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: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


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

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


I have absolutely no idea in how I am supposed to get a hold of this guy.

If you could please be so kind and provide me with some sort of contact information so I can speak to him, I will try to contact him. I would appreciate it very much.

Thank You.



[edit on 7/1/2009 by Classified Info]




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Weedhacker was correct when he said you don't understand. The obvious reason you don't understand is that you've spent most of your research time
regarding 9/11 on Conspiracy Web Sites. That's obvious as most of the stuff you post is totally WRONG, but it is commonly found on CT Sites.

I'm not going to waste my time correcting all of the stuff that has been debunked for years, but I will address one area so that those without irreducible delusions can learn.


Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Impossible maneuvers for inexperienced pilots.


From the very first flight a student learning to fly makes, he does a descending turn to lose altitude and position the aircraft for landing. That's what Hanjour did, a descending turn to lose altitude. Therefore it is not a difficult maneuver at all. He had done that hundreds of times during his 600 + hours of flying.


Originally posted by Leo StraussWhy didn't they nosedive the plane if they were just suicidal maniacs?


Most civilian pilots in a lifetime of flying have/will NEVER do/done a nosedive of the type required to lose altitude that you're envisioning. The only pilots trained to do this are Air Force Pilots who do "Dive Bombing". It is not an easy maneuver to do in a controlled manner for someone who has never been trained or has never done it. I can assure you that was not a part of Hanjour's training as people (to include instructors) don't waste money on maneuvers not required by the FAA.

Had he tried this Hanjour likely would have lost control. He didn't just want to kill himself, he wanted to hit that building and he did in in the way he had been trained to fly.

Had Hanjour been a good pilot, he would have planned a descent point to begin a controlled descent and hit the building straight on. He wasn't a good pilot and either did not plan a descent properly or due to the sun he missed a proper descent point and needed to lose altitude. He lost altitude in the manner for which he had been trained. A simple descending turn.

You are obviously not familiar with the topography and man made structures surrounding the Pentagon. The part of the building easiest to attack was the Western wall, just as he did. He was coming from the west and that western wall made the most sense from virtually every angle one might use to judge. It is quite likely he/they didn't know the location of people or offices inside the building as that information is not easy to determine.

In summary, Hanjour ended up in a position needing to lose altitude in order to line up and hit the building and he did it as he had done hundreds of times previously in his flight training. While a straight ahead "nosedive" might seem easy for the non-pilot layman it isn't at all. Certainly not in a controllable manner.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I know there are at least 2 possible views available on radar. One view shows the transponder information the other shows aircraft without the corresponding transponder info. It paints everything in the sky.

With your experience as a pilot, is it possible to overlay these views in real time? The reason I ask is that would make a lot of sense if the country was under attack by commercial aircraft with transponders turned off.

We know that radar tracks UFO's all the time (remember this is ATS)


I assume these phenomena are not transmitting transponder info.


Secondly- what are the odds Hani Hanjuour could have brought that aircraft on the 1st floor level of the Pentagon at his reported speed? Seems astronomical to me.

Lastly is there any way possible the plane could have been North of Citgo and clipped the light poles and created the damage pattern in the Pentagon?

The witnesses describe a bank and the appearance that the pilot was struggling to control the plane. Witnesses also report hearing the pilot go to full throttle. In the distance and time involved could the plane have hit those light poles with a North of Citgo approach??



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 


I don't provide contact information for real people to anonymous internet forum posters.

But let me give you a hint how you would go about finding him mr "classified info".....he's listed.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox


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


I'm not hiding anything, it has been presented in full and in context.

Do you really think that I lied when I said he did NOT outright confess and how he maintained his proven false story about the plane, the pole, and his north side location until the end?

If so I suggest you contact him yourself and get a confession out of him or get him to accuse me of misrepresenting his testimony.

Otherwise thanks for the bump!



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

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.


Did you watch his interview?

He claims the funeral he was attending had just gotten finished and they were walking back to the car.

It was allegedly scheduled for 9:00.

What time was the funeral you were working scheduled for?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Weedhacker was correct when he said you don't understand. The obvious reason you don't understand is that you've spent most of your research time
regarding 9/11 on Conspiracy Web Sites. That's obvious as most of the stuff you post is totally WRONG, but it is commonly found on CT Sites.

I'm not going to waste my time correcting all of the stuff that has been debunked for years, but I will address one area so that those without irreducible delusions can learn.


Spoken like a true JREF forum member! The Amazing Randi strikes again!
Which is one of the reasons I find it difficult to even read your posts Reheat!

