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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Going on the conversation between Craig and Sgt, seems like the section on craigs map corrolates to section 13 on yours, is the correct? I really cant tell to be honest.

The Guard would do their thing wherever. Of course, it MORE likely they would do the honors on FLAT ground, but not necessarily paved. Where they were standing (and keeping in mind that this is IF they were even really there to begin with) would really depend on what they were there for. But again, grass or paved, wouldnt really matter.

In any case, I'd look forward to your pictures




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Go compare Craig's Satellite view on Page 3 to this graphic interactive map from the ANC website:

www.arlingtoncemetery.org...

Section '70' is more extensive than Craig would seem to indicate. Would an Honor Guard be drilliing on the actual Cemetery lawn? On a slope? Or, would they choose a paved surface?

Questions, questions.......


There are no questions about BigSarge's alleged location because he made it perfectly clear.

I thought of just labeling the sections from the satellite image A, B, and C to avoid this kind of nonsense and obviously I should have.

The section that BigSarge says he was located in is actually section 69, or the one right next to the maintenance complex.

The landscape on a cemetery will change through the years as more people are buried. Especially one as massive as ANC. So you have to use the map he used to definitively indicate his location. The fact that I called section 69 section 70 is irrelevant to the fact that this is where BigSarge says he was located.

But glad to hear you're going to bring us back more images. We can always use POV shots. Hurry up and take care of that battery.




[edit on 28-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by Reheat
 


Weekwhacker & SPreston:

This issue with the fuel tank/buldge/whatever...how much impact does it's location affect the outcome of the plane's impact? I don't see how it could make much difference, but of course I'm not a plane expert either.



Oh don't mind poor old whacker. He is desperately making mountains out of molehills and pretending that his precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is not self-destructing faster than he can keep up.

Of course that belly tank/fuselage bulge placement doesn't make any difference because the underhung engines were what determined how close the aircraft could fly above the lawn and in the official fantasy they were just inches off the lawn. whacker and his fellow defenders might think the engines could bury under the lawn at 530 mph; but the lawn photos prove differently.



Of course the actual aircraft position Over the Naval Annex renders the official fantasy tale impossible, and whacker and Reheat and jthomas and CF and Soloist and their minions have their .s stuck so deep in the sand that they may become cave dwellers if any more holes develop in the official myth.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post 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.


BigSarge very clearly showed us that he was in Section 70 on Craig's map.




post by BigSarge
 


We saw the plane come in from over the Naval Annex


post by BigSarge
 


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.


And BigSarge stated that he watched the plane come in from over the Naval Annex. However looking at the same map with the official flight path included, nowhere would the official aircraft be in line with the Naval Annex from BigSarge's alleged vantage point, except early in the flight path when it would be south of the Naval Annex and down behind the Naval Annex sitting on its hill and completely out of sight from BigSarge's alleged position. So BigSarge could not possibly have seen the official aircraft anywhere near the Naval Annex from his position at ANC, if it were flying the official south flight path.

If BigSarge actually saw the plane come in from over the Naval Annex, then it would have had to be physically Over the Naval Annex and flying straight toward him after it left the Naval Annex.

Since BigSarg claimed to have seen the aircraft coming from the Naval Annex, then he must have seen it on the north Over the Naval Annex flight path and not on the official Flight 77 south flight path.

BigSarge, it seems you are yet another ONA north flight path eyewitness and we need you and others just like you to come forward and testify publicly to the American people and so we can finally put the necks of these traitorous 9-11 perps in a noose where they belong.



[edit on 6/28/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Go compare Craig's Satellite view on Page 3 to this graphic interactive map from the ANC website:

www.arlingtoncemetery.org...

Section '70' is more extensive than Craig would seem to indicate. Would an Honor Guard be drilliing on the actual Cemetery lawn? On a slope? Or, would they choose a paved surface?

Questions, questions.......


I haven't gone anywhere. This site isn't on my "daily" browse rotation though, sorry.

To answer the question above, we were not "drilling" we were conducting a funeral, and we do so on all types of terrain. just depends where the burial plot is. You could probably contact ANC Admin Office and find out exactly what plot locations were for that mornings funerals. I am no longer stationed at Ft. Myer and have not been since 2004.

