Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Transferred from this thread...

no i know that, but with all the cameras in the area i still don't see how there can't be at least some decent footage, and i saw the tail in the video q posted but other then that i did not see an outline of a plane. I'm not saying there wasn't one its just fishy that there isn't a real clear indication that thats whats in the footage. Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?

Just the one, 5 frame video. I found this analysis on youtube regarding the 5 frame video; I found it to be thought provoking:

Also, if you take a look at the following tv show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

You'll note that they mention there were 85 video cameras at the pentagon. So why won't they release the other 84 video feeds? I assure you that many had a much better view of what happened then the parking lot video camera (I wouldn't be surprised if that feed was the worst of them). I've also seen evidence that the 5 frame video was edited; if I find the video that shows this, I'll let you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIT has done an extensive accounting of the aircraft witness accounts. You may want to see some of their documentaries on the subject:

http://thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

Of particular note would be this one:

http://thepentacon.c...sideflyover.htm

Utter rubbish - sorry but this drives me up the wall.

The link is a pick and choose exercise of which eyewitnesses to present.

Eyewitnesses to the official flight path and/or impact outnumber those who say otherwise by approximately 3:1 by my last count.

This divide in opinion is unremarkable when dealing with eyewitness testimony.

Why anyone would choose to base a whole theory around the smaller eyewitness sample whilst writing-off the larger group and a huge volume of physical evidence is beyond me.

You really let yourself down with this Scott - you are spreading false information.

How is it you are sensible in other areas but when it comes to the Pentagon you lose the plot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter rubbish - sorry but this drives me up the wall.

I can understand why to some extent. I think you can be a bit arrogant sometimes Q, but I still think that various members at Pilots for 9/11 Truth treated you too harshly. As you know, it was because I was upset with the deletion of some of your material that I was temporarily suspended for a while there. I was mistaken with the quantity of deleted material (I thought it encompassed more then one post, when in fact it was only part of one post) and that's apparently what got me my 3 month suspension.

The link is a pick and choose exercise of which eyewitnesses to present.

We've gone over all of this in great detail in the past Q, and I will have to reiterate that I disagree with this position of yours. But again, if you feel that there was an eyewitness that CIT hasn't covered, by all means bring them up.

Eyewitnesses to the official flight path and/or impact outnumber those who say otherwise by approximately 3:1 by my last count.

Please present a single eyewitness who could see the Citgo gas station declare that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Just 1, thanks. For those who aren't aware, the official flight path requires that the plane fly south of the Citgo gas station. As to witnesses who believe that the plane impacted the building, as I believe I've mentioned before and was mentioned in Jesse Ventura's conspiracy theory video, the plane could have easily been lost to view due to the explosion that was timed to go off at the time it arrived at the pentagon. Not only that, but there's no way a 757 could have pulled out of its dive to crash within 2 feet of the ground on a level approach. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done the calculations to prove it.

How is it you are sensible in other areas but when it comes to the Pentagon you lose the plot?

I think it would be fairer if I asked you the same question, but I have a feeling I already know the answer. All I ask is that you don't let your emotional response to members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth cloud your reasoning and perhaps we'll come to agree on this in time.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i know that, but with all the cameras in the area i still don't see how there can't be at least some decent footage, and i saw the tail in the video q posted but other then that i did not see an outline of a plane. I'm not saying there wasn't one its just fishy that there isn't a real clear indication that thats whats in the footage. Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?

Just the one, 5 frame video. I found this analysis on youtube regarding the 5 frame video; I found it to be thought provoking:

Incorrect.

Footage from two separate Pentagon security cameras has been released (much more than five frames).

Footage from the Citgo gas station has been released.

Footage from the Doubletree Hotel has been released.

It has been available for five years!

Where have you been Scott?

Please present a single eyewitness who could see the Citgo gas station declare that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Just 1, thanks.

I’m not going into a thing with you until you use your own brain and accept the flight path that Madelyn Zakhem describes from our past discussion: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=157724&view=findpost&p=3071491

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transferred from this thread...

