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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
So you agree that the controllers were not subject to the blinding flashbang.

Why did they report a "crash" and not a flyover?

The eastern portion the Pentagon is visible from Reagan Tower:





They were made aware of the flight when it was 5 miles out and they watched the aircraft approach until it disappeared behind the buildings of Crystal City and did not see it reemerge.




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Neither the flashbang theory nor the second plane cover story fooled controllers at Reagan National.


Captain Bob and his "flashbang" theory really amounts to little more than a clown-filled car arriving at the tree fort. "Flashbang" effects are primarily based on proximity, not the simple fact they occur. The farther away someone is from the detonation of a flashbang grenade, the lesser the effect is on them.

Apply that fact to the controllers at Reagan and anyone on 395 - they'd be so far away as to not be affected in the least by any "flashbang" effect, if there was any. This fact, though, is conveniently ignored by the Sleuthy Sky Kings.

The view from the Reagan Tower of the airspace to the east of the Pentagon is clear, unobstructed and extensive. No aircraft was reported seen flying away from the conflagration, which is something I'm *pretty* sure a trained tower supervisor would have seen.

However, for an organization that does not understand the departure procedures of a published standard departure, I'm not surprised they would glom onto something like a "flash bang" theory. Andrews is a military airfield, and Camp Springs One is flown by primarily military aircrew. With Captain Bob not having any military flight time, I suppose, we could cut him just a tad of slack in this matter, but we won't. He should know that a departing aircraft, cleared on a specific departure, flies the departure precisely as published unless cleared to deviate by controllers - especially in the DC area.

More making up stuff.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
So you agree that the controllers were not subject to the blinding flashbang.

Why did they report a "crash" and not a flyover?




I'll let your own external quote answer that one...


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.


So ask yourself, would your eyes be trained on an unprecendented "huge fireball [that] blew several hundred feet into the air"? Or an aircraft with perhaps a split second view.

For those who would like to test their answer, view "9/11 Misdirection" (try google as this video has a notorious reputation for disappearing off the net, and after viewing it myself, i can see why).



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
First, absence of evidence is not evidence. The fact that the tower did not report or SEE the plane continuing on does not mean that it did not happen. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Second, we obtained Chris Stephenson's contact information and left several messages for him. It is very clear he does not want to talk about 9/11, and possibly the flight path or the flyby/over.

Besides Boone, wouldn't the scientific method be to get a photograph from the tower without a telephoto lens to simulate the naked eye?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
Or an aircraft with perhaps a split second view.


What "split second view"? If the aircraft flew over or around or by (you guys can never seem to stick with one theory) the Pentagon, especially over or around of through South Parking, the tower operators at DCA would have had an extended time period to watch this 757 in the air at about 100 feet in the airspace to the east of the Pentagon.

I'm really beginning to wonder about your aeronautical prowess. Tower operators are trained to be observers. Aircraft landing from the south that day means the ONLY aircraft north of the field would have a departing aircraft on take off, and th only view would have been its back end. You don't think DCA the tower controller, the tower supervisor at that (if I remember correctly) would have missed seeing a 757, side-view on as it flew past or over or whatever South Parking?

Wait...if he DID see the aircraft after its super-stealthy fly-by of the Pentagon, perhaps Tower Supervisor Stephenson thought it was on the Camp Springs 1 departure.

Yeah!

Split second view...lol



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 

So ask yourself, would your eyes be trained on an unprecendented "huge fireball [that] blew several hundred feet into the air"? Or an aircraft with perhaps a split second view.


If I watched the aircraft descend behind the buildings, I would definitely be watching for it to reappear from behind the buildings.

How fast would the aircraft have to be going in order to disappear in a few seconds? I thought the truth movement decided Flight 77 was going much much slower than 460 kn to mesh with Morin's 15-18 second plane. Now you're claiming that it disappeared within seconds which would require very high speeds.

Don't forget about Roosevelt Roberts Jr. he claims that the aircraft was over lane one in the south parking lot less than 10 seconds after the impact. It couldn't have disappeared too fast.

How about SYX2020? The pilots had a clear view of the entire area during the supposed "flyover."




