Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack


Scott G

Recommended Posts

What would you qualify as conclusive evidence?

An overwhelming mass of proofs. Would you call this an overwhelming mass of proofs? Do you really qualify this as conclusive evidence?

9-11+Pentagon+Debris+2+resize.jpg

9-11+Pentagon+Debris+1+resize.jpg

9-11+Pentagon+Debris_+resize.jpg

Edited by bubs49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An overwhelming mass of proofs. Would you call this an overwhelming mass of proofs? Do you really qualify this as conclusive evidence?

Those three pictures on their own?

No, I would not call that an “overwhelming mass” or “conclusive evidence”.

If however, all of the available pictures of debris are considered together, then I might start to wonder. I would at least ask - well, how much debris should we really expect to see in this type of crash? And - do the pictures conform with those expectations?

You have probably seen this video: -

If an aircraft can disintegrate like that upon impact with a solid object, it appears quite reasonable that all remaining after a high-speed impact with the Pentagon might be limited or relatively small pieces.

It is unreasonable to demand to see large pieces, wings and a tail section that should not necessarily exist.

I will rephrase the question…

What, that should necessarily exist, would you qualify as conclusive evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "recently received video" showed an airline hitting the Pentagon, the truthers would be calling it a fake. But since it shows a "missile", it's automatically swollowed by the crowd as authentic.

It shows a little white streak that was almost certainly added.

But that's what you're saying isn't it in a round-a-bout way :)

Where's the skepticism here?

pardon? has anyone actually said they think it's genuine.

And cruise missiles are not used for air defense...they are long range delivery systems.

it didn't have to be long range....so IF it was a missile that made the big hole in the Pentagon

it would have to be a smaller, faster, nippier one?

I know you think it was a plane.... :)

Please don’t assume bee and Scott of all people are representative of the truth movement.

hey you, that could be taken two ways..... :P

Scott...it looks like we are the heretics, lol

There are prominent researchers and 9/11 truth websites which have gone to great length to refute all form of ‘no plane’ theories. It is just unfortunate there are also those too eager to swallow anything that confirms their preset view - it happens on both sides of the debate in equal measure.

I BET they have.

IMO..the Pentagon is the lynch pin to 9/11....the achilles heel

for the Supporters of the Official Account and the supporters of Inside Job Theory

Q24

The video is an obvious fake - the object doesn’t even impact at the correct location.

I think you're right. And that seems deliberate. Probably a psyops vignette... :mellow: (speculation)

Adding to the whole theatre that is 9/11

It could even be the real thing but with two perspectives merged and the building the wrong way round..... :wacko:

To really mess with our heads.... B)........... :D ......I haven't got into 9/11 for a while and I'd forgotten

how mentally exhausting it all is.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have your cake and eat it Q24.... :)

How can you reconcile this.....clean shiny piece of airliner

An overwhelming mass of proofs. Would you call this an overwhelming mass of proofs? Do you really qualify this as conclusive evidence?

9-11+Pentagon+Debris+2+resize.jpg

with the video you provided....(that didn't go through the piece of wall)

:mellow:

Edited by bee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those three pictures on their own?

No, I would not call that an “overwhelming mass” or “conclusive evidence”.

If however, all of the available pictures of debris are considered together, then I might start to wonder. I would at least ask - well, how much debris should we really expect to see in this type of crash? And - do the pictures conform with those expectations?

You have probably seen this video: -

If an aircraft can disintegrate like that upon impact with a solid object, it appears quite reasonable that all remaining after a high-speed impact with the Pentagon might be limited or relatively small pieces.

It is unreasonable to demand to see large pieces, wings and a tail section that should not necessarily exist.

I will rephrase the question…

What, that should necessarily exist, would you qualify as conclusive evidence?

The Pentagon is the nerve centre of the US military so I find it strange that people expect the building to be constructed out of normal reinforeced concrete and look for the damage they would expect to see if a plane hit a normal building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you reconcile this.....clean shiny piece of airliner

with the video you provided....(that didn't go through the piece of wall)

At one extreme we have examples of unintentional airliner crashes, some at lower speeds, into open spaces which leave the majority of the plane intact. At the other end of the spectrum there is the video I provided of a fighter aircraft crashing at high-speed into a wall designed to absorb energy and which leaves nothing of the plane but dust.

The Pentagon situation falls somewhere between the two - not a huge volume of identifiable debris but not complete disintegration either.

The point being, there is neither too much or too little debris at the Pentagon compared to what should be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed he did.

And…

Are you equating isolated strikes to a decade long occupation of Afghanistan??

