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.

 

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


We are looking for evidence of staging and interfering with a capital crime scene. We are not looking for an aircraft impacting the Pentagon, because that did not happen. We want videotaped interviews with witnesses; not the hearsay ramblings of lying journalists.

What would make these 29 videos inapplicable for investigating the Pentagon crime scene? We already know an aircraft could not possibly have impacted into the Pentagon, so we do not care if they show the crash site/hole in the wall or not. Since the aircraft has been proven flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles and over. highway sign and since the US FAA has authenticated the north flight path, we do not need to see any more proof that a 757 did not fly across and inches above the lawn nor knock down the light poles.

However it would be nice to see that video showing the witness interviews. Perhaps the witnesses are stating "The aircraft dropped a bomb and kept on going."

The 8 videos from Avanel, New Jersey a month later could be very important, and could have been taken by the owner near the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. It does not state otherwise.

We would especially like to see what was going on around Lloyde England's taxicab, and when the Federal agents arrived and what they did, and if they even spoke to Lloyde. The backgounds of area videos could show a lot.

So why should these videos be censored from the American people? And why should the Arlington County 911 hotline call-ins and transcripts from 9-11-2001 and the days following be censored from the American people? What gives you people the right to censor anything concerning this crime against America?

It is the political agents of the primary suspect who are holding on to this evidence. Are they not supposed to be serving We the People? Are they not supposed to be working towards justice?


Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.

* One (1) DVCAM tape - interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site

8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.

* One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape

Received at Washington Field Office Command Post

These two video tapes included footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene taken by DOD media pool photographers, and were obtained from Navy Rear Admiral Craig Quigley.

* One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "1 of 2" & "early 6pm 9/11/01"
* One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "2 of 2" & "early pm 9/11/01"


Also received at the Washington Field Office Command Post:

* One (1) VHS video cassette - witness interviews near Pentagon after the attack
* One (1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001" - footage of post Pentagon crime scene, obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County
* One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video casette, wrapped in Pentagon map and labeled on back "1/29/1952 Mohan Shresesa 8/2/2018 Todoroki Japan 9/17/01 3:00 hr Fern/So. Rotary" - Home video taken from car, dated 9/17/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene very briefly from road (~10 seconds)
* One (1) FujiFilm DP121 video cassette, labeled "WJLA-TV" - miscellaneous footage from news reporter, dated 9/18/2001

* One (1) TDK HG Ultimate TC-30 video cassette - Home video, unknown date, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
* One (1) Maxell DVM60SE mini digital video cassette - Home video, dated 9/17/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
* One (1) Sony Hi8 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/11/2001 showing ~6 seconds of Pentagon footage (not crash site)
* One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene
* One (1) JVC MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)

Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by NBC4 Washington reporter, with footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) home Video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

Video from DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. Camera repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) videotape

Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) videotape

Copy of home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by AP photographer using camera borrowed from nearby motorist. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) duplicate video cassette tape dated 9/11/01




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your own photos shows that the street lights lining the freeway were all on the passenger side of the taxi, so any damage from a falling street light would have necessarily been on that side of the car. The only photos I have seen provided by the truthers are photos of the *driver* side, away from where the light pole would have hit.

Complete bunk, Dave. None of that paragraph helps you to prove your alternate hypothesis that a jet plane hit the light pole and made it puncture the taxi window.



For you to make the claims you are making, you need to provide photos of the actual side of the car where the light pole hit, not just some photo of an irrelevent angle you happened to find lying around the internet.

Dave, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with current events, but do you realise that I'm not making any claims about how the light pole was found on the road next to a taxi. YOU are. You're the one making the claim that an alternate hypothesis is that a jet hit the light pole...

You're really showing how the logic of this escapes you.



Bad logic. It is not my responsibility to prove that the events as described did happen.

Yes, Dave. It is entirely encumbent upon YOU to prove the claims that you're making. If you think, as a valid alternate hypothesis, that a jet knocked over the light pole, then the burden of proof is entirely upon you.

There's not much more that I can do to help school you, if you can't see that the burden of proof is your's.

The neutral reader to this thread will note that Dave is trying to avoid his alternate hypothesis. Is it that tough for you to prove, Dave?



You are the one who is refuting the accepted account so it is your responsibility to prove that it can't happen.

Again, that's the sound of logic dying another death. You're the one who hasn't proved what happened, so how can I accept it? The null hypothesis shows a light pole laying on the road next to a taxi - that's it. That's what I accept until an alternate hypothesis can be proven.



Moreover, you need to explain how it happened by using the established facts rather than relying entirely upon make believe claims of your own invention involving secret agents and planted evidence.

I'm not making a claim, Dave. I don't have to explain what happened! YOU made the claim, you PROVE it.

The light pole was found on the road next to a damaged taxi. How it all happened, I don't know. I can't believe you, as you can't prove it.


Personally, I don't comprehend why it's any ghastly violation of physics for the boom of the street light to punch through the windshield and then be pulled out by the forward travel of the taxi, with the damage being localized due to the safety glass of the windshield and unseen from the opposite side of the vehicle.

