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: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I think Craig posted this video before, and the thread got deleted for some kind of T&C violation.

This time, someone else posted it (thankfully not marketing anything) and it was allowed to stay, but I guess the evidence is so compelling that they sent the big gun Reheat in here to handle it


Reheat, you mentioned in a previous post regarding planes in which you stated:

"...If they sit for a day or two they tend to break more frequently than if they fly often..."

Just curious what you are talking about here. Could I trouble you to explain that in a little more detail?

Next, in another post you stated:

..."Warning that were not specific nor actionable..."

I'm wondering what you consider specific or actionable? I'm wondering if you think that what YOU consider "specific or actionable" follows the same criteria that any part of the government considers "specific or actionable"?

Let me ask you this, Reheat. Are you suggesting, in the quote I posted above, that someone may have tried to warn the government of an imminent attack on 9/11, but they considered it not specific enough to warrant it's legitimacy?

Do you think that if I were to call an extension of the Pentagon right now, or an extension in the White House, and told them a terrorist attack of extreme measures was going to occur tomorrow, that they would simply shrug it off because its not specific enough?

Are you serious right now?

Come on Reheat. You already stated that the military trains everyday, which I do agree with. What do you suppose they train for? What is the purpose? You don't even have to answer my friend. This one is free. Our pilots in those planes you mentioned specifically, are trained in mulitple areas. One of them, of course, is air defense.

Why would we train our pilots in air defense, if the higher ups who issue the orders don't take threats seriously?

With all the apparent respect you get here, Mr. Reheat (see, even put a Mr. there for ya), you're telling me that the government wouldn't have taken those threats seriously?

Again, you don't have to answer. Here's another freebie. I KNOW we take EVERYTHING threat related VERY seriously. It doesnt matter if it's peacetime, or if it's wartime, or if the Super Bowl is on. NO part of the US Military takes ANY threat lightly.

Come on man...are you serious?




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
This is total unadulterated nonsense. You have no clue what you're talking about.


Ahh, rude and obnoxious as ever. And this time, quite nonsensical. Yes, I do know what i was talking about.



Warning that were not specific nor actionable. Have you ever in your entire life ever seen an actual Intelligence Report on anything? That's a rhetorical question as I know the answer.


Obvious, you don't. I have seen intelligence reports. Low level ones, sure, but the general concept is the same.

The intelligence reports were specific enough that a whole hell of alot of important people were told not to be flying:

Ashcroft Stops Flying Commercial
Willie brown Got Warned
Salmon Rushdie Forbidden to Fly
Generals canceling Flight plans the Day before
FBI/CIA Knew Mousaoui Was Going to Suicide Hijack Planes

Of course, the president staggers over all this, claiming no knowledge:
Duh

So kindly cut the crap about "no specific knowledge". It was specific enough that a lot of people decided not to fly, and they had a damned good idea why it would be bad for their health.



You may think what you want, but that doesn't mean it's any more credible than my grandson's opinion that "boogers" are hiding under his bed.


Given your generally rude, abrasive behavior, I'd wager your booger fearing grandson possesses maturity that you seem to lack.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Long time reader, first time poster. Decided to say something here as this is a subject I have direct knowledge of.

While I have no idea if our Government was part of any conspiracy on 9/11, I can tell you 100% unequivically that it was an American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon.

I can say this because at the time I was Soldier stationed at Ft. Myer, VA as a member of the US Army Honor Guard. We were conducting a funeral on 9-11-2001 in a section of Arlington cemetery that was right across from the Pentagon. We saw the plane come in from over the Naval Annex and seconds later watched the plane explode into the Pentagon. My group had been in the cemetery since early that morning and were unaware of the WTC attacks. We thought it was just a terrible accident.

For the week or so following, US Army Honor Guard Soldiers (myself included) were used to aid in recovery efforts inside the Pentagon. Essentially used for cleaning out all of the bodies and wreckage. I personally found suitcases, ID's, passports, and PLANE PARTS. Specifically parts with American Airlines markings. Lastly, based on the number of bodies and body parts that we pulled out of there, I would find it very hard to believe that it was an empty plane with no passengers, but I guess it could be possible as none of them were identifiable.

Anyway, take what I say however you like. I'm only speaking from my experience and not employing ANY assumptions or any hearsay. Strictly WHAT I SAW with my own eyes.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Bigsarge,

Without trying to be in poor taste, can I just ask if YOU personally saw bodies or parts?

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Mclaneinc]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Yes, I personally saw them and personally helped the FBI mark them and bag them. We spent 7-10 days doing 12 hour shift rotations inside the Pentagon until all debris was cleared out. As you can imagine it was a mangled mess in there, and as we cleaned up we would find bodies and/or parts. Most were badly burned, especially in the location of where the fire burned the longest. But it was also knee deep water inside from trying to estinguish the fire so there where many that were not totally burned.

