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.

 

New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

page: 16
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Why are you demanding speculation as a means to dismiss hard evidence?

The fact is that if you saw the plane it could NOT have been on the official flight path as you admitted.

If it is not on the official flight path it can not hit the light poles, the generator trailer, or damage the building as shown.

Therefore what you saw proves a deception and proves that Roosevelt Roberts was correct about the plane flying away.

The witnesses at the gas station and the ANC maintenance complex and the heliport controller all had a MUCH better view than you did and they unanimously corroborate each other about the north side approach.

The cab driver's story is ridiculous and proven false and he cryptically admits it was a conspiracy.

To top it all off people saw it flying away.

What more do you need?

There is zero evidence that it was "Flight 77" or that it contained any passengers.

Even the 9/11 Commission admits that Flight 77 was completely lost as early as 8:56.

I know you're probably home from work now so watch Keith Wheelhouse's proven false account and let me know what you think about THAT.

I know this is all hard for you to take but no amount of speculation about WHY they did what they did can change the fact that the north side approach proves a deception.

Pay attention to the independent evidence and stay away from needless speculating.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

To top it all off people saw it flying away.


Craig, why wasn't these "people" that you speak of fooled by the explosion like everyone else on the west side of the Pentagon?



[edit on 30-6-2009 by Boone 870]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I want to know why Ranke wont post the Lloyd video as requested?

What is he hiding?

Why is there not any animation of the plane flying AROUND the impact point?

The plane could not of flown through the explosion for obvious reasons. Ranke admits himself the the plane had to have flow (as you looking straight on) to the right of the explosion.

They will not create animation becasue of how STUPID it will make this theory look.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

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

To top it all off people saw it flying away.


Craig, why wasn't these "people" that you speak of fooled by the explosion like everyone else on the west side of the Pentagon?


I want to see an animation of what a 757 would look like flying over the south parking lot at "50 to 100 feet". I'd also like to see included a representation of how many people could have been in that south parking lot and on 395 and Route 10 and the other surrounding roads and why they could not have seen it.

And since you don't "speculate", Craig, what is your excuse why these people did not come forth talking about a huge airliner at "50 to 100 feet" above a parking lot?

This just gets funnier by the minute!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
BigSarge,

You mentioned before that you had been interviewed by Military Historians at some point. It is quite possible that your interview was obtained under the FOIA by John Farmer last year.

Here is an index of the interviews that were conducted by Military Historians in the weeks and months following 9/11.

911files.info...

There are several interviews with D Company listed on pages 47-49 (NEIT439-NEIT459). From the descriptions, are there any that you believe may be your witness account?

John has already obtained NEIT440, NEIT455 and NEIT459. NEIT455 is linked below, but the other two are audio accounts with broken links. I will try to hunt them down.

911files.info...

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
BigSarge,

Additionally, I will need to go back and review the video, but I am fairly certain that the funeral Keith Wheelhouse attended had either concluded or had not yet commenced when AA77 impacted with the Pentagon.

From memory he was walking to (or could have been from) his car and positioned himself near the fenceline parallel to Route 27.

And it goes without saying... Craig already knows this.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   


I am interested in this photo. Is there a uncropped copy of it. The grass does not look unmarked to me. But I can't place it in relation the flight path or the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
BigSarge,

Additionally, I will need to go back and review the video, but I am fairly certain that the funeral Keith Wheelhouse attended had either concluded or had not yet commenced when AA77 impacted with the Pentagon.

From memory he was walking to (or could have been from) his car and positioned himself near the fenceline parallel to Route 27.

And it goes without saying... Craig already knows this.


Pliable explanation. You'd have to get with ANC Admin and see if they would be willing to share the funeral list for that day. They keep historical files of the burial details each day. See if where he was located had a funeral maybe coming up at 1000? Very possible.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
BigSarge,

You mentioned before that you had been interviewed by Military Historians at some point. It is quite possible that your interview was obtained under the FOIA by John Farmer last year.

