Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Truth Movement "leader" Jim Hoffman Debunks CIT Flyover "Hoax"

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

posted by jthomas
It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of [I]positive[/I] evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even SPreston cannot deny that.



posted by jthomas
It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of positive evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even SPreston cannot deny that.



Are you stuck on emergency damage control again jthomas?




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
There is no doubt that Jim Hoffman has contributed an incredible amount of knowledge to the truth movement, however, it is also such that we can disagree on certain things and I tend to disagree with his analysis on the Pentagon.

Its important that we don't fight each other and loose sight of the common goal. Finding points of agreement and going from there is very important.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
and not even relevant to the point I am making here, as I am directly presenting evidence from the crash scene. Unless someone planted the evidence I am talking about...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Since you've been doing research on CIT's work, how about doing some research on the 9/11 truth movement and realize that we don't have nor follow any one particular person or group.




So, are you saying you donate parts of your paycheck to other truther leaders besides Richard Gage? (you did hear he is going to Australia in the fall?)



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Gage is going to Austrailia in the fall huh, Cameron, thats funny. Yeah anyways though, I don't see what is being debunked either.

There is no "scientifically validated evidence" to speak of. CIT has the witnesses that put the plane on the north side, but (for me) thats all.

Why all these witnesses, among them Pentagon cops, believe f77 didn't hit the light poles is very interesting to say the least. The fact is though they all believe the jet hit the building.

In the OP's video they do bring up a good point, the people on 395 would have been in the very best position to witness a flyover. I can personally verify this, the view they are speaking of covers a large area of 395. Even going the speed limit you can take a nice look at it, let alone during the morning rush hour traffic.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I can't believe these losers! Right from the start they are basing their entire theory
on the chance that CIT coached the witnesses, otherwise how could they possibly reject this
evidence?

I lost a lot of respect for Hoffman after watching this latest interview. The guy seemed to be
on the ball with Jones' thermite paper, but now this?

Even MIKE WALTER saw the plane banking! Does Jim understand the aircraft cannot be in a bank
in order to hit all of the light poles! My god, I want to slap these losers with a swift backhand.
Does he understand the bank described does not show up in the FOIA released data?

Jim, what are the odds 13+ people who never met can describe and draw the same flight path?

They act as though the FDR data doesn't even exist. What are the chances two altimeters could
be incorrect? RADAR ALT. is accurate to within in few feet, or less! These RF signals get processed
many times per second from three transceivers on the belly of the aircraft...but they'd rather take
a few quotes from media sources instead of knocking on doors and getting facts?

If anyone has a direct contact, let me have it. I'll go head to head with his guy.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas
It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of positive evidence that winged plane hit the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.


Until you refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, you're just whistling Dixie.

You know you painted yourself into a corner, jprophet420, with no way out.

You just have to have the integrity to admit it. Too bad you won't.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by jthomas
It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of [I]positive[/I] evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even SPreston cannot deny that.



posted by jthomas
It's really a moot point. Not a single piece of positive evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon has ever been presented by anyone. There is really nothing for Hoffman or anyone to refute.

Even SPreston cannot deny that.



Are you stuck on emergency damage control again jthomas?



You still can't provide any evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon, SPreston.

No one is surprised that you can't.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I can't believe these losers! Right from the start they are basing their entire theory on the chance that CIT coached the witnesses, otherwise how could they possibly reject this evidence?


CIT has NO eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the pentagon. neither do you, turbofan.



Jim, what are the odds 13+ people who never met can describe and draw the same flight path?


Then you should easily be able to provide the eyewitness statements and media reports from any of the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon stating that they witnesses "a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as you have been repeatedly asked to for the last 3 years.. But you can't and you refuse to.

So , do you still wonder why your 9/11 "Truth" Movement is a joke?


If anyone has a direct contact, let me have it. I'll go head to head with his guy.


LOL. You run away from me every time.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


Does he understand the bank described does not show up in the FOIA released data?
...............

They act as though the FDR data doesn't even exist. What are the chances two altimeters could
be incorrect? RADAR ALT. is accurate to within in few feet, or less! These RF signals get processed
many times per second from three transceivers on the belly of the aircraft...


