Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 3 votes

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses


  • Please log in to reply
1810 replies to this topic

#616    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:09 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 February 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

And of course, Q, I say the maneuver by Hani was improbable if not impossible, and I say that the debris we see pictures of is missing notable parts, like 9 other landing gear wheels, and some engine parts more consistent with the engines on a 757.

There was enough wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon of wreckage from a B-757, and, you have not seen all of the photos taken at the Pentagon.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#617    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:09 PM

Q

I'm wondering if you have an opinion regarding the testimony and lawsuit of April Gallop at the Pentagon?


#618    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:48 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 16 February 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Q, the thing you must keep in mind when dealing with Babe and his"ideas" is that he has explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that he is not interested in providing evidence to defend his statements. He believes them, and that is all he apparently needs, not matter how much evidence can be provided from multiple sources to show just how wrong he is.
If you gotta skyeagle on your team then we can have a Babe Ruth!   :lol:

Except Babe Ruth makes far more sense, doesn’t repeat so much or rack up three posts per response thank god.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 February 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Though I do not agree with the dogmatic conclusions the PFT guys have drawn from their studies, one thing they have done is interview a large number of people who witnessed the events there.  Some of those were on the higher terrain surrounding the Pentagon, and none of them actually saw an impact.  That, all reference the notorious Citgo station.

You might want to check that, because the fact is even a number of those eyewitnesses cherry-picked by the PfffT guys, despite placing the plane on a trajectory incongruent with the damage path, still describe seeing the plane impact.

And again, not one describes the plane flying over the Pentagon.

But back to body language and lying (since you correctly identified Isabel James was telling the truth)…

Here is a still from one of the PfffT guys’ videos presenting their eyewitnesses: -

Posted Image

The above is his base position throughout most of the video, it’s quite consistent – hands together, looking at the camera.

I’m sure we would agree this is a normal position for someone openly explaining their argument.

Then over a particular 14 second period we suddenly get all of this: -

Posted Image

Scratching, looking to each side, crossing the fingers.

Can you tell me what this would generally indicate, Babe Ruth?

Then I’ll tell you what he was saying in that 14 second period.

The above question and point I’m making here is all relevant to the witness interviews to which you referred, as you will see.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 February 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Q

I'm wondering if you have an opinion regarding the testimony and lawsuit of April Gallop at the Pentagon?
I think she was probably “bought” by PfffT   :lol:

No really, what about it?  April Gallop didn’t see any recognizable plane debris on her exit from the Pentagon and assumed it must have been a bomb.  There are other witness statements and photographic evidence that disagree.

It’s the same as there were many at the WTC who did not see the first plane impact and thought it must have been a bomb.  And there are other witness statements and video evidence that disagree.

What’s the difference?

I think PfffT used the attempted lawsuit to discredit the ‘truth movement’.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#619    W Tell

W Tell

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:30 PM

View PostQ24, on 16 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:



No really, what about it?  April Gallop didn’t see any recognizable plane debris on her exit from the Pentagon and assumed it must have been a bomb.  There are other witness statements and photographic evidence that disagree.





So, were the very first pictures after the impact of a pristine lawn at the Pentagon faked?


#620    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,363 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:32 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 February 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Cz

Oh yes!!!  The bright red letters made it possible for me to see!

And the answers to all those profound questions is yes.

Feel better?

In all honesty Babe, I really don't care. I gave up on the hopes of having any kind of rational, fact and evidence based discussions with you long ago.

Quote

Now if you or Boo would care to address my statements about simulator design and limitations, it would make a swell day.

I wonder if Boo is going to abandon his speculation about any sim training specific to the Pentagon attack that Hani might have conducted?  Or just make a faith-based appeal to....emotion?
What difference would it make if I did address you simulator issues? You will just misinterpret what I / we say and go off on another tangent, showing yet again that what we say makes no difference.

Why should I waste my time (more than I have already) with someone like you who only wants to preach their willfully ignorant beliefs and deliberately  unsupported options while going out of their way to hand-wave away contradictory evidence?



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 17 February 2012 - 12:33 AM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#621    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,363 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:42 AM

View PostQ24, on 16 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

If you gotta skyeagle on your team then we can have a Babe Ruth!   :lol:
lol

While I agree that Skyeagle is, generally speaking, discussing the same "side" of this discussion, I don't count him as being on my "team", but I am willing to concede the point you are making ;)

Quote

Except Babe Ruth makes far more sense
Here we will just have to agree to disagree.