Just the one, 5 frame video. I found this analysis on youtube regarding the 5 frame video; I found it to be thought provoking:

Also, if you take a look at the following tv show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

You'll note that they mention there were 85 video cameras at the pentagon. So why won't they release the other 84 video feeds? I assure you that many had a much better view of what happened then the parking lot video camera (I wouldn't be surprised if that feed was the worst of them). I've also seen evidence that the 5 frame video was edited; if I find the video that shows this, I'll let you know.

yep, thats what i was thinking. It just does not add up and makes no sense as to why they would not release any of the others. I highly doubt that a few outside cameras would threaten the pentagons security and what about the nearby stores? why could they not release they're footage? if they have nothing to hide and there was a plane that went into the pentagon or it was the plane they say it was then they could release the footage to put the "conspiracies" to rest and if there was anything in the video that would jeopardize they're security i'm sure they could blur it out. Or was the other footage just too graphic for grown adults to see? :rolleyes: yeah, not believing these liars. I know for a fact the gov has lied about many things and continues to lie, so when the evidence points to them lying i'm gonna have to assume that until they can prove me wrong, or show evidence that does so. Thanks for the videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

Footage from two separate Pentagon security cameras has been released (much more than five frames).

Footage from the Citgo gas station has been released.

Footage from the Doubletree Hotel has been released.

It has been available for five years!

Where have you been Scott?

I’m not going into a thing with you until you use your own brain and accept the flight path that Madelyn Zakhem describes from our past discussion: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=157724&view=findpost&p=3071491

see, i wasn't aware of that i searched for footage on youtube and all i could find is the footage in the one video so i guess I'll have to look harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

Footage from two separate Pentagon security cameras has been released (much more than five frames).

Footage from the Citgo gas station has been released.

Footage from the Doubletree Hotel has been released.

It has been available for five years!

Where have you been Scott?

I’m not going into a thing with you until you use your own brain and accept the flight path that Madelyn Zakhem describes from our past discussion: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=157724&view=findpost&p=3071491

are these the videos you mean?

I never really looked into this topic to much so a lot of this is new to me, but i still haven't seen anything substantial in these videos and i don't see why it took a law suit for them to be released. Isn't there plenty more they still haven't released?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, thats what i was thinking. It just does not add up and makes no sense as to why they would not release any of the others. I highly doubt that a few outside cameras would threaten the pentagons security and what about the nearby stores? why could they not release they're footage? if they have nothing to hide and there was a plane that went into the pentagon or it was the plane they say it was then they could release the footage to put the "conspiracies" to rest and if there was anything in the video that would jeopardize they're security i'm sure they could blur it out. Or was the other footage just too graphic for grown adults to see? :rolleyes: yeah, not believing these liars. I know for a fact the gov has lied about many things and continues to lie, so when the evidence points to them lying i'm gonna have to assume that until they can prove me wrong, or show evidence that does so. Thanks for the videos.

Even if they DID release the other footage that they have it wouldn't put any conspiracies "to rest" because the argument would shift into "They had 10 years to doctor the footage! I'm not buying it! This is MORE proof that our government and thousands of others were involved in a plot to kill 3,000 americans for no real gain!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are these the videos you mean?

I never really looked into this topic to much so a lot of this is new to me, but i still haven't seen anything substantial in these videos and i don't see why it took a law suit for them to be released. Isn't there plenty more they still haven't released?

Yes, they are the videos.

And there exists a further two sets of footage from the Pentagon security cameras.

You saw a bit of those showing the aircraft tail section on the other thread.

There is no available footage more substantial than that.

I don’t understand why a lawsuit was required for those videos either.

Here is a list of the unreleased videotapes in FBI custody: -

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

You will see that many of the tapes are actually from the WTC, or do not show the Pentagon, or only show the Pentagon after impact.

If there is further footage, which there may or may not be, I would suggest the reason it is withheld is possibly in relation to the specific aircraft identity rather than the actual presence of an aircraft.

There is a mass of eyewitness and physical evidence an aircraft was present but zero evidence of its identity.

The lack of air crash investigation on 9/11 is unprecedented in U.S. aviation history.

That is revealing on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

Footage from two separate Pentagon security cameras has been released (much more than five frames).

