Pages: (6) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Flt 77, Tail# N644aa And Flt 98, Tail# N644aw, The case for a decoy flyover and landing
Merc
Posted: May 19 2006, 06:46 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 17 2006, 04:42 PM)
American Airlines Flight 77:

Tail#: N644AA
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Disappearing transponder signal location: Ohio, 8:56 am
Impact time: *9:38 am*, Pentagon



America West Flight 0098:

Tail#: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Departure: Ohio, 8:28
Arrival: *9:39 am*, Reagan National Airport (directly on the other side of the Pentagon)


What do you think about this?

I haven't heard one word on this yet from anyone really. Has this been covered here?

This plane should have had a shot of this whole incident. In fact, I would imagine it should have some kind of record of being in the picture. Right?

I mean this plane would supposedly be FLYING, not LANDING, flying by the pentagon at the EXACT moment as "AA77" was supposedly crashing. What are the odds, especially when you calculate in the owners and tail number, and the departure area being nearly the same as AA77. Supposedly the transponder code MODE S code is very similar as well.

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?categoryID=40

user posted image
Top
Johnny
Posted: May 19 2006, 08:51 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 19 2006, 01:26 PM)


Ill take your advice DJ, scalpel in hand. I had a paper to write last night. If I get upset, ignore me. I hate it when i spend hours research something and all i get in return is a "LOL". On that note, you have done much research. Nice.

QUOTE
A 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It does not fit, the damage does not reflect a 757 crashing into a stone facade building 500+ mph.

When I first saw saw the live video feed of the pentagon on 9/11 (Ill come back to this), I can honestly say i was thinking it did not look like a plane hit. But, the Pentagon is a specially designed building, it is very strong. Also, note how to the left and right of where the plane (or in your case, missile/drone) entered, the wallas are blalckened. Would it not make sense that they were black from the explosions heavily concentrated by the wing region where there is the most fuel?

QUOTE
From that point forward, all that is left to do is figure out what really happened. Who saw what. Who is telling the truth.

Why would people have an incntive to lie? Hush money, I know. But do you have wire transfer records or followups showing all 100 witnesses living lavaishly. And heres the clincher: all these people would have to be right wing neocons. If the government paid you hush money and you didnt 'hush', what are they going to do? Sue you? No, you cant get blackmail money back, and wouldnt some people refuse to sign a contract out of suspicion if this happened? Where am I going with this? No one has spoke up and after Bush used 911 for an excuse for two wars, someone would have came forward to fry that republican f*ck.


QUOTE
Could people have seen a 757. Sure maybe. That's why the flyover decoy plane makes sense.


Except that no one saw it! and wouldnt some janitor or something at an airport noticed a flight coming into an airport with 64 passengers freaking out that they almost smashed into the pentagon after all planes had been grounded? Did anyone on september 11th hear a plane fly over or near them anywhere in the US after the alleged plane hit. No. You have testimony from a witness that said they saw it pull up, and they were far away, as you can tell from them saying they lost view of it behind a building.

QUOTE
Did people see more than one plane. Yes.

Did people see a large airliner? The claim is yes.

No one is going to take this movement seriously if you use language like that. Did people see more than one plane, "they claim yes" would be more objective, or not even putting the claim part in for views that oppose yours. Its not just that, people acting as if 97 other testimonies dont matter compared to 3 that support you. I could go more in detail but I didnt ven read those 3, if there even are that many. And that news repor is no evidence. I read a book today, Perspectives of American Politics. One passage was about a man working at the white house during the 911 attacks. He said (and this is almost a direct quote, i dont have the book) "A third plane smashed into the Pentagon". My point? 3 planes didnt smash into the pentagon, he meant a third plane in the 911 attacks hit the pentagon. If that news source and some witness from far away is all you have, no skeptic will be impressed.

QUOTE
Did people see or hear something else? Yes, they did.

You mean hear. And as I said in another thread, the more people that heard two planes, the less likely is it that there was, since no one saw two.

QUOTE
There are serious irregularities in witness locations and accounts. Serious contradictions as well.

True, but that is the same for just about any accident. Have you ever talked to someone, lets say a cute girl (or guy if you are a woman. Or gay I guess...) and asked her something, but when she replied you complete lost focus and couldnt remember for the life of you what she said later on? I have. And imagine if something happening in less than 10 seconds happened, would it not be hard to recall exactly what happened. and people describe something different. isnt it likely that "it sounded like a missile" meant that it sounded like a missile, not "I SAW A MISSILE"?

Who the hell even knows what a missile sounds like anyways? I know that wasnt one of your points, but some video i saw, LC or not, took that quote as gospel that a missile hit the pentagon.

QUOTE
This indicates something is up.

Could some of the witness accounts and witness names be fabricated. Absolutely.

Could some of the witness accounts and witness names be genuine. Assuredly, some are.

Were two planes involved? Apparently so.

Was one a 757 and one a small military craft? Maybe not.

Was there reports of two planes crashing into the Pentagon. Yes there was.

It hardly says something was up. At most you have "where did the plane go" and "why wasnt the ground messed up"

I agree with you on the "could..." questions. but 98% of them? probably not.

As for the final questions, yes, but there is also reports the hallacaust never happened. dont tell me you believe that to.

No seriously, dont tell you dont believe in the holocaust or i will cry.


I forgot to come back to the media point. Several cameras from seeral news stations, inluding local, were on the scene almost instantly. I even think i recall traffic stopped on the highway after the attacks. why wouldnt more than 3 people see a huge ass plane hit the pentagon, when everyone across the US was watching it with a close eye glued to the TV?

This post has been edited by Johnny on May 19 2006, 08:56 PM
Top
dubl0donut
Posted: May 20 2006, 01:43 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Member No.: 2,140
Joined: 17-May 06



QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 17 2006, 04:42 PM)

user posted image


it says they took out bodies and body parts. hmm, i dont think so
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: May 20 2006, 02:00 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



dubl0donut,

There are very graphic photos of bodies inside. One is next to a piece of aircraft debris. They may be Pentagon workers but the bodies are real trust me.