Goooody. So you've got some modelling equations to show me? I can't rely upon your opinion, I need concrete facts that will prove your claim.



It's an established fact that street lights do in fact have booms, it's an established fact that taxis do in fact have forward motion, and it's an established fact that windshields are made of safety glass. It's likewise an established fact that objects which are knocked over do, in fact, fall downwards onto whatever is below them.

Well, your facts are dubious at this point. Can you model the spin rate of the light pole and the contact forces which managed to perfectly bend it? See, something as simple as felling a tree requires at least 2nd order, non-linear differential equations. I haven't seen a single equation from you to model the bent light pole, which is far more complex than a felled tree. Fact: You need to model how the light pole fell to prove that it caused all of the observed damage to the taxi.


If you're attempting to claim that if a jet ever suddenly screamed twenty feet over your ....

Dave, back on topic - remember, I'm not making the claims. You are. How many times must it be typed for you, before you understand it? You're making the claims, not me.


Yes, math IS fun.

I do enjoy schooling you on your faulty logic. Yes, maths is fun.

Please, join me in another thread about the light poles. We'll continue your logic schooling in a place where it's not off topic.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I might get into trouble for doing this, but as it's on topic and I really hope what I've written will benefit people in the movement, which means this isn't just self-promotion, I'd like to suggest that people have a look at my latest blog post.

"Wasted Time - Citizen Investigation Team"

911truthburnout.blogspot.com...

I think this is one of my better one's so far. Lot's of external links and it's based on my personal experience.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jules4truth
 


Well thank you very much - I certainly Wasted MY Time reading your blog nonsense.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jules4truth
 


Julian, couldn't have expressed it better myself. Just perusing this ONE thread while scrolling up above shows the obvious idiocy of the circular "logic" that is employed.

It reminds me of another ATS thread promoting the scientific "fact" of a Flat Earth. Always comes down to 'prove it's round and moves through space' but no matter how much solid evidence is brought to refute the "null hypothesis" it is never enough.

Reminds me of the 'Delphi Technique'....

"You will think as I do, or else I will continue to repeat my position until you give in" is their mantra. The only way to effectively deal with these manipulators is to smile and politely walk away......



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I have re-read a lot of the earliest (the day of 9/11 or a few days after) registered eyewitness accounts, as described in these once lost pages:

1. The now defunct website from Gerard Holmgren, who painstakingly scrutinized all early 9/11 and a few days later reported eyewitness accounts for really witnessing an impact, already in 2002 posted :
web.archive.org...

2. This is a sloppy copy of the above link, but it has some interesting reader reactions at the bottom :

3. This is the original Tuesday 9/11 CNN report regarding the witness account of a pilot, Tim Timmerman, who saw the plane "disintegrate" before it hit the building :
www.cassiopaea.org...

EDIT: the forum software acts very strange.
This is the above link-text, without the http:// part, just add that in front of this part in your browser address line :
www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1192.5;wap2
END EDIT.

Note that most of the now defunct original links in those articles had to be retracted via this site :
web.archive.org...
You have to copy the defunct link you found, without the http:// part, into the provided WayBack link on top of their main archive.org page.

I have the opinion, that if you re-read these 2001 and 2002 witness sites carefully, with the now gained extra information from CIT and others, you find more and more indications that my yellow drawn-in flight path in the next aerial picture is probably very near to the actual flown path.
The fly-over and landing at Reagan International Airport is still disputable, until we can find any new fly-over witnesses.

Here you have an early www.ceo.ncsu.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink">HUGE aerial photograph from the damaged Pentagon and its surrounding area (burned roofs and collapsed wedge still there), in high resolution (2386x2404 pixels).

Here is the Archive.org link again, since it will not fit in this forum properly, since two http's kills the forum's post reply "intelligence" :
web.archive.org...://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/Pentagon_after.jpg
Just copy the last readable cut-off piece and paste it at the end of your browser's address line.

A cut-out part of it, still big, 1199x841 pixels version, with the Navy Annex on top, to the Pentagon west wall, at the bottom :
www.alsx.info...

Forum fitted 680x477 pixels version :


Now the same picture, in which I have added numbers to the four over. traffic sign boards, numbered 1 to 4 which stand on that stretch of Washington Blvrd that lays along the west wall of the Pentagon.
The plane flew somewhere between the signs 2 and 3, according to all CIT witnesses, and James R. Cissell, Penny Elgas, Tim Timmerman and Christine Peterson.

Big picture (1504 x 1515 Pixels (Width x Height)) with my additions :
Link: www.alsx.info...

Forum fitted 675x680 pixels version :


I indicated the position of the CIT witnesses and the others as follows:
Penny Elgas (E), Christine Peterson (P), James R. Cissell (C) and Tim Timmerman (T.T?).
CIT witnesses: Sean Boger (B), Turcio (T), William Lagasse (L), Chadwick Brooks (B1), Terry Morin (M),and four Arlington Cemetery maintenance personnel (4X).
Note that Mr Middleton was situated a bit north of the C from Columbia Pike, at the border of the Arlington Cemetery grounds, with his three wheeler maintenance vehicle. The spot where the road outside, along the cemetery border wall, bends away from that border wall (plus its iron fence on top).