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#622    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:00 AM

View PostQ24, on 16 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Except Babe Ruth makes far more sense, doesn't repeat so much or rack up three posts per response thank god.

Babe Ruth is not making any sense at all.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#623    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:58 AM

View PostW Tell, on 16 February 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

So, were the very first pictures after the impact of a pristine lawn at the Pentagon faked?
I think the early pictures which appear to show a pristine lawn were not focused on the debris.

You refer to pictures like these: -

Posted Image

Posted Image


But when closer pictures were taken we can see the debris: -

Posted Image

Posted Image


Later pictures may not show as much debris as the FBI were busy clearing up: -

Posted Image

I don’t see reason to conclude any of the pictures are faked.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#624    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 February 2012 - 02:27 AM

I like your sense of humor Q!   :yes:

Keep in mind that the vaunted "damage path" is most likely staged and artificial.   False Flag, and all that you know.  :blush:

Yes, some contradicted Ms. Gallop, and some agreed with her.  Several of those military personnel reported the odor of cordite, a fascinating development, and consistent with FF, again.

:ph34r:


#625    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:39 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 February 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

I like your sense of humor Q!   :yes:

Keep in mind that the vaunted "damage path" is most likely staged and artificial.   False Flag, and all that you know.  :blush:

Where did you get the idea the damage path was staged when there were hundreds of people standing around the area? Now, there are CT folks claiming that the light poles were planted the night before the crash. They are on their way to claiming that  9/11 never happened, but not before they will claim that many trucks had dumped debris from a B-757 when rescuers had gone to lunch.

Quote

Yes, some contradicted Ms. Gallop, and some agreed with her.  Several of those military personnel reported the odor of cordite, a fascinating development, and consistent with FF, again.


What does that suppose to indicate?

ATC communications comfirming that a B-757 struck the Pentagon.

Quote

9:36:41 - ATC: GOFER zero 6, traffic is 11 o'clock and five miles northbound fast moving, type and altitude unknown.

9:36:49 - GOFER06: GOFER zero 6 we have the traffic in sight >unintelligible<

9:36:52 - ATC: Ah, you have the traffic, do you know what kind it is, can you see?

9:36:54 - GOFER06: Looks like a 757 sir.

9:36:59 - ATC: A 757.  Can you estimate his altitude?

9:36:59 - GOFER06: Ah, looks like he's at low altitude right now sir.

9:37:04 - ATC: GOFER eight [sic] six, thank you.

>crosstalk<

>pause<

9:37:17 - GOFER06: That, ah, traffic from GOFER zero 6 is still in a descent now, and, uh, looks like he's strolled [?] out north east [?]

9:37:24 - ATC: All right.  Thank you.

>crosstalk<

9:37:30 - ATC: GOFER eight [sic] six, climb and maintain, uh,

9:37:32 - ATC background: You getting the military?

9:37:33 - ATC: Yeah.  Stand by. GOFER eight [sic] six,

9:37:35 - ATC: GOFER eight [sic] six, turn right and follow the traffic, please.

9:37:40 - ATC: GOFER eight [sic] six, turn right heading zero eight zero, we're going to vector you for the traffic.  

9:37:44 - GOFER06: Okay, zero eight zero, GOFER zero six it's...

9:37:47 - ATC: Dulles, I'm keeping GOFER eight six, uh, zero six with me for a while.

>crosstalk<

>ATC interacts with another flight<

>pause<

9:38:23 - GOFER06: Washington, this is GOFER zero six.  

9:38:25 - ATC: GOFER zero six, go ahead.

9:38:26 - GOFER06: [?] ... aircraft is down, he's in our [a?] twelve o'clock position, looks like it's just a, uh, north, west of the airfield at this time sir.

9:38:36 - ATC: GOFER eight [sic] six, thank you, descend and maintain two thousand

9:38:39 - GOFER06: Okay, we're down to two thousand

9:38:53 - GOFER06: And uh, this is GOFER zero six, it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.

9:38:59 - ATC: GOFER eight [sic] six, GOFER zero six, thank you.

