3292 replies to this topic

[bee]

Czero 101, on 24 July 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

The Pentagon lies directly under the flight path of Reagan National Airport's runway 15 / 33, so no, unfortunately you are not correct in that, Mr. President.



You're probably thinking of the White House / capital buildings area in D.C. which is a "no fly zone". It has a specific name, but it escapes me right now.






Cz

but is that runway USED by civilian aircraft?

it might be reserved for the military?


.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Ah yeah yep it's the White house that does.
No that's a crosswind runway

[bee]

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

The south side witnesses (impact approach) outnumber the north side witnesses (flyover approach) approximately 3:1 by my last count.

Please see here for analysis of a few: -
http://www.unexplain...pic=219063&st=0

Babe Ruth, on 24 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

I'm glad you're back Q, even though we disagree on some points.  You always present a solid argument.

I watched the statement by Frank Probst.  Had heard it before, but did not know the guy's name.  I tend to agree with Bee's criticism--most people in the approximate crosshairs of an approaching airliner would hit the ground, but that's a minor point.  His description of the engines hitting the ground short of the building does not seem to be supported by any marks on the ground.  Plus, what happened to those engines?  His testimony seems a bit too perfect to me.

Otherwise, I did not go past the first page, and the video there works against the OCT.

Is there anyway you might summarize or condense names or statements of the other people to satisfy your estimated 3:1 ratio of witnesses relative to south path?

cheers Babe Ruth......if anyone cares to take the time to look at the Frank Probst video and following discussion (that actually goes on....on and off

for about a dozen pages).....they will see that his statements don't stand up to scrutiny.


And if ONE...just ONE...eye-witness account, that is widely displayed to support the Official Account....especially one such as Frank Probst....

can be shown to be fabricated. (or at least super-weak to the point of BS) Then ALL of the witnesses supporting the Official Account, come into question.


I remember that thread went way way off topic after the first small handful of eye-witnesses didn't do too well under the microscope....


And Q24 turned against me.........as the thread progressed.......he prefered to strongly support the Official Account (re. Pentagon), rather than

give my Cover Up Theory the time of day.......

go figure...


.

[bee]

The New Richard Nixon, on 24 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Ah yeah yep it's the White house that does.
No that's a crosswind runway

is it...?

where did you get your info for that....in super fast time....


.edit...maybe not THAT super fast...I just looked at the post times...but pretty quickly

did you look it up somewhere?


.

Edited by bee, 24 July 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Flight 77 was last positively identified on radar at 08:56 before disappearing from the display screen (both primary and secondary readouts). At 09:25, an unidentified aircraft assumed to be Flight 77 was sighted headed for Washington.  I don't see we can assume based on this evidence that we are dealing with the same aircraft throughout. Especially when we have a historical record at hand that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had planned to switch civilian aircraft in such a deception before.

There is no way that could have been done. You still have to account for passengers and the airframe of American 77, and there was no way to modify a B-757 for remote control purposes using a B-757 from American Airlines and not attract attention.  Did ACARS depict American 77 landing anywhere else? Did radar track American 77 anywhere else other than toward the Pentagon?

Quote

A good question - if the Pentagon impact aircraft had been physically identified then I'd be able to answer.

If I were at the crash site of American 77, all I have to do and to pick up parts and record part and serial numbers listed on pieces of the wreckage since certain numbers pertain only to the B-757 and any time-sensitive change item found within the wreckage can be used to reveal the aircraft as well. For an example, when I was supervisor/inspector for the airframe overhaul crew of a major defense contractor at Travis AFB, on the Air Force's TF-39 jet engines, I kept a log of serial numbers  and dates of every translating cowl and inlet we worked on. From that information, I could track every inlet and translating cowl anywhere in the world and identify the aircraft they are attached.

I also kept a log of part numbers for every part of the TF-39 engine inlet and translating cowl, which I used to order parts, including all fasteners and other hardware. If there was a part where I could not read the part number, all I had to do was to pull out the tech manual for a particular aircraft or engine and compare the part in the manual with the part I needed, and the tech manual will provide me with the part number I need to order that particular part.

In addition, I kept a log on dates on certain components that were changed, so if the Air Force needed certain information about a particular inlet or translating cowl, I could have supplied all of the needed information, which I kept in my government file cabinet and on government computers.

As I have said before, I can reveal a switched aircraft in less than 30 minutes and I can safely say a switch never occurred in regards to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 July 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 24 July 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

IF those witnesses were being truthful and their statements were accurate, THEN it would have been impossible for the Boeing they saw to have hit the Notorious Light Poles.

And yet, we have fallen light poles that suffered from impact damage from a B-757 that had the required wingspan to take out those light poles.

Quote

And IF that is the case, THEN it makes it most likely that the light poles were staged.

False!! How are you going to stage such a seen and not attract attention? I am sure that the scene of that taxi was not staged.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 July 2012 - 05:33 PM.

[bee]

lliqerty, on 11 July 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

And supposedly, the plane was flying at a 45 degree angle....

Was the gap that collapsed the samme size or was it bigger than this?

bee, on 11 July 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

don't know....

but I have a little theory about the collapse.....that it was done by the military on purpose to obscure the business of the too small 'hole'...etc.

to contaminate the scene.