We now have a very narrowed down stretch of Washington Blvrd, between the over. signs 2 and 3, where the plane probably flew across that road.
It apparently did not clip any lamp posts or over. signs during that crossing, which indicates that the lowest point of the plane was at least higher than 40 feet above that road.
Because a lamp pole along Wash.Blvrd was 40 feet high . And none was damaged between the over. signs 2 and 3 as can be seen in the early photos published on the net by Steve Riskus.
And I do think those over. traffic sign boards had some extensions higher than that.
That means the plane had to be on a minimum 40 feet high trajectory over the Pentagon lawn, either to smash in, or fly over the Pentagon west wall.

We have Mr Turcios telling us on video that the plane ascended slightly before crossing Wash.Blvrd to avoid sign 2.
We have others telling us that the plane impacted, like William Lagasse and Sean Boger.
Nearly all CIT witnesses told us the plane flew much slower than the officially pushed speed.
Thus, the possibility that the plane still impacted the west wall, or exploded just when the nose cone hit it, after having flown about 50 feet or higher from the CITGO to Wash.Blvrd is still not zero.

Or do I oversee an argument against that, when taking in account all, somewhat to very, reliable witness statements?

To camouflage the fly-over of a plane at that tense period of time (a few seconds to reach that runway), we have to think of secret cloaking devices, or a plane fitted with human eyesight blinding devices all around its body (lasers, or blinding flashlights going off for just 3 seconds).
Brings to mind that strange story told by Penny Elgas about the rings of smoke around the plane's body when she saw it "impact".
I don't think a human eye can follow up such a fast impact, but who knows, perhaps this impact wasn't as fast as we have been officially told.


At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.

Link: www.debunk911myths.org...

Other noteworthy links:
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...
billstclair.com...
www.debunk911myths.org...
www.flight77.info...

This is the impossible alternative flight path between the two trees :
Original link: www.alsx.info...

Forum fitted picture :


But what could have happened if the plane was coming .-on, at the same place where that 52° angled nose cone from the depicted plane was hitting? And if the plane self destructed at the moment of touch down? Which would send only the most heavy parts into the west wall, and perhaps a bit through, perhaps a few meters. The rest of the 52° trajectory inside damage could have been inflicted by other means.

[edit on 17/5/09 by LaBTop]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaB, thanks for a lot of research, and for bringing so much info to the discussion.

I am still digesting it, but I'd like to point out a possible logic error in the photo you made that has the yellow line depicting the track of an airplane over the Pentagon, then curving right to land on Runway (edit here...second look shows your line going to RW15, not RW19 at DCA, as I first wrote it).

There are inconsistencies in the notion, because on the one hand there are eyewitness accounts of something flying very fast towards the Pentagon from the West. IF, as some claim, it was an airplane used to decoy and "trick" viewers, fly over the Pentagon just as a timed explosion was set off, and as you described it the airplane then just turned and landed at the National Airport, then the physics and realities of how airplanes fly makes it simply impossible to achieve such a feat.

The distance from the Pentagon to the approach end of Runway 19 (edit, change to RW15) is just about one mile. Even IF the 'decoy' airplane was only doing 250 knots, my opinion and experience suggest that it is not possible to decelerate, extend gear and flaps, and reach a viable landing speed in only one mile!

250 knots is about 420 ft/sec (using 6,060 ft in a nautical mile). So, to cover that mile will take about 15 seconds. The Max (safe) speed to extend the landing gear on a B757 is 270KCAS. SO, yes, they could put the gear down, which due to the drag will begin to slow the airplane, but no way in only a mile will there be enough time to extend flaps/slats and achieve a successful landing on a runway less than 7,000 feet long (edit here, since RW 15 is even shorter!).

See:
flightaware.com...


Also, we have to take into account the turning radius and rate-of-turn available at those speeds.

In aviation parlance a 'Standard Rate' turn is defined as a rate that results in a 360 degree turn in two minutes. The diagram with the yellow line drawn shows less than a ninety-degree turn, only about 40-45 degrees of .ing change. This would require a steeper bank angle than normal, to achieve it in only 15 seconds at that high speed. ALSO, the radius -- that depends on a combination of speed and bank angle. I cannot accurately calculate the radius, perhaps someone has the math skills?

I'm afraid aerodynamics and physics make the 'fly-over and land at DCA' theory rather implausible.


EDIT for new information...











[edit on 5/17/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
EDIT2:
What? Since when are the words c.a.s.s.i.o.p.a.e.a dot org restricted here??? Or are other forum links perhaps suddenly restricted?
Why do I suddenly think that the word a.s.s. is the problem?
Let's try that for once : ass (do you see a # after the :, then a.s.s. is weeded out without using any brains.
Next try to get the Tim Timmerman nr 3. - link working :

www.(c.a.s.s.i.o.p.a.e.a).org/(f.o.r.u.m)/index.php?topic=1192.5;wap2
For the slightly impaired, remove all dots in the words :
c.a.s.s.i.o.p.a.e.a and f.o.r.u.m , and remove the ( and ).
And the immense valuable Archive.org site seems also not-done anymore.

