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.

 

Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by scott3xAs you can see, I made a mistake in my summary; I say that I had stated that Rob had deleted a post whereas in the original post, I had said posts.


I'll have a read through your link when I have a minute. Are you still suspended at P4T?


The suspension was to go until December 10. I haven't checked to see if it's been changed.


Originally posted by turbofan

ARINC? And can you explain what this raw file thing is? I've heard it before but really don't understand it too well...


ARINC is a company that deals with airplane electronics (avionics).

The "raw" file that you keep reading about is the pure data that is
extracted from the Flight Data Recorder [FDR].

We call it "raw" because once you download this file from the FDR, it
cannot be interpretted without other software and tools.


Ah, I see. Where did you get this raw data file? From an FOIA?



Originally posted by turbofan

Which is why I think he's a bit too hard on both of you guys. It's easy to make mistakes when you're emotionally involved I think


Fact will always rule over emotion/opinion. The reason I'm so hard on
"Weedwacker" is because he's speaking from emotion and hasn't taken
the time to research.


Hm.



Originally posted by turbofan
It would be great for him to download the NTSB file so we can step through it.


That does sound like a good idea to me.



Originally posted by turbofan

Which brings me to another point; I, for one, believe that weedwhacker is indeed a former pilot. Has he made any mistakes in what he's said?


With respect to the NTSB data yes.

From the aviation terms he's put forward no; but he's not applying them
in the context that I'd like him to observe (IE: the mach, EAS, dynamic pressure).


Ok....



Originally posted by turbofan

Initially, they did help with questions, but then Balsamo decided I had to read some rather ponderous and hard to understand threads. I finally started a few, but I couldn't even understand the -beginning- of the threads.


Send me a U2U and I'll try to explain in detail. If I can't answer, I'll refer you to another source.


It's alright. I think I'd rather not go over those times right now.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
yes, the raw file was obtained via FOIA however it was release by mistake.

It may have been leaked by an insider, but we'll probably never know.

What we do know is that the Pentacon is not happy that this file has been
made public; nor are they happy that it has been decoded.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Originally posted by turbofan
yes, the raw file was obtained via FOIA however it was release by mistake.

It may have been leaked by an insider, but we'll probably never know.

What we do know is that the Pentacon is not happy that this file has been
made public; nor are they happy that it has been decoded.


Interesting. Do you think that the raw file was from the plane that many believe flew over the pentagon?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



...yes, the raw file was obtained via FOIA however it was release by mistake.



FIRST....please explain FULLY the 'raw file'...and the 'CSV'. You bandy these about, yet don't really know what they mean, it would appear.

Please enlighten the audience FULLY as to what you know of these "files".

(No need to just link back to the 'P4T' site....please explain in your own words.)

Oh....and THEN explain how, for an operation that was so 'perfect' as to "fake" the entire 9/11 Pentagon Operation, as alleged, could release ..... YOUR words, "by mistake" ..... via a simple FOIA request.

I mean....the POINT of an 'FOIA' request would hardly be well-served IF the agency responding to the request "accidentally" relewased files or documents that, by their very nature AS ALLEGED by you, and others, to be this sensitive.....that THEY were "accidentally" released?????

Does this seem completely implausible to anyone else except me????


To recap: This well-orchestrated Top-Secret "false flag" operation is carried off without a hitch, YET the files that should have been suffieciently 'buried' are "accidentally" released via a normal FLOIA request??????

Crazy!!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan
 



...yes, the raw file was obtained via FOIA however it was release by mistake.



FIRST....please explain FULLY the 'raw file'...and the 'CSV'. You bandy these about, yet don't really know what they mean, it would appear.

Please enlighten the audience FULLY as to what you know of these "files".

(No need to just link back to the 'P4T' site....please explain in your own words.)


CSV files are Comma-Separated Value files; I think the file in question was an excel file. As to what a RAW file is, he explained it in a previous post to me:

Originally posted by turbofan
The "raw" file that you keep reading about is the pure data that is
extracted from the Flight Data Recorder [FDR].

