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.

 

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

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Don't confuse the controllers at Dulles with the controllers at Reagan Tower. You can read Chris Stephenson's (Reagan Tower) account of what happened here and here.

AA 77 would've disappeared behind the high-rise buildings in Crystal City at some point east of the Sheraton Hotel.

Remember, the buildings in Crystal City blocked the impact site from the controllers so they wouldn't have been mesmerized by the "hollywood special effects explosion" and they would not have been blinded by the conjured up "flash-bang explosives."


Thanks for the links, Boone 870. I was too tired to respond to your post yesterday, so here goes.

That's what I thought. The Pentagon being situated "in a gully" as it were, I don't think there is a line of sight to the "impact" zone from the Reagan tower. Am I right on that?



But what does Stephenson say?

www.examiner.com... __Countless_American_lives_change.html


“The plane was way out of position,” said Stephenson, 48, a 20-year veteran air traffic controller. “It was obvious something bad was just about to happen.”

Stephenson said he stood motionless for 10 seconds and watched the 757 descend into the Pentagon — and then watched it explode. The scene plays out in Stephenson’s head every time a news clip or conversation mentions the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

“I call it the movie in your head,” said Stephenson, a father of two. “It just doesn’t go away. The day gets referenced every day and every time I remember exactly where I was and exactly what I saw.”


Now, I know that what is reported here is not a transcript. It is a retelling, by a reporter, of what he thought Stephenson said. Can you see the impact zone from Reagan tower? If not then this story is a misrepresentation of what Stephenson saw.

Let's look at the other story.

www.usatoday.com...


About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.


Right away we have a problem. Surely Reagan tower knew long before this that an airplane was out of place and heading toward them. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't tower radar extend more than five miles?

The next thing is the call from the Secret Service. Where do I begin? I don't even want to go into this. Let's just say that the conspiracy minded might think that such a call, even though wholly innocent, at the very least leaves open an avenue of communication direct to the center of what they regard as an insider's plot.


He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.


Interesting comment. Airline pilots have said they couldn't do this manouver. Hani Hanjour is discussed here:

whatreallyhappened.com...

But carrying on with the Stephenson story.


The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds. But then the phones started ringing again and they got back to shutting the airport down.


This last quote supports the notion that Stephenson probably did not actually see the impact.

All that is well and good, but if there was an overflight, the people in Reagan tower must have seen the plane as it zoomed over their 15/33 runway and away to . . . ???

This is where the rubber really meets the road in the discussion of what happened at Reagan Washington National Airport.

Surely they would have been aware of it, if there was an overflight.

I'm convinced that there was one, which means I'm convinced that the people in Reagan tower were in on the plot, at a low level, at a low, just do as we tell you, you'll get a call from the Secret Service at the appropriate moment, level.

Or were they too busy diverting planes to notice the overflight?


Even on the day of the attack, Stephenson said, he was so busy diverting planes and grounding others — a directive issued after the second plane hit the World Trade Center towers — that he didn’t have time to gauge the enormity of what he had just saw.


In the earlier linked story it said:


A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds.


Could they have missed an overflight? Were they too stunned and then too busy to notice the plane zipping by? For sure (me being the clairvoyant again) they were all riveted on the fireball, weren't they? Tick, tick, tick, go the seconds as it rises 300 feet into the air and then debris starts raining down. Awesome sight! Stunning!

Nobody notices the plane peeling off into the blue. Or maybe they do. In any case they gotta get busy diverting other planes. Was the overflying airplane one of the ones they then directed to land somewhere?

Even people who accept the Bush administration's version of 9/11 would accept, surely, that if the ATCs at Reagan were too stupid to see the overflight, they certainly were not alone that day in the stupid department. Aviation and air defense in the US was just a little out of control on 9/11. And let's not forget Dick "the order still stands" Cheney, someone who, I believe, should have been arrested in the "war room" minutes after he made that statement.

What can I say? 9/11 was an inside job.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by ipsedixit]




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Oh no Donny! That was just an article upon which OTHERS have caught onto Flocco's disinfo and are calling him out on it. Obviously you ignored the first paragraphs:


Tom Flocco Now Thoroughly Discredited
Introduction – September 23, 2005


With many thanks to the reader who pointed out the following discrepancies which more or less confirm Tom Flocco's status as a prime disinformation agent. We've had our suspicions for some time but the following proves them quite conclusively. First off, Poland and Austria do not share a common border, yours truly should have picked that up immediately but geography was never a strong point at school. Likewise the Italian lyra is no longer tenable currency, it ceased to be legal tender on February 28, 2002. Which makes claims about fake lyra currency all the more improbable along with everything else claimed by the recent guest on Jeff Rense's internet radio show.

