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: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Orion7911
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]


Correct.




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


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.




Would you say it was south of Columbia Pike and the VDOT communications antenna or closer to the Navy Annex?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Craig, just wondering:

Regarding the flyover witness- did you ever calculate the speed at which the plane was moving, such as to gauge a distance per second measurement to insure that in the 7-15 seconds after "impact" he claims he saw the flyover, that he could have indeed witnessed what he claims to have seen? In other words, at what speed ranges would the plane have to be moving so as to be congruent with his testimony?

I think you probably did, but I'm off into other areas these days with 9/11, and didn't remember. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


He didn't say 7 to 15 seconds.

He said 7 steps or "10 seconds tops".

However you can't hold a witness to mathematical preciseness about such a detail.

The point is that he saw the plane IMMEDIATELY after the explosion.

We will never know if it was really 3, 4, or 7 seconds or whatever.

Plus we know the speed of the the plane was MUCH slower than officially reported since expert aviation professional witnesses Sean Boger and Terry Morin are corroborated by William Middleton as describing it between 8 and 15 seconds from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

Even if we go with 8 seconds that is less than half the official speed of 460 knots which would only take 3.4 seconds.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Another question,

Are you claiming that you actually watched the plane enter the building or did you just briefly see it approach and then a big explosion?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Page 35, Figure 6-1

THAT still image, like a dog with a bone, you just can't get it, and others, out of your head?

Nitpick, nitpick...instead of realizing that what was published was best-guess estimates of what might have been angles and trajectories...no one will ever be 100% certain.

Originally posted by BigSarge

...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.


You see? This eyewitness account tells us a lot, not the cherry-picked exterior shots so blatantly chosen to prop up your CIT 'theories'.

Hanjour would be aiming as low as he possibly could, thinking that that would likely cause the most damage. As others have pointed out, they thought they saw some instability, with wings rocking...and no, that's not a layperson's term...really, but 'tilting'
! BigSarge could see it, as he's stated. Usually you'll see it most pronounced on windy days, watching airplanes land, but in Hanjour's case, he was aggressively aiming to hit his target...it was not some magically smooth derring-do aeronautical feat, it was pure hack crappy rough flying with no regard to passenger comfort!!

The guy was hopped up on adrenaline, madly, insanely determined...and no computer graphic will ever perfectly re-create everything exactly. Yet, a handful of people cling to obviously iincorrect fallacies...and their own contradictions are beginning to rival what they, themselves claim they see in the "Official Story", as they phrase it.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Plus we know the speed of the the plane was MUCH slower than officially reported since expert aviation professional witnesses Sean Boger and Terry Morin are corroborated by William Middleton as describing it between 8 and 15 seconds from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

Even if we go with 8 seconds that is less than half the official speed of 460 knots which would only take 3.4 seconds.




Well, that's kinda my point- that because the plane WAS moving slower than the official lie, it just makes his testimony all the more credible.


Because at 460 knots, that's about 777 feet per second. And 777*8 seconds, let's say, = 6,216 feet. That's over a mile and a quarter, making it more difficult to believe, and leaving more room for false identification.

But if the speed was more in the range of 250 knots, and he ran out in 5 seconds well then that would be 422 feet per second * 5 = 2,110 feet away that he would have seen the plane, which is less than 1/2 mile. A lot more possible that he could distinguish it as a commercial airliner in my view, under those circumstances. If those numbers are less than the numbers I propose here, then even more so, because the plane would have been even closer.

No biggie, just running some numbers, that's all. And oh, we must not forget to additionally subtract his distance from the impact point as well, putting him even closer to the plane.

[edit on Fri Jun 26th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, after all of this investigation, wherein you demand such high standards of accuracy from the "Official" sources, I am surprised at this:



However you can't hold a witness to mathematical preciseness about such a detail.


Witnesses' impressions of elapsed time are notoriously inaccurate. So, you are correct, so far.

However,


The point is that he saw the plane IMMEDIATELY after the explosion.


What's your definition of 'immediately'? Maybe it's different than mine...isn't 'immediately' similar to 'in an instant'? AND, how can we be certain the witness who "saw" didn't see another airplane in the vicinity, and make a mistake?


We will never know if it was really 3, 4, or 7 seconds or whatever.


Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up so precisely.

But then, to repeat your earlier statement:


However you can't hold a witness to mathematical preciseness about such a detail.


Yet, you say that two "expert aviation professional witnesses" and one other are:


...describing it between 8 and 15 seconds from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.


That's quite an inexact account, why such a wide variation in time? Did these "experts" (and another) count 'one potato, two potato' as they watched? When they first spotted the American Airlines jet was it directly over the Annex, as would be seen from above, or could it have been EAST of the Annex, and due to perspective appear to be over the Annex?

