Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over., page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 23-5-2009 @ 03:18 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by LaBTop

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.

I agree that Stephenson didn't witness Flight 77 make the entire 330° turn.

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?

It was identified as a 757 by the C-130.

www.aal77.com...

reply posted on 23-5-2009 @ 03:37 PM by weedwhacker

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the METAR from Sept 11, 2001 for DCA:

KDCA 111341Z SPEC 33010KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3022

A regularly-scheduled METAR was issued 10 minutes later, (as is standard) at 1351Z. Essentially unchanged, altimeter was revised to 'A3023'

Basically, with winds out of the North, DCA was operating Runways 01 and 33. This is confirmed by the ATC tapes, provided by Boone.

This refutes an immediate landing after an alleged 'flyover' of the Pentagon, as I have indicated in a previous post.

Other possibilities: An alleged 'flyover' with a continuation in the air...except the immediate proximity of P-56 precludes that as a possibility.

One other point of fact: Any Aviator in the USA will know that the airspace around an operating control tower extends to a radius of 5SM and 3000 feet. This is the old 'Control Zone' definition of airspace (when I first learned) compared to the changes implemented in the 1990s by the USA to comform with ICAO standards. NOW, depending, the airspace around active control towers is likely Class 'C' or Class 'D'. AND is superceded by Class 'B', when appropriate. (The old 'TCA' airspace...).

Just FYI.

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 09:47 AM by LaBTop

Let's see where we are now in the discussion of the opening post.
What we have is listed below.

The "controversial" (as per John Farmer's words) FAA/NORAD animation from Farmers web site:
1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
www.aal77.com...

This is a cut-out of a screen shot of the above OFFICIALLY endorsed Flight 77 animation made by www.stk.com, based on data they obtained from HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN and the FAA :

508x724 picture: www.alsx.info...

This is the actual screen shot, 956 x 723 Pixels (Width x Height) :
www.alsx.info...

Now that I compare that to my earlier posted proposal of a fly-over flight path, based on my analysis of available 11 September 2001 interviewed eyewitnesses, the two flight paths up till the Pentagon west wall are mutually exchangeable, they are in fact the same :

1504 x 1515 Pixels (Width x Height) :
www.alsx.info...

Thus, most if not all witnesses based flight paths, and NORAD radar and FAA radar data based flight paths are identical.
They both fly just beside the southeast side of the Sheraton Hotel, then diagonally over the Navy Annex, north of CITGO and over the power + telephone lines there, over the last curve in Columbia Pike, the last stretch of it leading to the South Parking lot; and they both fly along the Arlington Cemetery boundary walls. Then they both cross Washington Blvd just south of the pair of trees on the edge of the Pentagon lawn, pass the helicopter pad just south, and what happened then is still a great controversy.

Aren't we glad we managed to get that controversial subject out of the way :
Witnesses do not conflict with honest government data researchers.

Let's hope we now can proceed to the next scrutinizing of logical problems which arise from this conclusion.
Namely, who on earth was so dumb to down a few light poles in advance, or what on earth did really clip those 5 poles on a non-existing flight 77 flight path?
Were Pentagon defense missiles involved?
Did some ship or plane or ground based facility launch missiles to defend the Pentagon and attempted to attack that plane?
Did that all go wrong and did flight 77 still impact the west wall on a 85° angle, just before the missiles impacted on a 52° angle?

Or did the plane simply impacted on a 85° angle? And the new steel columns and very strong Kevlar netting embedded in the newly strengthened west wall kept the plane parts from going in too far? And the rest of the damage was done afterwards, when we saw that explosion in the Steve Riskus photo, and when the roof "collapsed"? After the full evacuation of rescuers during a so called new plane threat?

Or did the plane fly over the roof, and a prepared line of explosives inside the Pentagon went off?

If you can not come up with a logical explanation what caused that damage to those 5 poles, you will not be able anymore, to defend your case in any thread on internet forums as an officially endorsed 9/11 flight path, south of Citgo, follower.