I admit I was unaware of the second video camera feed that was released, but the fact remains that only one of them shows an object that the official story alleges to be Flight 77, never mind the fact that a 757 would have been much bigger then the small object that we actually see.

Footage from the Citgo gas station has been released.

Yes, it was. I wonder if you've seen this commentary on it:

Proof The CITGO Security Video Was Manipulated

Footage from the Doubletree Hotel has been released.

Indeed. I wonder if you've seen this analysis of it:

Doubletree Hotel video released; shows no plane

The title gives you a big hint as to the problem with it...

It has been available for five years!

It's also not from the pentagon.

Where have you been Scott?

In forums that have been discussing such things while you've been.. here. I understand, really I do, but there have been things you've missed it seems.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a list of the unreleased videotapes in FBI custody: -

http://www.911myths....Pentagon_videos

You will see that many of the tapes are actually from the WTC, or do not show the Pentagon, or only show the Pentagon after impact.

Thanks for bringing this link to my attention. If it's true (and I currently have no reason to doubt its validity), then it would appear that many people have overlooked this fact. Nevertheless, it omits explaining certain details which have been pointed out to me in the past. Most notably that while this FBI agent claims (and perhaps herself believes) that no video camera witnessed the pentagon impact, there were many video cameras that should have. You simply need to get some detailed pictures of the pentagon to see that they had numerous cameras on it at the time. I can easily imagine that the FBI agent that did the search was unaware of this. There's another thing to consider; she mentions that no video camera witnessed the impact of Flight 77. One has to wonder, what about -before- it hit the pentagon. Did any of the video cameras she mention see the plane before this event? Returning to the issue that many video cameras should have witnessed the impact, she mentions that 12 video feeds "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Why is that? Were the video cameras turned off prior to the impact? If so, why is that? So yes, thanks for the info; amazing what you can find out, even from people who support the official story's view on what happened during the Pentagon Attack.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I was unaware of the second video camera feed that was released, but the fact remains that only one of them shows an object that the official story alleges to be Flight 77

No, both security cameras show (part of) the aircraft.

And you were unaware that the second even existed… after all these years?

Not to mention it’s right there in my post you started this thread with: -

:unsure:

In forums that have been discussing such things while you've been.. here. I understand, really I do, but there have been things you've missed it seems.

Oh do be serious, Scott.

Someone asked a simple question: -

“Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?”

All your ‘marauding the forums’ led you to give an answer five years out of date.

I give the full list of footage released… and you say I’m missing things.

The links you provided show that: -

  1. There may be further existing footage potentially showing the aircraft - this I indicated in my previous post.
  2. Stating the obvious - the Doubletree footage does not show the plane.

Thanks for bringing this link to my attention. If it's true (and I currently have no reason to doubt its validity), then it would appear that many people have overlooked this fact.

But Scott… *despairs*… this is the same information I brought to your attention 18 months ago.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=175605&view=findpost&p=3335578

What can I do?

:cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, both security cameras show (part of) the aircraft.

And you were unaware that the second even existed… after all these years?

Not to mention it's right there in my post you started this thread with: -

:unsure:

I do miss links at times. But it seems that the second video camera was practically right next to the first? If that's the case, no wonder I never noticed; the difference between the 2 feeds seems to be negligible. I notice that that video you're using doesn't seem to be persuaded that the video captured Flight 77 flying through. I wonder if you've seen the following 6 1/2 minute video:

http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

You may learn a few things from it...

Someone asked a simple question: -

"Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?"

All your 'marauding the forums' led you to give an answer five years out of date.

I give the full list of footage released… and you say I'm missing things.

Laugh :-). I pointed out things that you have apparently missed. But I acknowledge that there's some things that I've missed myself.

The links you provided show that: -

  1. There may be further existing footage potentially showing the aircraft - this I indicated in my previous post.

Alright.

Stating the obvious - the Doubletree footage does not show the plane.

