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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Part Two Tom Flocco

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.




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Baloney.

You keep flooding these threads with this "source", although it's been noted over and over again that...


This article comes from
Tom Flocco.com


....is a website full of lies, misconceptions and intenional misdirection. It is patently obvious, and has been shown that this "Tom Flocco" is nothing more than an insitgator with no credibility.

This "wive's tale" has been floating around on the blogosphere...and just won't go away, because that is the very nature of the Web.

Lies, gags and hoaxes that get started, then grow into having a life of their own.

Of course, a simple search into the veracity of this "person" will reveal that it is a load of bull flop.


And true to form you post a load of cow flop with out any solid anything.
Tell me weedy about the missing Raytheon execs?
Don't speak of the messenger, speak to the content of the message.
Those execs could cause a plane to fly any way a plane-- can fly.
Your entire rant on this thread contains more hot air than a desert balloon fest.
I can't help but chuckle a bit the way you continually pounce on the information.
It must be ssoooo close to the bone.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



Tell me weedy about the missing Raytheon execs?


They died when American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.



Those execs could cause a plane to fly any way a plane-- can fly.



No. That is bunk. You just don't seem to care to do better research, and learn more. It's far easier to read crap on the Web, and take it for "truth" because you happen to like something that already fits a pre-conceived paranoid idea.



Your entire rant on this thread...


WHO is "ranting"???? Readers will decide.....



I can't help but chuckle a bit the way you continually pounce on the information.
It must be ssoooo close to the bone.


By my count there are at least FOUR instances (maybe more) of this "Tom Flocco" nonsense being posted again, and again, and again....and now again.

There are always new members, and other readers, who may come along and see that garbage for the first time...and not understand it for the garbage it truly is.

REAL research, with open minds, will out the truth.

The "Tom Flocco" propaganda has been shown to be WRONG many, many times.

There is simply nothing in any of it that has logic, facts or reason on its side, it is all a bunch of lies and sensationlist crap.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

50 miles...exact position and altitude unknown. That is a LARGE chunk of airspace to look for a little 200-foot long airplane that doesn't wish to be found.



WW, don't fall for the "Flight 77 was tracked from 50 miles out" claim of Turbofan's... it's bunk. In typical truther fashion, he ignores the overwhelming majority of evidence that proves Mineta was referring to Flight 93 instead of Flight 77.


No one raised the alarm about Flight 77 being in Washington's airspace until Danielle O'Brien noticed it when it was 10 miles west of KDCA. The military was unaware of its hijacking until it was a few miles west of the Pentagon, after making its 270° turn.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Q24-7
 
Something similar happened to me when I still had posting privileges over there, Q24-7. I was called a racist because I didn't believe what some of the NOC/ONA eyewitnesses claim they saw. And then I was put on moderated response by the Grand Poobah himself.

The concept of free speech eludes that bunch. You'll find that the moderators here at ATS are much fairer.


Me three. They don't like dissenting views over there - its tow the party line of hit the highway. You either agree with them or you are out. Some "discussion board". More like a bunch of inter-breeding hillbillies with few teeth and fewer brain cells. That's why that whole place is really a club rather than some sort of formal "organization" or "association".

And the arrogance...is amazing. When TF brings it over here its just hilarious.


I suggest you edit your text or I am writing the mods. It is disrespectful to people of southern or Appalachian locales, it is rude, and it is mean-spirited.

You, Sir, are a bully. You are so impressed with yourself that you can't see straight. Neither WW or Boone have chosen to go this vicious route you are taking and for good reason--it is a display of abominable manners.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

50 miles...exact position and altitude unknown. That is a LARGE chunk of airspace to look for a little 200-foot long airplane that doesn't wish to be found.



WW, don't fall for the "Flight 77 was tracked from 50 miles out" claim of Turbofan's... it's bunk. In typical truther fashion, he ignores the overwhelming majority of evidence that proves Mineta was referring to Flight 93 instead of Flight 77.


No one raised the alarm about Flight 77 being in Washington's airspace until Danielle O'Brien noticed it when it was 10 miles west of KDCA. The military was unaware of its hijacking until it was a few miles west of the Pentagon, after making its 270° turn.