We call it "raw" because once you download this file from the FDR, it
cannot be interpretted without other software and tools.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh....and THEN explain how, for an operation that was so 'perfect' as to "fake" the entire 9/11 Pentagon Operation, as alleged, could release ..... YOUR words, "by mistake" ..... via a simple FOIA request.


Was it truly a mistake though? turbofan suggested that it might have been something else:

Originally posted by turbofan
It may have been leaked by an insider, but we'll probably never know.


Furthermore, he states:

Originally posted by turbofan
What we do know is that the Pentacon is not happy that this file has been
made public; nor are they happy that it has been decoded.


What I'd like to know is, how do they know that? But that might be asking him to reveal more than he can. After all, as he also stated:

Originally posted by turbofan
Many of you probably don't know, but there were some insiders from
Boeing and ARINC that helped to crack the raw file. There were meetings
off site at the risk of losing jobs to those who attended.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


scott, notwithstanding my typos which will remain 'STET'....because while I still have time to "edit", you responded and therefore I will leave it as is....


The topic of the 'CSV' files, and the "raw data" as referenced by Turbo, repeatedly....

Again, this needs to be more thoroughly investigated, as in, just WHAT a 'CSV' file actually is, and more importantly IS NOT.

There have been many comments referencing these....but really, when you are just interpreting ones and zeros (1's and 0's) in the computer binary vernacular....

I ask ANYONE who has any knowledge of computer binary, and "bits" and "bytes" who can actaully READ the 'raw data files' directly....obviously, no Human Being can do this, I would think. EVERY such data file would need to be interpreted, through some sort of program, in order to present the data in ways that Humans could comprehend.

I am not trying to use any double-speak here....but THOSE who wish to interpret this "data" and try to mis-represent it for their own purposes....

AND I am obviously not referring to the NTSB. Because I'd think that a source such as they are subject to INTENSE scrutiny, by MANY sources....but of course keep listening to a few wannabe so-called "experts" who tend to dominate on the Internet....yeah.

Really, when it comes to the "Pilots For Truth", or any OTHER group you wish to name, it comes down to a VERY FEW handful who continue to speak for their selected 'group'....whilst all the time they keep using the "huge" number of those who are "supporting" them....just because they have....in the case of "P4T" less 1,000 members....ONE of them is ME!!! LOL!!!!!! How many others do you suppose, who just join to watch and laugh at them???

I hate to sound harsh, but really....IF this group, or any of the groups, actually had a valid, verifiable point....then don't you think there'd be a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT more people signing on?????

Sheesh! Perennial "Presidential Candidate" Lyndon LaRouche (who is a nutbag) has many more followers!!!!

NOT calling these people who follow "nutbags"....just the leaders.....



[edit on 5 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


Really, when it comes to the "Pilots For Truth", or any OTHER group you wish to name, it comes down to a VERY FEW handful who continue to speak for their selected 'group'....whilst all the time they keep using the "huge" number of those who are "supporting" them....just because they have....in the case of "P4T" less 1,000 members....ONE of them is ME!!! LOL!!!!!! How many others do you suppose, who just join to watch and laugh at them???


Not many, that would be counter-productive and dismissive.

Speaking of which, I responded to your U2U. The person in question is a pilot. Hence why I mentioned him to you. You completely misunderstood me. *sigh*


I hate to sound harsh, but really....IF this group, or any of the groups, actually had a valid, verifiable point....then don't you think there'd be a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT more people signing on?????


Not if it would cause them to be laughed at, not if they were too busy flying, not if they aren't a joiner, etc.

From Alaska Free Press:


September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.”

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.


Is he laughable?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


scott, notwithstanding my typos which will remain 'STET'....because while I still have time to "edit", you responded and therefore I will leave it as is....


Yeah, I've let go of correcting typos once I've been replied to myself, laugh :-p...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
The topic of the 'CSV' files, and the "raw data" as referenced by Turbo, repeatedly....

Again, this needs to be more thoroughly investigated, as in, just WHAT a 'CSV' file actually is, and more importantly IS NOT.


It's a Comma-Set Values file, as I said before. Not sure what you mean by what it isn't (not a different type of file I presume).



Originally posted by weedwhacker
There have been many comments referencing these....but really, when you are just interpreting ones and zeros (1's and 0's) in the computer binary vernacular....