I do hope not.

Not right after we have all been deriding Scott for making a nonsensical comparison.

Let's at least apply the same standards to discussion across the board.

What I am saying is, there was no need to slam aircraft into buildings to conduct a war in Afghanistan. Did we invade Afghanistan after terrorist bliew up a van inside one of the WTC towers in 1993? What about the USS Cole?

We don't like war because war cuts into very important military programs and war is very expensive in terms of lives and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bee,

That nice, round, charred hole you keep referencing was an exit hole in the wall of one of the inner rings. The entrance "hole" was the outer wall of the Pentagon, and the damage area is quite extensive, where fuselage mass, engines and wing parts went into the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bee,

That nice, round, charred hole you keep referencing was an exit hole in the wall of one of the inner rings. The entrance "hole" was the outer wall of the Pentagon, and the damage area is quite extensive, where fuselage mass, engines and wing parts went into the building.

'keep referencing'.........you mean when I mentioned the word hole once in a reply to you.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is, there was no need to slam aircraft into buildings to conduct a war in Afghanistan. Did we invade Afghanistan after terrorist bliew up a van inside one of the WTC towers in 1993? What about the USS Cole?

We don't like war because war cuts into very important military programs and war is very expensive in terms of lives and money.

What is it with all these people I see thinking their personal approach to American foreign policy is relevant?

Ok, you are entitled to your opinion but…

Those who came to power in 2001 (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) deemed a “new Pearl Harbor” type event was required to drive military transformation, increase military funding and expand military presence/American influence in the geographically strategic Gulf region in the near future, in doing so maintaining global pre-eminence of the United States into the 21st century.

Next to the above, it doesn’t matter what you think was or wasn’t needed.

'keep referencing'.........you mean when I mentioned the word hole once in a reply to you.... :rolleyes:

How do you reconcile the widespread Pentagon damage with a missile strike, bee?

compmix2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with all these people I see thinking their personal approach to American foreign policy is relevant?

Ok, you are entitled to your opinion but…

Those who came to power in 2001 (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) deemed a "new Pearl Harbor" type event was required to drive military transformation, increase military funding and expand military presence/American influence in the geographically strategic Gulf region in the near future, in doing so maintaining global pre-eminence of the United States into the 21st century.

Next to the above, it doesn't matter what you think was or wasn't needed.

It may sound harsh, but I really think Q's hit the nail on the head here. For anyone who doesn't know anything about PNAC (Project for a New American Century), by all means, check out the wiki link on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia....merican_Century

For once, I think that that wiki -didn't- water down the truth here.

From the link:

According to Bölsche, Rebuilding America's Defenses "was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"[32][33]

Cheney became the Vice President after having writing this paper, and would be joined by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense respectively. "Scotter" Libby would become an advisor to Dick Cheney, only to later be disbarred and convicted of a felony.[/url]

From wikipedia:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

As to the mention of the "New Pearl Harbor", this is the context within which it's mentioned in the article:

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13] Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[39][40][41] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[42] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[43] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

As far as I'm concerned, a missile isn't even needed; explosives alone could have done the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with all these people I see thinking their personal approach to American foreign policy is relevant?

Ok, you are entitled to your opinion but…

Those who came to power in 2001 (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) deemed a "new Pearl Harbor" type event was required to drive military transformation, increase military funding and expand military presence/American influence in the geographically strategic Gulf region in the near future, in doing so maintaining global pre-eminence of the United States into the 21st century.

Next to the above, it doesn't matter what you think was or wasn't needed.

I have to disagree with a "Pearl Harbor' senario. Just look how much the Afghanistan war has cost us in lives and money. In addition, we are going to spend millions on disabled verterans for the rest of their lives, not to mention the mental stress that many will suffer for the rest of their lives.

I also fail to understand how blowing up our buildings and killing our own citizens benefit the military or spread our national prestige worldwide and as a result of those wars, military programs have suffered from cutbacks and cancellations.

We could have used the USS Cole incident as an excuse to invade the region, but we didn't.We could have used the 1993 WTC bombing as an excuse, but we didn't and when a plot in the Philippines was uncovered to blow up airliners over the ocean, we didn't invade the Middle East.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya...yes I thought it was interesting.

Re. the video you have put above. I have a couple of problems with it.

The mechanically created voice says that the 'missile' footage was released just before the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by a whistleblower...BUT....it was uploaded by a YouTube user way before that in 2006.

Perhaps the guy who uploaded it just found it, laugh :-p. The only alternative is that they were trying to fool people.. hopefully it's not that.