Russell
Top
dubl0donut
Posted: May 20 2006, 02:11 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Member No.: 2,140
Joined: 17-May 06



ok, i trust you, i was thinking of bodies from the plane. i might have been thinking of reports of the other crashes when no bodies were found.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: May 20 2006, 02:32 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



dubl0donut,

I don't post the body photos out of respect. But they are here if you want to see:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

The image Exh. GX-P200045 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) shows a piece of aircraft behind it.

Here is what happened in D.C.:

“On the afternoon of September 11, Dr. Marcella Fierro, the Virginia Chief Medical Examiner, met with ASAC Blecksmith and asserted the responsibility of her office regarding the autopsies of victims of the terrorist attack. The FBI felt strongly that the Armed Forces Institute of pathology (AFIP), with which the FBI has long-standing working relations, should perform the autopsies. Dr. Fierro requested and received a letter from Attorney General Ashcroft transferring responsibility for the medical examinations to the FBI.

“She informed them that Virginia forensic laboratory and mortuary resources were prepared to go to work in support of the response. The FBI and DOD officials declined the offer, preferring to conduct forensic and mortuary activities at DOD facilities.

…..Army helicopters flew them (the remains) to the AFIP at Dover Air Force Base (AFB), DE. FBI agents rode in the trucks, participated in the escort, and accompanied the remains during the flight to preserve the chain of custody.”
(Arlington County After-Action Report)

Here is the autopsy info: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/093.html

Russell
Top
dubl0donut
Posted: May 20 2006, 02:45 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Member No.: 2,140
Joined: 17-May 06



QUOTE (Johnny @ May 19 2006, 08:51 PM)
QUOTE
Could people have seen a 757. Sure maybe. That's why the flyover decoy plane makes sense.


Except that no one saw it! and wouldnt some janitor or something at an airport noticed a flight coming into an airport with 64 passengers freaking out that they almost smashed into the pentagon after all planes had been grounded? Did anyone on september 11th hear a plane fly over or near them anywhere in the US after the alleged plane hit. No. You have testimony from a witness that said they saw it pull up, and they were far away, as you can tell from them saying they lost view of it behind a building.

QUOTE
Did people see more than one plane. Yes.

Did people see a large airliner? The claim is yes.

No one is going to take this movement seriously if you use language like that.

no one saw it?!? did you even read this?!? he quoted several occasions where people said thay claimed to see it.

the more people that hear it, the more likely it never happened? that's like saying "the more people that say they saw 24 last night, the more likely it never aired"(by the way, 24 is on tuesdays)

of course you have been talking to other gay guys like you and forgoten what the hell you said youd do with a canpener, a plastic bag, and $20 colateral.


actualy they will, saying that it shows that he respects other peoples opinions about them lieing



and russel, i do belive you. i was thinking of the pensylvania site where no bodies were suposedly found. or maybe i just misinterpreted what they said.


Top
Johnny
Posted: May 20 2006, 02:53 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (dubl0donut @ May 20 2006, 02:45 AM)
no one saw it?!? did you even read this?!? he quoted several occasions where people said thay claimed to see it.

the more people that hear it, the more likely it never happened? that's like saying "the more people that say they saw 24 last night, the more likely it never aired"(by the way, 24 is on tuesdays)

of course you have been talking to other gay guys like you and forgoten what the hell you said youd do with a canpener, a plastic bag, and $20 colateral.


actualy they will, saying that it shows that he respects other peoples opinions about them lieing



and russel, i do belive you. i was thinking of the pensylvania site where no bodies were suposedly found. or maybe i just misinterpreted what they said.

I said several times that 3 people, max, saw it. I know I was using a generalization. My fault. I should have said "why did only 2-3% of people, not counting millions of people watching live TV, see two planes". Lets see, Im going out on a limb and saying that at any given movement from 10-15 minutes after the crash, 20 million people were watching thanks to live tv (it was on every damn tv station). That means 3/20 million = .000015% of people agree with your inference.

Edit: Okay, after actually reading the thread, No one saw two planes hit! Just tcm breaking news, and they didnt even see it. they just reported it on a website. So I changed the above calculations from 3 to 1 (and thats strecthing it as they never actually saw it)

You get .000005%! Thanks for telling me to read the thread. That is a 3 fold difference!

I thought if i posted that number you guys ould start crying, so i made a generalization.

In regards to the more people heard it, they less likely it happened, i explained in another thread. If 1 person heard a second explosion but didnt see a plane or missile, maybe it happened, and others did see or hear. But if one thousand people heard it, and NOT ONE OF THEM SAW IT, then it probably didnt happen. Well, the explosion probably happened, but it wasnt from a second plane or missile.

and the last comment made in regard to me, i dont know what the f*ck your trying to say. Normally i exagerate that when im in debates, but this time i really have no f*cking clue and you just embaraased every ct at this forum. Nice...

Good job conveniently ignoring the rest of my post, you know, the part that debunks everyones arbitraty "fact" that people were paid off.

Before anyone replies about 3 people seeing 2 planes, its more than that i know, because there were 2 other planes in the sky. But the amount of people who saw 2 planes hit the pantagon can be counted on 1 hand.

This post has been edited by Johnny on May 20 2006, 03:08 PM
Top
Merc
Posted: May 20 2006, 10:28 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Johnny @ May 19 2006, 08:51 PM)
QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 19 2006, 01:26 PM)


Ill take your advice DJ, scalpel in hand. I had a paper to write last night. If I get upset, ignore me. I hate it when i spend hours research something and all i get in return is a "LOL". On that note, you have done much research. Nice.

QUOTE
A 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It does not fit, the damage does not reflect a 757 crashing into a stone facade building 500+ mph.