Here is an index of the interviews that were conducted by Military Historians in the weeks and months following 9/11.

911files.info...

There are several interviews with D Company listed on pages 47-49 (NEIT439-NEIT459). From the descriptions, are there any that you believe may be your witness account?

John has already obtained NEIT440, NEIT455 and NEIT459. NEIT455 is linked below, but the other two are audio accounts with broken links. I will try to hunt them down.

911files.info...

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]


Wow, that's really cool. I recognize about 75% of these Soldiers. NEIT455 was my Platoon SGT. We still talk, I will be sending him that link tomorrow I have a feeling he will be shocked. Funny thing is that he wasn't even in the cemetery but still says he saw the plane from the barracks...Sorry, but I can't buy that and will be calling him out about that one...lol..Certainly never mentioned that to me and we've been friends since 2001. I guess it just goes to show how eyewitness accounts can morph over time.

Many thanks.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by BigSarge]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Many thanks.

Glad to be of assistance.

If you did not notice, there is also a master index with links to PDFs of all the witness accounts collected by the ACMH that have been obtained by John Farmer under FOIA.

Very detailed accounts from dozens of persons involved in witnessing the impact and collecting the evidence.

911files.info...



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Funny thing is that he wasn't even in the cemetery but still says he saw the plane from the barracks...Sorry, but I can't buy that and will be calling him out about that one...lol..

Your honesty is more than appreciated, BigSarge.

It is very interesting indeed, to see the extent to which some people claimed to have witnessed things that they did not.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I agree. It's also interesting to note the ones who were chosen for interviews based on what they had to say in the search for the "truth".



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

...For me, this is the toughest pill to swallow. Why would any conspirator do the above when it would be SO easy to simply fly the plane itself into the Pentagon? It makes no sense at all to risk having something like that exposed/proven to be an inside job when crashing the plane into the structure just like they did at the WTC would have been so much safer in keeping the "conspiracy" hidden/secret.

I still haven't heard a good explanation of how pieces of an AA aircraft was wrapped, impaled, embedded, and mixed so thoroughly into the debris from the Pentagon itself without there being an impact...


The WTC was completely destroyed. It is possible that the criminals that perpetrated this crime did not seek to completely destroy the Pentagon. In other words they wanted to control the damage.

In fact why did the hijackers overfly the Pentagon loop back and crash the plane into the only part of the building that was practically unoccupied due to ongoing "renovations". Surely the evildoers must have researched where the high value targets would be located in the Pentagon??? Why didn't they just nosedive on their first pass??

Sarge this is all speculation of course, but I am trying to give you a possible reason a deception was required. It is possible jet parts could have been planted BEFORE the explosion thus giving the appearance of a crash.

There are lots of problems with the official account.
Where are the videos??? What about the undamaged pentalawn and foundation? Experienced military personnel that smelled cordite right after the explosion? Impossible flight maneuvers. Loss of radar contact of the plane over WVA and Ohio. I could go on but I won't. We'll probably never know.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


You really don't understand?



Impossible flight maneuvers.


Huh? 'impossible flight maneuvers' ?? (Hoo, boy....more conspiracy BS trying to sound technical!!) Just look at the CIT's "theory".



Loss of radar contact of the plane over WVA and Ohio.


If you are still beating that dead horse, go back to the library again and learn what a 'transponder' does, and what it doesn't DO when someone turns its little switch to 'STBY'



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


You really don't understand?

Huh? 'impossible flight maneuvers' ?? (Hoo, boy....more conspiracy BS trying to sound technical!!) Just look at the CIT's "theory".

If you are still beating that dead horse, go back to the library again and learn what a 'transponder' does, and what it doesn't DO when someone turns its little switch to 'STBY'


Impossible maneuvers for inexperienced pilots.