I am curious. Realizing that Martinsville WV is on the MARC and everything, West Virginia is still more than ten miles from the Pentagon. DOD stated that planes were alerted when the jet was in West Virginia.

Or do you mean ten minutes out?

EDIT:

Ooops wrong quote...one moment

[edit on 9-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Okay before I post what I wanted to post...why is it that the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation on this subject matter immaterial? He was there in the bunker with Cheney, a known prevaricator (WMD, anyone?) and said in both the 9-11 commission and on shows like Meet the Press that they were tracking it much farther than "10" miles out. He also claims to have heard "stand down" orders.

Is he also a disreputable person and if so, why?



[edit on 9-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

Okay before I post what I wanted to post...why is it that the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation on this subject matter immaterial? He was there in the bunker with Cheney, a known prevaricator (WMD, anyone?) and said in both the 9-11 commission and on shows like Meet the Press that they were tracking it much farther than "10" miles out. He also claims to have heard "stand down" orders.
Actually, Mineta has never claimed to have overheard a stand down order. He has always stated that he believed it was a shootdown order.


Is he also a disreputable person and if so, why?
I've seen no reason to believe he is disreputable. However, he has made a few erroneous claims regarding 9/11.

One being that he was present in the PEOC as American 77 approached Washington, DC and the other being that he was the first person to order all aircraft in the country to land. That order came from Ben Sliney at the Air Traffic Control System Command Center.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

Okay before I post what I wanted to post...why is it that the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation on this subject matter immaterial? He was there in the bunker with Cheney, a known prevaricator (WMD, anyone?) and said in both the 9-11 commission and on shows like Meet the Press that they were tracking it much farther than "10" miles out. He also claims to have heard "stand down" orders.
Actually, Mineta has never claimed to have overheard a stand down order. He has always stated that he believed it was a shootdown order.


No, he did claim it was a "stand down". I'll lexus it tomorrow. I remember him being a "pinhead" or was it "he wanted the terrorist to win" on FOX??? Regardless, he said "stand down". That I remember because they frickin' crucified him on FOX over this one. I remember Anne Coulter having some choice words. I'll find it.


Is he also a disreputable person and if so, why?
I've seen no reason to believe he is disreputable. However, he has made a few erroneous claims regarding 9/11.

One being that he was present in the PEOC as American 77 approached Washington, DC and the other being that he was the first person to order all aircraft in the country to land. That order came from Ben Sliney at the Air Traffic Control System Command Center.


Why erroneous? Just curious. He claims to have been in the bunker. Who refuted it? If it was anyone in the Bush administration you needn't bother posting a quote for me--post for others, but they are unscrupulous liars as far as I am concerned.

BTW, I want to thank you for remaining civil even when I know you sometimes feel frustrated.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

Okay before I post what I wanted to post...why is it that the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation on this subject matter immaterial? He was there in the bunker with Cheney, a known prevaricator (WMD, anyone?) and said in both the 9-11 commission and on shows like Meet the Press that they were tracking it much farther than "10" miles out. He also claims to have heard "stand down" orders.


Actually, Mineta has never claimed to have overheard a stand down order. He has always stated that he believed it was a shootdown order.


While I have seen no evidence that he overheard a stand down order per se, from his own testimony, which can be seen here, it's clear that while he initially believed that what he had overheard was a shootdown order, Vice President Cheney's answer to his question as to whether the Shanksville plane was shot down (he claimed not to know and allegedly asked the DoD if that had happened) suggests that the order must have therefore been something else. So if (by implication) the young man who asked Cheney if the orders still stood wasn't asking if shootdown order for shanksville still stood, it becomes clear that we really don't know what the order was. Perhaps it was indeed a stand down order. Has anyone even -asked- Cheney what order he was referring to? I certainly think it was possible that the order was to not shoot down the incoming plane; essentially, a stand down order.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

Why erroneous? Just curious. He claims to have been in the bunker. Who refuted it? If it was anyone in the Bush administration you needn't bother posting a quote for me--post for others, but they are unscrupulous liars as far as I am concerned.


