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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

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.


Would you say it was closer to you on the north/Arlington cemetery side of the Navy Annex or would you say it was further away on south/Columbia Pike side of the navy annex?




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


What a shame. An actual eyewitness who isn't one of your and other's handpicked "twenty plus"...or, as you so helpfully wrote out, "20+0"

Ahem....20 plus 0????

No need, anymore, to try to point out how you spin people's words, all the while spouting the same mantra...it's like you're all given the same 'talking points' script, because the repeating rhetoric is growing thin.

Take the "over the Naval Annex" imbroglio, for example. Have you ever been to the Newark airport? I-95 runs parallel to Runways 4/22, and there's an IKEA just the other side of the ExpressWay. SO, from your vantage point on the Airport property, as you watch airplanes land on Runway 4R, the perspective could make it appear that the airplane passes over the IKEA building. You might even say to someone, "Look at that airplane!" And, they'd say, "Where?" "Over the IKEA building!"

See? The building is in your line-of-sight, the airplane is in your line-of-sight, but the perspective is such that you can't BE CERTAIN exactly where the airplane is laterally. That's the problem with YOUR alleged 'eye witnesses'.

AND ANOTHER THING! I assume you're a proponent of "Cap'n" ('Pilot Extraordinaire', or whatever ridiculous label he assigned himself) Bob and his P4T circus, suggesting "impossible" G forces, and crap? Well, why not take another look at your alleged 'North of Citgo' graphic, again. See that curved blue line? The radius of that line is impossible for an airplane at the speeds observed on 9/11. Did your alleged 'eye witnesses' say the airplane they was going fast? Or, was it the speed of a small Cessna?

Really, you should look into the above paragraph, get a mathematician, have him/her calculate A) rate of turn at various bank angles and speeds, then B) calculate, using that data, the radius of the actual ground track for such turns. But, it would spoil your fantasy, wouldn't it?

Finally, going on the 'Talking Points', why oh why would the alleged 'perps' go to such elaborate lengths to "stage" light poles, and such?? I mean, if it was faked, they could just as easily have made the claim that the airplane impacted at a downward angle, thus missing all of the pesky obstructions!!!

BTW...did it ever occur to any of you that the airplane didn't necessarily need to skate across the lawn by mere inches in order to cause the observed damage?

Well, let's see which molehills you choose to turn into mountains, this time.


[edit on 6/26/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Perhaps you would be so kind as to help out the 'government loyalists' on this forum. They were bragging that there were photos of Flight 77 passengers still strapped into their seats inside the Pentagon. But alas, they were unable to produce even one photo and slithered off with their tails between their legs.

Perhaps you could produce these photos for them and rejuvenate their wounded egos. We already know that many Pentagon personnel were murdered on 9-11 and that there are photos of their bodies. We seek justice for them as well as the WTC victims of the 9-11 perps. But the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY just keeps changing too much as the impossibilities and improbabilities are ironed out; and distrust is rampant from a rapidly growing number of US and World citizens. You do understand why potential victims of their own governments might demand a higher standard of evidentiary proof don't you?

You do understand that a person's word is not necessarily quite good enough, don't you? Especially when they are an anonymous person unwilling to appear publicly and answer questions openly and forthrightly? This age of corrupt governments and dishonest law enforcement and crooked court systems requires a bit more integrity from its eyewitnesses.

So we are unwilling to just accept the word of some anonymous entity on the internet. These excellent eyewitnesses also from Arlington Cemetery were not anonymous. They appeared of their own free will on video, and answered questions openly and extensively. Perhaps you know more eyewitnesses personally who would be willing to come forword publicly and answer questions on video? Is that a yes?





And from the Helipad Control Tower. Did you see the aircraft bank to the right (to the south) after flying Over the Naval Annex, as Sean Boger did?



See. Even the FAA has the aircraft banking to the right (to the south) also in the previous video. Is this how you remember it after flying Over the Naval Annex? Please notice that there is no bank to the right (to the south) in the self-destructing 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is there?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker,

Could it be possible that the light poles were downed not by the plane itself but the wake (or whatever it's called)? Therefore throwing the flight path off.

Or if it was the wake, then would it turn cars over also if it was that fierce?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Long time reader, first time poster.


Of all those I've ever seen here disseminating testimony contradicting Craig and CIT research, I find the timing of your appearance here quite convenient and impeccable, at the very least suspect, and at the most "by design" in a major thread about CITs new EXPOSE'? hmm


BigSarg
Decided to say something here as this is a subject I have direct knowledge of.


After all this time that this "subject" has been discussed around here, you suddenly, after being a long time reader here, decide to join in and give what appears to be some key testimony? Just curious... Why now? You've had relevant information that could've aided the arguments of the anti-CIT/craig renke camp, but just now decided to help?