Moreover, a reader has just informed us that location of events reported on Flocco's website has now changed. From being the Austrian Polish border, as originally reported, it's now moved to the Polish German border, which actually exists. Seems like Flocco got wind of his mistake and is now trying to recover his tattered credibility. Ed.


see? People know he is a disinfo agent.

and he is the same one who came up with this idiotic idea that A-3 Skywarriors were used with special remote controls and other wizzbang junk. And all of this based on........ anonymous reports from un-named "personnel" from an AFB whose refuse to step forward to any credible news media or authorities, from fear of "having an accident",and turn to a known disinfo agent on a site that should be obviously taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

But since you missed the main point...... well.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



Weedy..


Are we now such chums that you can be allowed to use a diminutive form of my screen name? Wow, I guess I've made a friend in benny!!


Your [sic] squirming i [sic] sense!!


IF you are referring to my long, and if I might say, rather well-written response to refute your silly analogy, could you please be a friend and point out specific instances of my "squirming"?


i'll [sic] ask you again...only this time more clearly....just incase [sic] you misunderstood my analogy...



Oh, I'm all ears ------



Since when does being an alleged pilot of some sort make you a Crash Scene Investigator who knows better than i [sic] do??


Well, let's deconstruct what you call an "analogy", shall we? Your sentence above is not an analogy, it is an attack. The attack words used are "alleged" and "of some sort".

THEN, you stunningly equate yourself to a "Crash Scene Investigator". And the implication that one cannot help but take away from your sentence is, that you know so much, that there isn't possibly anyone else who knows more than you! So, are you an "Investigator"? And, therefore, automatically know more about the events at the Pentagon, based solely on pictures and "opinions" selectively chosen and displayed by Conspiracy theorists?

Are you better than people with real-world knowledge of a myriad of disciplines, who can see the baloney BECAUSE of their experience and expertise in their related fields?

Because, there are people who actually can SEE the pieces of the puzzle, and recognize that no ONE person is the expert in everything, but when the reports and information generated by accomplished individuals, when put together, shows conclusively that a Boeing 757, being operated by American Airlines as flight 'AA77' on 11 September, 2001, was hijacked and then intentionally flown into the Pentagon building in an act of overt terrorism...I, nor you, have to be experienced "Crash Scene Investigators" and physically have been present at the scene, to have a rational agreement, based on facts, that what is presented is the event as it occured.

Since you're the one going on about scene investigators, do you think that NTSB personnel who go to an accident site, conduct their measurements and collect evidence, then go back to headquarters in Washington, DC, are subsequently questioned by their colleagues you DIDN'T go to the scene, as if somehow their work is suspect???

NO! Of course not. We (most) rational people know to accept the work of others in their area of knowledge, as they contribute to the investigations of events. It seems only a few knuckleheads (ego maniacs??) who wish to be a 'hero' by spotting what they think is one sliver of something, some detail that no one else saw! and blow it up into this elaborate, convoluted 'scheme' by the evil, evil, PTB or (fill in the blank here.)



Does flying a plane give you greater insight??


Better insight than who? You? Apparently, yes.
___________________________________________________________
(grammar)


[edit on 22 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by jthomas
 


In the year 1491 the stupid, ignorant nut job ,asinine, backward ,soft brained, anti everything peoples such as your rhetoric reminds me of, said the world was flat.
It took many courageous folks to turn the logic you possess around.
Get your head out of your sand. Stop fearing a REINVESTIGATION of honest citizens.
How can it hurt you or any one my little 1491er? The fly over aspect of the movement that makes your knees knock is only one part of a loosely ,semi ,quasi, multi and competent group of un confederated Americans. Unlike yours.


What a sad little rant of yours.

None of you 9/11 Deniers have the ability to answer simple, direct questions about your claims. We ask you over and over and over to demonstrate your claims and you simply won't do it. All we ever get is the stupidity you just wrote.

Just what do you think would happen if you were to miraculously get yet another investigation if you can't even begin to answer questions about your claims? Or even refute the massive evidence against your claims? Do you actually want to be laughed at on national TV?