Could it be possible that I HAVE read your comments and found them unconvincing and for the most part close minded at best. No not the Amazing Randi he debunks all. Just like Michael Schermer he can debunk anything or Mark Roberts etc etc.

Please don't "waste your time" with me I know you are on a schedule of what a thousand posts a day on the internet?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He claims the funeral he was attending had just gotten finished and they were walking back to the car.



Funeral for who? There should be a grave marker currently residing at the site and for the person he was attending for. Then check with ANC and see if that person was on the burial schedule for 0900 on Sept. 11th, 2001. That would at least validate that he was, at the very least, likely to have been where he said he was.

I'm not the head of any investigative team, but to me this would have been step one to verify the guys location that morning.


[edit on 1-7-2009 by BigSarge]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Spoken like a true JREF forum member! The Amazing Randi strikes again!
Which is one of the reasons I find it difficult to even read your posts Reheat!


As I said, I didn't write that for you in the first place.


Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Please don't "waste your time" with me I know you are on a schedule of what a thousand posts a day on the internet?


Just like most everything else you write, you're only off by more than 980 posts. Apparently, you think I'm "in on it". Well, the Conspiracy is almost complete. Once you are "in on it", it will be complete.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



...the other shows aircraft without the corresponding transponder info. It paints everything in the sky.


Not necessarily 'everything'. Controllers can use various settings to reduce "clutter' on the screens...noise, caused by various things. As I said, especially with ARTCC Radar in the High sectors, fine resolution of primary targets isn't very precise. ALSO, since in the USA all traffic above FL180 is required to be on an IFR flight plan with a transponder, the High sectors don't commonly have the Radar selected to paint primary targets. (ARTCC High sectors are split from Low sectors at the FL220-FL230 point).

For UFOs...IF a pilot sees traffic and queries the controller, then he can select to paint primaries, and may or may not see the UFO...depends on ground antenna locations, weather in the area, etc.



...is it possible to overlay these views in real time?


You refer to seeing the data block and primary returns at the same time, yes, as noted above. However, if a controller is currently handling a lot of airplanes, and is thusly very busy with them, he will minimize the clutter as much as possible.



Secondly- what are the odds Hani Hanjuour could have brought that aircraft on the 1st floor level of the Pentagon at his reported speed?



reheat addressed that (we are NOT coordinating, just if someone asks...)
Some anti-Flight77 folks (just coined that) like to make condescending remarks, such as dragging the engines through the lawn, and other nonsense. In fact, the airplane could strike a vertical zone on the side of the building that provides plenty of ground clearance for the engine nacelles. It could have struck, for instance, at the floor between the Ground and Second floors. Damage would be consistent with that scenario.

As to speed, remember that the C-130 (GOFER06) just off Andrews, and headed West towards (and south of) the DCA airport, had traffic pointed out by ATC (Flt77) at five miles distance, relative to the C-130. They spotted it. When asked its altitude, they replied "low". SO, at least five miles, lined up and aiming at the Pentagon straight in, in a shallow dive, gradually picking up speed. Jets will accelerate very, very quickly when going downhill.

Ed: You can listen here, the tape from Washington TRACON and Andrews Departure Control (the TYSON position). The video of the controller's scope is rough, but the audio is very compelling. You can hear the stress in everyone's voices....the double hash marks to the lower right represent the two parallel runways at Andrews AFB, the Radar is centered on DCA.
Dashed lines South and NorthWest of DCA represent the Instrument Approach centerlines for the associated runways.




...is there any way possible the plane could have been North of Citgo and clipped the light poles and created the damage pattern in the Pentagon?


In a word, No.

I am very dubious of the "North of Citgo" claims because I see an agenda there...it is a need for some to attempt to prove their pet theory, the "Fly Over" and the incredibly complicated notion of Hoax, with "decoy" airplanes, cruise missiles, pre-planted explosives (and debris!!), even some go as far as to posit incredibly secret 'black project' weapons!!!

None of that is logical, when the simplest thing to do was just fly an airplane into the building as witnessed.

Problem is, in an apparent zeal to promote the "Fly-Over", witnesses' testimonies are hand-picked and skewed as necessary to meet the agenda. Evidence to conflict with the 'NoC' theory is ignored or ridiculed.



The witnesses describe a bank and the appearance that the pilot was struggling to control the plane.


Bearing in mind the unreliablity of most witnesses, especially laymen, what was most likely observed was a continued manipulation of the controls as part of the aiming process...remember, Hani wasn't a good pilot, in that he wasn't smoooooth...he didn't give a goose's behind about passenger comfort, nor finesse.