BigSarge
While I have no idea if our Government was part of any conspiracy on 9/11,


with all due respect, you're serious? you've been reading here for a LONG TIME and haven't seen enough basic evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?


BigSarge
I can tell you 100% unequivically that it was an American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon.


100%? wow. and you've never been interviewed? are you active or civilian now?


BigS
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.


Craigs sure gonna be busy today.



BigSarge
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.


Hmmm. Thats strange. REALLY!?
If you were unaware of the WTC attacks, how is it that you formed an opinion that you THOUGHT it was a terrible accident if you didn't know about the attackS?


BigSarge
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.


must have been pretty gruesome i imagine. you didn't happen to snap some real pictures of the actual scene did you? So far we've only seen 1 unverifiable pic of some burned bodies strapped in some unidentified plane seat at some unidentified location.


BigSarge
I personally found suitcases, ID's, passports,


ID's and PASSPORTS??? realllly? wow. another miracle on 9/11.

You're actually claiming you "personally found" Paper Passports and IDs but a 90 ton Passenger Jet along with its steel and titanium engines totally vaporized???


And you've never been interviewed about this? This is the first time you've decided to tell your story? Hope you understand why I and others might be intrigued.


Bigsarge
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.


well i think you certainly covered it all........................


[edit on 26-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Good question.

Short answer -- No.

When you refer to the 'wake' it is a good analogy to what we can readily observe from experience with boats, etc. BUT, it is not suffieciently strong to down light poles or flip cars.

The proper definition for 'wake' is "wingtip vortices". These you can visualize as little horizontal whirlwinds generated off the wingtips.

From behind, looking forward, the left wing produces a clockwise spinning vortex, and the right wing counter-clockwise. This phenomenom contributes to overall drag (a component called 'induced drag') and wing design tries to minimize it, for better fuel efficiency. That's why you see what are called "winglets" on some airplane's wingtips.

About the vortices -- they are actually most powerful when the airplane is in a high-lift configuration, as in when approaching to land with full landing flaps deployed. However, youcan encounter them in cruise flight, when trailing another airplane, as they take several minutes to dissipate after forming.

Hope that answers.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 


What a shame. An actual eyewitness who isn't one of your and other's handpicked "twenty plus"...or, as you so helpfully wrote out, "20+0"

Ahem....20 plus 0????



Just a typo whacker. The right parenthesis is also a 0. I usually catch my typos. You did notice that I also wrote it out Twenty plus didn't you whacker?

Calm down. Don't let the disintegrating 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY get you down. We know you are under a lot of pressure to produce; but step back, take a deep breath, and maybe you will have a good day next week.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston, how much time do you have?

Did you just take a few lessons, did you get your Private license, or have you never flown at all??

How steep was the "tilting" reported by the 'witness' in the Heliport Tower. AND, if he's so credible, why did he use such a layman's term, instead of the words 'bank', or 'banked' or 'banking', which an FAA professional, as you prop him up to be, would use?

But, how steep was the bank? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? 20 degrees?

(Hint: On the B757 at touchdown the engine nacelle will drag the ground at just about 11 degrees of bank. Now, of course, AAL11 didn't have the gear down, and was not 'landing', but I just point out limits to bank angles and proximity to the ground)

Anyway, go out to your favorit big airport and watch, see how airplanes behave, and how they can bank, left or right, and not immediately turn. Very shallow bank angles result in very slow rates of turn. 5 degrees of bank, at say 400 knots? several seconds to turn just a few degrees. Again, rate of turn is variable depending on speed and angle of bank.

But, if you were a pilot, then you would know that already.....



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


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.



From this statement I gathered that you were in one of these three sections, correct? Can you tell me which?




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Just a typo whacker.


Yup, thought as much. But, most of the others words in your posts are typos too, in a different sense....



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
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.


Fine. Leave your answer out of the thread, and lets U2U. I really want to hear what you have to say to my previous post.


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.


So...are you suggesting that because of the 9/11 timeline, that there is a chance some air defense folks were maybe taking a 10 minute break? Maybe they were out to lunch? Don't tell me you think there is no air defense for the Pentagon? Don't tell me you believe that Helos and Jets arent a part of air defense?


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.


Umm, what? Okay let me see if I understand you here. Are you saying that because no one trains intercepting commercial airliners, that there is no one who can do it? You are beginning to disappoint, Reheat. PLEASE explain to me why we can intercept missiles, planes, helos, hell even a UFO I'm sure, but not a commercial airliner??

Again, I'd still like you to answer my questions from my first post. Feel free to U2U me anytime. I'd like to know why you feel that the warnings of attack were not specific or actionable, as well as that nonsense you were saying about planes breaking if they dont fly as much. Please Reheat, enlighten me.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



If you were unaware of the WTC attacks, how is it that you formed an opinion that you THOUGHT it was a terrible accident if you didn't know about the attackS?