When I first saw saw the live video feed of the pentagon on 9/11 (Ill come back to this), I can honestly say i was thinking it did not look like a plane hit. But, the Pentagon is a specially designed building, it is very strong. Also, note how to the left and right of where the plane (or in your case, missile/drone) entered, the wallas are blalckened. Would it not make sense that they were black from the explosions heavily concentrated by the wing region where there is the most fuel?

QUOTE
From that point forward, all that is left to do is figure out what really happened. Who saw what. Who is telling the truth.

Why would people have an incntive to lie? Hush money, I know. But do you have wire transfer records or followups showing all 100 witnesses living lavaishly. And heres the clincher: all these people would have to be right wing neocons. If the government paid you hush money and you didnt 'hush', what are they going to do? Sue you? No, you cant get blackmail money back, and wouldnt some people refuse to sign a contract out of suspicion if this happened? Where am I going with this? No one has spoke up and after Bush used 911 for an excuse for two wars, someone would have came forward to fry that republican f*ck.


QUOTE
Could people have seen a 757. Sure maybe. That's why the flyover decoy plane makes sense.


Except that no one saw it! and wouldnt some janitor or something at an airport noticed a flight coming into an airport with 64 passengers freaking out that they almost smashed into the pentagon after all planes had been grounded? Did anyone on september 11th hear a plane fly over or near them anywhere in the US after the alleged plane hit. No. You have testimony from a witness that said they saw it pull up, and they were far away, as you can tell from them saying they lost view of it behind a building.

QUOTE
Did people see more than one plane. Yes.

Did people see a large airliner? The claim is yes.

No one is going to take this movement seriously if you use language like that. Did people see more than one plane, "they claim yes" would be more objective, or not even putting the claim part in for views that oppose yours. Its not just that, people acting as if 97 other testimonies dont matter compared to 3 that support you. I could go more in detail but I didnt ven read those 3, if there even are that many. And that news repor is no evidence. I read a book today, Perspectives of American Politics. One passage was about a man working at the white house during the 911 attacks. He said (and this is almost a direct quote, i dont have the book) "A third plane smashed into the Pentagon". My point? 3 planes didnt smash into the pentagon, he meant a third plane in the 911 attacks hit the pentagon. If that news source and some witness from far away is all you have, no skeptic will be impressed.

QUOTE
Did people see or hear something else? Yes, they did.

You mean hear. And as I said in another thread, the more people that heard two planes, the less likely is it that there was, since no one saw two.

QUOTE
There are serious irregularities in witness locations and accounts. Serious contradictions as well.

True, but that is the same for just about any accident. Have you ever talked to someone, lets say a cute girl (or guy if you are a woman. Or gay I guess...) and asked her something, but when she replied you complete lost focus and couldnt remember for the life of you what she said later on? I have. And imagine if something happening in less than 10 seconds happened, would it not be hard to recall exactly what happened. and people describe something different. isnt it likely that "it sounded like a missile" meant that it sounded like a missile, not "I SAW A MISSILE"?

Who the hell even knows what a missile sounds like anyways? I know that wasnt one of your points, but some video i saw, LC or not, took that quote as gospel that a missile hit the pentagon.

QUOTE
This indicates something is up.

Could some of the witness accounts and witness names be fabricated. Absolutely.

Could some of the witness accounts and witness names be genuine. Assuredly, some are.

Were two planes involved? Apparently so.

Was one a 757 and one a small military craft? Maybe not.

Was there reports of two planes crashing into the Pentagon. Yes there was.

It hardly says something was up. At most you have "where did the plane go" and "why wasnt the ground messed up"

I agree with you on the "could..." questions. but 98% of them? probably not.

As for the final questions, yes, but there is also reports the hallacaust never happened. dont tell me you believe that to.

No seriously, dont tell you dont believe in the holocaust or i will cry.


I forgot to come back to the media point. Several cameras from seeral news stations, inluding local, were on the scene almost instantly. I even think i recall traffic stopped on the highway after the attacks. why wouldnt more than 3 people see a huge ass plane hit the pentagon, when everyone across the US was watching it with a close eye glued to the TV?

QUOTE
When I first saw saw the live video feed of the pentagon on 9/11 (Ill come back to this), I can honestly say i was thinking it did not look like a plane hit. But, the Pentagon is a specially designed building, it is very strong. Also, note how to the left and right of where the plane (or in your case, missile/drone) entered, the wallas are blalckened. Would it not make sense that they were black from the explosions heavily concentrated by the wing region where there is the most fuel?



In my case? My case is neither or both. It could be anything. I am not trying to give a definitive answer.

Blackened walls are not proof of a 757 going "530" mph.

Furthermore the right wing tilt doesn't match the left wing's level burn mark.


QUOTE
Why would people have an incntive to lie? Hush money, I know. But do you have wire transfer records or followups showing all 100 witnesses living lavaishly. And heres the clincher: all these people would have to be right wing neocons. If the government paid you hush money and you didnt 'hush', what are they going to do? Sue you? No, you cant get blackmail money back, and wouldnt some people refuse to sign a contract out of suspicion if this happened? Where am I going with this? No one has spoke up and after Bush used 911 for an excuse for two wars, someone would have came forward to fry that republican f*ck.



There are plenty of other reasons for people to say they saw what they saw.


QUOTE
Except that no one saw it! and wouldnt some janitor or something at an airport noticed a flight coming into an airport with 64 passengers freaking out that they almost smashed into the pentagon after all planes had been grounded? Did anyone on september 11th hear a plane fly over or near them anywhere in the US after the alleged plane hit. No. You have testimony from a witness that said they saw it pull up, and they were far away, as you can tell from them saying they lost view of it behind a building.



Again testimony from around Rt 27 has serious contradictions.

A plane going by and pulling up at 350-500 mph followed immediately by a blinding explosion with a huge smoke cloud is going to make a bunch of people who were either running, ducking, or even staring right at it think they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon.

Remember people on the other side would just assume it is a plane at a higher altitude getting ready to land at Reagan.

They would all be distracted by the boom and fire and smoke show.