It is in fact unbelievable that there are still followers active on that subject, which, if not explained fully logically, will undoubtedly show that military and governmental influence was involved in making the whole world believe that a lot of fanatic muslims attacked the almighty USA all on their own.

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 10:33 AM by LaBTop

Boone, I like your reasoning and your eye for detail, just as I try to adhere to details.
But we both missed badly on our sense of reality, the plane actually did not make your proposed 330° or my proposed full 360° circle, but more a full circle plus 30° one, a 390° one.
See this picture released in 2006 as an official flight path for 77 :

672 x 575 Pixels (Width x Height) :
www.alsx.info...

And yes, of course I forgot about all the other radio channels, and O'Brien reporting to see the plane coming on a near ram course to him.
Can we know for sure if he did report that before the SS phoned Stephenson (or vice versa).

Apart from that, I am glad I forgot that, since now we know about the Tigerwall system in place since 1994.
It was a total new piece of the puzzle for me.

Weedwacker, I do highly appreciate your added aeronautical knowledge in these threads, we need experienced people like you to keep the facts in balance with the theories. Thanks for that weather report.
Reheat would also be a value added asset if he wasn't so damn acidic.

However, I did hear the controller send all planes trying to land away, and taxiing planes back to the gates, so the runways were mostly empty, I suppose, on the moment of an impact or fly-over.
The only difficulty I have, same as you, it would be extremely difficult to land that plane with the wind in their back on such a short runway.

But it could of course have used the runway landing attempt as a case of bad landing, and lifted off again, departing to the south. That would have been a very clever thing to do on such a crucial moment....

And we do have a report of a 757 landing very close to the explosion time, but with another identification, something with 4 numbers. I have posted about it long ago, but for me, it seems like Google doesn't like my screen name, and I am very impaired to look-up my own posts on this board, like a search for "LaBTop 757".
When we had our own implemented search engine on this board, I could find such queries lightning fast.
Now I only get "no results" returns. While I still do remember all I have posted about, so the Google based engine should return reliable results. But it does not. Am I Scroogled?

So, do we opt for a fly-over and away to the northeast instead of a southern fly-over, thus the tower operators would have a difficult time to follow its path while distracted by the west wall explosion?
Or for any of the other possibilities I laid out above?

And I mean this in the hypothetical sense, we have to weed out all low possibility theories, and must find a mutually agreed upon last and most logical explanation of the Pentagon events.

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 11:13 AM by SPreston

reply to post by LaBTop

That was America West Flight 0098, Tail # N644AW.

American Airlines Flight 77:

Tail#: N644AA
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Disappearing transponder signal location: Ohio, 8:56 am
Impact time: *9:38 am*, Pentagon

America West Flight 0098:

Tail#: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Departure: Ohio, 8:40 (Wheels off time)
Arrival: *9:39 am* (Wheels on time), Reagan National Airport (directly on the other side of the Pentagon)

N644AW Arrival at Reagan

letsrollforums.com...

s15.invisionfree.com...

nevernwo.blogspot.com...

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 11:44 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by SPreston

Good info:

FYI, the call sign for America West was "Cactus". Of course, since the merger with USAir, they are operating under the old HP Certificate, so they are DBA 'USAir', but FAA callsign is still "Cactus".

The 'Cactus 98' can be heard on the tape provided by Boone...

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 12:00 PM by LaBTop

I will try to find a time stamp in Boone's aal77.com link for the moment O'Brien in his C-130 cockpit informed his controller that he saw flight 77 coming at him, and the moment he identified it definitely as a 757.
Or if his military controller told him it was a 757 :

www.aal77.com...

The time frame after the intro runs from 09:25 to 09:48 EST in the tape.