They were also spread over a very wide area. I would say 1,000 square meters or so.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


You're the one whose video was posted here: Link

Welcome!

As for your experience, yes, I agree. You, and several others who had the gruesome task of recovery at the Pentagon, have stated and reported over and over the presence of burnt up plane parts, bodies, and other things associated with a commercial jetliner crash.

I question a lot of things about 9/11, and I think there was some sort of conspiracy. However, one thing I do not question is that 4 Boeing commercial airliners full of real live human beings were used in the attacks as living missiles of destruction.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


I agree with you, in that a conspiracy is very plausible. Anytime I hear people try and say that it was missles or whatever other incorrect conspiracy theory out there I feel the need to give my point of view, of what I witnessed.

I've never seen a UFO and don't know of any secret Government plans, but this is the one area which I actually have "inside" knowledge. People need to know the truth of what happened and dispelling the incorrect theories might help to focus on the ones that might very well be correct.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


BigSarge,

It is such a pleasure to read your post, welcome!

We've had far, far too many wannabe poindexters blathering on about this, and that....and sullying the memories of the victims, and insulting the actions of the many First Responders, and others such as yourself.

Thank you for your service!!

PS. I was acquainted with the FO from AAL77. Aviation is a small club.

edit: I'll wager that Craig Ranke, nor any of his minions, would dare to challenge you face to face. They will slink away, and hope that they can set up tent somewhere else to peddle their magic potions again...

...I hear they may be coming to Arlington July 11...

[edit on 6/26/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Well said. That's exactly what needs to be done. I feel alot of these more off the wall scenarios could have very well been planted as seeds to muddy the waters and confuse any concerted effort into following what happened and rooting out of facts.

Weedwhacker: I can already tell you what would happen if CIT and Big Sarge decided to debate head to head. Big Sarge would be declared a disinfo agent, government stooge, or a liar and his own experience and testimony would be ignored in favor of THEIR witness testimony. Or that everything he saw was planted.

But I agree, it would be fascinating to watch.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Question for Big Sarge-

If you are indeed correct in your statement,then why havnt any better videos been put forth by the goverment to clear this matter up?

The only clips I have seen have been the low frame rate official version that realy doesnt show anything.With all the CCTV units in operation on that day there must have been some that captured this plane

It realy does look like they are hiding something when the only footage they have for us is so hard to actualy make out anything on it



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Your reply is simply bait as you won't listen to knowledgeable answers. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time typing one. It is simply another obvious attempt to shift the discussion away from the primary focus of a failed attempt to smear by fraudulent clowns. It would be interesting to discover how all of the gullible minions feel when all of this crap comes tumbling down and rest assured it will.

9/11 was primarily a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue, not one of Air Defense. If you knew anything at all about the time line, you would already know why the hijacked aircraft were not intercepted.

Oh, and BTW, I didn't know anyone practiced intercepting Civilian Airliners. Does Boeing provide those or are they supplied by the airlines? Might be difficult to find passengers to volunteer for that job, but in this economy I guess a free ride might be an attractive feature for those who want to travel badly enough.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

posted by BigSarge

While I have no idea if our Government was part of any conspiracy on 9/11, I can tell you 100% unequivically that it was an American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon.

I can say this because at the time I was Soldier stationed at Ft. Myer, VA as a member of the US Army Honor Guard. We were conducting a funeral on 9-11-2001 in a section of Arlington cemetery that was right across from the Pentagon. We saw the plane come in from over the Naval Annex and seconds later watched the plane explode into the Pentagon. My group had been in the cemetery since early that morning and were unaware of the WTC attacks. We thought it was just a terrible accident.



How could the aircraft you allegedly saw have hit the Pentagon 1st floor if you saw it flying Over the Naval Annex? You do understand the difficulties involved in order for an aircraft to get from the Naval Annex to a position through the five light poles laying on the ground, low and level across the lawn, and into the 1st floor without hitting the foundation below, don't you? It is impossible.

Twenty plus (20+) other eyewitnesses have placed the aircraft Over the Naval Annex; so your initial placement of the aircraft is quite accurate. However after the Naval Annex, the aircraft had to remain above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path, because none of those light poles were knocked down or laying on the ground. The aircraft was much much too high to hit the 1st floor without damaging the foundation. In other words; the aircraft had to come in level with the 1st floor in order to not dive down into the foundation. But it was too high to enter the 1st floor and too far north to knock down the light poles to the south or to create the alleged damage path through the Pentagon interior.



The FAA represents the true flight path rather well in its recent animation.

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

You do see why the official flight path through the light poles is irreconciliable with the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex which you and many other verified eyewitnesses saw, don't you?



The official flight path just does not fit with the actual evidence nor with the verified living eyewitness accounts.



[edit on 6/26/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by noangels
Question for Big Sarge-

If you are indeed correct in your statement,then why havnt any better videos been put forth by the goverment to clear this matter up?