Yes, that's the obvious part. I had imagined he had a reason for highlighting that fact, but he doesn't seem to mention one in his article. My own concern is this: why has no footage been released of the alleged aircraft other than the 5 frame video and perhaps another pentagon video that was almost at the same spot as the 5 frame one? If you take a look at the comments in the doubletree link, you'll see that one person suspects that a plane was edited out:

Hey Killtown, How come the same video posted on Youtube by Bronco2121 clearly shows what looks like a very large object (tail and wing?) tumbling from left to right behind the freeway prior to the explosion, and your video has some blurring going on in the same place, and what looks like some editing on the left side of the explosion? CIA plot to distort the truth maybe??????

12/05/2006 1:19 PM

Source: http://killtown.blog...535355565663466

But Scott… *despairs*… this is the same information I brought to your attention 18 months ago.

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3335578

What can I do?

:cry:

Memory can play tricks on you. You weren't talking to me when you brought up that video, you were talking to frenat. I'd left the conversation before then. You -did- bring up some interesting points following the last thing I said in that thread though:

  • In response to a FOIA request to ascertain the 9/11 aircraft identifications through unique serial numbers, the NTSB stated, "Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information".
    Link
  • In response to a FOIA request to ascertain the 9/11 aircraft identifications through unique serial numbers, the FBI stated, "RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request".
    Link

Finally, it seems you missed another point I made:

Returning to the issue that many video cameras should have witnessed the impact, she mentions that 12 video feeds "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Why is that? Were the video cameras turned off prior to the impact? If so, why is that?

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they DID release the other footage that they have it wouldn't put any conspiracies "to rest" because the argument would shift into "They had 10 years to doctor the footage! I'm not buying it! This is MORE proof that our government and thousands of others were involved in a plot to kill 3,000 americans for no real gain!"

for no real gain? LOL thats funny. It may not put them entirely to rest, but it would sure help they're credibility. If they would have just released it all there would be far less suspicion. Imo there is no legitimate reason for why they did what they did. Why would they not release all footage of the outside of the building? for fear of security issues? when people can check out the whole outside with a pair of binoculars? If you can give me a good enough reason for why they did that, i may just believe you. I have looked into both sides of the story and so far the offical story just does not add up and none of these so called "debunkers" have been able to provide satisfactory evidence that the offical story is entirely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are the videos.

And there exists a further two sets of footage from the Pentagon security cameras.

You saw a bit of those showing the aircraft tail section on the other thread.

There is no available footage more substantial than that.

I don’t understand why a lawsuit was required for those videos either.

Here is a list of the unreleased videotapes in FBI custody: -

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

You will see that many of the tapes are actually from the WTC, or do not show the Pentagon, or only show the Pentagon after impact.

If there is further footage, which there may or may not be, I would suggest the reason it is withheld is possibly in relation to the specific aircraft identity rather than the actual presence of an aircraft.

There is a mass of eyewitness and physical evidence an aircraft was present but zero evidence of its identity.

The lack of air crash investigation on 9/11 is unprecedented in U.S. aviation history.

That is revealing on its own.

thanks for the link. I still find it highly suspect because we don't know who collected all these videos, we know the agencies, but do we know the individuals? I find it plausible that they could have taken the best footage and destroyed it.

You make a good point about the "identity" of the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the link. I still find it highly suspect because we don't know who collected all these videos, we know the agencies, but do we know the individuals?

I sincerely doubt it. That's the thing with agencies; it's all just one big agency, names of who did what within it is rarely given.

I find it plausible that they could have taken the best footage and destroyed it.

Yep, I wouldn't put it past them.

You make a good point about the "identity" of the aircraft.

This is one thing that Q24 and I agree on. There is tons of evidence that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. Put what if it were a small drone that only -looked- like a 757? A small scale version perhaps. What if this piece of debris:

pentagon1.jpg

was actually part of the "windows" of the plane? Food for thought anyway.

Here's an article I just found regarding the Pentagon Attack:

Who Is This Man?: What Role Did Lloyd England Play In The 9/11 Attack On The Pentagon?

The author is clearly influenced by CIT's work. From the my skim through it, I thought it was pretty good. For more on the main subject of his article, you may want to see CIT's documentary on Lloyd England here:

Some recommend seeing CIT's National Security Alert first, up to you, but the video of theirs that captivated me the most was Lloyd England's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one thing that Q24 and I agree on. There is tons of evidence that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. Put what if it were a small drone that only -looked- like a 757? A small scale version perhaps. What if this piece of debris:

To clarify: I believe a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon.