Because if O'Brien did report the plane as a 757 a bit or much later as Stephenson got his call from the Secret Service guy, the only implication would be that Tigerwall was working correctly, and that it's defense capabilities were in place also.
Because, what sense would it have to defend your top brass with just the possibility to see the threads coming, like a 757 racing towards you, AND DO NOTHING ABOUT IT?
Do you think those generals and admirals are that sloppy with their precious lifes?

I do not appreciate the now clearly offensive USA war machine, but I don't expect them to be so dumb.
And the fact that the Secret Service informed Stephenson, as can be heard in the other tape I made excerpts from, is an indication that the Reagan controller and its radar room were not yet aware of the incoming threat. They just registered it as another plane on their screens till that phone call.
Which is a tad bit strange, if you think about it, in that tense situation, that an unidentified radar return did not set off all alarm bells in the Reagan tower.

They were however not unidentified radar returns, 77 and the C-130 were tagged dots, named LOOK and GOFER06.
Who tagged the 77 as LOOK and for how long already? It means they knew exactly what was coming.
I would say only the military can do that, so Stephenson and his colleagues probably thought the plane entering their screens was MILITARY.

06:00 was 5 minutes and 14 seconds into the tape (46 seconds intro first), which is
09:32:00 + 5:14 = 09:37:14 EST.
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.
06:10: FAA: OK:

I get a bit tense now I recall the exact moment the Secret Service guy interferes with the Reagan tower's operators. That's 09:37:14. I have the haunting idea they knew that it was flight 77, a 757, already far longer, so why the late notification to the Reagan tower?
He perhaps waited until he heard that all departures got stopped, then he immediately miked in and asked if Stephenson saw a guy 5 miles west of him. So he covered his back for eventual afterward investigations.

Let's hypothetically assume parts of the SS were again in on this plot, the same way as with the Kennedy assassination where they clearly ordered their guys away from the presidential limousine and to let their guard down when the motorcade entered Daley Plaza. The SS guy who knew he had to run along the limousine was strictly ordered back! And their were no two agents anymore on the rear bumper steps installed for that purpose!

So now this SS guy knows that the plane can safely land at Reagan, and that the runways are empty.
Perhaps that was the reason for that strange circling around and over Alexandria and back, they needed more time to clear the Reagan runways?
It was then planned as a fly-over, and a landing and perhaps a full throttle departure?

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 01:03 PM by LaBTop

That's unfortunately not one of my posts about it, but nevertheless, thank you very much SPreston.

That's Wilmington Trust, owned at the time by Warren Buffet, the guy who had a little party on 9/11 at Offutt AFB together with G.W. Bush.

After all these bank crashes and the towing in of valuable assets by exactly those kind of people, it all ads to the bittering mood of the US populace, and the rest of the world, toward old Capitalist rules.

Possible use for E-4B's as a decoy for 77 :
www.rense.com...

The Air Force has four E-4Bs, and they are normally assigned to Offutt AFB, near Omaha, Nebraska. Offutt is the home of STRATCOM, i.e., the Strategic Command (formerly the Strategic Air Command).
-snip-
In recent years, the military has incorporated similar "attacks" into Global Guardian exercises. However, it is not known if these were a part of the 2001 drill. We do know that at the time of the 9/11 attack one of the E-4Bs was en route to Offutt AFB with a high-level military advisory panel on board, including its chairman, retired Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, evidently for the purpose of observing the exercise. The role of this panel, known as the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB), is to monitor US intelligence agencies.

www.rense.com...

The E-4B is equipped with a military transponder and therefore has the capability to transmit in code unreadable to the FAA. For which reason the E-4B would have appeared only as a blip on primary radar; and so, would have been indistinguishable from a hijacked commercial-sized plane with its transponder off; and as we know, Flight 77's transponder went off at 8:56 AM. It's no wonder Scoggins later assumed this plane was Flight 77.

reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 05:01 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by LaBTopReheat would also be a value added asset if he wasn't so damn acidic.

Ok, you want me to participate in your silly thread........