I ask ANYONE who has any knowledge of computer binary, and "bits" and "bytes" who can actaully READ the 'raw data files' directly....obviously, no Human Being can do this, I would think. EVERY such data file would need to be interpreted, through some sort of program, in order to present the data in ways that Humans could comprehend.

I am not trying to use any double-speak here....but THOSE who wish to interpret this "data" and try to mis-represent it for their own purposes....


Do you have any evidence that Pilots for 9/11 Truth have misrepresented the data?



Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND I am obviously not referring to the NTSB. Because I'd think that a source such as they are subject to INTENSE scrutiny, by MANY sources....


Not so many from what I've seen; but Pilots for 9/11 Truth certainly did their homework on them I believe.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
but of course keep listening to a few wannabe so-called "experts" who tend to dominate on the Internet....yeah.


weedwhacker, turbofan admits that he's not a pilot, although I certainly think that he knows a fair amount of pilot terms. However, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has a fair amount of pilots in it. This doesn't mean that I'm telling you to start posting away there; I still remember your comment about the wolves inviting the lamb over for dinner and while you are a pilot, there's already been a fair amount of friction between you and turbofan, so I'm not sure that actually posting there would be the best idea. But -turbofan- can certainly ask them any questions that you bring up here.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Really, when it comes to the "Pilots For Truth", or any OTHER group you wish to name,


There is no other truth movement group of pilots as far as I know.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
it comes down to a VERY FEW handful who continue to speak for their selected 'group'....whilst all the time they keep using the "huge" number of those who are "supporting" them....just because they have....in the case of "P4T" less 1,000 members....ONE of them is ME!!! LOL!!!!!! How many others do you suppose, who just join to watch and laugh at them???


I think AF answered this part well enough.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
I hate to sound harsh, but really....IF this group, or any of the groups, actually had a valid, verifiable point....then don't you think there'd be a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT more people signing on?????


There are a few factors here:
1- the mass media and officialdom in general works against them.
2- they deal with a lot of technical lingo.
3- the learning curve is steep and they're not exactly known for their patience in teaching neophytes.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sheesh! Perennial "Presidential Candidate" Lyndon LaRouche (who is a nutbag) has many more followers!!!!

NOT calling these people who follow "nutbags"....just the leaders.....


I ask you to give them a chance. Imagine if what they say is true? Don't you think you'd be glad that you gave them that chance?

[edit on 5-10-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


Really, when it comes to the "Pilots For Truth", or any OTHER group you wish to name, it comes down to a VERY FEW handful who continue to speak for their selected 'group'....whilst all the time they keep using the "huge" number of those who are "supporting" them....just because they have....in the case of "P4T" less 1,000 members....ONE of them is ME!!! LOL!!!!!! How many others do you suppose, who just join to watch and laugh at them???


Not many, that would be counter-productive and dismissive.


I agree; and frankly, you don't have to have an account there to read what they say.



Originally posted by A Fortiori

I hate to sound harsh, but really....IF this group, or any of the groups, actually had a valid, verifiable point....then don't you think there'd be a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT more people signing on?????


Not if it would cause them to be laughed at, not if they were too busy flying, not if they aren't a joiner,...


Good points.


Originally posted by A Fortiori
From Alaska Free Press:


September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.”

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.


Is he laughable?


A good question; nicely done :-)



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
FIRST....please explain FULLY the 'raw file'...and the 'CSV'. You bandy these about, yet don't really know what they mean, it would appear.


It would appear that you are incorrect. There are several here that
understand the meaning of raw file, and CSV file.

As Scott already highlighted for you (referenced from my previous post),
the raw file is 'pure' data that has been uploaded from the SSFDR crash
protective memory chip. This file has an extension of .fdr

The CSV file is a delimited, converted version of the raw file in tabular
format which allows us to read the information in columns/rows, broken
down into sub-frames.

If you've ever used Excel, or any othe spreadsheet you would understand
how a CSV file is generated, used, etc.

Most programs that deal with data logging will have a feature to export
the file as CSV.

If you want more detailed information, you'll have to ask specific quesitons.
I know quite a bit about the data including the fact that the CSV final
altitude and animation final alitutde do not match.