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


Now you are trying to change the subject Captain Bob.
Flash Bangs are used for close proximity and typically INDOORS!
You are desperate to keep pushing your fantasy so desperate that you make up stuff.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

First, absence of evidence is not evidence. The fact that the tower did not report or SEE the plane continuing on does not mean that it did not happen. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE.
Craig, I see that you are having an extremely difficult time understanding the significance of the controllers reporting a crash. Let me make it easy for you.

If NOC = flyover then crashed = no flyover.




Second, we obtained Chris Stephenson's contact information and left several messages for him. It is very clear he does not want to talk about 9/11, and possibly the flight path or the flyby/over.
He sounds like a very smart man.



Besides Boone, wouldn't the scientific method be to get a photograph from the tower without a telephoto lens to simulate the naked eye?
No, the photo I provided sufficiently proves that the Pentagon is viewable from Reagan Tower.

My Canon DC22 camcorder is not equipped with a "telephoto" lens.




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I'm bumping this thread for LaBTop because in a different thread he asked the question:



How did they manage to camouflage that fly-over of a huge plane for the spectators?
That's the last important discussion, the rest is lost energy on debaters, only interested in nitpicking.


The short answer is that they didn't completely camouflage it.

People saw it.

We know this for a fact and we have hard evidence for it including an officially documented AND independently confirmed account from Roosevelt Roberts Jr who saw it flying away immediately after the explosion.

And also from Arlington Cemetery employee Erik Dihle who didn't see the plane himself but told the Center for Military History only weeks after the event that as soon as he ran outside after the explosion "Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

Yes that is his exact quote and you can download the audio recording of him telling the CMH this right here:
Erik Dihle interviewed by CMH in 2001

So although some people saw it most were simply deceived as intended.

Sheila Casey with the Rock Creek Free Press made this point very succinctly:



Less than an hour earlier, America had seen the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives preplanted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre-9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.
source


And also of course, as outlined in this thread, there is hard evidence that flashbang technology was utilized that would only serve to facilitate a deception that most were primed and ready to be fooled by anyway.

Furthermore, you have to remember......people were extremely confused as to what just happened.

The initial reports were wildly mixed and nobody knew what the heck was going on.

So they simply trotted out their planted witnesses to the media to sell their myth. Of course those in control simply called even the honest or duped part of the media and just TOLD them what happened. All they had to do is call them and give the official word and that is what the loyal obedient media would say happened. The psyop would be officially launched.

Here is the first report of a plane hitting the Pentagon only 5 minutes after the event:


Done.

The myth was set in stone and would only snowball from there with ease.


Anyone who talked about a plane flying away would be considered merely anomalous and mistaken like so many others. They simply would not matter and they DID NOT matter. They were blown off like the many erroneous reports that day....some a natural occurrence during such an event, and perhaps some deliberately planted for confusion.

But they still covered their tracks just in case.

Honest witnesses who saw the plane flying away were handled with reports of blatantly false witness claims of a "2nd plane" that flew away DURING the event blended with half true but ambiguous accounts of the C-130 that flew in the scene about 3 minutes later.

We have uncovered a VERY large set of evidence for this as discussed in our video short The 2nd Plane Cover Story but in even more detail in our full length release, The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off.

We feature our exclusive interview with Keith Wheelhouse whose proven false account of a "shadowing" 2nd plane has been exposed by all the other witnesses, the C-130 pilot himself, and hard VIDEO evidence of when the C-130 really flew into the scene....about 3 full minutes later.


There is simply no reason for all this if there wasn't a flyover.

Finally, realize that it's not a stretch to suggest that many or most of the reporters on the scene would have been controlled and knew exactly who they were supposed to interview. History has shown us from declassified documents that programs like Operation Mockingbird are fact, not conspiracy theory.

To suggest that it's simply a coincidence that many of the key interviewed "witnesses" happened to also be high ranking media people, however, IS a stretch.

So THAT is how they "camouflaged" the flyover.

We have presented plenty of DIRECT evidence for a flyover yet there is absolutely zero evidence for a magically disintegrating exploding plane.

We don't need to theorize any longer.

We have the evidence and it's time for action.





[edit on 4-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join