A flyover is a stupid idea from the very beginning for numerous reasons, but it is disproven by the complete Radar Track of AA 77 from it's take-off at Dulles to about the Sheraton Hotel. Then, the many witnesses that saw it impact the Pentagon. The FDR recovered from the Pentagon with approximately 25 hours of previous flights in the data. The DNA of the passengers and crew which was recovered from inside the Pentagon and finally, the testimony of the thousands who worked both during the rescue effort and the recovery of aircraft parts and bodies as documented in the book Firefight.......

www.firefightthebook.com...

All of the above trumps the contradictory CIT witnesses, most of whom said the aircraft impacted the building. The impossible aerodynamics of some of the theories, the physics of the lightpole in Lloyde's Cab and the pristine hood, the planted light poles, (for which there is NO EVIDENCE), the supposed suspicious expressions on Lloyde's face and all of the other CIT garbage.

If you disagree, post EVIDENCE to the contrary, not personal incredulity, not dubious contradictory witness statements, not speculation without evidence and all of the other silly ideas conjured up in the previous pages of this thread.

There was no flyover, the aircraft impacted the building....

END OF THREAD!

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 01:06 AM by LaBTop

The TYSON tape
1 DCA 108 TYSON 1325-1348.mp3
starts after an intro of 00:14 seconds.
It covers the time from 09:25 to 09:48 EST.
At 12:08 the controller informs O'Brien, that he has traffic at 11 o'clock and asked him if he could identify that traffic.
At 12:14 O'Brien answers : a 757.

That was EST time 09:37:00, and the DCA tape from above read 09:37:15 when the Secret Service guy told the Reagan controller that the plane he saw identified on his scope as LOOK was a 757.
That gives the Secret Service which obviously listened in to both controllers, 15 seconds to contact the Reagan Tower.
Both tapes timelines fit.

After that O'Brien explains that the 757 crossed his path in front of him and that it then maintained a northeastern course.
Which definitely places that encounter on the 757's last 90° of its 390° circle around Alexandria.
Thus my calculations for the last seconds to impact and the eventual speeds derived there of, earlier on in this thread are correct.

The average speed is too low to give enough time to accelerate in f.ex. 10 last seconds to 530 miles per hour, as we can read in here :
www.usatoday.com...
A 757 has no afterburners to accelerate so fast.

Another excerpt from that USA Today link to Reheat's linked book :

Excerpt from 'Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11'
Posted 5/12/2008 4:45 PM
By Patrick Creed and Rick Newman
In its last second of flight, American Airlines Flight 77 passed over a Citgo gas station just down the hill from the Navy Annex, a series of building that overlooked the Pentagon. Rooftops rose rapidly to meet the jet. To its left, the orderly white headstones of Arlington National Cemetery stood at attention. As the plane crossed Washington Blvd., which separated the cemetery from the western lawn of the Pentagon reservation, its wings knocked over several light poles that lined the road. One light pole fell onto a taxicab, smashing the windshield, injuring the driver, and bringing the sedan to a skidding halt. Another landed on the Pentagon lawn, in several pieces.

In the small tower on the Pentagon helipad, air traffic controller Sean Boger saw the image of an airplane began to materialize through the window, on the near horizon: first a nose, then a wing, then no doubt about it, a whole goddamn airplane. Boger froze.

Could anyone sane enough to be reasonable, explain to us, why they changed the story from south of Citgo to OVER the Citgo gas station, and how a 757 at 530 miles per hour could ever make that impossible turn from over the CITGO roof back to the 5 downed light poles, to then impact under that impossible 52° (or more) angle laid out as a damage path inside the Pentagon.

Talking about aeronautical impossibilities here is getting common.

[edit on 25/5/09 by LaBTop]

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 02:14 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
the physics of the lightpole in Lloyde's Cab and the pristine hood, the planted light poles, (for which there is NO EVIDENCE),

Reheat, you have not shown how the light pole allegedly hit the taxi. Please prove it if you wish to sustain it.