Your denial of facts and reality is unbelievable.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by ipsedixit



But what does Stephenson say?


You know, you are quite smart, it's obvious, but for some reason you keep falling for the disinfo regarding this issue. What I mean is, I don't think it's you focusing on these out-of-context snippets, I think that others are doing the steering.

Not sure if the insinuation of Stephenson's story of seeing the AA B757 crash, and the fact that one can't actually see the Pentagon from the DCA Tower cab windows, is part of the plot of character assassination. The innuendo is blatant. BUT, don't you think that a person who works for years in the same building, looking out the window in the direction of the Pentagon, a person who KNOWS where the Pentagon is sitting, and has seen, for many years, helicopter traffic to/from the Pentagon, the WH, Andrews, etc....

I mean, sure! He saw an airplane at the appropriate distance, drop low and be obscured by intervening terrain/buildings, then witnessed an explosion...do ya think any reasonable person would put two and tow together??!!??

Of course, the target could have been the Citgo gas station, but how logical is that?


Right away we have a problem. Surely Reagan tower knew long before this that an airplane was out of place and heading toward them. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't tower radar extend more than five miles?


Radar screens have selectable range displays, as to the distance shown on the screen. A Local Tower's area of authority/responsibility is no more than five statute miles, and 3000 feet AGL. SOME Towers have the TRACON facility co-located, but the Washington TRACON is NOT located at the DCA airport. I don't know where it is, actually, because that info is not normally made public. Certainly, the Radar in the Tower cab would have a larger selectable range, but I think they'd normally just be on the closer range, for better resolution.

You should learn about the structure of the National Airspace System, and how the jurisdictions are assigned, to various controlling entities.


The next thing is the call from the Secret Service. Where do I begin? I don't even want to go into this. Let's just say that the conspiracy minded might think that such a call....



Here's where you "jump the shark". The logic of having a direct Secret Service phone line to an airport in the immediate vicinity of the Nation's Capitol is rather obvious, isn't it?? WHY suddenly imagine some sort of "conspiracy"? See the disconnect??



He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.


This is another ripe plum that the CT'ers like pluck, and it is wholly without merit. Look at the FDR recreation, in various videos available, you will see the bank angle changes little, as the pilot turned around and descended to line up for the final run. Very minor bank angle changes, from a distance, are barely perceptible.


Interesting comment. Airline pilots have said they couldn't do this manouver.


They are incorrect. It was a simple, descending wide-radius turn. No extreme bank angles, no extra skills required. Airline pilits who say that they couldn't do the "manouver" are spreading disinfo, for reasons I cannot fathom.



This last quote supports the notion that Stephenson probably did not actually see the impact.


Already established, because of line of sight issues.


All that is well and good, but if there was an overflight, the people in Reagan tower must have seen the plane as it zoomed over their 15/33 runway and away to . . . ???



NO~!!! Look at the geometry, the positions of the Pentagon relative to DCA. Firstly, an airplane at the speeds involved and the heading (ground track) shown could NOT make a right turn in sufficiently short radius to subsequently fly over the DCA airport. AND, experienced Air Traffic controllers wojuld not be so 'mesmerized' by an explosion they witnessed to not see anything that "flew away" afterwards!!! This impugns the professionalism of those people!




I'm convinced that there was one, which means I'm convinced that the people in Reagan tower were in on the plot, at a low level, at a low, just do as we tell you, you'll get a call from the Secret Service at the appropriate moment, level.


THIS is where I want to use so many bad words....it is so disgusting a comment I just have no coherent response, other than to say [snip].



Or were they too busy diverting planes to notice the overflight?


Ditto above. Forgot to mention, the last word starts with a 'y'.





Even people who accept the Bush administration's version of 9/11 would accept, surely, that if the ATCs at Reagan were too stupid to see the overflight, they certainly were not alone that day in the stupid department. Aviation and air defense in the US was just a little out of control on 9/11. And let's not forget Dick "the order still stands" Cheney, someone who, I believe, should have been arrested in the "war room" minutes after he made that statement.

What can I say? 9/11 was an inside job.



Remember what I said, earlier, about thinking you were intelligent (smart)?

I take it back.....



[edit on 22-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

None of you 9/11 Deniers have the ability to answer simple, direct questions about your claims. We ask you over and over and over to demonstrate your claims and you simply won't do it.