As far as most of the other posts directed to or at me. I do not wish to be and will not be interrogated. If that's what it takes for you to believe an American Airlines plane actually struck the Pentagon, then I guess you'll just have to stay a non-believer.

That's all I have stated from the beginning. I'm not arguing if the plane followed the "official" story flight path or not. In fact, based on some of Craig's posts the plane PROBABLY WAS north of the Annex. but again, from my vantage point, you could not see the actual Annex so it is hard to know for sure. But driving past it on my way home everyday I knew where it was, and that was the AREA that the plane came from.

The funny thing is, there were 15 Delta Company US Army Honor Guard Soldiers standing in that section that morning to conduct a funeral. If you interrogated all 15, you'd probably get 15 different sets of small details. We were all interviewed, on tape, individually by US Army Historians in the weeks/months following the event. Those of us who were witness to it first hand all spoke of slightly different details. The one constant is that it was definitely an American Airlines plane. And the wreckage and such we recovered from the Pentagon was American Airlines in nature.

Could the parts of an entire airplane, tons of luggage, IDs, etc. been planted in the Pentagon before hand? I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely. Could an American Airlines plane flying at high speed directly toward the Pentagon have veered off and flown away without anyone noticing? I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely.

To me, this is not the questions that we should be asking or the leads we should be following. It's a smoke screen. What's the difference if the plane was 100 feet left or right of the "official" story? The real question I've always wondered is that how was this plane ALLOWED to get anywhere near Washington DC after the WTC had already been attacked? Somebody somewhere knew something yet did not do stop this plane.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Great post BigSarge.

Thank you for your openmindedness.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Yes thank you BigSarge.

Please watch the video.

We have independently interviewed many others who were ALSO interviewed by the Center for Military History only weeks after the event just like you and your platoon.

The difference between them and the 15 members of your platoon is that they had an unobstructed view of the approach of the plane and their accounts all match perfectly.

They matched when they talked to the Center for Military History and they matched when we interviewed them on camera, on location in 2008. Independent corroboration proves that they are not mistaken when they have the plane flying over the Navy Annex and north of the gas station and it also proves that YOU are not mistaken about this.

Same with Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who saw the plane at 50 feet altitude "just above the light poles" over the south parking lot banking around and flying away immediately AFTER the explosion. He talked about this to the Library of Congress in 2001.

It's clear you have not watched the video yet because the location of the plane north of the gas station most certainly IS 100% fatal to the notion that it hit the light poles and the building and PROVES Roosevelt Roberts Jr. correct about the fact that it continued on passed the building.

What you saw proves a military deception BigSarge. The plane did not hit the Pentagon.

I highly recommend you come to our conference in Arlington on July 11th.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Sorry, Youtube is blocked at work.

So your theory is that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. What is your theory of where all of the plane pieces, luggage, IDs, passports, and body parts came from? You think all of these items were planted in Pentagon and then blown up?

To me this is REALLY grasping at straws. Plus, everyone and their uncle within eye shot of the Pentagon would have looked that direction after the explosion. How would they miss a huge passenger jet flying away? How many witnesses say they saw a plane moving up and away from the Pentagon within seconds of the explosion? No, I did not see the plane touch the Pentagon and never stated as such. But the bearing and speed in which I saw the plane moving, combined with an explosion mere seconds after seeing it I'm not sure how it would have missed.

To anyone that says it took 10-15 seconds for that plane to go from the Navy Annex AREA to the Pentagon AREA is mistaken. It was not moving at landing speeds. I don't see anyway it could have avoided striking the Pentagon. But, that is just my perception of the event I guess. I've learned through my years on this earth that all things are possible when it comes to the hearts and minds of men (and women).



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

posted by BigSarge
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Sorry, Youtube is blocked at work.

So your theory is that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. What is your theory of where all of the plane pieces, luggage, IDs, passports, and body parts came from? You think all of these items were planted in Pentagon and then blown up?