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 09:58 AM by Reheat

Originally posted by tezzajwReheat, you have not shown how the light pole allegedly hit the taxi. Please prove it if you wish to sustain it.

Now, why on earth would I need to show anything about an irrelevant STRAWMAN regarding Lloyde and his taxi cab story. It has nothing to do with whether or not AA 77 impacted the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that it did and you have the audacity to bring up YOUR irrelevant STRAWMAN regarding a taxi cab. This truly shows that you have NOTHING at all to refute the accepted conclusion that AA 77 plowed into the Pentagon and killed a bunch of innocent people.

Maybe Lloyde invented parts of his story for his own gain and the pole didn't impact as he has suggested. He seems more than a little confused about the whole affair. What does that prove? It proves absolutely nothing except that perhaps Lloyde thought he could get some $$ from it. Maybe it happened very much like he has said. It's irrelevant either way. The reason you asked the question in the first place is that you know it is extremely difficult if not impossible to explain a random CHAOTIC event such as a pole impacting a moving vehicle, so you think it's a gotcha.

I haven't seen any evidence that Lloyde benefited in any manner from his misfortune. All I have seen is a bunch of deluded idiots try to make something important out of this supposed event to perpetuate the myth that somehow or another 9/11 was a "inside jobby job". Good freakin' luck with that STRAWMAN.

Unless you have something new and significant to offer, I consider this thread finished. I'm not about to engage in bickering over unimportant trivia.

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 03:04 PM by weedwhacker

Originally posted by LaBTop

www.aal77.com...
EDIT: to try to remove extra quote bars...oops, still there, sorry...

Because, what sense would it have to defend your top brass with just the possibility to see the threads coming, like a 757 racing towards you, AND DO NOTHING ABOUT IT?
Do you think those generals and admirals are that sloppy with their precious lifes?

I think you're way over-analyzing this...

I do not appreciate the now clearly offensive USA war machine, but I don't expect them to be so dumb.

Wildly off-topic. And insulting.

And the fact that the Secret Service informed Stephenson, as can be heard in the other tape I made excerpts from, is an indication that the Reagan controller and its radar room were not yet aware of the incoming threat.

Untrue -- or at least, unverified. You have no idea what the controllers were saying to each other, or to Herndon, during the time, if all you have to go by is the ATC recording of the Local Tower frequency.

Which is a tad bit strange, if you think about it, in that tense situation, that an unidentified radar return did not set off all alarm bells in the Reagan tower.

The only 'alarm bells' are proximity warnings that are generated automatically when two data blocks indicate separation standards violations. Unless, you were being rhetorical with the phrase 'alarm bells'??

They were however not unidentified radar returns, 77 and the C-130 were tagged dots, named LOOK and GOFER06.
Who tagged the 77 as LOOK and for how long already?

I would say only the military can do that,

The military flights were 'tagged' because they were entered into the ATC system, either by a pre-filed Flight Plan, or they 'popped up' with the TRACON, or Washington Center, identified themselves, and were assigned a descrete transponder squawk and clearance to operate as they requested, in the airspace that was under Civilian control. That's how it works.

Your post continues on a rant about the Secret Service, and complicity in the kennedy assisination, off topic.

Then:

So now this SS guy knows that the plane can safely land at Reagan, and that the runways are empty.
Perhaps that was the reason for that strange circling around and over Alexandria and back, they needed more time to clear the Reagan runways?

Pure speculation, and as I mentioned earlier, wildly over-analyzing the entire event. AND, why this mention of Alexandria as if it's odd?? Look at a normal approach procedure for KDCA:

flightaware.com...

Here's a better one, it's a 'visual' procedure:

flightaware.com...

These are just two of several 'STAR's for KDCA. They are both, of course, appropriate for RW 01 arrivals. The 'IRONS4' would be used under IFR meteorlogical conditions. The 'Mount Vernon Visual' I provided would be the one in use likely on September 11, 2001. It shows some pertinent landmarks for reference.