And I just see that Griff has been BANNED? Are you loosing the grip on reality, no room for understanding and earned values anymore? That's about the modest person in this forum. Who banned him, for what? I can only find three last posts of him which are unreadable.
Did he got ticked off by anti-conspiracy posters, who seem to have gotten a free hand to post whatever personal attacks they seem fit lately?

And btw, I have been called a Novice, an Apprentice and god knows what more lately. My points have been devalued from 16876 to 14734 to 13000 something in one day. Could someone step in and get some order in here?
Or is the site hacked? I have a U2U from staff, called : Is this the end..., and then the body of the message is totally empty.
Is this a joke, or a hack, or what? Please verify in my U2U panel, you can see for yourself.

And btw, if you guys would value the thousands of posts we, old members made before you started all that points, stars and flags whispering, we would at last get the value we deserved for attracting all the traffic to this site's 9/11 forum.
My real post count will lay somewhere around the 10,000. I slowed down after all those pesky forum counting tricks you introduced. An old man needs time to get used to and get along with snobby rules.
END EDIT2.


Wheed, I just wanted to start at last any kind of intelligent discussion on the topic, and all the way down to the inevitable truth, if we ever reach that point, and weeding out all inconsistencies and impossibilities while homing in on the only few realities left.

Of course we have multiple other possible flight paths after crossing over the west wall. If that ever occurred.
I liked to get rid of the seemingly most logical first possibility, a landing directly at Reagan.

My personal favorite would be a straight passage over the Pentagon, climbing over the Mall area and make a slow turn to the north, and come back over the river approach path, to land then at Reagan.
This fits some witness accounts, which are confusing to say the least, about which plane they saw in reality. The white plane comes to mind, the Doomsday plane and the C-130. Which could all have been mistaken for the real flight 77, climbing away.
However, Reagan probably was off-limits already before the plane's west wall approach.
But just as plausible is a landing at Dulles, or whatever other airport.
Remember, the sky was still filled with forced down airplanes, only around 13:00 hrs were the skies emptying.

Let's evaluate some things:

A plane seems to have flown .-on (90°) to the Pentagon west wall, and very near or exactly where the physical damage is to be seen in the early photos.
That does not fit the 5 "officially" downed light poles, and the 52° inside damage pattern.
Plane could still have hit, only not so deep, according to the Purdue damage pattern drawings. The rest of the damage path could be artificial.
Problem is, there is no floor damage to be seen where the plane presumingly skidded in.

If a plane flew over, there must be a reasoning offered, why till now, nobody seems to have seen a plane flying over the Pentagon, or beside it, like CIT's only fly-over witness seems to tell.
However, a flight path over the south parking as this witness tells us, is even more impossible than the officially pushed story.
The path and curves involved would not fit any of the witness accounts.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





I'm afraid aerodynamics and physics make the 'fly-over and land at DCA' theory rather implausible.


WW, here is a recording from DCA Tower, you'll note that the controller reports a crash and not a flyover.

Also, there was a flight landing on runway 33 and, IIRC, he was approximately 2 miles from the threshold at the time of the impact. He also failed to report a flyover. I can't imagine why.

www.aal77.com...

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Boone 870]

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Boone 870]

[edit on 20-5-2009 by Boone 870]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Excellent find, Boone.

That was haunting....

It was definitive....

A B757 impacted the Pentagon.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Boone, I do not believe the FAA flight controller in the tower at Reagan National Airport was able to visually check the impact.

If you view this excerpt of that interesting tape you posted above, you will understand that he said that it "looks like it went into the Pentagon" and a bit later he said "Yeah, that's an airplane that went into the Pentagon, we believe."

Here's my best recollection of what is said at which tape time-stamps; note that the GOPHER guy was the C-130 from Lt-Colonel O'Brien, and the LOOK was the 757 also known as flight 77 :

06:00 :
FAA: I got all departures stop!
06:01 to 06:10 :
? : You see a guy 5-West?
FAA: Yeah.
? : It's a 757.
FAA: That GOPHER guy?
? : No, the LOOK.
FAA: The LOOK is a 757?
? : Right.
FAA: OK:

07:20 to 07:26 :
? : You see what happened?
FAA: Yeah, went in the Pentagon.
? : Went into the Pentagon?
FAA: Yeah, looks like it went into the Pentagon.

08:38 :
FAA: Yeah, that's an airplane that went down at the Pentagon, we believe.

What interests me, is that it seems that the Reagan Airport FAA flight controller is not sure which of the assigned dots on his radar screen is GOPHER or LOOK, i.o.w. the C-130 or the 757. That could mean that those dots were pretty close together at that time, and one flying behind the other.
But which one was in front at that moment?

Remember, we had a long discussion about the RADES radar tracking data, and there were some strange flight paths involved for those 2 fighter jets, which came in from the NE, circled all around GOPHER and LOOK while these two were approaching the Pentagon, and then one of them took off to the NW at the end of the long evasive circle, in the direction of the Shanksville incident (flight 93 down), and the other moved on to the military landing runways from Andrews Airfield.

From that RADES data and the Farmer FOIA data we also found out in that thread that an unknown 757 landed at Reagan Int. Airport shortly after the "impact". A few minutes at the most.