Just so we can discuss what turbofan means by "three transceivers on the belly" here is a picture of the six bits ( antenna/receiver pair for each RA ). They are on the belly in line with the FWD Cargo Door, (right-hand side) or you can look just forward of door 2L.

Problem with trying to argue the DFDR data is, the data stopped a few seconds before impact. The Captain's ( left ) RA data is recorded on the FDR. ( The center does not display in the cockpit, is used by the center autopilot for AutoLand only ).

Also, the RA signal gives its most accurate readings when the surface below is relatively smooth. ILS runways have a 'clearway' so that the final 100 feet, minimum, is very accurate.

In an ILS CAT I appraoach, the RA is NOT used for 'decision height'. It is used as a reference, as SOP, but the DH is from the baro altimeter.

In CAT II or CATIII A/B/C ops, then the RA is used for 'decision altitude', either 100' or 50', depending on procedure.

Anyway, the Flight Recorder data stops for some reason, if I remember it was at about 180 feet, but the altimeters all match pretty well until it stops.

FDRs require normal electrical power, from the Left Main Bus, if I recall. If power was interrupted for some reason could explain the FDR drop-out. From that point, impact was imminent. So, any roll motion or altitude information was not recorded subsequently.



[edit on 19 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasCIT has NO eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the pentagon. neither do you, turbofan.


Is that right? Didn't Turcios say he saw the plane pull up over the sign?
What about Rosie? Did he not state he saw a commerical airliner over the
south parking lot immediately after the explosion?!

Where the hell did that commercial airliner come from if it wasn't a fly-over?



Then you should easily be able to provide the eyewitness statements and media reports ... and you refuse to.


CIT has done a fine job of this and I'm spreading their news.


LOL. You run away from me every time.


Run away from you? I don't believe you have the right person in mind.

I'll debate you live on radio/tv/phone any time any day. Set it up.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Problem with trying to argue the DFDR data is, the data stopped a few seconds before impact.


Two seconds max. if you believe the official story.


Also, the RA signal gives its most accurate readings when the surface below is relatively smooth. ILS runways have a 'clearway' so that the final 100 feet, minimum, is very accurate.


True re: flat surfaces, however the triple RA as installed on all commerical
jets and as installed on "AA77" can measure altitudes accurately to within
two feet under 1000 ft. AGL . The three spaced transceivers can
distinguish objects vs. flat surfaces with precision within 30 feet due to
the distance between transceivers. There is no error with altitude as
Pressure Altitude confirms RA.



Anyway, the Flight Recorder data stops for some reason, if I remember it was at about 180 feet, but the altimeters all match pretty well until it stops.


distance from the Pentagon, or altitude? I get different values for both.


FDRs require normal electrical power, from the Left Main Bus, if I recall.


They require 28 VDC which is rectified from the main power bus.


If power was interrupted for some reason could explain the FDR drop-out.


What would cause the drop out? There is no recording of pole strike
found anywhere in the data. What else could have caused the drop-out?
There is also a 200 millisecond power capacity once the main power bus
drops out. If a pole knocked out the power, it would have recorded at
least one instance of impact from a light pole before resetting.


From that point, impact was imminent. So, any roll motion or altitude information was not recorded subsequently.


There could not have been any roll from that last lat/lon position in order
to hit the light poles.

Mike Walter and many of the CIT witnesses describe a bank. What they
saw was the north approaching jet banking over the Annex.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You seem to know way more---- than the gentleman you have been kabitsin with lately.
At the risk of being off topic cause I am not sure what it is at this point.
Would it be possible to mock up a fighter type jet and have it do a low level pass and fire a missile like donny rumsfelds said into the building at that close range and be able to roll out saftely?
The photographs and diagrams I have seen look like the work of a powerful but slim projectile not a full fledged huge aluminum aircraft.
Forget about the lack of plane parts.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


At the risk of being off topic ....


Topic is evidence there was NOT a "fly-over".



The photographs and diagrams I have seen look like the work of a powerful but slim projectile not a full fledged huge aluminum aircraft.
Forget about the lack of plane parts.


Parts? Airplane parts lacking???

Try browsing through these pictures.

Also, not in that batch, but there are more extensive views of the facade damage, showing the true extent. IF you've only seen/been shown versions of pictures, cropped or whatever, then you haven't been shown everything.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


At the risk of being off topic ....