My link



Now, about what you had posted the other day in regards to what you thought, was confirmation from ATC that the aircraft which struck the Pentagon, was a military aircraft. Let's see how the CT folks were duped again with disformation as they were duped when they had claimed that United 93 landed in Cleveland. We need to take a closer look at Mr. Meyssan, because he was the person who duped the CT folks on what the the air controller had actually meant. In other words, he deliberately mislead people in regards to the remarks made by the air controller, and there were CT folks who took the bait and ran off with it, which reminded me of the remarks from P.T. Barnum.

Let's hear it from the controller himself.

Quote

Mr. Meyssan's book "9/11: The big Lie" states that on September 11, 2001 I and my fellow air traffic controllers at Dulles airport had "no possible doubt" that the plane we saw approaching Washington, DC, which subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, "could not be a commercial airliner, but only a military aircraft" because of its speed and maneuverability.In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.

Upon initial impression, I considered the target, later confirmed to have been American Airlines flight 77, to possibly have been a military aircraft.  In an interview with ABC's 20/20, I stated, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.

  You don't fly a 757 in that manner.  It's unsafe."  Since that tragic day, I've realised that it was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere.  The usual preparations for a safe landing without our National Airspace System were not a consideration.

Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon.  Where is this B757 now?  There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control.Where are the crew and passengers from American 77?  They have never been accounted for by Mr. Meyssen.

Another valid point against the argument by Meyssen is the path the aircraft flew.  Meyssen suggests it was a military missile used to impact the Pentagon. Why would a missile make a 360 degree manuever like this to reduce its altitude.  A missile would be on course, at its appropriate altitude, when it approached the target.

The suggestion of the use of a military plane or missile, knowing all available facts, is simply beyond consideration.

If Mr. Meyssen had been interested in the full truth, many sources were available.  There would have been no better witnesses than the aviation-trained, eye witnesses of Air Traffic Control.  In that he never requested interviews of any of us who were there, his interest obviously lies not in revealing any truth, but in his personal financial gain.

Respectfully,

Danielle (O'Brien) Howell


My link

So, Babe Ruth, you allowed yourself to be mislead by disinformation once again!! Question is, when are you going to learn your lessons?

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 February 2012 - 05:26 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#626    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:46 PM

Q

Considering the events at the Pentagon with 77, it seems rational to consider them not in isolation, but as a part of a whole, especially if we really are analyzing a False Flag event.

If the official story is challenged or invalidated by the events at WTC, and if deception is employed there, and as deception is employed at Shanksville, and considering the widespread and consistent deception involved in the coverup since Day 1, why should it be that no deception was employed at the Pentagon when so much strongly suggests deception WAS employed there?

Sky

You keep forgetting that I have read most details of the official story many times.  You forget that I spent the better part of 4 years defending that myth on the internet.  Been there, done that.  You're flogging a dead horse presenting O'Brien and Gofer06 transcripts.  Next, I suppose you will be offering statements from Rumsfeld or Bush???


#627    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:33 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 February 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

If the official story is challenged or invalidated by the events at WTC, and if deception is employed there, and as deception is employed at Shanksville, and considering the widespread and consistent deception involved in the coverup since Day 1, why should it be that no deception was employed at the Pentagon when so much strongly suggests deception WAS employed there?
When it comes to the aircraft deception, I am entirely consistent between the WTC and Pentagon - I believe in each case that an aircraft impacted, that there is insufficient evidence to prove their identity and that the approach was through remote guidance.

It is your belief which is inconsistent, in that at the WTC there were airliners, yet at the Pentagon there was some altogether more high risk ‘no plane impact’ deception.  Why anyone would think it a good plan that every witness in vicinity of the Pentagon could be “bought” and stage a damage path in broad daylight, rather than just slam a plane in there as proven possible at the WTC, is beyond me.

It’s taken me a lot of thought to understand how such a large false flag on the surface could be executed with minimal involvement of U.S. citizens (that’s the only way to guarantee silence) – I’ve got it down to around twenty individuals.  I find it slightly insulting you ask us to believe that many dozens in the U.S., perhaps hundreds, were “bought” or even involved in the operation.