I am still not convinced of a total impossibility of a LOW fly-over of the Pentagon roofs, and then a smoothly fitting-in of the plane into the River Takeoff/Approach Path for Reagan Int. Airport over the river to the north or even the south.
In that case the plane was only 2 seconds in a suspicious airspace, above the Pentagon roofs and its front, riverside lawn.
And we know from one of the witnesses which I posted in this thread, that he could not take his usual shortcut over the highway in between the Pentagon and the Potomac river, since that one was sealed off already caused by the national security risks evolved since the two planes flew into the WTC towers.
That road (first stretch of 110 which comes up north from Reagan Int. Airport, from under the overpass of 395) was closed off and thus empty!
No unprepared witnesses there to be afraid of.
They needed eye witnesses of a staged "impact" plot, for the inevitable news coverage, but no such ones for a fly-over.

I feel strongly that quite a few of the witnesses on Washington Blvrd were either in on the plot, or easily influenced by interrogation teams from the FBI and who-knows which other agencies, to fit their statements into the officially "wanted" story.
Just address strong chauvinistic feelings already at present in such people, and an appeal on the logical evolving rage over the attack on America, and they will say anything to follow the insinuating lead of an interrogator which would be definitely in on the plot. Only one such a person will do, his colleagues will follow his lead, if he is the highest ranking one, and also follow foot caused by the rage of the moment.
You really do not need heaps of insiders to let the plot succeed, just a few strategically placed ones.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 





Boone, I do not believe the FAA flight controller in the tower at Reagan National Airport was able to visually check the impact.


You're right, LaBTop, the controller did not see Flight 77 impact the west wall of the Pentagon. Only the eastern portion of the Pentagon is visible from the control tower at Reagan. If this magical flyover occurred, the controllers would have seen it from 1.2 miles away and would not have reported a crash.


About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

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.

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.

Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds. But then the phones started ringing again and they got back to shutting the airport down. Source



What interests me, is that it seems that the Reagan Airport FAA flight controller is not sure which of the assigned dots on his radar screen is GOPHER or LOOK, i.o.w. the C-130 or the 757. That could mean that those dots were pretty close together at that time, and one flying behind the other.
But which one was in front at that moment?


It doesn't matter. The controllers were made aware of the approaching 757 and they watched it until it disappeared behind the buildings in Crystal City. The chances that the controllers could not distinguish the difference between a 757 and a C-130 At that distance are zero.


Remember, we had a long discussion about the RADES radar tracking data, and there were some strange flight paths involved for those 2 fighter jets, which came in from the NE, circled all around...

snip



Irrelevant. The two "fighters" were actually trainers and they were nearly 20,000 feet above Flight 77.



From that RADES data and the Farmer FOIA data we also found out in that thread that an unknown 757 landed at Reagan Int. Airport shortly after the "impact". A few minutes at the most.


I recall no such thing. A 757 did not land at Reagan after the impact. There was a 757 8 miles to the south on final approach, but it was diverted to Dulles.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

Boone, let's apply some logic and Swampfox's chain of custody criteria to this 'evidence', shall we?

First, please state the identity of the person from the Secret Service who made the call. Unless the person can be traced, it is extremely difficult for us to believe that the call was ever made. Swampfox will agree with this, as he demands high standards for chain of custody of evidence. There should be phone records that can prove your claim, so let's see them. You really don't expect us just to believe that a call was made because you put it in an externally sourced quote, do you?

Second, the alleged crash time was 9:37:44. If he took the call at 9:30, then that leaves around 7:44 for the alleged plane to travel 5 miles. That's a speed of around 38.8 mph. A little slow, don't you think? If he took the call with around 5 minutes before impact, then that still gives a speed of around 60 mph.

With an alleged speed of around 500 mph, the alleged plane would travel a distance of 5 miles in around 36 seconds. That must have been an awfully quick phone call, if he noticed the blip on radar only 36 seconds before the alleged impact.

Feel free to clarify the external quote that you provided.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You're forgetting something. Actually, several things.

As you read Boone's source, you'll see that the airplane was first noted 5 west, and observed to make a large turn, meaning it travelled even farther farther west before lining up, accelerating (my bolding) and impacting the Pentagon.

If you'll be so kind as to review a Google map of the region it'll help you orient yourself with the surrounds.

Pay particular attention to an apartment building in Crystal City (remember, Crystal City was referenced on the ATC tape) that is located at address '1801 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA'. I lived in that building from 1996 'til 1999. (Ironically, in Apartment 911). From my East-facing balcony I overlooked the National Airport (DCA) and the Tower Cab. This building is about 12 stories high, so it blocks the view from the Tower to the actual Pentagon, but the controllers know where the Pentagon is, since they have helicopter traffic to and from on a regular basis. (To/from the WH, and Andrews, for instance).

On the tape that Boone provided you are only hearing what was broadcast and recorded on ONE frequency (DCA Local). What was happening when the controller did not have his mic keyed was likely very hectic...he had several landlines, he had others in the Tower Cab to converse with, so if he got a phone call at "around 0930" all that means is it was a phone call, he didn't log it as an exact time received (wasn't required to) and to focus on that as some sort of 'anomaly' is, frankly, just picking nits.