Like for example the question I asked "How did the engine get into the penagon without breaking the wall" and used a "Debunker" thread to illustrate, yet await an answer, especially yours.






















































Still waiting good sir. Take your time.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I don't suppose the large hole in the Pentagon after the impact would be a good reason for the engine to be found inside? Or the damaged pillar that shows impact consistent with an engine hit.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or here:





EDITED to add links

[edit on 8/22/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
weedy...

benny here...



Thanks for the grammar lesson and your "deconstruction"...enlightening...in a condescending way...thankyou!!

However,youre well constructed prose seems a little naive...you say..


"Because, there are people who actually can SEE the pieces of the puzzle, and recognize that no ONE person is the expert in everything, but when the reports and information generated by accomplished individuals, when put together, shows conclusively that a Boeing 757, being operated by American Airlines as flight 'AA77' on 11 September, 2001, was hijacked and then intentionally flown into the Pentagon building in an act of overt terrorism...I, nor you, have to be experienced "Crash Scene Investigators" and physically have been present at the scene, to have a rational agreement, based on facts, that what is presented is the event as it occured. "


Any idea on the 16 ft hole in the front wall pal...really...focus on that this time, with some substance to your answer please....

Feel free to quote your "accomplished individuals....and even use of your piloting skills....but please dont forget to squeeze your engines through that hole tto, because they never even left a mark or scratch on the Pentagon...


benny



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

That's what I thought. The Pentagon being situated "in a gully" as it were, I don't think there is a line of sight to the "impact" zone from the Reagan tower. Am I right on that?


Yes, you are right. The line of sight between Reagan Tower and the impact point at the Pentagon is obstructed by buildings in Crystal City.

But, the eastern side of the Pentagon, from the eastern side of the courtyard, roughly, is visible from the tower.






Could they have missed an overflight? Were they too stunned and then too busy to notice the plane zipping by? For sure (me being the clairvoyant again) they were all riveted on the fireball, weren't they? Tick, tick, tick, go the seconds as it rises 300 feet into the air and then debris starts raining down. Awesome sight! Stunning!


You will have to decide for yourself whether or not the controllers in the tower, who earn their living by watching airplanes, somehow missed a 757 from a mile away.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

I don't suppose the large hole in the Pentagon after the impact would be a good reason for the engine to be found inside? Or the damaged pillar that shows impact consistent with an engine hit.





My bet is that he'll ignore that photo, as is usual with troofers, even though I told him in that thread that even other troofers disagree that the hole was "only" ~18' wide.

Amazing how the cognitive dissonance among troofers is so easily predictable......

911research.wtc7.net...

Due to the presence of smoke and firefighting operations after the explosion at the Pentagon, no single photograph shows the full extent of the damage to the facade before the collapse of the overhanging section. However, the maximum extent of punctures to the facade have been determined by compositing a number of photographs. This process allows us to determine the dimensions of the region with punctured walls:

-about 96 feet wide across the first floor
-about 18 feet wide across the second floor
-about than 26 feet high in the center

911review.com...

-The entire width of impacted facade measured at least 140 feet.....
-The entire width of the impact hole from column lines 8 to 18 is approximately 96 feet. The entire width of the damaged facade from column lines 5 to 20 is about 140 feet.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



Any idea on the 16 ft hole in the front wall pal...really...focus on that this time, with some substance to your answer please....


Well, actually, that's avery simple challenge!! Thank you!!

You see, the "16 ft hole in the front wall" distracton is, just, well...BS!

Again, it's quite simple....clever manipulation of certain facts, omissions of other facts, by certain individuals/groups or whatever, who seem determined to promote their pet 'theories', for whatever reasons ( likely known only to them, doubt they'd tell the truth if pressed ).

The extent of the damage, to the "front wall" of the Pentagon....as you put it....was FAR more than just limited to a "16 ft hole".

IF you are only accessing certain sources that wish to continue to perpetuate that misinformation, then I truly wish you cold expand yoru horizons, a bit, and investigate further. Because, it seems you are being lied to.

Thank you for your response.
______________________________________________________
because there are ALWAYS mistakes ot be corrected.....*sigh*

....stet, because the above typo is TOO funny!!!



[edit on 22 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
At five miles out, the Secret Service calls Reagan tower.

Let's just say, for discussion purposes, at one minute to impact, the Secret Service calls Reagan tower. What was the message?

Why call Reagan tower? What is Reagan tower going to do?

Boone 870 and weedwhacker, you are the aviation guys in the thread. What was the Secret Service's message to Reagan tower?

