. Each says that they have lots of similar calls to yours from other people who said they were on the freeways and they all described the same thing. But none have been able to confirm it with the government who says that there were no other jets in the area, none on radar, none missing. Days go by and the media doesn't even report the many phone calls they have gotten from witnesses like you? Is someone gagging all the media outlets? Not one of them can score a coup being the first to report the flyover you and others witnessed?

What do you do now? You are convinced the government has pulled off something of major proportions and may be involved. You become a 9/11 Truther determined to get to the root of it all.

So, as a new Truther what is your first act?

Knowing that there were others who saw the event, do you attempt to find them and see what they are saying and thinking?

Do you go on the Internet and check out the Usenet newsgroups for any reports of what you witnessed?

Do you start a website to tell what you saw and ask others who were there to tell their stories?

Do you write letters to the editor of newspapers? What other ways can you think of to get the word out of what you witnessed?

Do you report on Usenet or a website that media outlets KNOW there are many eyewitness reports but are silent?

In other words, do you think anyone or anything could have prevented you from getting the word out of what you and others witnessed that day?

Are you really prepared to believe the notion that there would be NO eyewitnesses to a flyover if one had occurred the morning of 9/11?

How is it possible that after seven years there were never any websites reporting a flyover? Never any posts on Usenet with hundreds of thousands of posts on 9/11? Never any leaks or rumors? Not one single report anywhere of anyone witnessing a flyover of any type as CIT claims and is essential and required by their so-called theory?

If you, like me, think there are numerous ways to report what was witnessed, then why would anyone let CIT convince them that no eyewitnesses to a flyover would be able to get the word out? And why would anyone let CIT convince them or you that CIT can speak for what eyewitnesses saw or did not see from the roads, freeways, bridges, businesses, parks, parking lots, etc all around the Pentagon?

So when you think about it even casually you can understand why CIT's "theory" is irrational and makes absolutely no sense, . And CIT knows it.


You can't continue to claim that the probability of someone reporting a flyover is zero, Cap'n.

You and CIT both know that P4T and CIT is completely finished and discredited. Just admit it Cap'n.



[edit on 14-1-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary, Cap'n. The absence of evidence necessary and required to support your theory renders your theory invalid.

For once, jthomas is actually posting on topic about a flyover in a flyover thread. Well done.

In this thread jthomas admits that he doesn't know how many people should have witnessed a flyover.

jthomas debunks himself when he admits that no one has the 'magical power' to know where witnesses were possibly standing or what they should have seen.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
On the contrary, Cap'n. The absence of evidence necessary and required to support your theory renders your theory invalid.

For once, jthomas is actually posting on topic about a flyover in a flyover thread. Well done.

In this thread jthomas admits that he doesn't know how many people should have witnessed a flyover.

jthomas debunks himself when he admits that no one has the 'magical power' to know where witnesses were possibly standing or what they should have seen.


What thread do you think my quote above came from, tezz?



We'll count your post as admitting you would not be smart enough as a Truther to figure out how to get the word out that "a jet flew over the Pentagon."

That is precisely the kind of ignorance that Balsamo and Ranke are counting on.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   



....being subject to the “flash-bang” sleuth-of-hand tactics described by CIT/P4T - 911Files, aka John Farmer



It appears some are confused or intentionally prefer to lie and create strawmans. So i'll requote the first sentence of the OP.


First let me preface this post by saying this is only a theory and has not been endorsed and/or representative of the fantastic work being done by CIT and P4T.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


I'd say it's a pretty darn good theory backed up with hard evidence.

While of course the security video is fraudulent/manipulated data there is no legitimate motive for them to manipulate the flash into the video.

There is nothing exotic or remotely unbelievable about such a notion within this context either.

Of course the "flashbang" wouldn't have fooled everyone from all perspectives but it sure would have helped from some.

And for everyone they didn't fool they had the 2nd plane cover story.

Now that we have hard direct evidence that a flyover is what people really initially reported before the propaganda set in there is really no way for people aware of the evidence to deny that this is what happened.



[edit on 21-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Of course the "flashbang" wouldn't have fooled everyone from all perspectives but it sure would have helped from some.

And for everyone they didn't fool they had the 2nd plane cover story.


Neither the flashbang theory nor the second plane cover story fooled controllers at Reagan National.


The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.

He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.

Source


A tower controller can be heard reporting the crash in this audio. No mention of a flyover.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Why do you have such disdain for true skepticism and critical thinking principles?

Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to dismiss independent scientifically verified evidence that they lied?

You have no idea what this witness really saw because you have never spoken with this witness or any witness because you admitted you are too "shy" (re: cowardly) to do so even when you thought you were looking one in the face.

This account does not refute the 13 witnesses who independently place the plane north of the citgo.

They prove that many people lied to push the official story and it's entirely possible this ATC is one of them.

There is nothing stopping you from obtaining and providing independent evidence to refute the north side witnesses but this is certainly NOT it.

We have always said the north side evidence is completely falsifiable.

You simply need to provide first-hand accounts of the south side flight path from a minimum of 14 witnesses with an equal to or greater than perspective of the flight path compared to the 13 north side witnesses presented.

It's that simple and if you settle for less you expose your confirmation bias and how you are dedicating every day of your life to spinning and obfuscating evidence of high crimes of the U.S. government based on your faith.

So far you have zero so you've got a lot of work to do to reach 14.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I think everyone sees now why Craig has to obfuscate the fact that he has ZERO eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.

He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.

Source



Above quote from external source extended for intellectual honesty...


The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.


bolding above mine



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join