BTW, if you listen to the tape fully, and you know anything about the area and airport/air traffic Ops, then it all makes complete sense. Especially the calls from 'Eagle One' and 'Eagle Two'...I'd prefer to not mention who/what those are on an open Forum; guessing intelligent people can figure it out for themselves....

AND 'Condor' and 'Venus 77'. (Venus' call sign and AAL's call sign were pure coincidence).



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You're forgetting something. Actually, several things.

I didn't forget that at all. I was waiting for someone to state that the plane was in a turn.



As you read Boone's source, you'll see that the airplane was first noted 5 west, and observed to make a large turn,

Was the plane starting to make a turn or finishing its turn? It's not clearly stated in the external quote.



meaning it travelled even farther farther west before lining up, accelerating (my bolding) and impacting the Pentagon.

How far West did it travel? When it had lined up, what was its initial velocity? What was its acceleration?

Nearly everyone reading this thread can manage some simple kinematics equations, so let's see what your initital conditions are, weedwhacker.



so if he got a phone call at "around 0930" all that means is it was a phone call, he didn't log it as an exact time received (wasn't required to) and to focus on that as some sort of 'anomaly' is, frankly, just picking nits.

I take it that's your way of stating that you don't know if a phone call was made, nor who the person was who made the phone call? Swampfox won't be too happy with that, weedwhacker. You know how Swampfox has upped the ante for all claims with regards to evidence.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 




Boone, let's apply some logic and Swampfox's chain of custody criteria to this 'evidence', shall we?


Uhhh...no.



First, please state the identity of the person from the Secret Service who made the call. Unless the person can be traced, it is extremely difficult for us to believe that the call was ever made.


The identity of the Secret Service officer is completely irrelevant to the audio recording I posted.



There should be phone records that can prove your claim, so let's see them.


If the recording I provided a link to is not enough to convince you, then I recommend that you file a request to the Secret Service via the FOIA.



You really don't expect us just to believe that a call was made because you put it in an externally sourced quote, do you?


I've learned not to expect much of anything from no-planer fly-over proponents.



If he took the call at 9:30


"About 9:30"



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you, WW. That recording came from John Farmer's aal77.com website.

Here's a link to the page with all the air traffic control recordings, if you're interested:

www.aal77.com...

Here are a few more links that you may find interesting:

www.aal77.com...
Final Approach

www.aal77.com...
Washington Departure-Flight 77/C-130 interaction.

www.aal77.com...
Washington Departure-this position ends up controlling DC ANG fighters.

www.aal77.com...
I recommend listening to the first 25 minutes of this recording, from now on when I think of air traffic controllers, this is who I think of. This position ends up directing NORAD fighters.


www.aal77.com...
Continuation of the above recording.





[edit on 22-5-2009 by Boone 870]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
A description and interpretation of the statements of Chris Stephenson on Rense.com :
www.rense.com...
I give it here for what it is worth now, after all we have a lot more info unearthed all those years later. But it gives a lot more than we had till now, about Chris Stephenson.

Another Chris Stephenson interview:
www.examiner.com... __Countless_American_lives_change.html


Chris Stephenson

‘I call it the movie in your .’

Air Traffic Controller saw jetliner strike Pentagon

Chris Stephenson had just set down the “hot line” phone to the Secret Service when he saw the plane emerge from the horizon.

He peered through the clear blue sky that fall morning from his chair in the control tower high above the Main Terminal at Reagan National Airport and that’s when the “movie” began. The plane the radar room had picked up was just five miles away and he could see it clearly.

“The plane was way out of position,” said Stephenson, 48, a 20-year veteran air traffic controller. “It was obvious something bad was just about to happen.”

Stephenson said he stood motionless for 10 seconds and watched the 757 descend into the Pentagon — and then watched it explode. The scene plays out in Stephenson’s . every time a news clip or conversation mentions the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

“I call it the movie in your .,” said Stephenson, a father of two. “It just doesn’t go away. The day gets referenced every day and every time I remember exactly where I was and exactly what I saw.


Well, does that give us 10 seconds for the plane to cover those five miles? Half a mile per second?
30 miles per minute? 1800 miles per hour?
Of course not, a 757 can't go that fast.
So, when he describes those 10 seconds until the plane impacted, he was standing instead of sitting in his chair. And he probably described only the last 10 seconds.
OK, let's assume that for the moment.


Luckily, we now have in our possession, that audio tape Boone offered us :
www.aal77.com...

And that tape covers 16 minutes and 53 seconds, including the 53 seconds for the explanatory female voice at the beginning and the end.
And it covers the Reagan tower controller room audio, 1DCA, Local Controll position, from 13:32 to 13:48 UTC, which is of course 09:32 to 09:48 EST. That's 16 minutes exact.

Between 00:46 and 00:47 we hear a click after the female stopped telling the intro.
So let us assume, that is the exact starting point of that tape.
Thus the Zero starting point of the tape = 00:46.
Which equals thus 09:32:00 EST. That's pretty important for further calculations.