Mineta refutes himself in a September 11 2002 interview on MSNBC. Here's what he had to say-


And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."
(bolding added for emphasis)

Mineta mentions four specific geographical locations when describing the approach of the incoming aircraft:

1) Great Falls
2) National Airport
3) Down River Approach or DRA
4) USA Today building

In the below image, I have highlighted the four references he used and included Flight 77's actual approach path (orange dots). The red line represents the Down River Approach:


As you can see in the above image, the aircraft Mineta is describing in no way matches the actual flight path of American 77. He is describing the projected flight path of Phantom 93, I'll add more in my next post.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 



Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

Why erroneous? Just curious. He claims to have been in the bunker. Who refuted it? If it was anyone in the Bush administration you needn't bother posting a quote for me--post for others, but they are unscrupulous liars as far as I am concerned.


Mineta refutes himself in a September 11 2002 interview on MSNBC. Here's what he had to say-


And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."
(bolding added for emphasis)

Mineta mentions four specific geographical locations when describing the approach of the incoming aircraft:

1) Great Falls
2) National Airport
3) Down River Approach or DRA
4) USA Today building

In the below image, I have highlighted the four references he used and included Flight 77's actual approach path (orange dots). The red line represents the Down River Approach:


As you can see in the above image, the aircraft Mineta is describing in no way matches the actual flight path of American 77. He is describing the projected flight path of Phantom 93, I'll add more in my next post.


I find your assertions to be interesting. However, I don't think you've considered the possibility that the official flight path is false. If it was, then Mineta's assertions might not be innacurate. It would seem that his assertions might favour a north of the citgo gas station approach, which would be in keeping with the many videotaped witnesses that CIT interviewed.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


The yellow line, in the image from my previous post, represents a direct flight path from Hagerstown VOR (HGR) to Reagan National VOR (DCA). It's included because air traffic controller Linda Justice updated United 93's flight plan after it changed course and was headed back towards the DC area.


The aircraft appeared to be heading toward Washington Center airspace. In an attempt to expedite the situation I put a change of routing to reflect HGR--> DCA. This was only to forward to information to the sectors the aircraft appeared to be tracking toward. PDF, page 11


Linda Justice can be heard telling controllers at Washington Center that she updated the flight plan in this recording at the 4:20 mark.

When Linda Justice updated United 93's flight plan she also changed what air traffic managers viewed on the traffic situation display (TSD). The TSD is used by traffic management units, and others, to help manage traffic flow in their sectors and across the country. The information displayed on the TSD does not necessarily reflect an aircraft's actual radar return, it's where the aircraft is projected to be.

This is the aircraft Mineta was referring to. The people in the PEOC and at FAA Headquarters were not the only ones fooled by Phantom 93. It was enough of a concern to halt the ongoing rescue operations at the Pentagon and real enough that Andrews Air Force Base launched F-16s to intercept it.


At approximately 10:15 a.m., Chief Schwartz ordered the immediate evacuation of the incident site. The FBI had warned him that a second hijacked airliner was flying on a course toward the Pentagon and was 20 minutes away. Responders were ordered to take shelter beneath one of the nearby highway overpasses. Link, page A-13
.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I have found, and have occasionally been suckered into, very FALSE claims, made by those who THINK they know what they know, because of what they've read or heard.

EVERY TIME we try to respond, to whatever, it is MISINTERPRETED!!! Again, and again and again....becaue EVERY comment is filtered through a pre-conceived notion....

EVEN THIS THREAD has succombed to the problem....

Just to set the record, straight again....there is NOTHING wrong with the "Flight path" (per the OP) of the (air)plane that approached the Pentagon!!!

This has been talked about, analyized and shown to be factual beyond any doubt...UNTIL, or UNLESS certain people wish to 'muddy' the issue by bringing in certain off-topic and usually incorrect "arguments"... I do not know how else to describe what has occured...over and over again....



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


I've considered it, and I've chosen to rely on what the air traffic controllers, who watched flight 77 approach the Pentagon, had to say.

You can read their statements here, starting on page 145.

You can also hear an air traffic controller describing 77's flight path as it happened, in this video:




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't agree with your timeline as in, " I don't agree with your comments".

THis was NOT a surprise attack by any stretch of your imagination. The
impact time is also incorrect as stated by the NTSB...but you can figure
that one out.