That's pretty strange considering they both generated from the same raw
file. Is the NTSB that incompetent to let such a glowing error go public?


Oh....and THEN explain how, for an operation that was so 'perfect' as to "fake" the entire 9/11 Pentagon Operation, as alleged, could release ..... YOUR words, "by mistake" ..... via a simple FOIA request.


As per Calum Douglas' presentation, the NTSB told him he wasn't supposed
to have the .fdr file. Mr. Douglas called the NTSB because he could
open the CSV file, and view the animation, but could not open the .fdr
file.

When inquiring what program to use, the NTSB pretty much dropped the
ball. You may view this presentation online, or contact Calumn directly
if you wish to verify my quote.

Have you downloaded that NTSB data yet? This is the fourth time I've asked
and you have not answered.

Kinda funny someone who seems so educated on the topic doesn't have a
copy of the flight data/animation.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Notwithstanding all that you have written here, regarding the CSV and 'raw' data....

Let's ask from another direction.......

In EVERY OTHER NTSB accident investigation, when they use the very same CSV and 'raw' data directly form the memory cards of the SSFDR (IF it is a solid state recorder) --- HAS THERE EVER BEEN any doubt as to the veracity of the interpretation of the data???


Because, if there is, or has been....can we see any examples of PROOF?

In other words, please show HOW this is done....Or, conversely, explain HOW the contention of the people (like Calum Douglas, et al) can be taken without a grain of salt, that is, the alleged "faking" of the CSV files and 'raw' data, promulgated as an intentional farce upon the people of the World....and NO ONE ELSE, except for a handful of 'dedicated investigators' have raised the alarm, and pointed to the misdirection???

Really?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You are over thinking this issue. The data has errors. I've already explained
that the final altitude in the CSV file DOES NOT match the final altitude
in the animation.

This is a blatant error, and something that a professional agency should
have noticed immediately.

Whether it was obvious to the NTSB, or not -they have been confronted
with this issue (among others) and refuse to fix the data/comment on why
it's wrong.

P4T easily correct the final animation altitude using local pressure and
Pressure Altitude calculators.

Therefore the aircraft is higher over the light poles than shown in the
animation.

This is not about an interpretation error, it's black and white for all to see.
All you have to do is download the files that I linked for you and check it
for yourself!

The CSV and Animation are generated from the same file.

Again, this is not about Calum's inability to present; nor is it P4T's inability
to study the data. This is all about the NTSB releasing data with a clear
and obvious error.

Download the data and be prepared to locate cell values if you wish to
discuss this any further. This information is YEARS old.

Get up to speed please.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Weedwhacker, you know that I've had my differences with truthers, and even with some members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, but I -really- think that what turbofan's saying here is true. Have you taken a look at the CSV file yet?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan
 


Notwithstanding all that you have written here, regarding the CSV and 'raw' data....

Let's ask from another direction.......

In EVERY OTHER NTSB accident investigation, when they use the very same CSV and 'raw' data directly form the memory cards of the SSFDR (IF it is a solid state recorder) --- HAS THERE EVER BEEN any doubt as to the veracity of the interpretation of the data???


Because, if there is, or has been....can we see any examples of PROOF?

In other words, please show HOW this is done....Or, conversely, explain HOW the contention of the people (like Calum Douglas, et al) can be taken without a grain of salt, that is, the alleged "faking" of the CSV files and 'raw' data, promulgated as an intentional farce upon the people of the World....and NO ONE ELSE, except for a handful of 'dedicated investigators' have raised the alarm, and pointed to the misdirection???

Really?


Yes, really. Honestly weedwhacker, I know it's hard to stomach the possibility that there are some in the U.S. that would kill 3000 of their own citizens, but if it's true, and some have realized it, surely you realize that many would quail before risking being killed off for knowing too much? Some might not ofcourse; I keep on thinking of that secretive project at Reagan International and those who were apparently mysteriously killed. I suppose no one else has seen that report, wish I could locate it. Come on weedwhacker, why not just look at that CSV file for yourself? After that, why not call the NTSB yourself, see if they'll clarify things for you. Perhaps it's all just an honest mistake somewhere, what do you have to lose but a little time? Honestly, considering how much time you've spent here arguing over these issues, don't you think it'd be nice to speak to someone who must surely be able to explain these discrepancies? Or are you afraid of the truth?