In 'your' vid the voice says that the flash is seen in the line of sight of the impact zone, and then

goes in for close up shots of the supposed missile strike, which if you look at the 2006 one the flash isn't in the line of sight of the impact zone. So I can only presume that who ever went in for the close ups on 'your' vid....knew what they were doing and was indulging in deliberate subterfuge.

That does seem rather damning...

I believe that the whole of the 9/11 attacks and aftermath is drowning in deliberate subterfuge.... :hmm:

I agree.

Heres the 2006 one for comparison re. the flash.

Checked it, thanks.

although the person who did the 2006 one is trying to make out it's a plane....

Laugh :-)

edit to add....... the flash MIGHT have some significance though?????? On it's own but not

with the so called plane/missile bit added???? God, this all gets complicated..... :wacko:

which it's designed to do....muddying the waters and confusing everything...

Yes, definitely a lot of confusing things regarding the pentagon attack. I remain certain that no 757 or similiar size aircraft could have hit the pentagon. But other then that, still not sure whether or not the pentagon was hit by external agent or whether it was all internal explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, definitely a lot of confusing things regarding the pentagon attack. I remain certain that no 757 or similiar size aircraft could have hit the pentagon. But other then that, still not sure whether or not the pentagon was hit by external agent or whether it was all internal explosions.

I already know beyond any doubt that it was a B-757 that struck the Pentagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with a "Pearl Harbor' senario. Just look how much the Afghanistan war has cost us in lives and money. In addition, we are going to spend millions on disabled verterans for the rest of their lives, not to mention the mental stress that many will suffer for the rest of their lives.

I also fail to understand how blowing up our buildings and killing our own citizens benefit the military or spread our national prestige worldwide and as a result of those wars, military programs have suffered from cutbacks and cancellations.

We could have used the USS Cole incident as an excuse to invade the region, but we didn't.We could have used the 1993 WTC bombing as an excuse, but we didn't and when a plot in the Philippines was uncovered to blow up airliners over the ocean, we didn't invade the Middle East.

It doesn’t matter what you “disagree with” or “fail to understand” here.

The view of those who came to power in 2001 is infinitely more important than your own opinion, seeing as they were the ones making the policy decisions. And it so happens those individuals stated a “new Pearl Harbor” would drive their strategy for continued American global pre-eminence. They did not make an amendment, “We will rescind that because skyeagle409 says we are wrong”. I doubt they even consulted you, did they?

It’s the same as if you did not agree with the U.S. health care reform acts - your view is not particularly relevant next to that of Obama who saw it as beneficial.

The same way that your beliefs do not matter next to that of Cheney et al.

Edit: I should add in reference to your third paragraph, the stated requirement was a “catastrophic and catalysing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”. It is apparent that a hole in a boat, failed attack on the WTC, limited casualties in each case or uncovering of a plot does not fulfil that condition. There is the further consideration that President Clinton in power at the time was not a part of the Neocon clique which stated benefit of such an event.

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which conspiracy theory? The official story one or an alternate one? In any case, I definitely believe that the official story conspiracy theory would fall apart if more people realized that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon :-).

The conspiracy regarding 'Inside Job' would fall apart without an airliner hitting the Pentagon, IMO.

It would just make a ridiculously complicated alleged plot, even more ridiculously complicated.

Do you think it's possible that there are things that you don't know here? Things that would actually make the plot of not crashing a plane into the pentagon the simplest plot, given the objectives of those who executed the plan? Here's an interesting article that gets into some interesting points regarding the alleged takeoff of Flight 77 as well as the other 3 alleged hijacked flights:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

I'll quote a few interesting points from the article:

Most people are not aware that there are issues with the 4 groups of people who flew on the 4 flights of 9/11 from 3 locations. There are so many issues it would take a newsroom full of dedicated reporters a long time to sift through it all. There are problems with the boarding of passengers on 3 flights. And on the 4th flight we find 2 boardings, an unusual event to say the least. Two of the aircraft, we are to believe didn't even take off on 9/11, as this is what registers in the BTS database for flights 11 & 77 on 911.

Another site says the same thing, and lists the flights that took off on September 10, 11 and 12, 2001. Flight 77 flies on September 10th and September 12th; not on September 11th:

http://myweb.tiscali...o_flight_77.htm

As you know I don't think it was an Inside Job per se....but if it was...surely hitting WTC 1 + 2 would have been quite sufficient.