I think I know, but I'd like to hear what you guys think it was.

While you're thinking about it, here's a little video entertainment showing the valiant Secret Service in action in another tough situation.




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



Why call Reagan tower? What is Reagan tower going to do?

Boone 870 and weedwhacker, you are the aviation guys in the thread. What was the Secret Service's message to Reagan tower?

I think I know, but I'd like to hear what you guys think it was.



Firstly, NO Air Traffic Controller ever refers to National Airport as "reagan"...and, neither do I. There is an historical reason why....and our (the ATC personnel, and mine are similar, but for different reasons. I HATE 'reagan', frmr Prez, for differnt reasons than ATC people do...but, we're on the same page in this instance).


NOW....the rest of your post, and its attempted analogy to the JFK assassination, is just fringing on desperation. "Flailing of hands" kind of stuff, methinks.

"What was the Secret Services' message" to the Tower?? Well, it's been described pretty clearly. Although, by the time they got that call, it was really "old news", they had seen it already. Your 'news' story isn't an EXACT recreation of events, as is the case in most news stories. It was part news, part 'dramatization' based on the news. I'd think everyone could be able to see that! Pulitzer Prize, anyone????





Why call Reagan tower? What is Reagan tower going to do?


Ughh....bears repeating, only because of what you are insinuating. It was a dynamic, and on-going situation. WHO KNOWS what the person on the direct Secret Service line was thinking! Are you clairvoyant? OR, are you just making stuff up? Imagining some complicated "top-secret" ultra-sophisticated "plan" that was suddenly implimented at the last minute???

I mean, IF you wish to hold to your ridiculous "theory" of all of the DCA Tower controllers being "in on it" from the begining, isn't it stupid to assume that the Secret Service would make a call, that WOULD BE LOGGED for history, to do what? REMIND them, the CIVILIAN employees who are not beholden to anyone, of their "duty"??? Wouldn't the thing have been pre-planned, and briefed already??? Really, can't you see the outrageous grasping at straws, here??? NOT LOGICAL!

[Quick!! I see some ants in a pattern on the floor...in a marching formation! I think they're plotting to take over my kitchen!!!]

Pfffft!

Truly, this is the stuff of very, very bad Hollywood screenplays. Like the Bond movie i jsut saw today...forget which one, was recent.

Hate to go OT, but it was SO BAD, it reminded me of how ridiculous this whole "everyone is in on it" idea is!!!

---Bond is going to do a HALO jump...that's High Atitude Low Open parachute jump, into the ocean...for some reason. ANYWAY, in the script, he is being briefed by an 'American' soldier, about the dangers of asphyxiation, and stuff...ALL THE WHILE they are standing in the cargo bay of a C-130, with the rear ramp wide open!!!! AARRGHHH!!! AND, he jumps, lands in water to a "sunken ship", that couldn't be found because of an "evil GPS" that set it off course (!!!??), and he dives on the ship, that is in less than 30 feet of water....Oy! Vey!!

AND they wonder where these stupid conspiracy theories get traction???



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

None of you 9/11 Deniers have the ability to answer simple, direct questions about your claims. We ask you over and over and over to demonstrate your claims and you simply won't do it.


Like for example the question I asked "How did the engine get into the penagon without breaking the wall" and used a "Debunker" thread to illustrate, yet await an answer, especially yours.


And I am waiting for you to provide the source for you claim. As always, you run away.

Sad, you 9/11 Deniers are, very sad.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Maybe Boone 870 will throw in on this later, and thanks weedwhacker. I'm on my way out to work, so I'll tell you what I think.

The key to the content of the Secret Service's message to National* tower is in the time that the message came through. Obviously, coming through at one minute to impact, the message had nothing to do with what was going on before impact. I think they were concerned about what was going to happen after impact, specifically, what the ATC's at National might say after impact.

I think that the message probably went something like (Please ignore nomenclature errors, etc. I'm just improvising a possible message.):

"This is the Secret Service calling. Here is our contact ID number. This call is to advise you that an aircraft, possibly AA Flt. 77 out of Washington, Dulles International is headed into your control area and is believed to have been hijacked. You are ordered to make no effort to contact this aircraft by radio.

Pursuant to (Cites appropriate provisions of the National Security Act), and in light of a state of national emergency, you are directed to withold, from all persons and all agencies, particularly the press, all comment with respect to what you see and what you do this morning, until you are briefed by a representative of this agency. Failure to comply with this order is punishable by not less than 50 years in prison and a two million dollar fine. Do you understand?"