[edit on 7-10-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 



I keep on thinking of that secretive project at Reagan International and those who were apparently mysteriously killed.


Could you, please....describe for all of us, and post the sources to the allegations you have just made, as I quoted above? Thanks.

ALSO....the airport KDCA, back then before the love-fest of "reagan worship"...was NOT "Ronald Reagan National Airport"!!! It was then, and always will be, "Washington National Airport"...so please stop calling it by that horrid name. AND....NONE of the flights that day, 9/11/2001 had anything to do with KDCA...except, maybe, that American Flight 77 had a Nav radio tuned to the VOR/DME on the field......

MAY I also, just to repeat because it didn't seem to sink in the first time....KDCA, aka "Reagan National Airport" is NOT....I REPEAT NOT....allow me to repeat....NOT....an 'International' Point of Entry.

I am disturbed by the characterization, by you, as such. THIS MUST STOP, right here, right now. Might seem a minor point, to some...but it is a LARGE mistake, if allowed to fester...and MUST be dealt with.

KDCA is NOT, I repeat NOT an international destination...period. End of sentence. Done.

Please DO NOT try to complicate matters in this regard, for you WILL fail.

AGAIN...why is this important?

BECAUSE, once ONE lie gets through, the rest will follow....and the lies HAVE to stop somewhere.....

(OH....one more thing....IF, before September 11, 2001 you were wealthy enough, or had proper connections AND you flew in on a Private jet....then I suppose that arrangements for Customs procedures could have been arranged....IF you had the power, and money, and horsepower to arrange such things......back then, MAYBE!!!)

Today? (as then)....there is NO....I repeat NO, NO, NO ..... International termanal for commercial passengers...NO, NO, NO....none, never, nada....NONE!!!!

Have I made this clear, yet????

Oh...I know...flight arriving from Canada? Guess what? THEY ARE CLEARED before they depart, so...nice try if you wish to go there.....

NOT AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT!!!!!!

OK?

Because, to just re-inforce the point...ONCE a lie starts, it might never stop....so this is ONE lie that should be stopped before it starts....

Many, many, many other lies have already been let loose.....that is WHY this subject has 'legs'....see yet?




[edit on 6 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Weed,

I'd appreciate you downloading the NTSB data and answering my questions
from the previous posts.

Afterward, since you are so adamant about airport protocol, maybe you can
explain the procedure for an aircraft entering Class Bravo airspace.

For those not aware, the airspace around the Pentagon is restricted airspace
(no...not a "no fly zone"...restricted) and monitored heavily. This should
raise some red flags for those who believe the official story.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 



I keep on thinking of that secretive project at Reagan International and those who were apparently mysteriously killed.


Could you, please....describe for all of us, and post the sources to the allegations you have just made, as I quoted above? Thanks.


As I mentioned in my last post, can't find the source for what I read. Wish I could find it (I note that I previously said "which I could find"; it was a typo :-p). However, I've now asked in 2 truther forums to see if anyone else has seen it. Perhaps what I read was unfounded, but I certainly think it's something worth investigating.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
ALSO....the airport KDCA, back then before the love-fest of "reagan worship"...was NOT "Ronald Reagan National Airport"!!! It was then, and always will be, "Washington National Airport"...so please stop calling it by that horrid name.


Back then? I think we should call it by what most people call it. If that's Reagan International, I think we should call it that. This doesn't mean I have any great love for the name :-p.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND....NONE of the flights that day, 9/11/2001 had anything to do with KDCA...except, maybe, that American Flight 77 had a Nav radio tuned to the VOR/DME on the field......


First off, why are you even bringing up any of the flights other than AA 77? We'r talking about the flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon, after all. In terms of the pentaplane, since the plane that was allegedly AA 77 had its transponder turned off, it's possible that the plane that that plane was switched for another at some point in time before approaching the pentagon.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
MAY I also, just to repeat because it didn't seem to sink in the first time....KDCA, aka "Reagan National Airport" is NOT....I REPEAT NOT....allow me to repeat....NOT....an 'International' Point of Entry.