What I see no evidence of, is that it was the same Flight 77 which departed Dulles airport, tail number N644AA, serial number 24602.

The plane was lost from radar in-flight (ATC did not even see the aircraft turnaround) and it has never been positively identified since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify: I believe a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon.

What I see no evidence of, is that it was the same Flight 77 which departed Dulles airport, tail number N644AA, serial number 24602.

The plane was lost from radar in-flight (ATC did not even see the aircraft turnaround) and it has never been positively identified since.

That makes no sense. What would be the purpose of using a different plane for this part of the "conspiracy"? And also, if it wasn't flight 77 that hit the Pentagon then what happened to flight 77 and it's passengers? Did they redirect it and shoot all of them? Or did they take it to a nice secluded tropical island and give everyone millions of dollars and a paradise to live in in exchange for their silence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense. What would be the purpose of using a different plane for this part of the "conspiracy"? And also, if it wasn't flight 77 that hit the Pentagon then what happened to flight 77 and it's passengers? Did they redirect it and shoot all of them? Or did they take it to a nice secluded tropical island and give everyone millions of dollars and a paradise to live in in exchange for their silence?

What makes no sense? These are the facts. Air traffic control never positively identified Flight 77 after it was lost from radar and there has been no air crash investigation to confirm. FOIA request responses from the NTSB and FBI indicate they have no record of the plane identity. The FDR serial number recovered from the Pentagon was not released in the NTSB report either. This is all unprecedented.

Why use a different plane?

It was a good enough plan for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Why did they not deem to shoot down the real plane?

From Operation Northwoods: -

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propriety organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

What is interesting about Flight 77 is that the passenger list consisted of many government officials or those affiliated with it and a large group of students with the National Geographic Society. Also, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Flight 77 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11. The nearly 30 minutes that Flight 77 was missing from radar would be the ideal opportunity to swap the aircraft. If you have read the above section of Operation Northwoods, you will understand how all of this is highly relevant.

Further, another FOIA request was made as to the process of recovery and identification of forensic evidence at the Pentagon. The request for disclosure of these records was denied. Without this information, there is no true chain of custody for the forensic evidence or even if it exists.

Yet another point of concern is that the NRO (a Department of Defense intelligence agency) happened to be running a drill that morning whereby a simulated plane would take off from Dulles airport and at 9:32 a.m crash into a building only 30 miles West of the Pentagon. You will notice the locations and timing are similar to real world events.

So are we looking at some variation of Operation Northwoods in action? The facts of the event and opportunities that existed certainly indicate this as a possibility. It does take some thinking about but I hope this suggests answers to your questions.

This is all only one half of why they used a different plane, but I think there’s enough to digest above for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q, I'm glad you realize that there's no hard evidence that Flight 77 approached (let alone hit) the pentagon. What I don't understand is why you're so sure that a 757 approached the pentagon at all. The only official video that purports to show Flight 77 hit the pentagon is nothing more then a blur. What's more, some who have analyzed the video have determined that the blob that was seen was too small to be a 757. Do you have any evidence that the object had to be a 757? If, somehow, it -was- a 757, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT have made it abundantly clear that it couldn't have hit the pentagon.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes no sense? These are the facts. Air traffic control never positively identified Flight 77 after it was lost from radar and there has been no air crash investigation to confirm. FOIA request responses from the NTSB and FBI indicate they have no record of the plane identity. The FDR serial number recovered from the Pentagon was not released in the NTSB report either. This is all unprecedented.

Why use a different plane?

It was a good enough plan for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Why did they not deem to shoot down the real plane?

From Operation Northwoods: -

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propriety organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

What is interesting about Flight 77 is that the passenger list consisted of many government officials or those affiliated with it and a large group of students with the National Geographic Society. Also, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Flight 77 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11. The nearly 30 minutes that Flight 77 was missing from radar would be the ideal opportunity to swap the aircraft. If you have read the above section of Operation Northwoods, you will understand how all of this is highly relevant.