The only clips I have seen have been the low frame rate official version that realy doesnt show anything.With all the CCTV units in operation on that day there must have been some that captured this plane

It realy does look like they are hiding something when the only footage they have for us is so hard to actualy make out anything on it



Honestly I have no idea. I did not have a camera with me, as I was conducting an official Army ceremony. As someone who had been inside the Pentagon prior to 9-11, they had/have cameras all over the place, but again, no way to know if any were fixed on that actual location of the incoming plane or where the plane hit. Other than the poor quality version that has been shown many times over. In that video, the plane appeared to bounce of the ground, but as a witness to the event and from my vantage point, it didn't look that way to me. But it also happened VERY fast. This plane was not moving at landing speed, it was moving at a very high rate as it came in and hit. Either full throttle or close to it.

I think it is entirely possible that they are in fact hiding something. But I can tell you that it is not what crashed into the Pentagon, which was 100% a large American Airlines jet or a large passenger jet with AA markings.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
We saw the plane come in from over the Naval Annex and seconds later watched the plane explode into the Pentagon. My group had been in the cemetery since early that morning and were unaware of the WTC attacks. We thought it was just a terrible accident.


So, you agree with CIT that the plane flew over the Naval Annex? So, why would the government lie about that?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



My vantage point here based on your map, is where the "ANC" letters are. (Arlington National Cemetery). We were in the section just across from the Pentagon. What this doesn't show is the terrain. Both ANC and the Naval Annex are above sea level while the Pentagon is quite a bit lower, down a hill so to speak.

From my view, I couldn't tell if the plane flew DIRECTLY over the Annex or not as there are trees at eye level that blocked my actual view of the Annex. It did come from that general direction at a downward angle and struck the Pentagon. It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.

Again, I am not using any other witness accounts or FAA flight paths as a point of reference here. Only using my unforgetable memory of the event.

Based on the damage inside the Pentagon, it DEFINITELY hit either the 1st or 2nd floor or both. Much of the higher floors were barely damaged on the inside, while the first floor and much of the second were for the most part gutted. And I'm not talking about the actual strike point, but for 100's of feet to the left and right inside the building.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Reheat
This is total unadulterated nonsense. You have no clue what you're talking about.


Originally posted by Reheat
You may think what you want, but that doesn't mean it's any more credible than my grandson's opinion that "boogers" are hiding under his bed.



Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Given your generally rude, abrasive behavior, I'd wager your booger grandson possesses maturity that you seem to lack.


In that you equate "woo" to maturity level, you have proven my original statement above is correct. You don't know what you're talking about.

There was a heightened state of alert prior to 9/11, but the anticipated attacks were deemed likely to occur in an OVERSEAS AREA.

I can just imagine the outcry and accusations of paranoia if everyone had been told not to fly on 9/11. Hindsight is a wonder thing, it's too bad that all there is. That and a severe case of irreducible delusion for which there is only one known cure, common sense. It's too bad that's absent in most of people who buy into these impossibly vast conspiracy theories.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
While I have no idea if our Government was part of any conspiracy on 9/11, I can tell you 100% unequivically that it was an American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon.


Welcome BigSarge! In case you don't already know about them, the delusional minions of the "CIT" will be along at some point to tell you that what you saw was nothing more than a magic trick. That the plane flew over and you must have "thought" you saw it, because you were actually deceived.

Hilarious, no? This is what they actually believe. Let us forget that noone saw the massive jet fly over the Pentagon, there is no evidence to the where abouts of the plane and passengers, and that there is no evidence or eyewitnesses to the planted parts, bodies, light poles, etc.

They might even want to "interview" you, be wary however, they have been known to leave the camera on without telling the other party. Of course they will twist your POV to fit their "flyover" fantasy, saying the plane surely couldn't hit the Pentagon, because a handful of witnesses cannot agree on the actual flight path.

Your best bet is to steer clear of these jokers.

Again, welcome!



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by BigSarge
We saw the plane come in from over the Naval Annex and seconds later watched the plane explode into the Pentagon. My group had been in the cemetery since early that morning and were unaware of the WTC attacks. We thought it was just a terrible accident.


So, you agree with CIT that the plane flew over the Naval Annex? So, why would the government lie about that?


By "over the Naval Annex" you would have to understand my vantage point. No way for me to tell if it was DIRECTLY over the Annex, but certainly came from that general direction, which from my point of view was from right to left. Had it flown far to the left of the Annex, it would have been directly over me, which it was not. Had it been far to the right of the Annex, it would have been obscured from my view by trees.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Thanks for the advice. Noted!



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Had it been far to the right of the Annex, it would have been obscured from my view by trees.


So, was it obscured? That would be the official flight path correct?

Also, thank you for joining in on the conversation. First hand testimony is what is needed here.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join