I am giving the flyover more weight than a dual plane. But the dual plane is still a possibility.

One guy said it was a prop plane. Could he have been refering to the C-130?


QUOTE
No one is going to take this movement seriously if you use language like that.



Look, I'm not here to debate semantics. I'm here to submit data and information. And scrutinize it.


QUOTE
Did people see more than one plane, "they claim yes" would be more objective, or not even putting the claim part in for views that oppose yours. Its not just that, people acting as if 97 other testimonies dont matter compared to 3 that support you. I could go more in detail but I didnt ven read those 3, if there even are that many. And that news repor is no evidence. I read a book today, Perspectives of American Politics. One passage was about a man working at the white house during the 911 attacks. He said (and this is almost a direct quote, i dont have the book) "A third plane smashed into the Pentagon". My point? 3 planes didnt smash into the pentagon, he meant a third plane in the 911 attacks hit the pentagon. If that news source and some witness from far away is all you have, no skeptic will be impressed.




Dude, sctuinize the "97" other witness testimonies. Most didn't even see the plane impact. They either saw the plane. The explosion. Or both.


QUOTE
You mean hear. And as I said in another thread, the more people that heard two planes, the less likely is it that there was, since no one saw two.



People saw two planes. People reported two different trajectories, altitudes, speeds. Different types of planes. Reporters lie you know. Especially for the CIA.


QUOTE
True, but that is the same for just about any accident. Have you ever talked to someone, lets say a cute girl (or guy if you are a woman. Or gay I guess...) and asked her something, but when she replied you complete lost focus and couldnt remember for the life of you what she said later on? I have. And imagine if something happening in less than 10 seconds happened, would it not be hard to recall exactly what happened. and people describe something different. isnt it likely that "it sounded like a missile" meant that it sounded like a missile, not "I SAW A MISSILE"?

Who the hell even knows what a missile sounds like anyways? I know that wasnt one of your points, but some video i saw, LC or not, took that quote as gospel that a missile hit the pentagon.



So the damage does match up with a 757 and we're supposed to only acknowledge the "witnesses" who "saw" a "757"?

That makes no sense.

FORGET ABOUT THE MISSILE!!!!!!

Argue with me. Not with other videos you've seen. Argue with what I believe.


QUOTE
I forgot to come back to the media point. Several cameras from seeral news stations, inluding local, were on the scene almost instantly. I even think i recall traffic stopped on the highway after the attacks. why wouldnt more than 3 people see a huge ass plane hit the pentagon, when everyone across the US was watching it with a close eye glued to the TV?



Oh of course.

USA Today reporters. An AP videographer. Amateur and semi-professional photographers, one of which just happened to be an ex green beret.

All just happen to be passing by or are there within minutes to seconds.

And "everyone across the US was NOT watching it with a close eye glued to the TV". Where do you get that?









Top
Merc
Posted: May 21 2006, 12:21 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



I'm going to attempt and have a friend who lives in DC/VA photograph all angles and perspectives accoring to Witness locations:


user posted image

(INSTRUCTIONS:A,B,C, and D are listed on the list.

All the red arrows point from areas I would like to get a shot of.

I would like to get shots from under the overpass before you head out onto Rt 27.(green arrow)

Just get as many shots as you can from 395 as you make the curve.

Get shots from both sides of the Navy Annex, the hwy 395 and columbia pike side and arlington National Cemetery side. I want to get an idea of persepctive from the ground.

If one plane was flying low and the other was gith. I want to see if the Navy Annex building would block either from spectators on the ground.


GET SHOTS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PENTAGON ALSO. If a plane was to overfly the Pentagon , it would pull up and out and over the Potomac. It would be able to belnd in with the other planes. people on the other side would hear the secondary explosion or see the smoke and explosion after the other plane had flown out. over the river. Or maybe they wouldn't have know where the "boom" came from. The plane is above them , they don't notice it or are distracted bythe smoke fire on the other side.

user posted image

Decent THEORY pic of the flyover of Pentagon and landing at Reagan:

http://www.geocities.com/locc211/informati...agon_after2.JPG

=====================================================

Let's start with the most important.

Everybody who was on Rt 27/Washington Blvd. that road right along side the Pentagon.

A) Lloyd England, the Cab driver
Learn about his discrepencies here:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb...pic.php?t=12038
Controversy here:
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg1
I would love to get pictures of the bridge, the bushes. Read the links and you will get it.

B ) Vin Narayanan, USA Today Reporter
Claimed the plane's tail hit the overhead sign above him. Problem is this is not possible. And he makes NO mentions of the cab driver right behind him and the poles. learn about him here:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=4371&st=0

C) Steve Riskus
He claimed to be 100ft from the plane , he took the first pics "seconds" after the crash. His position makes it impossible to come in at the official trajectory, the craft would actually be 450 ft or more.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Controversy:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pa.../npp-lagas.html

D) Sgt Lagasse
He claimed to see the Plane's starboard engine and claimed to see the plane above him. The planes flight path would not allow it to be 'above' him or allow him to see the starboard engine(right engine)
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=4371&st=0
Controversy/additonal data:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pa.../npp-lagas.html

Other spots to plot and photograph the view of the trajectory/Pentagon:



--"Barbara" wife of friend of CNN anchor
This is exit "Memorial Bridge" of Interstate 395, and this is where Barbara was sitting in her car, looking towards downtown Washington.
Her description is perfect if a plane crashed into the Pentagon Lagoon, the little Potomac branch east of the Pentagon. But it doesn't fit at all to a plane crash at the Pentagon's west side.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=4371&st=0

--James R. Cissell
He claims to be in two places at one time. Interstate 110 and rt 27. We want shots from off 110.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=4371&st=0

More places that mention location:

--Don Wright-looking out 12th floor windows at 1600 Wilson Blvd. in Rosslyn, VA(saw commuter plane)


--Steve Patterson-14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City(Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said)[Can you find and get into an apartment building Pentagon City and snaps shots of what he may have saw?]