Only a dozen or so pieces outside, easily planted in the confusion and smoke and staged evacuations because of another alleged plane attack. No pieces too big to carry by hand.

Planting or picking up? Where are the evidence tags? Where are they taking them too?



Easily planted inside with footprints underneath.




posted by BigSarge
To me this is REALLY grasping at straws. Plus, everyone and their uncle within eye shot of the Pentagon would have looked that direction after the explosion. How would they miss a huge passenger jet flying away? How many witnesses say they saw a plane moving up and away from the Pentagon within seconds of the explosion? No, I did not see the plane touch the Pentagon and never stated as such. But the bearing and speed in which I saw the plane moving, combined with an explosion mere seconds after seeing it I'm not sure how it would have missed.



Are you aware of the effects of flash/bang grenades? The optic nerve is stunned for a few seconds. This would be plenty of time for an aircraft to fly off if the 9-11 perps employed flash/bang effects at the initial Pentagon explosion. Since the aircraft was already high above the Pentagon as it flew Over the Naval Annex and had to be high above the 40 foot light poles in order to miss them; then it wouldn't have required much pullup in order to miss the 77 foot tall Pentagon would it?

Of course most of the alleged official eyewitnesses were mainstream media plants and the rest if they actually exist are untraceable and unwilling to be interviewed publicly and on videotape. Even the bragging government loyalists who traveled to Arlington were unable to find even one.

Planting or collecting? No evidence tags? Did those pieces come out of that van?





[edit on 6/29/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

Sorry, Youtube is blocked at work.


Ok please watch it at home or send me a private message with an address and I'll mail you the DVD today.



So your theory is that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. What is your theory of where all of the plane pieces, luggage, IDs, passports, and body parts came from? You think all of these items were planted in Pentagon and then blown up?


Yes they had to be because it is impossible for a plane where all the witnesses saw it to hit the light poles, generator trailer, or damage the pentagon as shown.



To me this is REALLY grasping at straws. Plus, everyone and their uncle within eye shot of the Pentagon would have looked that direction after the explosion. How would they miss a huge passenger jet flying away? How many witnesses say they saw a plane moving up and away from the Pentagon within seconds of the explosion?


As I said, Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr and others saw it "clear as day".

Those are his exact words. His audio recorded interviews with the Library of Congress and us are in the presentation.

We'll never know how many people exactly reported this because the FBI confiscated and permanently sequestered the 911 tapes (which were released in NY) and the media only reported what the govt told them.

But Erik Dihle is an Arlington Cemetery employee in the maintenance complex right next to section 69 where you said you were located. He was also interviewed by the Center for Military History just like you, and although he didn't see the plane he said the first thing some people said when he ran outside after the explosion was this:



Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.
CMH interview audio





No, I did not see the plane touch the Pentagon and never stated as such. But the bearing and speed in which I saw the plane moving, combined with an explosion mere seconds after seeing it I'm not sure how it would have missed.


It missed because it was on the north side of the gas station and "pulled up" over Route 27 as described by gas station employee Robert Turcios:




The trees obstructed your view, but not his and not the police officers who were also at the gas station and corroborate him:







To anyone that says it took 10-15 seconds for that plane to go from the Navy Annex AREA to the Pentagon AREA is mistaken. It was not moving at landing speeds. I don't see anyway it could have avoided striking the Pentagon. But, that is just my perception of the event I guess. I've learned through my years on this earth that all things are possible when it comes to the hearts and minds of men (and women).



Precisely. Very very well said.

One of the people who has it going that slow was the air traffic controller in the heliport tower, Sean Boger. Obviously he would have a much clearer view than you did.

I'm sure it still seemed fast to others and perhaps it seemed slower than it really was to Sean Boger. Maybe it was 7 or 8 seconds.

But even that is less than half the required speed of 460 knots as reported by the NTSB from the alleged "black box" of Flight 77 which is only 3.4 seconds. That wouldn't leave you very much time to see it at all especially with the trees obstructing most of your view.



Please answer just a few more questions for me BigSarge.

Did you see any other planes flying with the one you saw or another one soon after the explosion?