Topic is evidence there was NOT a "fly-over".



The photographs and diagrams I have seen look like the work of a powerful but slim projectile not a full fledged huge aluminum aircraft.
Forget about the lack of plane parts.


Parts? Airplane parts lacking???

Try browsing through these pictures.

Also, not in that batch, but there are more extensive views of the facade damage, showing the true extent. IF you've only seen/been shown versions of pictures, cropped or whatever, then you haven't been shown everything.


Ah! wacker
Did you miss this on purpose?

"Would it be possible to mock up a fighter type jet and have it do a low level pass and fire a missile like donny rumsfelds said into the building at that close range and be able to roll out saftely? "

Or are you coaxed to not entertain this type question?
I am sure turbo would at least give it a try
And i will add have look like an airliner.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Ah! wacker
Did you miss this on purpose?

"Would it be possible to mock up a fighter type jet ...


No, I didn't "miss" it. It's so ridiculous I thought it was evident. To anyone who knows anything about airplanes, anyway.


Or are you coaxed to not entertain this type question?


What are you alleging? Ya know, instead of focusing on me, why not stay with the topic? Because, for the last time, it is ridiculous to imagine that there would be any organized, concerted effort to refute what most rational people already know. My intent is personal --- I hate to see rubbish repeated, because not everyone who reads these threads comments. Who know what some anonymous reader will take away? AND spread more filfth, unknowingly.



I am sure turbo would at least give it a try
And i will add have look like an airliner.


Oh, that would be most amusing.


The "flyover" is a sad example of one or two people getting a wild hair, based on an initial misunderstanding, then pounding all of the square pegs they run across into the round holes that they see, desperately wanting it all to fit. Discarding the actual pieces that DO fit, in the process.

Unfortunately, like pied pipers, these initial miscreants find a following of sycophants, but once they started down the road, they had to keep it up, if for no other reason than ego.

Even one of CIT's "star witnesses", Sean Boger, has testimony in the site I linked up above, IS eyewitness statement of seeing the airplane --- not 'missile' --- impact the Pentagon. Funny, his memory altered from November, 2001 to when CIT got their hands on him.....

I'm not certain, yet, what angle people who play the CIT game are going for.... they CLAIM to be seeking "truth", but their actions speak differently......



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, here it is wacker

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon


Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Small plane evidence moved at Pentagon

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.

Interestingly, the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs; and the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation save 2-4 Air Force jets--while also manufacturing the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems.

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact, b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify and they have been strangely gagged from speaking out.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon
by Tom Flocco

PART TWO
One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."
Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck. No reporters or independent aircraft experts have been permitted to examine any of the recovered aircraft parts and no subpoenas have been issued to hear public grand jury testimony from the "movers."

Other government officials who looked more like FBI agents than rescue workers were also photographed moving evidence around immediately after the crash; but none have been subpoenaed to publicly testify as to whether they were bringing evidence to or removing it from a mass murder crime scene.

As if they had prior knowledge, within minutes after the Pentagon crash--FBI agents quickly confiscated a) video tape from a gas station security camera aimed directly at the exact point of impact while recording the size of the plane and/or missile, b) security camera video film from a nearby Sheraton hotel and c) film from a Virginia Transportation Department freeway overpass camera.

This, raising significant questions about obstruction of justice since no reporter, independent crime scene expert or grand jury has been able to view and analyze the film since it was confiscated or certify that it was not tampered with--and those surrendering the film were again told not to discuss the matter.

It is not known whether the FBI has invoked immunity from prosecution regarding this evidence--or cited "National State Secrets" in a manner similar to FBI linguist Sibel Edmonds' case linked to financing the 9-11 attacks, drug money laundering and political campaign contributions.

The explosive evidence raises questions as to whether the grand jury will subpoena all Pentagon wreckage to determine whether it was a section from an A-3 Sky Warrior as many knowledgeable sources believe but also whether the recovered parts do not match a Boeing 757 as asserted by many.

Schwarz told us military officials will likely say the A-3’s were being fitted with system platforms to test-fire missiles; but the time-line of secret refitting prior to the attacks and recovered parts consistent with an A-3 attack jet found at the Pentagon provide credible evidence that an unregistered Sky Warrior was diverted to be used on September 11 to fire a missile into the Pentagon. The Defense Secretary spilled the beans at least once in a national interview.