If you look at the last pic I posted ....you will see that the building looks pretty solid at that point....

Some time ago I saw a video about people reporting hearing an explosion (or explosions) some time AFTER  what-ever-happened happened...

but I can't find it at the moment...

Found it.....when I was looking at the Pentagon Eye Witnesses thread .....

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 24 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Is there anyway you might summarize or condense names or statements of the other people to satisfy your estimated 3:1 ratio of witnesses relative to south path?

I have previously jotted down a list of names who specifically confirm the south approach and/or impact. It came out at around forty eyewitnesses. I've never done the exercise thoroughly because everytime I attempt to do so, the flyover theorist I'm debating ends up scarpering after the first handful of eyewitnesses are presented (or in the case of Pilots for 9/11 'Truth', when I went to their home and they had nowhere to scarper, the information in my posts was simply deleted... that's the open and honest 'truth' of these flyover theorists for you).

I'm not going to try going through the whole list of eyewitnesses again because I don't have time to stick at it at the moment, but here are the few I provided details for in the previous thread: -

post #2:  Frank Probst
post #37:  Don Mason
post #61:  Rodney Washington
post #182:  Alan Wallace

You could confirm the rest yourself - they are available online and not difficult to find - there's nothing so convincing as doing your own research. Perhaps start with Keith Wheelhouse who, like Alan Wallace, sketched his viewing of the flightpath on the official impact approach - I'll let you find that drawing.

I think I've said everything else I want to mention on the subject in the opening post of the thread linked above. All we have is unfair manipulation and huge double-standards in treatment of the full eyewitness testimony to promote a flyover theory.

It works like this...

If the eyewitness describes anything other than the official impact flightpath then they become a wholly reliable witness to a flyover with any minor discrepancies excused. If the eyewitness describes the official impact flightpath then they become mistaken and/or lying and any petty discrepancy in the account is used in attempt to discredit and often slander the individual.

It is a poor and biased method indeed.

[Kludge808]

Czero 101, on 24 July 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

The Pentagon lies directly under the flight path of Reagan National Airport's runway 15 / 33, so no, unfortunately you are not correct in that, Mr. President.

True but that's not the preferred runway.  That would be 1/19 (And who knows why this was changed from 18/36 several years ago? *snicker*) due to noise plus the length of the runway.  Anyone landing on it would run afoul normal traffic and draw all kinds of attention to him/her/undecided's self.

Quote

You're probably thinking of the White House / capital buildings area in D.C. which is a "no fly zone". It has a specific name, but it escapes me right now.

P-56 & P-56A.  They're about a mile and a half North of the field and tend to make people real upset when one even approaches them.  Overflying except military with really truly good reason is a definite no-no.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 24 July 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

But, your link says this!

You are the perfect Orwellian citizen, congratulations and enjoy.

Ok, back to ignoring you.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

A good question - if the Pentagon impact aircraft had been physically identified then I'd be able to answer.

Let's take another look.

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

A good question - if the Pentagon impact aircraft had been physically identified then I'd be able to answer.

Let's take another look. American Airlines reported the loss of American 77.



Now, we can go to this link on the fleet history of American Airlines and you will notice that two of its B-757s were written off.

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines

Next, we go to this link and determined which aircraft were written off by American Airlines.

http://www.planespot...2&fleetStatus=8

You will notice that the two B-757s written off by American Airlines were N651AA, and N644AA. Let's go to this link and find out why those B-757s were written off.

First, B-757, N651AA. You will notice that the B-757 crashed in Colombia in 1995, which is why it was written off.

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php

Now, let's examine why American Airlines, B-757, N644AA, was written off.

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php

You will notice that the reason why it was written off is because it was hijacked by terrorist and crashed on 9/11/2001 in Washington. That explains why the registration of N644AA, was deregistered by the FAA and can be reviewed at this link and you will notice the reason for the deregistraton is because the airframe of N644AA was destroyed

http://registry.faa....Numbertxt=644AA

Now, you have to account for the passengers of American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 July 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[bee]

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

You are the perfect Orwellian citizen, congratulations and enjoy.

Ok, back to ignoring you.

are you ignoring me as well....


I miss Scott....I don't know what happened when he was banned...

[Kludge808]

The New Richard Nixon, on 24 July 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Don't have time to do it. Seems BR has no clue what hes talking about. In another thread he claims to know about "Nuclear" because he was in "the army" but when asked a question he does not have a clue

Huh?  Army?  The Army doesn't have any A-37s and never did.  That was strictly an Air Force gig.  He said he flew A-37s.  Hmmm ...

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 July 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

You are the perfect Orwellian citizen, congratulations and enjoy.

Ok, back to ignoring you.

I just wanted to point out that it said, "American 77."

In other words, no drone was  responsible, which is another hint that American 77 was the aircraft involved and you posted the link.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 July 2012 - 06:29 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Kludge808, on 24 July 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Huh?  Army?  The Army doesn't have any A-37s and never did.  That was strictly an Air Force gig.  He said he flew A-37s.  Hmmm ...

The A-37 was once stationed at Phan Rang, which is where I was stationed, but I was gone by the time they arrived. I was stationed with the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing from 1967-68.