You see my point? It's because you base this statement:


Plus we know the speed of the the plane was MUCH slower than officially reported...


on the testimony as cited above.

It appears that you are jumping to conclusions based on admittedly inaccurate and/or unreliable eye witness accounts, accounts that are subject to human fallibility and perception, especially when it comes to the passage of time, and when under stress.



Even if we go with 8 seconds that is less than half the official speed of 460 knots which would only take 3.4 seconds.


Again, unsupported assumptions that could be affected by many variables:

A) When the airplane was first spotted, and exactly its position over the ground, B) The actual time, not the flawed Human accounts and, C) The possibility that the airplane's velocity was not constant, but was increasing.

As to "B)", above, we have credible documentation, ATC recordings/transcripts, Radar data, etc that delineate exact times, or at least within a second, given that not all time sources are synchronized to the millisecond.

Finally, to support my points ---

On Human perception:


Affect of stress (adrenaline) on perception:


(adding) One more, related to the one above:


Lastly, are you an airline pilot? Have extensive Aviation experience? I ask because I come at this issue from the perspective of over three decades of flying experience, including nearly 23 years with a Major US Carrier.

I was acquainted with David Charlesbois, the FO on AAL77 (he had just recently attained enough seniority to be able to upgrade to Captain on the MD80, and already had a training date scheduled in October, 2001.

Also, since I live here, I am not only familiar with the area, but also with DCA and procedures, layout, etc.

As an anonymous Internet avatar and binary code, of course you have no reason to believe me --- but if you are a pilot we could 'talk shop' and understand each other. I do think that I convey my depth of knowledge and experience best I can in my posts...but I'm not a professional writer, so expressing exactly what I am trying to say isn't always perfect.



[edit on 6/26/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You have admitted to not having viewed the evidence in the OP.

None of your post addresses the evidence in the OP.

Frankly nothing you said is remotely relevant to the evidence presented in the OP and is merely an attempt to parse my sentences out of context.

I will not be responding to posts that do not directly address the evidence presented.










[edit on 26-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Oh, but I DID address the OP!

From page 1 of this thread, here's the pertinent part:


Originally posted by weedwhacker

EDIT: Already, only two and a half minutes in, and I can already see the delusion begin. Comparing pictures of the Air Garuda crash!!?? (Bet Craig doesn't even know the source of his crash 'comparison' photos nor why they are completely irrelevant to AAL77).

Now, I'm gonna need popcorn and a diet coke.....

Four minutes in, and it's still a load of buffalo flop. Cherry-picked damage photos, disingenuous 'assumptions', i.e., the PfffT claim of the 'impossibility' of the pull up from the 'dive'...well, then, if they wish to advocate a "fly-over" theory, how did this alleged "fly-over" occur without a pull-up afterwards?? (and a suddenly magically invisible airplane). Wonder Woman?

But wait, there's more! Insisting on the strike at the ground floor, when that is only coming from ONE possibility that was made into a computer simulation. Looking at the aftermath from the day or two after, NOT the one that Craig provides ten days later, you can see that the airplane impacted at floor two or three....


Sorry for being flippant, but it just grinds my gears when I see something I want to throw a shoe at!!!
:



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker, apparently you missed the part where Morin specifically states that the aircraft he witnessed would have hit the AF Memorial had the Memorial been in place on 9/11. That is a KILLER for this fraud.

That absolutely confirms what Morin said originally about the flight path and it confirms the path from Paik to Morin and onward to the Pentagon completely destroying the contrived NOC path fabricated by pffft. That path needs to be over the middle of the Navy Annex to even be close and even then they have to cheat to make it work. If you don't understand then look at the link in my signature and that will explain it. My analysis was completely correct and that statement by Morin proves it once and for all.

Of course, Ranke is going to content that destroys the "Official Flight Path", as well. Not to worry as he has already told us that the witnesses are not mathematically correct, so the same applies both ways.

I'll provide the popcorn and you bring diet cokes as we watch him spin this one for a loop. It should be an entertaining evening as the incriminating statement is in his hilarious "National Security Alert" video.

This makes about 6 or more ways this tripe has been PROVEN WRONG. He's at the bottom of his hole, but just keeps digging deeper and obviously doesn't know when to stop.

I wonder how "Operation Accountability" is coming along. I'll bet no one has sent this garbage to anyone.

Thanks for sharing your diet coke. I'll make sure the popcorn is a good brand, hot and buttery.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I wonder how "Operation Accountability" is coming along. I'll bet no one has sent this garbage to anyone.