It was then planned as a fly-over, and a landing and perhaps a full throttle departure?

Pure hogwash, from an aeronautical standpoint and completely unsubstantiated by observations and recordings.

[edit on 5/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 05:01 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
Now, why on earth would I need to show anything about an irrelevant STRAWMAN regarding Lloyde and his taxi cab story.

It's part of the official story that you support, Reheat. Your official story claims that the light pole was hit by the jet. It's not a strawman and you mentioned it in this thread. I should suggest that if you wish to discuss Lloyde, his taxi and the light pole, then you would be better off taking it to another thread that's on topic.

Unless you have something new and significant to offer, I consider this thread finished. I'm not about to engage in bickering over unimportant trivia.

Of course you won't engage with it. You can't prove that it happened, so you would prefer to ignore it and wish that it would go away.

Not one government loyalist has been able to prove that the jet hit the light pole, which then hit Lloyde's taxi. Why would the official story claim that this happened, if it can't be proven?

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 05:57 PM by LaBTop

I told you both tower audio tapes fit (complete?) each other.

Stop the insults, the fabricated patriotism and the out of place authoritative smokescreens and come to the point.
The logic of the situation.

Anyone of you would be so kind to react on an impossible flight path as laid out in my last above post?

And remember, all earliest non-CIT eyewitnesses which are pointed out on my drawing with the yellow outlaid flight path and eventual landing at Reagan, reported a plane coming to them which only banked slightly to the right, thus with its right wing lower than its left wing, and sliding straight like that into the Pentagon, with its right wing low or perhaps at the highest position possible, leveled out again.
Never a higher tilted right wing, which would indicate a last left bank.

The official story however tried to sell us for many years an impact at an approximate 52° angle, with the right wing HIGH.
And an impact damage imprint on the west wall with a high right wing and a low left wing to both sides of the main fuselage impact hole.

See that immense thread started by CatHerder if you don't believe me.
It's title is 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon
www.abovetopsecret.com... (285 pages now)

And all those eyewitnesses from the earliest hour definitely did not report a plane flying over the CITGO gas station, then banking strongly to the right, then directly banking strongly back to the left (an impossible S-turn, even at the lowest possible speed for a 757) and then impacting with a slightly raised right wing, at an angle of about 52°, as the official story told us all.

They all report it as coming straight at them, passing over them or just in front of them, and hitting head on at about an 85° to 90° angle.

I never heard from a physically possible 52° left turn after a plane hit head-on, 90°, into a recently reinforced building facade, and a subsequent 300 foot long inside damage path at an thus impossible 52° angle to the facade.

And how about that NORAD dictated flight path, identical to my first stretch in my possibly fly-over scenario drawing which is totally based on the earliest mainstream media reported eyewitness accounts?
That NORAD plane impacting with a higher left wing and a lower right wing.
HEAD-ON.

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 10:05 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by Reheat
Now, why on earth would I need to show anything about an irrelevant STRAWMAN regarding Lloyde and his taxi cab story.

Originally posted by tezzajw
It's part of the official story that you support, Reheat. Your official story claims that the light pole was hit by the jet. It's not a strawman and you mentioned it in this thread. I should suggest that if you wish to discuss Lloyde, his taxi and the light pole, then you would be better off taking it to another thread that's on topic.

Show me an Official Report that analyzes the Taxi Cab being hit by a pole. I simply mentioned it in passing, yet you brought it up again by asking a specific question. I told you it was an irrelevant strawman, but here you go again.

Originally posted by Reheat
Unless you have something new and significant to offer, I consider this thread finished. I'm not about to engage in bickering over unimportant trivia.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Of course you won't engage with it. You can't prove that it happened, so you would prefer to ignore it and wish that it would go away.