Are you sure you're a pilot? Did I say P-56 encompassed the Pentagon?
Read my post again.

Understand what I mean when ATC should have been alarmed that an
aircraft tracked on RADAR was heading into the class B region knowing
your country was under attack.

Within that region are two prohibited airspaces.

Read it again. Figure it out. I'm sure you can do it.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I suggest you edit your text or I am writing the mods. It is disrespectful to people of southern or Appalachian locales, it is rude, and it is mean-spirited.

You, Sir, are a bully. You are so impressed with yourself that you can't see straight. Neither WW or Boone have chosen to go this vicious route you are taking and for good reason--it is a display of abominable manners.


I apologize for speaking truth, again, MS. A. Fortiori. If you happen to hail from your aforementioned referenced southern or Appalachia locales, I will apologize again for possibly bringing up painful memories.

WW and Boone have their own debate/discussion techniques and I enjoy reading their well reasoned and cogent positions. If you don't like my posts you can always block them.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
No, he did claim it was a "stand down". I'll lexus it tomorrow.


Have you "lexused" this quote yet?

Slightly OT:

And I simply *must* point out that, in keeping with your admonition on another post of my using a "run-on sentence", your creation and use of "lexus" as a verb (not to mention the lexiconological butchering of the Internet Searchable Directory of Online Sources "LexisNexis", which I can only assume you are referring to) is not generally looked upon in a favorable manner by those who wish to maintain a pure, articulate and precise english language.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by A Fortiori
No, he did claim it was a "stand down". I'll lexus it tomorrow.


Have you "lexused" this quote yet?

Slightly OT:

And I simply *must* point out that, in keeping with your admonition on another post of my using a "run-on sentence", your creation and use of "lexus" as a verb (not to mention the lexiconological butchering of the Internet Searchable Directory of Online Sources "LexisNexis", which I can only assume you are referring to) is not generally looked upon in a favorable manner by those who wish to maintain a pure, articulate and precise english language.


Ah-- the ugly head of the SUPERIOR ONE is poking through the slime again.
This is what is golden about ATS. Any one with a puter can come here and show the world that 911 was an inside job. No matter what the flight plan data crap shows. We can do it from our trailers, shacks and RV's.
We can spit our chaw at the avatars of those we dislike. We reject formal brainwashing, indoctro-education. Viva America. Viva ATS



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Whilst it is taking every bit of self-restraint I can muster, I will try not to mimic your patronizing tone.....

I'm afraid it will require, once again, some repeating of salient information, facts and data:


I don't agree with your timeline as in, " I don't agree with your comments".


I cannot help but feel a little hurt...I worked very hard on that. But, of course you know so much more than I, and have it all figured out, don't you? (ooops...some snark slipped through - well, I'm only Human).

Onwards and upwards, I say....


THis was NOT a surprise attack by any stretch of your imagination.


Huh? Show us, please. OTHER than just your opinion.



The impact time is also incorrect as stated by the NTSB...but you can figure that one out.


Again...huh? We know when the FDR stopped recording. Imact occured very shortly after that, within about a second or so. Do we need accuracy down to the millisecond? I wouldn't think so.

Just to refresh some memories, here is the link again. Pay particular note to "Figure 1". This will be useful also with the next part:


Understand what I mean when ATC should have been alarmed that an aircraft tracked on RADAR was heading into the class B region knowing your country was under attack.


Firstly, it seems that your focus on the nature of Class B Airspace, and misunderstanding about how important you think it is is at the core of your miscomprehension. Secondly, the realization that "(y)our country was under attack" had just been made, mere MINUTES prior...do you think that there was some possiblity of instantaneous response? Like, in a movie??

Nevertheless...not sure how many times I've pointed out the extent of the Class B over the DC area...did you see? No? Then take a moment and note the ceiling of the airspace.

Make sense yet? Let's look at it again...an unknown possible Primary target is spotted, lost, and re-acquired...it has NO altitude information, of course. Primary radar targets can sometimes be glitches...'noise' from antenna attenuation, or ground clutter reflections...any number of things, I suppose there is computer software that helps minimize that sort of thing, but I'm not a controller, so I have only basic knowledge of their systems.