Further, another FOIA request was made as to the process of recovery and identification of forensic evidence at the Pentagon. The request for disclosure of these records was denied. Without this information, there is no true chain of custody for the forensic evidence or even if it exists.

Yet another point of concern is that the NRO (a Department of Defense intelligence agency) happened to be running a drill that morning whereby a simulated plane would take off from Dulles airport and at 9:32 a.m crash into a building only 30 miles West of the Pentagon. You will notice the locations and timing are similar to real world events.

So are we looking at some variation of Operation Northwoods in action? The facts of the event and opportunities that existed certainly indicate this as a possibility. It does take some thinking about but I hope this suggests answers to your questions.

This is all only one half of why they used a different plane, but I think there’s enough to digest above for now.

This doesn't come close to providing any information or any actualy proof that they switched the planes(which makes no sense). If you're going to crash a 757 what does it matter which one it is? You're basing your theory that they switched planes, hid passengers and crashed into the Pentagon based on an old operation that never even took place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't come close to providing any information or any actualy proof that they switched the planes(which makes no sense). If you're going to crash a 757 what does it matter which one it is?

Why bother even trying to answer this? The fact that there's no way a 757 could have crashed into the pentagon makes any theoretical answer to this question irrelevant. The reason a 757 couldn't have crashed into the pentagon given the observed damage is explained in this video from Pilots for 9/11 truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why you're so sure that a 757 approached the pentagon at all.

  1. Radar Data
    The FAA, PEOC and Secret Service accounts all note an unidentified aircraft approach the Pentagon, but not leave the area.
  2. Eyewitnesses
    There are well over a hundred eyewitnesses to the aircraft approach and/or impact.
    Of those: -
    Four perceived it was a ‘small’ plane.
    Zero saw a ‘flyover’.
    Over forty specified it was a ‘large’ plane.
    Over one hundred believed the aircraft impact.
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWitnesses.xls?attredirects=0
  3. Light Pole Damage
    Five (well-spaced out) light poles were damaged or knocked down when clipped by the aircraft in front of the Pentagon.
  4. Generator Damage
    A generator was damaged by the aircraft in front of the Pentagon.
  5. Pentagon Damage
    This is a composition of various photographs which show the full damage: -
    compmix2.jpg
    Remember that the Pentagon building (blast-proof steel-reinforced concrete) is completely unlike the WTC structures (relatively lightweight steel columns at the exterior with aluminium cladding) and we should not expect to see similar results in each case. Clearly at the Pentagon the aircraft would break-up more rapidly and the building damage be less severe.
    The distance of the long red arrow is approximately 90ft, meaning that the width of the damage is acceptably consistent with the dimensions of a Boeing 757. The large hole in the centre is where the fuselage impacted and damage at ground level on either side is where the engines/wings hit. I have previously scaled and superimposed an image of a Boeing 757 over the picture and found it fits the damage well – try it for yourself.
  6. Alignment of Damage
    The light pole damage, the generator damage and internal damage to the Pentagon as documented by the ASCE are all in perfect alignment indicating the aircraft came through that way.
    Bart_pentagon_approach.jpg
  7. Wing Impact Marks
    starboard-wing.jpg
    PentagonBuildingPerformanceRepor-5.jpg
    The superimposed lines are a guide as where to look. If you follow the line you can see gouges, deeper than the surrounding damage, in the masonry. These run adjacent to the central impact location with consistent width and depth. It therefore appears a linear object was attached to whatever impacted the Pentagon - otherwise known as ‘a wing’.
  8. Aircraft Debris
    There is more than appears at first glance.
    Please see my post here: -
    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=180137&view=findpost&p=3380928
  9. Security Camera Footage
    The plane is visible.
    Please see my post here: -
    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213798&view=findpost&p=4051722
  10. Common Sense/Risk Assessment
    If the operation requires a large aircraft impact in an area packed full of eyewitnesses, you provide a large aircraft impact.
    You do not risk the entire operation by unnecessarily doing something completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't come close to providing any information or any actualy proof that they switched the planes(which makes no sense). If you're going to crash a 757 what does it matter which one it is? You're basing your theory that they switched planes, hid passengers and crashed into the Pentagon based on an old operation that never even took place?