One month after the attacks on October 12, 2001 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Parade Magazine, "Here we're talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center [para. #12]."

Schwarz also indicated that New York City District Attorney Robert Morgenthau (left) has more than enough evidence for a 9-11 NYC criminal case, and that prosecutors should investigate who authorized the refitting of the A-3 Sky Warriors with remote control and air-to-ground missiles at the civilian airport, given the A-3 jet parts found at the Pentagon.

A-3 Sky Warrior parts found--not Boeing 757 parts

A-3’s are smaller than a Boeing 737 with a wing-span of about 72.6 feet as opposed to the 737 which has a wing span of between 93 ft and 112.6 ft depending upon the manufacturer version--a twin engine jet with the engines mounted under the wing like a 737.

"The Air Force has four to six A-3s in current operation and Hughes-Raytheon has about 12-14 operational Sky Warriors according to available records," said Schwarz.

The candidate added, "the plane used at the Pentagon on 9/11 may have been brought in from Tucson, Arizona from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base which has numerous decommissioned planes taken out of service and stored there in an arid environment--using an out-of-service plane would diffuse the paper trail identifying the actual jet."

"Whoever did this had about a billion dollars to work with, according to my intelligence sources who have come forward," said Schwarz, adding "one crew came in to fit the jet for remote-UAV systems, another crew put in the fire control systems and another installed the new jet engines, another the AGMs, etc., and all at different times to spread out the information flow on who did what."

The part here at the left--recovered after the Pentagon impact--is a "diffuser case," a component from the types of "dual chamber" turbojets represented by the Allison J33, J71, Pratt & Whitney J57 and JT8D. "It is not part of a Boeing 757 engine," said Schwarz, adding, we even inspected a 757 engine in a jet maintenance shop."


The part sheet at left shows a diffuser case design for the 757 jet engines and it's quite different from the one found at the Pentagon (left). Schwarz said "the difference is between the "duel-chamber turbojet" versus the newer "high bypass jet fan" designs found on the 757 and 767 jets.

The key difference between the diffuser case found at the Pentagon and a Boeing 757 diffuser case (left & below) is the triangular bezels around the openings. [The triangular bezel reinforcments can more easily be observed near the top of the photo below.] Note that the Pentagon diffuser case has no such opening or reinforcing points--no triangular bezels.

According to Schwarz, the diffuser is built into a much larger component, not a separate component in the newer 757 type jet engines--and not a single one of these was found at the Pentagon. "This is not a component that would have melted or evaporated in any manner at all," said Schwarz, the chief executive of a corporation specializing in military remote control warfare systems.

Another component found at the Pentagon was a wheel hub--a type made by B.F.Goodrich's aerospace division. Here, Schwarz gets very specific: "They also made the wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional check of width versus diameter will easily show that the photo (left) is not a wheel hub from a 757, which has a much larger radius than width. This radius is about the same as the width of the wheel hub, and is another clue that the ' 757-crashed-into-the-Pentagon' story is a Bush lie," he said.

"If one looks very closely at the diameter versus width of the tire that was found at the Pentagon," said Schwarz, "this is the type of tire used for aircraft carrier-based and general rear wheels of smaller military planes--not commercial airlines." [The now somewhat outdated Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior "Whale" served as an aircraft carrier attack plane, capable of supporting missile platforms.]

Schwarz told us he had much difficulty identifying and acquiring photos to compare the Pentagon recovered parts consistent with the A-3 with the size of the Boeing 757 parts due to what he called "intentional internet content blocking," which criminal prosecutors would call obstruction of justice.