If you saw one after the explosion, please answer these:

1. How many seconds or minutes after the explosion did you see another plane?

2. What direction did the plane approach from?

3. What did the plane look like and how high was it?









[edit on 29-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Are you aware of the effects of flash/bang grenades? The optic nerve is stunned for a few seconds. This would be plenty of time for an aircraft to fly off if the 9-11 perps employed flash/bang effects at the initial Pentagon explosion.


So, the people who weren't in position to see the actual impact (alot of CIT's own witnesses according to them) couldn't have been affected by the "flash/bang grenades", correct? Nor would BigSarge who had an obstructed view from the trees, right? Or are these magic flash grenades you're talking about?



Since the aircraft was already high above the Pentagon as it flew Over the Naval Annex and had to be high above the 40 foot light poles in order to miss them; then it wouldn't have required much pullup in order to miss the 77 foot tall Pentagon would it?


So if it was flying so high, BigSarge should have seen it the whole way and not have an obstructed view from his location, right? He should have easily been able to see it continue on, as he wouldn't have been affected by the "flash/bang" magical fairy grenades, correct? Geez, you're not trying very hard anymore, is it because your Pentagon flyover fantasy starting to crumble as time goes on?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by Reheat
 



Oh don't mind poor old whacker. He is desperately making mountains out of molehills and pretending that his precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is not self-destructing faster than he can keep up.


AGAIN with the personal attacks? The way you troll these boards, seems it's you who is desperately back-pedalling faster than a drowning three-legged dog trying to stay afloat.


Of course that belly tank/fuselage bulge placement doesn't make any difference because the underhung engines were what determined how close the aircraft could fly above the lawn....[...]...they were just inches off the lawn.


Yup! NOBODY has said how many inches....only YOU with your sneering, mocking innuendo. Your tone implies mere centimeters, and in your self-righteous tone you barely conceal your giggles. How childish.

"INCHES" can be twelve, 14, 17 1/2....doesn't matter, didn't need to be precise, damage still the same.

....just a moment here to point out something. ATS postings are NOT supposed to focus on individuals, but on the issues. IN THIS CASE the blending of snide personal assaults whilst discussing the subject cannot be ignored....

Carrying on:


...whacker and his fellow defenders might think the engines could bury under the lawn at 530 mph...


Again, this cannot go unchallenged, as it leaves impressions in the casual reader's mind. THIS IS A LIE! This is a continuing tactic used by certain posters. It is just another feeble attempt at ridicule, and shows the sad level of ruthlessness that some NPTs will stoop to.

Then, we have this outright lie:

[...quote]the lawn photos prove differently.



Where's tezzajw to come around and scream for 'chain of custody'!!!?

Really, claiming that a CGI representation of an impression of HOW it may have looked and ssaying it's a "photo"...worse than a lie.


Of course the actual aircraft position Over the Naval Annex...


LIE.

*snipped* more insults directed at myself, and other members. They can be seen above.


NOW...since that image, purported to be a 'photo', isn't really about the thread title, let's now discuss the ground track (or "Flight Path" for the laypeople).

Thread by SPreston:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

On 10/4/2008, SPreston said this:

Originally posted by SPreston

The aircraft now officially flew over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo and impacted the Pentagon wall at about a 45 degree bank. That puts the starboard wing and engine below the ground and the port engine up in the 2nd story


The eyewitnesses in CIT videos never claim the '45 degree bank' and none of the evidence supports a 45 degree bank.

The GOFER06 C-130 pilots didn't see a 45 degree bank.

The DFDR does not show a 45 degree bank.

The DFDR also does not support the arced ground track alleged by CIT.

I have asked at least twice now, conveniently ignored, because they have no answer. The ground track as depicted in many CIT over. view graphics is quite impossible to accomplish -- the radius of the turn is too small for the speeds involved.

Anyone care to check the math??

A rough estimate could be made by looking at the arc, measuring the distance, and calculating the .ing change, in degrees. THEN, you could interpolate a full circle, based on that arc fragment. THEN, you measure that diameter, once you have a theoretical circle circumference, halve that for radius, and calculate from there, using known rates of turns at various speeds and angles of bank.