I am disturbed by the characterization, by you, as such. THIS MUST STOP, right here, right now. Might seem a minor point, to some...but it is a LARGE mistake, if allowed to fester...and MUST be dealt with.

KDCA is NOT, I repeat NOT an international destination...period. End of sentence. Done.


Sorry, National. If you mentioned it before, I didn't see it :-p. I don't really see my mistake as big as you seem to have seen it, but I stand corrected on this now anyway.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
(OH....one more thing....IF, before September 11, 2001 you were wealthy enough, or had proper connections AND you flew in on a Private jet....then I suppose that arrangements for Customs procedures could have been arranged....IF you had the power, and money, and horsepower to arrange such things......back then, MAYBE!!!)


Why not during 9/11? Clearly, I think that the people behind 9/11 had power and money.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



Originally posted by turbofan
Weed,

I'd appreciate you downloading the NTSB data and answering my questions
from the previous posts.

Afterward, since you are so adamant about airport protocol, maybe you can
explain the procedure for an aircraft entering Class Bravo airspace.

For those not aware, the airspace around the Pentagon is restricted airspace
(no...not a "no fly zone"...restricted) and monitored heavily. This should
raise some red flags for those who believe the official story.


turbofan, you know the protocol don't you? Can you tell us? Don't want to wait for weedwhacker ;-).



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I certainly do know as I have been told by pilots on the P4T forum.

As a matter of fact, there are members on that forum that have flown
into said airport and know the procedure.

We'll see if Weed has ever piloted an aircraft around the Pentagon,
and/or if he knows the process.

Let's wait please; I'm sure he'll be around within the next few hours
like clock work (hopefully with NTSB data in hand).



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Try as I might, I just couldn't find any information concerning this alleged secret program at Reagan National, let alone anyone in it dying mysteriously afterwards. I will grant that perhaps it was simply disinformation. However, I -did- find the following excerpt at 911exposed.org, in an article titled Reagan National Airport. I'd like to point out that there is some controversy as to when, exactly, the pentagon was first hit with explosive force. The reason this is important becomes apparent upon reading the following section of the aforementioned article:


...
FAA grounding was just minutes prior to the attack on the Pentagon.

Since at 9:26 a.m., the FAA instructed all aircraft to make landings at nearby airports and all scheduled flight were to be grounded, the controllers at Reagan were obviously quite busy directing aircraft landings. At the end of this unprecedented grounding there were more than 120 aircraft stranded at the airport! [v] There would have been numerous airliners making hurried landings starting from 9:26 a.m. Coincidentally, this is roughly the same time as the Pentagon attack. Most of the flights that landed were not entered in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) database (www.bts.com) as they usually are.



Last scheduled plane to land at Reagan was an American Airlines jet!

The last scheduled flight to arrive that day, as per the BTS database was American Airlines Flight 684 (N3ATAA) from Miami; it arrived at 9:29 a.m., just prior to the Pentagon’s explosion. Could this flight have landed on runway 15? Did this American Airlines jet approach over the Pentagon or fly over appear as if it crashed and exploded, if it disappeared behind a billowing smoke cloud? Also, a low flying aircraft, like one coming in for a landing would not show on primary radar since it is below the tracking limit of the radar.[vi]

Did the Pentagon attack coincide with an American Airlines “fly over” or a landing at Reagan National Airport?

Alfred S. Regnery stated, “On the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard a jetliner “not more than 200 yards above the ground” passed overhead, disappearing “behind black cloud of smoke” was pouring from a “gaping hole.” And Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda “...was on assignment at the Pentagon as a Medic [interesting]. He was standing in the parking lot at the Pentagon when he noticed a jetliner lower its landing gear as if to make a landing and then he realized that the airplane was actually heading towards the southwest wall of the Pentagon…”[vii] Mike Ryan had been in his barracks at Fort Myer (which is on the approach to Reagan National Airport), “when a plane flew very low over his base…”[viii]

Sgt. Andrew Myers noted: “…I saw a second plane in the sky and then an F-16 flew right over the Pentagon. It was just a few minutes too late. The F-16 got behind the second plane and made it land at Reagan National [Airport].”[ix]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join