Anyhow Babe Ruth, are you going to tell me what the four images in my post #618 above indicate?  That is the guy who presents the eyewitnesses which you think disprove the damage flight path.  I think it relevant we take a look at his body language as much as the witnesses themselves.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#628    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:04 PM

Q

I cannot get those videos to play in your 618, so I'm unable to assess the body language, and I don't even know what he is saying.

Anyway, may I ask what you define as the debris path?

I am not suggesting that all witnesses in the Pentagon area were bought, not at all.  I believe MOST witnesses to things like this tell the truth as best they know it.

Just a small number of cooperating witnesses can achieve great results when their testimony is broadcast far and wide.

I believe that it is likely that some sort of aircraft did indeed strike the Pentagon, but that it clearly was not a 757 with passengers.  It was on this point that I parted ways with PFT as to their dogmatic position on that point, several years ago.

Just to clarify my position, I believe that at least 1 Boeing struck at WTC, but it was NOT an airliner.  I believe it (or they) to have been drones.

While the towers were fairly easy targets for large drones, the Pentagon because of its very short structure, was a poor target for an airplane that big.  As I've noted before, the overlay of a Boeing against the Pentagon shows that it hit within EXTREMELY close tolerances, maybe within 1%.  It was an absolutely perfect strike, considering the size of the aircraft.

Our drone technology is pretty good, but not THAT good, especially in 2001.

The way the FF was executed was based upon intimate knowledge of how our air defense system worked, and the ability to spoof that system.  Once the first domino fell, the others were right behind. Vigilant Guardian's successful launch was the first domino.

Now tell me Q, just how hard is it for the Pentagon to be rigged, assuming that the planners intended to target the specific area in which a rather embarassing audit was being conducted?

Do you think there is a reason for the smirk on Rumsfeld's face on 10 September?

And I am of the opinion that not only US citizens were involved, but at least a few foreign citizens in concert with US citizens were involved.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 17 February 2012 - 04:06 PM.


#629    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:42 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 February 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

When it comes to the aircraft deception, I am entirely consistent between the WTC and Pentagon - I believe in each case that an aircraft impacted, that there is insufficient evidence to prove their identity and that the approach was through remote guidance.

Aircraft did strike the WTC towers and the Pentagon. Radar data and ATC witnesses have confirmed that as well, and using ACARS, we can determined when those aircraft took off and then,  follow the general route of those aircraft from the airport from where they took off. It is very easy to determine what happened to the aircraft of  American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175.........just ask the operators of those flights and of course,  the Boeing Aircraft company, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce engine companies.  

Then, you can ask, Airline Pilots Association, International. They will all tell you that those aircraft no longer exist because they have crashed on 09/11/2001, which will explain why their registration numbers are no longer listed.It is little clues like that that the CT folks tend to overlook.

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 February 2012 - 05:07 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#630    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:55 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 February 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

If the official story is challenged or invalidated by the events at WTC, and if deception is employed therand as deception is employed at Shanksville, and considering the widespread and consistent deception involved in the coverup since Day 1,...

What deception? Remember, you refereneced a conroner who has confirmed the wreckage of United 93 at Shanksville and furthermore, he had confirmed that remains of the victims were recovered ahd have been identified. Your mistake was in the fact that you didn't do a background check on events surrounding the Shanksvile crash site.

Quote

Sky

You keep forgetting that I have read most details of the official story many times.  You forget that I spent the better part of 4 years defending that myth on the internet.  Been there, done that.  You're flogging a dead horse presenting O'Brien and Gofer06 transcripts.  Next, I suppose you will be offering statements from Rumsfeld or Bush???


It has been more than 10 years and yet, there is not one shred of evidence that has surfaced of a government 9/11 conspiracy despite the fact this country has many investigative reporters who have found absolutely nothing in regards to a government 9/11 conspiracy. The CT folks simply are not interested in the facts and I could make up a false senario on 9/11 and watch as the CT folks post my false story all over the Internet. After all, posting those false stories is exactly what they have been doing for years.

Quote

Next, I suppose you will be offering statements from Rumsfeld or Bush???

Such as?!

Remember, we cannot forget your comments where you misinterpreted the comments of the  air traffic controller who said nothing that American 77 was a military aircraft, and that is why I posted his comments, which debunked the CT folks who had misinterpreted his comments.

It shows a trend of the CT folks who continue to get the true facts all wrong.

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 February 2012 - 05:17 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users