Transference much? I brought up very relevant issues such as the entire Radar track, the FDR found in the Pentagon, and the DNA, and the thousands who worked to clean up the mess in the book Firefight...... Yet, you persistence with the Taxi Cab and the poles as opposed to addressing relevant issues.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Not one government loyalist has been able to prove that the jet hit the light pole, which then hit Lloyde's taxi. Why would the official story claim that this happened, if it can't be proven?

Show me that it's a part of the "Official Story". No discussion, just show a factual Official Report. According to you, you're off topic. The next time you mention the Taxi Cab, I'll report you as off topic.

You can't prove that the poles were planted either, so I guess the wind blew them over, eh? Are you going to persist with trivia or do you have something unique to offer? I doubt that you'll surprise me....

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 11:42 PM by Reheat

Is this pretty close to what is being discussed here?

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

So let me see if I've got it straight: According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact. To do this, They executed the following:

* They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
* The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
* The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
* The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
* One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
* A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by * The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
* The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
* A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft And, finally,
* The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner. I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments. In the future, I plan to take no notice whatsoever of the Citizens Investigation Team, other than to link back to this post. From here, there is simply no return. I deeply pity the minds that are snared by such utter madness.

forums.randi.org...

reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 01:12 AM by LaBTop

Weedwhacker, I think you misunderstood my Alexandria remark, and yes, thus I was being rhetorical with the phrase 'alarm bells' :

""“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.”"" (See this excerpt in one of my posts on page 4).

And since a picture is worth a thousand Mackey words, please refute this one and my accompanying last post reasoning based on it :

Take the time to read the first pages of the CatHerder huge thread to find out that the visual impact damage on the west wall definitely showed a left bank impact, and not a right bank one as NORAD data shows.

reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 08:20 AM by Reheat

Originally posted by LaBTopTake the time to read the first pages of the CatHerder huge thread to find out that the visual impact damage on the west wall definitely showed a left bank impact, and not a right bank one as NORAD data shows.

You apparently are referring to the animation demonstration developed by the STK Company (now AGI). In fact, you posted this....

This is a cut-out of a screen shot of the above OFFICIALLY endorsed Flight 77 animation made by www.stk.com, based on data they obtained from HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN and the FAA :

This animation was used in a presentation to a NORAD/FAA conference to demonstrate/sell animation software. It IS NOT based on data from ANYONE except the imagination of a software engineer who used it as an example for the demonstration.

The entire idea of the "Official" nature of this animation defies COMMON SENSE. What would NORAD or the FAA know about the final flight path for AA 77? Neither of them are investigative agencies and neither of them were involved in the investigation of the flight path of AA 77. The aerodynamics in it are totally implausible for a transport category aircraft anyway.

The investigation of AA 77's flight path was done by the NTSB. Therefore, you are left with the CIT garbage as the entire basis for this thread. Your "officially endorsed" NORAD/FAA flight path has just been destroyed.

Is it any wonder that no one with COMMON SENSE takes these delusions of a flyover or any other anomaly implied in this thread seriously?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 08:46 AM by weedwhacker

This whole subject is beginning to resemble one of those clever TV adverts where Fred Astaire is dancing with Madonna, by virtue of the magic of CGI, and someone comes along to claim it actually happened.

In order for a few dozen stalwart anti-official-story 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts to make their claims seem even slightly plausible, they have to use information out of context (whether willfully or unwittingly, because someone else passed it off as "truth") in order to bolster their positions.

THEN,, if challenged, some conspiracy proponents change the subject. The internet term in the discussion is 'move the goalposts'.

Or, a combination tactic: Move the goal, and then insert red-herring to further confuse the issue. All whilst conveniently not responding to actual evidence contrary to their 'theories'.

What's interesting to watch is how the same, previously refuted (debunked?) claims, after a certain period of time, are resurrected in the hopes, apparently, that a new crop of readers won't notice.

My preceding does not, obviously, pertain to ALL who contribute to this discussion, for some are genuinely interested and put forth a great deal of effort. It's just, sometimes the conclusion is arrived at first, and then the effort is put in to make the "facts" fit.