As Q24 has said, whether you think it would have been sufficient or not isn't the point; the question is whether those who were behind it thought it was sufficient. In the case of the Pentagon, there was another possible reason for doing damage to it; burying unwanted information. I'm referring to the following story:

http://dailybail.com...t-pentagon.html

911myths.com tries to paper over this story, but if you take a serious look at the reports it's gathered, you may find yourself even more suspicious that this had nothing to do with what happened at 9/11.

I found another article on it here:

http://www.rense.com...l80/missing.htm

I'm really beginning to discount the idea that a plane hit it at all; this still leaves open the possibility of some type of missile as the plane that approached the pentagon (but flew over it instead of crashed into it). This reminds me that people saw a flash just before the explosion; could this have been the missile launching? I'm thinking it may not have been able to have been launched from the plane; I think it may have been hard to conceal on it. But what if it were launched from the ground? If that were the case, it would make a lot of sense why it was so "low and level", apparently just 2 feet from the ground. Or could a helicopter have been the one to launch the missile? Or maybe the videos of objects hitting the pentagon are simply fakes, and explosives alone caused all the damage. As I've said before, the only thing I'm sure about is that a 757 or any other airplane around its size couldn't have hit the pentagon; and since most people described the plane as around that size, it strongly suggests that that plane flew over the pentagon instead of into it. But questions definitely remain in my mind as to what, exactly, caused all the damage at the pentagon.

bolded....I've been thinking that. Although I am sticking with my overall theory of the day's events... it can survive a bit of tweaking here and there..... :)

Ok. Mine can as well; CIT firmly believes that no missile was involved at all. I'm fine with that possibility as well; I think explosives could have quite possibly done it all.

Perhaps a missile was used that came from a launcher somewhere around the pentagon area?

Yes, but.. wouldn't it be noticeable? What about the helicopter that went around to the impact point shortly before the explosion there. It was said to be a military chopper. Could they have fired a short range rocket of some sort at the pentagon?

There would surely be things like that to protect the Defence Headquarters...

I heard that they might have had a surface to air missiles battery, but I've never seen any hard evidence for this.

And the helicopter mentioned in the live CNN report was there to oversee it all and/or to create distraction?

Or to fire a shot at the pentagon itself. So many possibilities...

Or perhaps it was bombs that made the holes in the different layers of the building.

That would actually be the simplest solution...maybe

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.. it's certainly what CIT believes and, perhaps to a somewhat a lesser extent, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

I don't believe that elements of the US government would have killed all those civilians in one of it's own

major cities. In fact I think that terrorists causing all that loss of life and damage was, if anything,

an embarassment. A blow to national pride that they could achieve such a thing...?

Did you see the video I linked to that was aired about 6 months prior to 9/11? I mean this one:

I don't discount that possibility on a smaller scale, entirely. For example the Pearl Harbour conspiracy stuff.

But THAT didn't involve civilians, like 9/11 did and although part of the US, it wasn't on the mainland.

Around 3000 americans died because of Pearl Harbor as well. Why should it matter if it's on the mainland or not?

Edited by Scott G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "recently received video" showed an airline hitting the Pentagon, the truthers would be calling it a fake. But since it shows a "missile", it's automatically swollowed by the crowd as authentic.

Where's the skepticism here?

pardon? has anyone actually said they think it's genuine.

Good point. I considered the possibility that it might be true but a certain bee set me right ;-).

And cruise missiles are not used for air defense...they are long range delivery systems.

it didn't have to be long range....so IF it was a missile that made the big hole in the Pentagon

it would have to be a smaller, faster, nippier one?

Aye :-). Maybe not a missile, but a rocket from a helicopter, say. But I also believe that an external force may not have been required; it may be that explosives within the building would have been all that was required. Still, some type of projectile may better explain the small bits that were photographed on the grass.

I know you think it was a plane.... :)

Not only that, he thinks it was Flight 77, even though Flight 77 isn't even listed as flying on 9/11.

Please don't assume bee and Scott of all people are representative of the truth movement.

hey you, that could be taken two ways..... :P

Scott...it looks like we are the heretics, lol

Looks like, laugh :-).

There are prominent researchers and 9/11 truth websites which have gone to great length to refute all form of 'no plane' theories. It is just unfortunate there are also those too eager to swallow anything that confirms their preset view - it happens on both sides of the debate in equal measure.

I BET they have.

IMO..the Pentagon is the lynch pin to 9/11....the achilles heel

for the Supporters of the Official Account and the supporters of Inside Job Theory

Depends which Inside Job Theorists you're talking about B).

The video is an obvious fake - the object doesn't even impact at the correct location.

I think you're right. And that seems deliberate. Probably a psyops vignette... :mellow: (speculation)

I wouldn't be surprised.