Did you read that sentence before hitting 'reply'?

Do not realize how stupid it is?

Maybe I can show you why you need remedial lessons in how the real world works. YOU are away from all TV, Radio, and any other people who may have access to TV and Radio. You have no News, you are tasked with another job requiring your attention. YOU see an airplane crash.

Wouldn't YOU think it was an accident?? What you and the people with you discuss?

How more plain can I make it, your powers of deductive reasoning are failing, as demonstrated in that comment. It permeates the majority of your other 'logic' in desperately attempting to cheer lead for the NPT. In fact, I'll betcha you're anathema to the "Truth cause"?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Well I won't say whether it's BS that you are/were in the Honor Guard or not, but your story makes another one of those 'first times' for something.

So the FBI allowed you and the rest of the HG to go into the Pentagon and help pick up the physical evidence? They let you pick up body parts, and those ID's and passports? I find that very hard to believe.

Could I ask you to give us all a descriptive outline of what happened that day following the attack on the Pentagon? How did you guys react, how did you end up at the Pentagon, etc?

You gotta understand here, that the video in the OP was already removed from the threads once, and they don't dispatch Reheat to a thread unless it's a big deal lol. Plus your new account and very convenient post is just that, it's too convenient. If you could describe for us what happened that day, it would help to substantiate your story a lot better.


[edit on 26/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
From behind, looking forward, the left wing produces a clockwise spinning vortex, and the right wing counter-clockwise.


Interesting. I didn't know this. Although now that I think about it, it makes sense.


Hope that answers.


Yes it did. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That is ridiculous whacker. There is no written law or code that Air Traffic Controllers are not allowed to use everyday common English terms to describe an aircraft manuever. banking to the right - tilting to the right - rolling to the right - changing the aircraft heading What is the difference?



Is your command of the English language sufficient enough to understand what tilting to the right means? No? I have often used common terms to describe a technical term to a non-technical person.

Sean Boger did not give a banking angle did he? Just tilting to the right. Correct? The official aircraft in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY did not tilt or bank or roll to the right did it whacker? It could not possibly do so could it, because it would bury the right wing engine in the ground wouldn't it?

In fact the official story defender ASCE and SEI represented the aircraft as banking or tilting or rolling to the left with the left engine underground in their official Pentagon Building Performance Report, didn't they whacker?





Sean describes the plane as approaching from "in front of the Navy Annex" and that it was "tilted" or coming in "on an angle" or a bank.

He said he could see the gas station and without hesitation said the plane was on his right side of the station:

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station...it would be on my right hand side."

He says he did not see it hit any light poles but strangely he thought it hit a highway sign.

In further description of the bank he says:

"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like...not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle."

www.thepentacon.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did you read that sentence before hitting 'reply'?


No,,, it was initially confusing in the way he worded that comment.. Just trying to clarify that he wasn't talking about the wtc only. if you recall, A similar situation happened when bush claimed to have seen the first impact on TV and thought it was a TERRIBLE ACCIDENT when it was never televised til days later!

SO CHILL OUT whacker.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by BigSarge


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.



From this statement I gathered that you were in one of these three sections, correct? Can you tell me which?





Section 70, Delta Company, 2nd platoon. And I have been interviewed by Government officials and no I do not wish to be interviewed by anyone else. Just a simple post to express what I saw and experienced.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


Section 70, Delta Company, 2nd platoon. And I have been interviewed by Government officials and no I do not wish to be interviewed by anyone else. Just a simple post to express what I saw and experienced.


Excellent, thanks.

Would you say the plane was closer to you on the north/Arlington cemetery side of the Navy Annex or would you say it was further away on the south/Columbia Pike side of the navy annex?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So he's saying his perspective was to the left or (north?) of the Annex?

if so, then his angle wouldn't have permitted him to have properly judged whether the alleged plane was NOC or SOC. right?



Originally posted by SPreston

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.

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 26-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by BigSarge


Section 70, Delta Company, 2nd platoon. And I have been interviewed by Government officials and no I do not wish to be interviewed by anyone else. Just a simple post to express what I saw and experienced.


Excellent, thanks.

Would you say the plane was closer to you on the north/Arlington cemetery side of the Navy Annex or would you say it was further away on the south/Columbia Pike side of the navy annex?


Really couldn't tell. Definitely was not over ANC and definitely was not further south than I-395..Somewhere in between...The plane WAS NOT level coming in but did not APPEAR to be banking. That also doesn't mean that it wasn't. It could have been, but it was moving so quickly it was not obvious from my standpoint.

My point of posting was to advise that it was an American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon. Anything more than that and it starts moving beyond fact and moreso into opinion.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join