--Steve Anderson- his office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, with a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. (lets get some shots from around and in the USAToday building if we can. since there were so many reporters and empoyees from their mag and the military magazines they publish that claimed to have seen it)

--Deb Anlauf- 14th-floor room in the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington

--Stuart Artman Lt. Col.
walking near the Washington Monument(saw plane, it went behind trees)

--Susan Carroll--platform high above Reagan waiting for a Metro

--Richard Benedetto(USA Today)-driving to work northbound on the highway that runs parallel to the Pentagon(Rt 27) came from behind him.

--Scott P. Cook-fifth floor of the Portals building, at 1280 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington DC, the southernmost building at the end of 14th Street, right at the Tidal Basin and Maine Avenue("I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight.")


--Steve Eiden-driving on the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon

--Penny Elgas-north on I-395 to DC, "stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon"(piece of plane supposedly fell into her car)

--Ken Ford -15th floor of the State Department Annex, just across the Potomac from the Pentagon(The plane was a "two-engine turbo prop" that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon.)

--Donald R. Bouchoux-driving west sfrom Tysons Corner on Washington Boulevard (Route 27)

--Kat Gaines-on her way to a part-time job at Reagan National Airport heading south on Route 110, in front of the Pentagon parking lots

--Madelyn Zakhem-on a bench outside the VDOT Smart Traffic Center


--Afework Hagos-driving on Columbia Pike on his way to work as a consultant for Nextel

--Rick M.-after stopping at a Citgo gas station were driving a second time around the flyover loop to get back onto I-395, heading north


--Captain Michael Defina:

"Normally, the shift commander doesn't respond to motor vehicle accidents,'' he said. "But something didn't sound right about it."

Was Captain Defina and his firemen also "evacuated" from Reagan Airport because of a staged car accident?

"Unknown to Captain Defina and his crews, hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, outbound from Washington Dulles International Airport with 64 people on board, was only minutes away from slamming at 0938 hours into the Pentagon, about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from National. At the accident scene, where a driver with a diabetic reaction had struck several vehicles, the firefighters were working with their backs to the Pentagon. How the National ARFF crews found themselves in front of ground zero on September 11 started with a motor vehicle accident on the upper level of the airport's Terminal B."

See the dot nect to the "B" on the upper level. Get some shots from up there. What could they have seen? A plane passing over the Pentagon? A landing? Why would they need to be distracted if this is the case.
<img src="http://www.adsw.org/event/2000/Ball/dcapark.gif">




Top
Johnny
Posted: May 21 2006, 12:30 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE
Blackened walls are not proof of a 757 going "530" mph.

Furthermore the right wing tilt doesn't match the left wing's level burn mark.

No, I suppose not. But I think it shows a plane hit. Theres a hole whee the main plane entered, and evidence (black walls) of an explosion where the wings would just so happen to be. What do you think a missile would do? Could it make it through 4 concerete walls? Maybe, but that doesnt explain why the walls on the outside are black. You would think there would be more circular damage from where the misisle blew up.

You guys should really get your stories straight, because you dont even think a missile hit do you? I just typed all that for nothing.

QUOTE
There are plenty of other reasons for people to say they saw what they saw.


Name some! WTF! Since you're already stalling, take a few days, come up with something good. surprise me. Shock and awe is the stupidest thing I ever heard of, so dont bother. You can think of better.

QUOTE
Again testimony from around Rt 27 has serious contradictions.

A plane going by and pulling up at 350-500 mph followed immediately by a blinding explosion with a huge smoke cloud is going to make a bunch of people who were either running, ducking, or even staring right at it think they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon.


Well when you take interviews out of context, of course you will get contradictions, as you cannot fully understand what a person is saying. I already gave several reasons why "contradictio" doesnt matter, especially when the bottom line is, in every eye witness, a plane hit the pentagon. Some people said it "disappeared". When I hear that, I think "of course, it shattered like class and shrapnel has been dispersed throughout the pentagon." When you hear it, you think "of course, it pulled up and he didnt see it behind the smoke." What am I getting at? We cant cross examine the witness to hear what really happened. If I could ask him "did you hear a plane flying away after the explosion" and he said yes, then you having something. But now, no, you have nothing but 100 people saying a plane hit the pentagon 100 different ways.

QUOTE
Remember people on the other side would just assume it is a plane at a higher altitude getting ready to land at Reagan.

They would all be distracted by the boom and fire and smoke show.

I am giving the flyover more weight than a dual plane. But the dual plane is still a possibility.

One guy said it was a prop plane. Could he have been refering to the C-130?


What boils my blood more than anything is when people do not think I am capable of simple tasks, usually derived from a lack of trust. This is exactly what you are doing to 100 witnesses that saw a plane fly into, not over, the pentagon. People know how to see and know what they saw. Im not going to pretend like Im an expert like 98% of the people here, but I am assuming that these 100 witnesses were from a variety of perspectives. Looking head on, assuming a plane flew over the pentagon, the smoke would cover it, and the flash would distract, yes. But from different perspectives, no, the smoke wouldnt cover it up and someone, if even out of the corner of their eye, would see the plane flying away. If this happened, at best you would get a person saying it looked like a bomb was dropped from a plane. But none of that. Nothing.

Where did the guy see the C-130 at? Flying into the building or above?

QUOTE
Dude, sctuinize the "97" other witness testimonies. Most didn't even see the plane impact. They either saw the plane. The explosion. Or both.

Thats true. No one really watches the pentagon 24-7. But nonetheless, there is still more than enough to have an accurate account of what happened. Really, if you read my eidt, not 1 person saw two planes hit or the plane flyover.

QUOTE
People saw two planes. People reported two different trajectories, altitudes, speeds. Different types of planes. Reporters lie you know. Especially for the CIA.