I am sorry for writing a long response, but the short-and-sweet doesn't cut it. That's how misinformation gets passed on.....


[edit on 7/1/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 

No I don't think you are "in on it" (strawman as you know). Personal attack meant to quell discussion and make others afraid to appear stupid (you know that as well) and therefore remain quiet.

I don't think you're "in on it" just wrong and obnoxious.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Thanks for the advice.

What time was the funeral you were working scheduled for?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Thanks for the advice.

What time was the funeral you were working scheduled for?


BigSarge,

Its beginning. If the information you choose to provide (or not) does not fit into Craig's already-cemented pre-conceived plan of how this went down, prepare to be labeled a "deep operative"...a Government Shill or a CIA mole or a FBI secret-agent or on W's payroll (still), rolled out at this late date to muddy the waters because "CIT is getting too close!!!".

As it stands, you are probably just a post or two away from being labeled the ubiquitous "anonymous internet poster" bent on disrupting CITs Perry Mason/Colombo-like investigative juggernaut.

Stand by.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


And as such I won't be answering directed questions. As an innocent bystandard and not the head of an investigation looking into a conspiracy, it is my feeling that most, if not all of these questions being asked should have been answered LONG AGO. I am not unique in my perspective of the event. Especially since this investigation is alleged to be so thorough.

Instead of asking for an "anonymous internet poster" to provide you with detailed factual information, why not exhaust the resources available and get that information from "reliable" sources. Again, I'm sure Mr. Metzler or Ms. Tanner at the ANC Admin office could give you the details of what funerals were taking place at the time and what their section/location was. I've given you my unit, 2nd Platoon, D Company of the Old Guard. Do your "investigating" and see what the facts tell you rather than asking me so you can either find a way to dispell and/or flip what I am saying to fit your argument.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You really ought to read threads before posting in them to avoid making comments that expose you as ignorant regarding the discussion at hand.

Everything BigSarge has said about witnessing the plane corroborates what all the other witnesses in that area report proving the plane did not hit the light poles, the generator trailer, or the building.

He correctly admitted he would not have been able to see the plane on the official flight path and he has also correctly admitted that he could not see it hit the building due to the trees.

Since he didn't even notice the C-130 it's clear he is not here to support the fraudulent 2nd plane story so at this point I have no reason to doubt he is being sincere.

Your sarcastic personal accusations about how I would react to whatever time he claims the funeral was scheduled for are comically off base as much as they are against the forum rules.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


I understand that this information is extremely hard to take in for the first time so I fully appreciate why you would naturally feel hostile and evasive towards me.

But it's not my fault that what you and all the witnesses in that area report that day proves a deception.

I'm sure as someone who helped recover the bodies of slaughtered innocents that it would be even harder for you to accept than most.

But if you have been honest about you experience, what you saw is world historically important on an astronomical level and going public with your account would not only be courageous and heroic, but also your duty to this country whether or not you are still enlisted.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Certainly, if I were to "buy in" to your theory I would have no problem with that. But to this point, the fact that the path of the aircraft is debatable does not tell me there was a conspiracy in place to where the plane veered off and didn't crash. Sorry.

Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. Without providing more FACTUAL information, and not just that of so called eyewitnesses, it's going to be tough for you.

The funny thing about eyewitnesses and what made me remember this is reading through the transcript of my old Platoon SGT talking to the historians is that 9 out fo 10 people who were in that general area that morning will tell you they saw the plane or saw it crash in a conversation about it. Even where I am stationed now, if and when the Pentagon attack comes up, everyone "knows" someone who saw the plane crash. I guess my point is, memories, even short term ones can not be entirely trusted as FACT. Even my own. I like to think I have a very strong memory, but could I have mis-remembered details along the way? Sure. Have I found myself doubting my own memory when you or others pose questions that I had never considered or thought of before? Absolutely.

So show me something tangible other than all of the eyewitness accounts, many of which being from people who just want to be part of the history and get their names attached as being important to the story. Where is your evidence? Where are the videos, pictures of that plane that did NOT crash? Where did it go? Where are the bodies if they weren;t inside the Pentagon? If it was a bomb that exploded, then what was in the one video that has been shown of SOMETHING crashing into the outer wall of the Pentagon. If it was a missle, what fired it? Where are the missle parts?

Show me something that proves to me the plane I saw didn't hit the Pentagon. You are the investigator, that is all I ask.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
On the subject of the ground track, there's a Mr. Calum Douglas, in the UK, (who incidentally in a video mentions his C.olleagues I.n T.he states ---CITs) who had the "raw" data from AAL77 'read out' by a person who he says can't be named, because that person would get fired.