Does someone have a math program that can do this?

Thanks.

(tags)
(link)

[edit on 6/29/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
What you saw proves a military deception BigSarge. The plane did not hit the Pentagon.


Mmmhmm ...


Originally posted by Soloist
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.

Your best bet is to steer clear of these jokers.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok please watch it at home or send me a private message with an address and I'll mail you the DVD today.


I would STRONGLY advise you BigSarge not to send these people your address, unless you want it possibly published later on a "detractors list", or something of the like. They are convinced that their delusion is correct and will not accept the truth no matter what. They don't care what you saw, they don't think you saw it as you say you did. Or they think you're a plant, in on it, etc.

My original statement about them still applies :

Your best bet is to steer clear of these jokers.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Perhaps you aren't paying attention but everything BigSarge has said corroborates all the other witnesses we have spoken with so it's clear to me he is being honest.



BigSarge,

You can anonymously send me a PO Box address to mail the DVD. Of course you can watch the entire video for free online when you get home anyway.

I've interviewed dozens of witnesses and have not published personal information for any of them and none of them have accused me of misrepresenting their claims.

But just to re-iterate, if you would, please answer just a few more questions for me:

Did you see any other planes flying with the one you saw or another one soon after the explosion?

If you saw one after the explosion, please answer these:

1. How many seconds or minutes after the explosion did you see another plane?

2. What direction did the plane approach from?

3. What did the plane look like and how high was it?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Come on people, no more personal swipes. You guys know the T&C, so please discuss the topic not one an other.

Thanks in advance,,



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
BigSarge,

You can anonymously send me a PO Box address to mail the DVD. Of course you can watch the entire video for free online when you get home anyway.




Mod Edit: 1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.



Real mature, eh?


Mod Edit: 1) Be polite: Above all, we take pride in the fact that AboveTopSecret.com is renowned as a destination for civil and polite discussion of nearly anything. Treat your fellow ATS members with respect, and your time here will be rewarding.


Some "Investigation team" huh?



[edit on 29/6/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have posted that Purdue University CGI image many times and do I have to label it so every time in order for you to keep up?

Do I also need to post those Pentagon lawn photos showing no visible large aircraft debris and no plowed furrows across the lawn, every time? Every serious 9-11 Pentagon investigator should already be familiar with them by now.

No visible aircraft parts and no RR- RB-211 plowed furrows across lawn





There are many other photos of the Pentagon lawn without plowed furrows and without burnt grass and without spilled jet fuel.

Oh come on Mr weedwhacker. You know that I already replied to that 45 degree post here post by SPreston
 
and you know now that the FAA was the only party with a 45 degree bank for the decoy aircraft after flying Over the Naval Annex. No CIT eyewitnesses ever claimed a 45 degree bank nor have I ever stated so. Are strawman arguments always necessary to your side of the debate?

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



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Does someone have a math program that can do this?


Yes, WW. I have a program that will calculate all parameters in seconds. I've done it dozens of times and it has no effect. In fact, I did it recently for the exact photo you're referencing and it is impossible for a transport category aircraft. The aircraft either stalls or grossly over G's to the point of wing failure. They just ignore it as if it doesn't exist. NONE of the gullible ignorants who buy this crap have a clue either. Well, that is except for pfffft and they are part of the cult.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


I have asked at least twice now, conveniently ignored, because they have no answer. The ground track as depicted in many CIT over. view graphics is quite impossible to accomplish -- the radius of the turn is too small for the speeds involved.

Anyone care to check the math??





The math has been done and there is nothing impossible about it particularly at the speed reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin.

All calculations with scale animations are available in this short presentation:

Google Video Link



Of course, as addressed in the presentation, Reheat's calculations are irrelevant because they are based on a faulty flight path not reported by any of the witnesses.

Here are the unreasonable examples used by Reheat:


Pretty funny how he used such a ridiculous arc for his "calculations" don't you think?

Actually it's not funny at all because it reveals the lengths that people will go to as a means to cast doubt on the scientifically validated accounts of BigSarge and so many other witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side approach.





[edit on 29-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join