At 00:49 in the tape, we hear a male voice saying :
"Ok all. Keep your guide!"
From about 05:00 on we hear that several taxiing planes announce to the controller that they return to the gates, That means that departures were already partially stopped at that time.
06:00 :
FAA: I got all departures stop!
06:01 to 06:10 :
? : You see a guy 5-West?
FAA: Yeah.
? : It's a 757.
FAA: That GOFER guy?
? : No, the LOOK.
FAA: The LOOK is a 757?
? : Right.
06:10: FAA: OK:
According to this conversation, Stephenson looked down at his scope, where he could see the call signs he mentioned and asked for. And then he started to look out his tower windows and saw the plane 5 miles west.
And stated the plane turned right and descended.
Which can only mean that the plane was in its last 90° quarter of its total 360° full circle around and above Columbia Pike.
So from that point in time on, 06:10 tape time, we have a full 56 seconds that we hear only a few words of conversation, and then the FAA controller announces he saw something happened just north of Crystal City:
07:06 :
? : Hey Tower, did you see that?
07:10 :
FAA: Yeah, just north of Crystal City....
07:20 to 07:26 :
? : You see what happened?
FAA: Yeah, went in the Pentagon.
? : Went into the Pentagon?
FAA: Yeah, looks like it went into the Pentagon.

Well, now we have
00:46-Tape = 09:32:00EST = start recording.
And we have
06:10-Tape = 5 minutes and 24 seconds passed,
as the end of Stephenson conversation with the Secret Service guy (or Washington Central guy, which could be SS too).
Then we have 56 seconds passed until
07:06-Tape = 6 minutes and 20 seconds total passed at 09:38:20 EST,
when Stephenson clearly indicates that he saw something exploding behind the buildings blocking his view, just north of Crystal City.

Thus, at last we have 56 seconds to cover the last moments of flight 77.
But from what point on?
Let's take those 5 miles west.
And take in account that the plane still had to end that last 90° quarter of a full circle around.
So let's say 5.6 miles to get to the Pentagon west wall in 56 seconds.
That's an average speed of 0.1 mile per second, or 6 mile per minute, or 360 mile per hour.
Sounds reasonable.

But that means that the plane must have flown much slower during the first 45 seconds, to be able to reach in the last 10 seconds at full throttle an end speed of the officially given +/- 500 miles per hour.
And still get to an average speed of 360 miles per hour over 5.6 miles.

And we have several CIT witness audio accounts which explicitly state that the plane flew much slower in the LAST 10 seconds. Ask Sean Boger, Mr Middleton, etc.

[edit on 22/5/09 by LaBTop]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
In my above post I try if we can calculate fairly precise, the time between the first report by Stephenson of flight 77 as a visual sighting, until it crashed as he assumes, in the west wall of the Pentagon, which he failed to see since his view of the Pentagon was blocked by a nearby building.
Boone, you quoted from USA Today the following excerpt:


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.

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.


Let's scrutinize Chris Stephenson's several published witness accounts, and combine them with RADES data we have seen passing by in this forum. And I mean the beautifully animated radar scope flight paths of all planes flying before, during and after the Pentagon attack in the wider Washington airspace.
I have taken many hours of my time at the moment that RADES animated data was published by Mr. Farmer, when we could observe the dots moving around that screen with the call signs attached to those dots. We also saw how these call signs changed name the moment those particular planes were assigned to a new flight controller, f.e. at Reagan International, then to Washington Central, then to Dulles, or whatever other switch of FAA or military controller.

That's why I vividly recollect that LOOK (flight 77) already finished three quarter of its full 360° circle above and around Columbia Pike and was coming in from the southeast towards Pike again while already descending, while GOFER06 (the C-130) was flying away from Andrews where it departed, then passed south of the Pentagon on a near western course. LOOK then crossed the flightpath of GOFER06 when Lt Colonel O'Brien, the pilot of GOFER06, reported in his interviews that he saw LOOK coming from his left (from southeast) crossing over his flight path less than a half mile away slightly under him in front of his cockpit.
And that is exactly what Stephenson, the Reagan Airport flight controller is telling us in the above quote.
And after that moment, LOOK finished the last short part of its full circle and raced in a straight line towards the Pentagon, following roughly Columbia Pike as an aiming device.

And now we have quite a precise moment in time described by the FAA controller, Chris Stephenson, since it is clear that he stands in his Reagan Airport tower looking westwards and observing an airplane, supposedly flight 77 (call-signed on his radar scope as LOOK) at 5 miles west, while it was turning to the RIGHT and DESCENDING.

He can only describe one moment in time for the plane in his sight as "turning to the right", and that's the second time the plane would cross his western oriented view sight. The first time it would have crossed his view if he would have looked that time, which he obviously did not, he would have had to describe it as flying to the LEFT (of him).

That means Boone, that it WAS important to know which dot on Chris Stephenson's scope was in front at the moment he describes it, and that Weedwacker assumes incorrectly that the plane was on its initial point of descending down to begin a full circle back to the Pentagon.

What Stephenson clearly describes is the last 90° quarter of the 360° full circle flight 77 made above Columbia Pike. Because he said he saw the jet turning to the right and descending.