Anyway, the "raw" data confirms the path necessary to knock over the light poles. However, I won't hang my hat on that too much, for a simple reason: American Airlines Flight 77, N644AA, did not...DID NOT...have GPS updating onboard, for the navigation computers. SO, 'exact' lateral positioning info based solely on the DFDR is in fact not perfect. It can be inferred by heading info, and extrapolated by other methods, such as correlating the Radar data. And, the physical evidence left at the scene.

I will have to get techhie here, so please bear with me. The B757 series (and B767) use three independent Inertial Reference System units (IRS) that utilize laser-ring gyros to detect accelerations along three axes, and thus deduce motion in three dimensions. Each produces a position (in Lat/Long) as to where it 'thinks' it is. The three positions are averaged, and that becomes the 'FMC' position (Flight Management Computer). If one unit goes haywire enough, it is thrown out, and a message displayed to the crew.

The FMC position is what's displayed on the EHSIs, and what the A/P uses as a reference. FMC position is updated by either: VOR/VOR triangulation, VOR/DME, DME/DME or, as in the case for most modern jets today, GPS when available. Obviously, GPS is preferred, for accuracy.

Now, Calum Douglas, and his 'friends' at P4T, also point to anomalies in altitude as a 'smoking gun'...yet they leave out certain facts.

First, altimeter settings. The altimeters were not re-set from their cruise settings to adjust for local atmospheric pressure that day. The other 'smoking gun' they like to use is the Radio Altimeter (or, Radar Altimeter...terms are interchangeable). Like a Radar, the unit bounces a radio signal down and back, measuring the time interval, and providing very accurate height above whatever is below at the moment the signal hits something, and is bounced back. This is important to understand. The device can only send a pulse so many times per second, and the DFDR can sample them only so fast to record into the database. P4T and Calum Douglas like to use the last recorded RA reading of 173' AGL (above ground level). Problem is, over very irregular terrain, the RA can jump a bit...and because of sampling rates, and the speed of the airplane, there is no real way to determine exactly where the airplane was at that moment. THEY like to infer that it was the height just before impact...which they then laugh at as ludicrous. Which, if it were true, would be ridiculous. But, the DFDR is not magic, it has limitations in the speed it can record.

SO, what it boils down to is nit-picking data and drawing 'conclusions' based on flawed or incomplete interpretations...but, whatever it takes to bolster your case!




[edit on 7/1/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


We are talking about one very simple and very general detail.

North or south of the gas station.

I fully agree that eyewitness accounts can be unreliable which is why independent corroboration is so important.

That is the scientific method used to validate specific details.

So the fact that all of the witnesses in this area, including you, unanimously corroborate each other regarding the north side approach is scientific proof that this detail is accurate.

Unfortunately for all of us this simple detail proves the plane did not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or the building.

This isn't my theory BigSarge, it is what you and all the other witnesses report.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


Exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you. So the criminals were willing to fly the actual 2 aircraft full of people into the WTC, but at the Pentagon, they chose to make the plane full of passengers miss? And risk someone seeing and/or videotaping the plane missing the Pentagon and thus PROVING beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a bomb or missile rather than a plane? This isn't Flight 93 in the middle of nowhere. This is one of the busiest areas in DC/Northern VA area, in the middle of the morning. Not only did they choose to take this risk, but then had to fly a plane full of innocent people to an undisclosed location and murder them? Or risk keeping them alive? Maybe they passed them off to the aliens? Stuck them up on the moon to live on the secret base there?

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 theory that this evidence was planted is LAUGHABLE. Unless the Incredible Hulk himself snuck in while the place was still burning and carefully planted thousands of pieces of a plane by weaving intricate threads of parts amongst the wiring and pipes etc. inside the building. I know how tough it was to get the stuff out, and it took hundreds of workers weeks on end to do so. THIS is the smoking gun of impossibility, not the fact that the plane may have been slightly north or south of either the official flight path or multiple eyewitness acounts.


A BIG star for you. This has to be the best post to sum it up on the whole issue of either Missiles hitting the pentagon, or a flyover.

How the hell, in the view of THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses can they "plant" big chunks of metal, light posts. ect, with no one seeing it? Everyone in the vicinity was out there gawking! Plane parts aren't like video tapes or baggies of drugs. You can't hide them in your trench coat and sneak them into the crime scene.

And furthermore, the whole idea of no plane hitting is even more ridiculous, when you consider the risk. Why all this proverbial sleigh of hand, when a real plane full of real people will do the damage just as well with no questions asked?

Again, thank you for the best post yet.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join