I remarked upon the two different planes in my last post towards the bottom. I meant no one saw two hit. There were actually 3 that I know of around the pentagon, by the way wink.gif

And I have to argue about what you say about the media. Except for FOX news (which dylan and Korey loved to get quotes from for the movies), the media hate the president. Good news is not news at all, any reporter knows this. These guys would love nothing more than to reveal a huge government coverup that killed millions.

QUOTE
So the damage does match up with a 757 and we're supposed to only acknowledge the "witnesses" who "saw" a "757"?

That makes no sense.

FORGET ABOUT THE MISSILE!!!!!!

Argue with me. Not with other videos you've seen. Argue with what I believe.


at least we agree on something.

QUOTE
Oh of course.

USA Today reporters. An AP videographer. Amateur and semi-professional photographers, one of which just happened to be an ex green beret.

All just happen to be passing by or are there within minutes to seconds.

And "everyone across the US was NOT watching it with a close eye glued to the TV". Where do you get that?

Not everyone, thats why I said 20 million, at any given time. Rougly. While people were working they had it on, while people were at lunch it was on. Hell even if it was only 1 million, would that really make much difference? There would still be enough to notice if a second plane hit.

Now I ask something. A plane, drone, whatever you want to call it just hit the WTC. Why would there be any incentive not to use a third? We can agree, I think, that the WTC and Pentagon attacks did not happen independent of each other. Cant we? So whoever did it, that f*cking neocon, a terrorist, some rich white government officials, why would they want to rig the Pentagon with explosives, going through the risk of getting caught, when they could just fly a plane into it. They couldn't get caught flying the plane, if you think about. Because if they did, what would they do with all the explosives lying at the Pentagon? Just blow it up on some arbitrary date? If they were going to do that, why not just rent a Ryder and go Timmothy McVeigh style instead of going through the hassle of hijacking or remotely flying a plane?

In addition, it would be so much simpler to use a Ryder. Heres why. If a plane did fly over under the cover of smoke and a fireball, the explosion would have to be detonated at nearly the same seconfd as the plane approached. from those crappy videos, something does appear on the right side of the screen, and the next frame (1 second later), there is an explosion with no plane in sight, so whoever detonated would need to have precise timing of within a second. kind of hard to do, as there would be some lag time, and whatever was flying would have to be going at least a few hundred miles per hour.

This post has been edited by Johnny on May 21 2006, 12:35 AM
Top
dubl0donut
Posted: May 21 2006, 01:37 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Member No.: 2,140
Joined: 17-May 06



QUOTE (Johnny @ May 20 2006, 02:53 PM)
Good job conveniently ignoring the rest of my post, you know, the part that debunks everyones arbitraty "fact" that people were paid off.

thats because i had nothing wrong with the other stuff you said. and now that i reread what i said, that realy didn't make any sense.
and also, that is only 3 people that spoke up, there ould have been many more people. also, thats only 3 people on this thread that spoke up. and finally, you said you explained it in another thread. i didn't read every f***ing thread in this website you know, but i now understand what yoy said about the more people hearing it and not seeing it. i apoligize for being a moron.

This post has been edited by dubl0donut on May 21 2006, 01:41 AM
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted: May 21 2006, 02:06 AM


Unregistered









No Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon wall, of that we can be certain.

Another Pentagon Proof
Of no Boeing 757 impact
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=3157
Top
Johnny
Posted: May 21 2006, 09:39 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (dubl0donut @ May 21 2006, 01:37 AM)

thats because i had nothing wrong with the other stuff you said. and now that i reread what i said, that realy didn't make any sense.
and also, that is only 3 people that spoke up, there ould have been many more people. also, thats only 3 people on this thread that spoke up. and finally, you said you explained it in another thread. i didn't read every f***ing thread in this website you know, but i now understand what yoy said about the more people hearing it and not seeing it. i apoligize for being a moron.

Apology accepted.

I get everyone here and their oppinions mixed up.
Top
BoneZ
Posted: May 21 2006, 11:38 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 19 2006, 06:46 PM)
QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 17 2006, 04:42 PM)
American Airlines Flight 77:

Tail#: N644AA
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Disappearing transponder signal location: Ohio, 8:56 am
Impact time: *9:38 am*, Pentagon



America West Flight 0098:

Tail#: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Departure: Ohio, 8:28
Arrival: *9:39 am*, Reagan National Airport (directly on the other side of the Pentagon)


What do you think about this?

I haven't heard one word on this yet from anyone really. Has this been covered here?

Sorry Merc, i was doing some research of my own. I think it's very interesting that both jets have a near-identical tail number. I think it's very interesting that they are owned by the same company. I think it's very interesting that they were BOTH near the pentagon at almost EXACTLY the same time. And here's the kicker: the AA jet's transponder code was lost over Ohio and the AW jet took off from Ohio. That's just too many coincidences that you just can't pass up.

I googled Alan Wallace, the firefighter. In his story, he said he saw either a 757 or Airbus 320 and that it was white with blue and orange. His partner LATER stated that the jet was silver and actually identified it as American Airlines. I'm sorry, but if you look at a pic of the AW jet and the AA jet, shiny silver aluminum with red, white and blue stripes is a far cry from a white jet with blue and orange.

In case you or anyone else hasn't read it, the full story of firefighter Alan Wallace can be read here:

http://web.telia.com/~u43109230/flight77/texts/Wallace.txt
Top
BoneZ
Posted: May 22 2006, 12:02 AM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



Some more information about America West that just adds to the coincidental puzzle pieces (courtesy of 911Truth @ YBBS forums):

7/16/01 - America West Vacations announced that it was offering optional Certified Airline Passenger Services (CAPS) to all customers who book Las Vegas vacation packages through the America West Vacations Web site or telephone reservations center. CAPS allows customers to check in for flights from the convenience of their hotel from two to 12 hours prior to their flight’s departure time. They can obtain a boarding pass, seat assignment and check their bags for a nominal fee of $6 per person. The CAPS program was discontinued September 2001.

Didn't the hijackers go to Las Vegas for some unexplained reason? Would this program make dealing with security easier? Im not sure here.