Sure, the problem is, with unprecedented non-identification of the Pentagon impact aircraft, there is no proof the plane was not switched. Your first question above is fair enough. I think my last post was rather more about ‘how’ the aircraft could have been switched than ‘why’.

Before I go any further, please know this is not intended to be ‘evidence’ of an inside job. I think the Pentagon event contains very limited evidence in support of that conclusion. You would really need to study the other aspects of 9/11 before, during and after and understand the potential for a false flag attack to exist to entertain why the plane(s) may have been switched.

So assuming 9/11 was an inside job, at the Pentagon there are two options: -

  1. Hani Hanjour is a real (and insane/suicidal) terrorist who will be entrusted the job of hijacking the plane and impacting the Pentagon. This carries an extreme risk to success of the operation as I will explain below.
  2. Implement a drone aircraft fitted with remote guidance technology. This carries zero risk in so far as taking control of the aircraft and successfully impacting the target.

Starting with Hani Hanjour, although he had obtained a licence, by all accounts he was a poor pilot who had trouble controlling a small Cessna aircraft during landing manoeuvres. A former employee of the flight school attended by Hanjour is on record in the NY Times as commenting: -

“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon, he could not fly at all.”

Whilst a routine landing would obviously not have been required of Hanjour on 9/11, the fact remains that he would need to perform a descent, line up and control a large Boeing 757 at extremely low altitude on approach as it skimmed above the ground. To achieve the results seen, this required avoiding impact with the ground or overshooting the target which given the topography of the area would not be altogether straightforward.

A further point of consideration in regard to the aircraft control at such low altitudes is ground effect. I have had this discussion with individuals previously and an article was put forward in favour of the official story to demonstrate that ground effect would not have prevented the aircraft approach and impact. An excerpt of the article states: -

“That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive.”

So we see from this that Hanjour may have had to make “adjustments” or “fine corrections” that required “finesse and familiarity with an aircraft’s flight characteristics” where at least a basic level of “expertise” was required to counter whatever level of ground effect there was. This is then relevant for consideration in the discussion.

Finally, regarding the level of skill involved, two pilots have attempted to recreate the flight path of the alleged Flight 77 in a training simulator. Whilst each of their attempts was indeed successful in impacting the Pentagon, it must be noted that the simulation was far from the real life circumstances as topographical features were not present in the programme and the approach altitude did not match with that on 9/11.

So that’s what we know of Hanjour and what as required of him - I would not trust success of the operation to this individual.

Now on the other hand look what remote guidance technology is capable of: -

  • From the Boeing website, description of a cruise missile reads, “Speed: 500 mph” and “Flies complicated, low-altitude routes to a target by utilizing a terrain-contour-matching guidance system and GPS/INS”. I categorically do not believe a missile impacted the building, this is intended purely to show what guided systems are capable of.
  • Just over a year prior to 9/11, a form of GPS guidance - the Wide Area Augmentation System – was implemented. A feature of this system is the use of descending constant radius turns to line the aircraft up for final approach in landing.

Now compare the above to the manoeuvre on 9/11 - it compares most favourably with the speed, descent and final approach of the aircraft which impacted the Pentagon.

An air traffic controller who watched the aircraft on radar before impact has stated, “The speed, the manoeuvrability, 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.” At the time of viewing, experienced air traffic controllers thought they were watching a military aircraft on radar.

So taking all evidence into account we have a poor pilot performing manoeuvres to be expected of guidance systems and military aircraft… well fancy that. Of course that is not impossible, but each must decide for themselves which theory - Hanjour or the guided approach - is more plausible in context of such a vital operation. If you were planning the operation, which would you have gone for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify: I believe a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon.

What I see no evidence of, is that it was the same Flight 77 which departed Dulles airport, tail number N644AA, serial number 24602.

The plane was lost from radar in-flight (ATC did not even see the aircraft turnaround) and it has never been positively identified since.

But why choose that method, when that just multiplies the complexity (and the scope for something going wrong) by hundreds of percent? Why couldn't it have been the same one, flown into the Pentagon by agents from the CIA or Mossad or whoever? Why is it logically not possible that it could have been the same one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.