When it was 5 miles to the west of his tower.
I'll show you later what I mean and what can be seen on the RADES radar scope animated data.
The controversial FAA/NORAD animation from Farmers web site:
1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
www.aal77.com...

And this is a screen shot from that FAA/NORAD file which CLEARLY shows a North of Citgo flight path for the impacting plane, and thus it's impossible for that plane to have hit the five OFFICIALLY DOWNED light poles :



EDIT:
This is an explanatory drawing to accompany the above reasoning :



When Stephenson said he saw the plane going to "the right" he could only mean one point in its flight path, which is the last 90 degrees turn, turning back towards the Pentagon.

[edit on 22/5/09 by LaBTop]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I will attend you on another important detail, the (Washington Central? or Secret Service?) flight controller, which informed Stephenson that a 757 was approaching, did not indicate that plane as flight 77.
But how on earth did he know from that much further distance, that it was specifically a 757?
As we know, the plane had switched off his transponder half an hour earlier, so how did they know it was a 757 at that moment? I do remember vaguely, that I read somewhere lately that flight 77 was the only plane which switched its transponder back on again, but I could be mistaken with flight 93 which went down in Pennsylvania.

Well, perhaps they knew via the Secret Service's Tigerwall airplane tracking system :
milkhouse-mouse.blogspot.com...


(September 2000 and after): Secret Service Has Air Surveillance Capabilities

It is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 pdf file] Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House Complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003] Its largest field office with over 200 employees is in New York, in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown. The Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC .quarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006; Star-Gazette (Elmira), 6/5/2006] Furthermore, since 1974 the Secret Service operations center has possessed a special communications line from the control tower of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This hotline allows air traffic controllers monitoring local radar to inform agents at the White House of any planes that are off course or appear to be on a “threatening vector.” [Time, 9/26/1994]
But in a May 2005 draft on the Secret Service's 9/11-related activities that apparently failed to make it into Thompson's timeline, he and 9/11 Timeline contributor Matthew Everett suggest a 9/11 hotline call reveals that TigerWall not only was in use that morning but that its plane-tracking sophistication matches if not surpasses that of the FAA.

This hotline is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report: "At 9:33, the tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport picked up a hotline to the Secret Service and told the Service's operations center that "an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us." [9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/04, p. 39] However, Chris Stephenson, the . flight controller at the airport towers, says it happened the other way around. He claims that he was called by the Secret Service at this time and told an unidentified aircraft was .ed his way. [USA Today, 8/12/02] Regardless, this suggests the Secret Service was using Tigerwall or some similar system, as well as use of the hotline.

Part of Thompson and Everett's August 2005 draft also mentions the Secret Service's aircraft "shoot down capability" for defending the White House.

The Secret Service also had the means to stop any hijacked planes attacking Washington themselves. The Daily Telegraph reported that on 9/11, “If [Flight 77, which subsequently hit the Pentagon] had approached much nearer to the White House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service, who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the president’s home. The Pentagon is not similarly defended.” [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/01] There has been some dispute as to whether or not Flight 77 technically entered the prohibited airspace zone around the White House or not. [CBS News, 9/21/01] But given the way it flew in a 360-degree circle over Washington, it surely would have been in range of the Secret Service’s missiles. Yet neither the media nor any official commission have ever explored the question of why these missiles weren’t fired.


See also :
cryptome.sabotage.org...


9 September 2004. A security professional reports:

The vehicle is called a "barrage jammer." It is used by the State Department and Secret Service. State has ordered several hundred of them. The Secret Service has about a dozen. The vehicles are used to counter electronic-guided attacks, airborne or ground -- missiles, communication jamming and/or interception, or remotely-controlled explosive devices. Convoys are led and followed by the vehicles, in the lead to draw fire or in the rear to track signals of devices which may have malfunctioned. They are used in presidential motorcades and have been deployed to Iraq and the Republican National Convention.

Others report these sources on Tigerwall:

Tigerwall System. Tigerwall is an air surveillance system currently used by the U.S. Secret Service to ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats. SSC San Diego has assisted the Secret Service in implementing and maintaining the Tigerwall system by providing expertise gained from other SSC San Diego surveillance and physical security programs. See:

www.scitechweb.com... (Is defunct)

The system uses cameras and radiofrequency equipment to identify planes and other objects in the sky, and provides a real-time tactical map of their locations and trajectories. The system was designed by SPAWAR, the Navy's space warfare division, for the Secret Service. I imagine that the system is not purely for surveillance; the information provided by the "tiger" could create a virtual "wall." Tigerwall could be used to shoot down airborne hostiles, like a mini anti-ballistic-missile system around "high value assets." Also see:

www.spawar.navy.mil...


Page 28 from the last pdf :
"" Tigerwall System. Tigerwall is an air surveillance system currently used by the U.S. Secret Service to ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats. The Tigerwall program provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several Sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.
-snip-
SSC San Diego is currently redesigning the Tigerwall camera systems for better performance, and the Tigerwall Display System is being updated to run on commercial PC equipment.
The Technical Security Division of the U.S. Secret Service sponsors the Tigerwall program.""



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join