AT THIS TIME there were still a large number of airplanes in the air. Try to find one of the RADES or TRACON radar tapes...

Anyway, back to "Figure 1"...the airplane didn't descend below 10,000 feet until about 0927. But, doesn't matter much, since there was no Mode C anyway....point is, the airplane didn't actually enter Class B until that time, and it was about 10 minutes from impact then.

Here, read this excerpt:


Hijacking
The last routine radio communication from the flight was transmitted at 8:51 a.m. The hijackers on the flight were Hani Hanjour (pilot), along with Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Majed Moqed, and Khalid al-Mihdhar. At 8:54 a.m., the aircraft began to deviate from course and turn back towards Washington, D.C. Phone calls were made from the plane, using airphones, by Renee May and by Barbara Olson.

The transponder on the aircraft was turned off after it was hijacked, making it difficult for air traffic controllers to locate it once it turned around. At 9:21 a.m., the Herndon Control Center (of the FAA) knew that Flight 77 was missing and asked the Dulles terminal control facility to look for primary targets on the radar. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed" and notified Reagan National Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service.

At 9:34 a.m., NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector) contacted the FAA's Washington Center, regarding American Airlines Flight 11 (already crashed, but they thought it was still airborne). In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS: "We're looking-we also lost American 77." This was the first notice to the military that American Airlines Flight 77 was missing, giving them 3-4 minutes to respond.

Linky


Now, here you're just squirming...what you wrote is plain for all to see...including the swipe at me (failed, by the way...)


Are you sure you're a pilot? Did I say P-56 encompassed the Pentagon? Read my post again.


And, for dessert:


Within that region are two prohibited airspaces.


Again, the misplaced focus. There is nothing magical about the P Areas. They are there. They only extend up to 18,000 (FL180). We know why they're there. Somebody flying over the top of the Class B (and below 18,000) would be well served not to stray into one, lest he be met by the Secret Service at destination, and at the very least receive a letter of violation from the FAA. Within the Class B, if you're VFR and receiving flight following (remember you're squawking and talking) then it is still up to you to navigate properly. If you're IFR, then it's the controller's responsiblity...IF he's vectoring you for some reason in the vicinity of the Areas. ALL of the Airways and dep/arr procedures will keep you clear.

Ya know, funny story (to many of us, not to the crew involved) a while back, when Frontier Airlines (a low-cost smallish airline here in the States) first began service to the DCA airport. They are sorta good-ole' boys, used to flying more out West. Anyway, either they didn't notice the special departure procedure for takeoffs from Runway 01 (which should have been included in their Jepp's books) or their company didn't emphasize enough, or they just had forgot the indoctrination info you usually get...for "Special" airports. That's an FAA term for certain airports, for various reasons, of which DCA is one. ("Special" airports means 'special' attention should be paid to the procedures, terrain, etc)

So, they took off, didn't make the left turn as requred to follow the DCA VOR 321 degree radial...they went straight out, right through the P-56A over the WH and Mall....passengers got a special view...and so did the two pilots when they got to Denver...

But, they (we) have a pretty good Union....big embarrassment for them (and extra training, under the watchful eyes of an FAA Inspector...)



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



Tell me weedy about the missing Raytheon execs?


They died when American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.





No. That is bunk. You just don't seem to care to do better research, and learn more. It's far easier to read crap on the Web, and take it for "truth" because you happen to like something that already fits a pre-conceived paranoid idea.

[b

You have never debunked anything



By my count there are at least FOUR instances (maybe more) of this "Tom Flocco" nonsense being posted again, and again, and again....and now again.


Thats why I post it 4 times and you have debunked NADA



REAL research, with open minds, will out the truth.



It is jamb packed with comprehensive, stupendous logic.
Compound with hours of un- simulated out of the cockpit endeavor.
True Americans with old west tenacity. Plodding head long into the foul wind of the contrived and dastardly Snidely Whiplash Omission Commission propaganda.



The "Tom Flocco" propaganda has been shown to be WRONG many, many times.



Must really be some deep dark secret you are hiding behind your extensive long and tireing litney of denial. Like a troubled child hiding behind some thing when he has soiled his britches.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join