Actually, Reheat, I attempted to forward this earth shattering evidence to the appropriate authorities, but I could not find the address for Dudley Do-Right or McGruff the Crime Dog.

However, I did contact Scooby Doo at Mystery Inc. and he offered his services but, unfortunately, Shaggy is baked out of his brain and the Mystery Machine is out of gas!



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As an anonymous Internet avatar and binary code, of course you have no reason to believe me ---

With all due respect to BigSarge, isn't he just an anonymous series of binary code as well?

You've sucked up everything that he has typed as being the absolute truth, weedwhacker, yet you don't even know his identity...

BigSarge stated that he does not wish to be interviewed, therefore I don't see how it is possible to verify his story.

weedwhacker, it might be prudent for you to put your aviation experience and your entire personal recollection of 9/11, including knowing the FO through degrees of separation, as a link in your signature. It kind of gets dull for those of us who have read it about twenty times in the past. You have admitted that you did not see anything happen at the Pentagon on 9/11. The most that you experienced was some type of explosion/rumble when the top section collapsed. You're not a first-hand witness, so I don't know why you persist with trying to give the impression that you were.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
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.

If it was dipping and unsteady and probably turning, as you describe, then how did it manage to fly a straight flight-path to knock down the five light poles?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
That 747 was an National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) that took off from Andrews. The AF won't release it's mission, but there is speculation that he was airborne in support of the President's return to Washington.

Three of our four E-4B's were airborne and participating in the multiple wargames that were going on on 9/11 according to multiple sources:

www.historycommons.org...



Originally posted by Reheat
There was nothing nefarious about it's presence or it's launch from Andrews at all in spite of Conspiracy Theorists attempts to make it into something mysterious.

The E-4B(s) could have been part of the actual operations of 9/11, in spite of debunkers' attempts to make it into something non-nefarious. Reheat, you haven't the slightest clue as to what those E-4B's were doing in the air on 9/11. Since none of us know definitively, all we can do is speculate.

So, don't sit there and say you know exactly what that E-4B over DC was doing and that it wasn't nefarious. Unless you were actually onboard the E-4B, you have no clue.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by BigSarge
 

You're the one whose video was posted here:

BigSarge is not the one whose video is posted at that link. The testimonies are both totally different.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Both ANC and the Naval Annex are above sea level while the Pentagon is quite a bit lower, down a hill so to speak.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that where you were was on top of a hill and the Pentagon was below. According to Google maps, it shows trees also blocking your view from the Pentagon.

Is it your testimony that you watched the plane with your own eyes all the way until it slammed into the Pentagon, that was downhill from you and behind trees?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So, don't sit there and say you know exactly what that E-4B over DC was doing and that it wasn't nefarious. Unless you were actually onboard the E-4B, you have no clue.


I'll do damn well what I please, thank-you. I never once said I knew exactly what their mission was on 9/11, but I'll guarantee you it was not for some nefarious purpose, which you seem to presume. That is a preposterous and evil suggestion unless you have proof and you have none. How dare you even make such outrageous suggestions. The depths some people will go to to reinforce delusions have no moral or ethical bounds, none whatsoever!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Welcome BigSarge to the talks. As you can see, a major problem we have with these "flyover" boys is that they have a very very hard time understanding perspectives and how they work. I understand completely as from your angle you would see the jet coming in. And from your perspective you could say its "over the Annex" but then again it could also be going straight down the expressway. Would you be able to tell from your angle if it was directly on top of the Annex, or over the expressway? And as you stated, you are not too sure. Which is perfectly understandable since it would be hard to tell the difference of a few hundred feet from your viewpoint. as you will notice, the flyover boys will try to twist that and say it was directly over the Annex. They use witness accounts from much much farther away, and they twist their words when they mention it flew "over the Annex" to mean directly over, when from their perspective it only appears like it did. And now your account also puts it "over the Annex" but from your perspective you cannot be sure as it could have also been following straight down I355. but you would have been in the prime spot to see any flyovers. and you didnt!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
but I'll guarantee you it was not for some nefarious purpose...That is a preposterous and evil suggestion unless you have proof and you have none.

You obviously can't guarantee that the E-4B was not being used nefariously and you have no proof either way.

Operation Northwoods was evil and preposterous, but our Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense approved it back in the 1960's. 9/11 was just a re-writing of Operation Northwoods that actually got approved because the right people were in power.

Did you know that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz said there was a country amassing weapons of mass destruction? Oh, but it wasn't Iraq. It was Russia and it was 1975:

www.youtube.com...

Turns out they were lying then about Russia and they were lying about Iraq.

You should learn about your country's history and some of the people that keep getting powerful positions to do harm to this country.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join