9/10/01 America West Holdings Corporation announced a restructuring of the company’s senior manage^ment and its subsidiary America West Airlines. Bernard L. Han was elected executive vice president and chief financial officer; Stephen L. Johnson was elected executive vice president, corporate; J. Scott Kirby was named executive vice president, sales and marketing; and Jeffrey McCIelland was named executive vice president, operations.

10/11/01 America West announced that it had completed the sale and leaseback of eight Airbus aircraft, three flight simulators and two spare aircraft engines, resulting in proceeds of approximately $70 million to the airline.

America West recieved seemingly much more than any other airline in the Air Transportation Stabilization Board - a program made to pay struggling airlines, which is an arm of the US Treasury. Not yet sure if this is suspicious.

"the Air Transportation Stabilization Board ("Board") has carefully considered the revised application of America West Airlines ("AWA"), dated December 26, 2001, for a federal guarantee of a $445 million financing. The Board is asked to participate on an unsecured basis and provide a Federal government guarantee of $379.55 million, which represents 85.3 percent of the total financing."

Dec 28 2001 - http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/po890.htm
Oct 19 2005 - http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js2979.htm

They rejected United Airlines plea for money and the rest agreed upon seem to be around 40 mil - 60 mil.
Top
Merc
Posted: May 22 2006, 12:59 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



Interesting finds Bonez. The AA77 hijackers left out of Dulles and N644AW left out of Ohio. So I don't think there is a Las Vegas connection.

But check this out, I had this posted back in Feb on letsroll...

QUOTE

Posted Thu Jun 19 2003

"One more note, as we had many odd occurrences with lights flickering, movie screens up and down, Annette mentioned that (N)644AW is known to most f/as as the "ghost ship" in America West system."

posted Sun Jun 22 2003

"...hehe,I've been on N644AW many times between PHX-SAN, you're right it is kind of a strange plane."

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/trip_...ad.main/33284/4



Maybe this plane was modified in some way at one point?
Top
Merc
Posted: May 26 2006, 04:52 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE
Video 1: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/...-2-11_B_757.wmv

Video 2: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/...7_departure.wmv


Video two shows a plane pulling up from a low altitude to a high altitude.

Important to this discussion.

Thanks Russell.
Top
Hutch
Posted: May 26 2006, 05:47 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 178
Member No.: 2,278
Joined: 20-May 06



Just a note on your picture of 20 May, Merc. No flights as far as I know approach or land at Washington National from that approach, it seems to always be from the South over the Potomac heading North. Now, admittedly, I am basing that on a dozen flights in and out of DCA over the past 20 years, along with other visits to Washington and I am willing to be contradicted on this, but I do not think any plane would be approaching DCA on that glide path.

Perhaps the airline pilot who's been on this Forum before or someone from the DC area could provide more info?

As for the other conclusions you draw, I'll leave discussions of them for those more skilled than I.

Edited to add: From Wikipedia:

QUOTE
Because of its proximity to central Washington, the airport has been subject to special security procedures for many years. Before 2001, the most notable of these was the southbound approach into the airport. Most of central Washington is restricted airspace up to 18,000 feet: in order to land on National's southbound runway, pilots had to follow the path of the Potomac River and make a steep turn shortly before landing, in a procedure called the "River Visual." Similarly, flights taking off to the north are required to climb quickly and bank left sharply to avoid the Washington Monument and follow a path which does not go over either the White House or the Pentagon.


Press on.

Top
Merc
Posted: May 26 2006, 06:01 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



Which May 20 pic?
Top
Hutch
Posted: May 26 2006, 08:18 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 178
Member No.: 2,278
Joined: 20-May 06



My apologies. The one with the German writing and the photo for the approach over the Pentagon with DCA in the background. In general, planes flying into DCA land from the South (the other side of the airport.


Top
Merc
Posted: May 30 2006, 02:43 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE
We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building.

--State Department employee Ken Ford, said he watched from the 15th floor of the State Department Annex, just across the Potomac River from the Pentagon.


So here we have a man using binoculars describing at a 'two engine turbo prop'. Which is nothing like a jet.

He describes it as flying up the river. See's it turn around and head back toward the Pentagon.

How come he doesn't mention the "difficult high-speed descending turn...a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes"?

The plane was at 7000 feet. I am curious as to why this plane would have stood out in his binocular view.


QUOTE
"At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
Top
behind
Posted: May 30 2006, 04:23 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 525
Member No.: 1,248
Joined: 14-April 06



"At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
biggrin.gif

What movie is it from ?
Top
LondonEye
Posted: May 30 2006, 04:24 PM


Keep it Real
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,248
Member No.: 191
Joined: 16-February 06



Excellent thread Merc salute.gif

All the very best

LondonEye
thumbsup.gif
Top
Merc
Posted: May 30 2006, 06:40 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (behind @ May 30 2006, 04:23 PM)

What movie is it from ?

I don't know where?
Top
Merc
Posted: May 30 2006, 06:41 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (LondonEye @ May 30 2006, 04:24 PM)
Excellent thread Merc salute.gif

All the very best

LondonEye
thumbsup.gif

Thanks London.

Good to see a familiar face.
Top
Method
Posted: May 30 2006, 07:16 PM


I could've used a little more cowbell.
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 713
Member No.: 1,012
Joined: 4-April 06



Excellent thread Merc. salute.gif

This post has been edited by Method on May 30 2006, 07:17 PM
Top
behind
Posted: May 30 2006, 07:47 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 525
Member No.: 1,248
Joined: 14-April 06



QUOTE (Merc the Jerk @ May 30 2006, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (behind @ May 30 2006, 04:23 PM)

What movie is it from ?

I don't know where?

Hmm... my opinion is, that it is from Top Gun... but that is just my opinion.

But if people look at these text: "At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."


But if it has been in that way they are saying... it is very difficult to see why he was "forced" to do it.

The plane had traveld over half USA at this point.