I know what a transponder is. So if the Russians or Chinese attacked us the only way we would know is if they were kind enough to turn on their transponders???

Weed I got no beef against you I know you are a pilot. Why didn't they nosedive the plane if they were just suicidal maniacs?

Minetta's testimony about the aircraft being 50 miles out etc Do the orders still stand?? Dick Cheney saying something to the effect of have you heard otherwise? In other words yes the orders still stand. Then the Pentagon was hit.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Craig

I would still like to see the five minutes of video immediately prior to and immediately following Lloyde England's alleged confession. Not to judge his crediabilty, but to judge yours.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Yeah?

Too bad for you I never alleged that he outright confessed to anything.

Everything he said is in the presentation in context and I don't care what you or any anonymous forum poster thinks of me.

Nothing Lloyde has said can possibly change the rock solid north side approach evidence proving the plane did not hit the light poles or the building.

If you think I lied about his account, talk to him yourself and prove it.




[edit on 1-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Is the "2 Oclock position" video part of your "rock solid north side approach evidence"?

[edit on 1-7-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 



Hey, Leo!


Impossible maneuvers for inexperienced pilots.


I was writing quickly last night, and didn't embellish properly.

Hani Hanjour had over 600 hours. When I was Flight Instructing that was considered quite a lot. The bare minimum in the USA for a Commercial Certificate was 250 hours (years ago...don't know if it's changed).

Even a basic Private Pilot has to demonstrate a skill called "Turns about a point". That wasn't what Hani was doing, so I won't waste time describing, you can look it up. BUT a simple fly past, and turn back to see your target and aim for it? Well, anyone can do that.


I know what a transponder is. So if the Russians or Chinese attacked us...


Well, as to an attack from the Russians or Chinese (or anyone, not to single them out), NORAD, along with NATO assets, are directed towards a threat from outside our borders, primarily.

The ARTCC Radars covering the high sectors aren't well suited to 'paint' and track primary targets. The Radar is not accurate at a distance (altitude) because of beam dispersal. As the airplane descended other Radar systems could see it easier, such as the Washington TRACON.



Why didn't they nosedive the plane if they were just suicidal maniacs?


Who knows? One can only speculate, but it would seem, based only on the pattern seen in NYC, that the mindset was to hit horizontally as fast (and hard) as possible. Ironic that the roof of the Pentagon was not nearly as massive as the outside perimeter, so a crash straight down may have caused more damage.



Minetta's testimony about the aircraft being 50 miles out etc Do the orders still stand?? Dick Cheney saying something to the effect of have you heard otherwise?


Again, who knows? They're still alive, so let's waterboard them so they'll tell us!! As to what the "orders" were, that is only going to be speculation, coming from us. BUT, to infer it meant something like "Let it come" or anything to that effect? That is quite a leap.

Many are trying to equate the coincidence of the "choice" of the wall that was hit, because it had just recently been renovated. "Conspiracy!!" is shouted...but logic tells you a different story. Firstly, IF the terrorists knew about any construction work, they'd probably have picked a different side! The area just renovated was STRONGER than the older, original sections.

If you look at maps, and consider terrain, the West approach makes sense....the highway Columbia Pike (Rte. 244) makes a virtual bee line to the building. Down the Potomac from the Northeast is another option, except that's where the regular traffic to/from DCA is. Again, this is pure speculation.

Reason I doubt very much the CIT claim of "Over the Naval Annex" is because that building is actually situated on a small hill rise. When you drive by, from any of the surrounding roads, it is plain to see....doesn't make sense for the terrorists to intentionally make it harder for themselves.

(Sp.)

[edit on 7/1/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nothing Lloyde has said can possibly change the rock solid north side approach evidence proving the plane did not hit the light poles or the building.

If you think I lied about his account, talk to him yourself and prove it.


This appears to be the third time you have refused to release Lloyds testimony in it's entirety. What are you hiding?




top topics



 
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join