Ultimately Schwarz found the A-3 Sky Warrior part photos and numbers on the websites for Praxair and Evergreen International Airlines, the latter of which is a Central Intelligence Administration (CIA) cutout airline, referred to in award-winning author Pete Brewton’s book as:

"...a company that was formed from the assets of a CIA proprietary, Intermountain Aviation, after its cover was blown in the mid-1970s. In fact, Evergreen is listed on Global Airlines’ creditor list directly after [infamous] Southern Air Transport...Evergreen operates the giant air base at Marana, Arizona, northwest of Tucson, which Intermountain Aviation had owned. Evergreen’s founder and principal owner, Delford Smith, told the Portland Oregonian that his company had one contract with the CIA to assist foreign nationals that the CIA wanted removed from other countries or brought into the United States. Smith told the Oregonian that he believes in the CIA’s cause. ‘And we don’t know when we supported them and when we didn’t as a contract carrier,’ he said. News reports in July 1984 stated that the CIA was using Southern Air Transport and the Du Ponts’ Summit Aviation, as well as Evergreen Air, to transport weapons to the Iran-Contras." (The Mafia, CIA and George Bush: Corruption, greed and abuse of power in the nation’s highest office, by Pete Brewton, SPI Books/Shapolsky Publishers, Inc.,1992, pp. 206-207)

"Only the Raytheon executives and the Air Force would have known which team installed a particular system on the A-3 and who was involved in the operation," said Schwarz.

Coincidentally, five key Raytheon executives died on 9-11: Stanley Hall--Director of Electronic warfare program management (American 77), Peter Gay--VP of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made (American 11), Kenneth Waldie--Senior Quality Control Engineer for Electronic Systems (American 11), David Kovalcin--Senior Mechanical Engineer for Electronic Systems (American 11), and Herbert Homer--Corporate Executive working with the Department of Defense (United 175).

Curiously, the five Raytheon executives chose three of the four doomed jets and all happened to fly on September 11. Have their family members been interviewed? Other co-workers? Defense Department officials?

Raytheon's top people tied to the Global Hawk remote control UAV aircraft systems all died on 9/11 without a grand jury probing their memos, electronic messages, phone records, meeting calendars, visits or calls to Ft. Collins-Loveland airport and testimony linked to related matters.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Be nice if you had a source.

I find the entire account suspect.

On the one hand, YOU ask about a missile (was the A-3 a bomber), and that implies that NO AIRPLANE crashed there, THEN whatever source you found mentions "remote control", and debris ON SITE (a wheel hub, for example) that they allege doesn't match a B757....I've seen the photos, and I've flown the B757 for years, walked around it on preflights, I KNOW what the wheels look like.

In case you didn't see a picture, here's a link.

NOW, let me see....it's easier to believe the story you posted, that really has NO evidence whatsoever to back it, instead of the rest of the actual evidence?

You know, if it hadn't already been clear that you consider yourself a patriot.....I actually think that this sort of diversion is going AGAINST the country we are supposed to honor, and it certanly diminishes the deaths of the victims, and the anguish of the families.

BTW, when you read the link about the A-3, pay close attention to its maximum range. AND then, look to see how far away Colorado is from DC.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Be nice if you had a source.

I find the entire account suspect.

On the one hand, YOU ask about a missile (was the A-3 a bomber), and that implies that NO AIRPLANE crashed there, THEN whatever source you found mentions "remote control", and debris ON SITE (a wheel hub, for example) that they allege doesn't match a B757....I've seen the photos, and I've flown the B757 for years, walked around it on preflights, I KNOW what the wheels look like.

In case you didn't see a picture, here's a link.

NOW, let me see....it's easier to believe the story you posted, that really has NO evidence whatsoever to back it, instead of the rest of the actual evidence?

You know, if it hadn't already been clear that you consider yourself a patriot.....I actually think that this sort of diversion is going AGAINST the country we are supposed to honor, and it certanly diminishes the deaths of the victims, and the anguish of the families.

BTW, when you read the link about the A-3, pay close attention to its maximum range. AND then, look to see how far away Colorado is from DC.


Ok lets agree to disagree on the motives of our ideologies.
Also lets agree to refrain from the idiot stuff.
I have no disrespect for you.
Now here is my point---there is a witness that said they saw an aircraft darn near take his head off as they fell to the ground. Also he says he saw the right wing strike the Pentagon then the left hit the building.
And then the explosion. At the speed of any jet aircraft -- and the shock of the circumstance--- there is just no way that --that guy could identify what kind of aircraft it was. Especially since it was supposed to evaporate by the time of the exit hole in the deeper section. I think it possible that a jacked up remote controled A3 bomber full of explosives could have caused the type damage at the Pentagon.
Or a missile like Donald Rumsfeld said. I was just asking another poster about this.
Denver is also far from aircraft carriers. Huuummm!





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join