This post has been edited by behind on May 30 2006, 07:54 PM
Top
Merc
Posted: Jun 1 2006, 09:02 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE
Radar tracks Flight 77 as it closes within 30 miles of Washington. [CBS News, 9/21/2001] Todd Lewis, flight controller at Washington’s Dulles Airport, later recalls, “... my colleagues saw a target moving quite fast from the northwest to the southeast. So she—we all started watching that target, and she notified the supervisor. However, nobody knew that was a commercial flight at the time. Nobody knew that was American 77. ... I thought it was a military flight.” [MSNBC, 9/11/2002] Another account is similar, saying that just before 9:30 a.m., a Dulles Airport controller sees an aircraft without a transponder traveling almost 500 mph headed toward Washington. [USA Today, 8/13/2002] In yet another account, Danielle O’Brien, the Dulles flight controller said to be the first to spot the blip, claims she doesn’t spot it until it is around 12 to 14 miles from Washington. [ABC News, 10/24/2001; ABC News, 10/24/2001]



So it's going pretty fast to get to it's target.


QUOTE
(9:33-9:37 a.m.): Eyewitness Reports Indicate There Was No Loss of Control on Flight 77 Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a “downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn is so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there [is] no fight for control going on.” [CBS News, 9/21/2001]





And then it made it's turn.


QUOTE
Before 9:37 a.m.): Flight 77 Turns, Then Disappears from Radar Washington flight controllers are watching Flight 77’s radar blip. Just before radar contact is lost, FAA headquarters is told, “The aircraft is circling. It’s turning away from the White House.” [USA Today, 8/13/2002] Then the blip disappears. Its last known position is six miles from the Pentagon and four miles from the White House. The plane is said to be traveling 500 mph, or a mile every seven seconds. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; ABC News, 9/11/2002; USA Today, 8/13/2002]
People and organizations involved: Federal Aviation Administration



So now after it's turn it is 6 miles away and going 500 mph or a mile every seven seconds. That means it is 42 seconds away from the Pentagon.


QUOTE
I live in Arlington, Virginia, less than one mile from the Pentagon. On September 11th...But as the sound of the plane grew louder and louder, I thought to myself- that plane is in trouble.
I jumped up from my chair as the screeching and whining of the engine got even louder and I looked out the window to the West just in time to see the belly of that aircraft and the tail section fly directly over my house at treetop height...I started to run toward my front door but the plane was going so fast at this point that it only took 4 or 5 seconds before I heard a tremendously loud crash and books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor.

--Linda Plaisted



So it is less than one mile away here now, and it takes only 4-5 seconds to hit the Pentagon. Which means it is going FASTER THAN OR VERY CLOSE TO 500 MPH according to this account! Which also contradicts the 345 mph that is claimed by the flight recorder, but supports the 911CR/BPS team. Definitely makes things interesting.

But it also contradicts these accounts...


QUOTE
Literally thousands of people saw this plane; it flew right up I-395, almost at right angles to the flight path to go into National. I saw it (about 5-6 miles from the Pentagon) and instantly knew something was fishy. Anyone else who saw it similarly would have known it was "off" -- wrong place, too low, flying too slow, etc.


And it contradicts this guy...

QUOTE
I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead.

[...]

But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon.

...I was surprised at how graceful and slow the banking of the jet appeared to be, and how quickly it accelerated after it had lined up the Pentagon.

...I was stuck in traffic, but by my estimation it seemed as though it was about 8 or 9 car lengths in front of me. It was in the air coming down at a high rate of speed and a steep decline

-Mike Walter


This account also contradicts the treetop/15-25 ft claim. It's another 'diver'.

It is also makes it sound as if the jet is flying slow, THEN accelerates. How on Rt 27 going North, could he have seen all this? He says in one instance...

heard the sound of the jet overhead... I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked

And yet...

it was about 8 or 9 car lengths in front of me. It was in the air coming down at a high rate of speed and a steep decline

How can it be "in front of him" and "overhead" in order to see the "underbelly".

Of course he can say he saw the underbelly, bcause it banked in front of him. But When the jet was over Rt. 27. It was only 15-25 ft high supposedly.

And secondly how can he make this all out.

Suspect witness, William LaGasse(at gas station):

QUOTE
Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building...there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft.


Speed:

QUOTE
So at 345 mph or 506 feet per second. It would have went from the light poles on Rt. 27 to the Pentagon in 3 seconds.

The gas station seems to be less than 1500 feet from Rt 27 and the poles. So let's say 2 seconds from the gas station to Rt 27.

Making it a total of 5 seconds from the gas station to the Pentagon wall.

Now when you go to the official 500-530 mph it changes to over 800 fps which makes it about 3 seconds from the Gas Station to the Pentagon wall.



Since the 530+ mph jives with Linda Plaisted account. That would make it 1-2 seconds from Rt 27. To the Pentagon wall.

HOW CAN MIKE WALTER DESCRIBE ANY OF THIS?!?!?!?!

Here is an idea of Mike's location:

user posted image

The high speed, wings banking and wobbling also contradicts or is contradicted by this...

QUOTE
Fred Gaskins was driving near the Pentagon as he saw the plane pass about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."
Top
LondonEye
Posted: Jun 2 2006, 10:25 AM


Keep it Real
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,248
Member No.: 191
Joined: 16-February 06



Hey Merc salute.gif

A little off-topic here, but definately Pentagon related.

Have you had an opportunity to watch the new set of clips that Dylan and LTW have put together.

Specifically, two interviews.

First a lady (Leuren Moret) who discusses the near tenfold increase in DU levels detected near the Pentagon after the hit (13:39 - 19:20).

And a very interesting interview with Bob Pugh who was the first camerman at the Pentagon on 9/11 (30:30 - 57:35).

I found them very interesting, hope you do too.

Link to clippings on Google video : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1840058038507754977

All the very best

LondonEye
cheers.gif
Top
« Next Oldest | The Pentagon | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (6) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.3226 seconds | Archive