Why would the Secret Service be so concerned to make sure the ATC's in National tower did not talk about what they saw? What could they see that nobody else could see, I mean nobody else, out of the plotter's loop?

Well, for one, the overflight. But the overflight, if they saw it and if they let something slip, could probably be covered up through control of the media, through explanations like "fog of war", a C130 in the neighborhood, whatever.

(Remember the FBI guy trying to tell the lady in Shanksville what she saw?)

Suppose the Secret Service told them that Flt.77 was being pursued and to keep the radio channels clear with respect to that plane and any aircraft in pursuit.
Did National tower try to contact Flt. 77? No.

Two things have been accomplished. First: no "over the air" leakage of what was going on in the sky around the Pentagon.

Second accomplishment: No discussion of any overflight or pursuing aircraft or missiles sighted on radar. (Remember Rummy's comment about the "missile . .uh (inaudible) at the Pentagon".)

I think the Secret Service call makes more sense interpreted this way than simply as an advisory that a hijacked aircraft was approaching the airspace over Reagan Washington National Airport.

*Apologies to American ATC's for using the pejorative term "Reagan" and thanks for the heads-up weedwhacker.


[edit on 22-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
benny again ww....

Your wrong...

This is a photo of the impact site of the Pentagon before it collapsed.



Note the roof line has not, at this point, been damaged....

Note the ZERO evidence of a plane crash....

Note the lack of debris....ZERO.

Note the pristine condition of the lawn....

Note the firefighting foam coating the unbroken windows....

What confuses me on this picture is the ZERO evidence of a plane...

As a pilot you are clearly an intelligent person....how then do you reconcile the above FACTS which, whilst uncomfortable, are true??

Yes, i am aware of the small pile of alleged plane parts supposedly found, but, looking at the above shot, do you not agree that it comes as no surprise that there would be people who could have problems with the official word??

You said earlier(sorry ...no good with the quotes thingy...care to help??)

"clever manipulation of certain facts, omissions of other facts, by certain individuals/groups or whatever, who seem determined to promote their pet 'theories', for whatever reasons ( likely known only to them, doubt they'd tell the truth if pressed ).

The extent of the damage, to the "front wall" of the Pentagon....as you put it....was FAR more than just limited to a "16 ft hole". "

Not sure what you mean...

What facts were manipulated...surely a fact is just that??

The impact point is FAR more than 16ft...??

How so??

As for your "doubt theyd tell if pressed..." claim re. their motives...I would point out to you they are after the truth....
because the official verdict is BS....


Oh, thanks for skirting around my previous Q..with your BS remark...its OK mate, i understand...



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Incidentally, Boone 870 has a great photo in his post above, that shows quite clearly the orientation of runway 15/33 at Reagan Washington National Airport and the Pentagon.



In the overflight scenario, the aircraft goes over the roofline of the Pentagon near the helipad banking right, to cut the corner of the roof and exit over the loading dock (not seen in the photo). If it continued to bank hard right, could it actually have landed on runway 15/33?

I doubt it. If it did you would have to give the pilot "Aviator of the Century" laurels, I think. But who knows? There are pilots who aren't ordinary pilots and planes that are not ordinary planes.

Ever seen footage of Jimmy Doolittle's B-17's taking off from the aircraft carriers on the way to bomb Tokyo? It looks impossible but they do it. The impossible is often just another challenge for American aviation.

This is a little whimsical, but it gives the idea of what I mean. For some people the impossible is possible.

Ernst Udet, 1930?



Of course the witness that CIT cited on the Pentagon loading dock, said that the plane flew away, I believe. If it had landed he probably would have seen the whole thing, and said so.


[edit on 23-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
They weren't B-17s.

Try again.

And why do you keep inventing scenarios to fit conclusions you want?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
They weren't B-17s.

Try again.

And why do you keep inventing scenarios to fit conclusions you want?


They were some kind of bomber (B-25). If you knew, then why didn't you just say so? What's your little game?

Trying different scenarios is a legitimate investigative approach. I guess you didn't know that.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Ive answered it so many times its disgusting man. Why don't you be pro and learn how to type something new.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In another thread you've actually quoted the answer and claimed I didn't answer.

Why the personal vendetta? I don't understand. I guess it makes you mad that you can't defend the government story with anything solid. Have a nice read. (you won't)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join