Adding to the whole theatre that is 9/11

It could even be the real thing but with two perspectives merged and the building the wrong way round..... :wacko:

To really mess with our heads.... B)........... :D ......I haven't got into 9/11 for a while and I'd forgotten

how mentally exhausting it all is.....

Aye, it can be that. I took a look to see a bit more of where you post.. I saw you post in an alien art thread.. do you believe extraterrestrials have visited earth? I do; I really liked Jim Marrs' book "Alien Agenda". I'm not sure about -everything- in it, but Jim Marrs is quite a researcher; he's published other conspiracy oriented books, including Crossfire, which was 1 of the 2 books that Oliver stone based his JFK movie on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At one extreme we have examples of unintentional airliner crashes, some at lower speeds, into open spaces which leave the majority of the plane intact. At the other end of the spectrum there is the video I provided of a fighter aircraft crashing at high-speed into a wall designed to absorb energy and which leaves nothing of the plane but dust.

The Pentagon situation falls somewhere between the two - not a huge volume of identifiable debris but not complete disintegration either.

The point being, there is neither too much or too little debris at the Pentagon compared to what should be expected.

And this, according to the resident expert on plane crashes, Q24? Honestly, Q, what do you know of how much debris should have been left over if a 757 had crashed into the pentagon? All you've shown is that a jet fighter (speed unknown) disintegrated when hitting a wall designed for a nuclear reactor. And what ironclad evidence do you have that the plane was going at the official story speed? In any case, this is rather irrelevant; there's simply no way that a 757 could have managed to avoid certain obstacles that remained untouched -and- hit the pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth points out why a 757 simply couldn't have pulled off the official story flight path here:

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

Edited by Scott G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here is a breaking news report from the morning of 9/11: -

http://www.youtube.c...Xna7tIb4ZQ&NR=1

Is the lady a part of the cover-up story?

Aldo Marquis of CIT doesn't think so. Here's his take on Isabelle James testimony:

Witness Isabelle James was driving down Columbia Pike with her husband Michael James, a Navy information technician:

isabeljames.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8936799830625901088&hl=nl

IsabelJames2.jpg

Interesting how Isabel James seems seperated from her husband Michael in the above photos. She also seems to be holding a walkie talkie or perhaps a nextel? Were nextels that popular in 2001? What would she be doing down there? Did Michael try to help in the rescue and they got separated? Or was there something else going on?

It is probably nothing. And may not even be her.

Michael James, 37, a Navy information technician, watched from his car with his wife Isabelle:

HEADLINE: ALAMEDA GRAD MISSES CHAOS AT PENTAGON BY 10 MINUTES

BYLINE: M.E. Sprengelmeyer, News Washington Bureau

DATELINE: ARLINGTON, Va.

BODY:

If he had been on schedule, a former Lakewood man might have been on the

bottom of the Pentagon rubble.

Michael James, 37, a Navy information technician watched in horror from

his car Tuesday as an airplane careened off a helicopter pad and smashed

into the side of the Pentagon, where he spends about half of

his day.

"I was supposed to be in the Pentagon underneath all that

rubble," said James, pressed into service directing gawkers away from a

road leading to the compound. "If it would have happened 10

minutes later, I would have been down there."

He is often in the lower Corridor 4 offices of the Navy telecommucations

center around 6 a.m., but Tuesday he was away taking a physical fitness

exam.

After the workout he went home to shower and that's when he saw on TV a

hijacked airplane smash into the World Trade Center.

As he rushed to get ready, he and his wife, Isabelle, saw the plane veer

toward the Pentagon.

"The plane came over the top of us and brushed the trees, " he said.

"Then it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up and went

right into the first and second floors."

His offices are in the general vicinity of where the plane crashed.

"No, I don't feel lucky because I still can't account for my people, six

of them," said James, an Alameda High School graduate.

Rocky Mountain News (Lexis-Nexis - M. E. Sprengelmeyer)

She said they were on Columbia Pike. The reporter also asked her if she only saw 1 plane.(Exactly our point about the flyover plane confusing reporters/people, being called a second plane). She reinforces "So you actually saw the plane enter the building?" Why is that? Because the reporter is confused by people who said it did not hit the building.

Most importantly, the reporter asked if she saw any markings. She says...

"we were driving down Columbia Pike and it just shrew right over us... I didn't see any markings...the trees...the treeline (blocked our view).

Here is the bend on Columbia Pike to the left where the fire engine is driving, with the treeline:

DSC_0411.jpg

Here is the rest of the treeline she was referring to:

fo30.jpg

Clearly she is speaking figuratively, and didn't clearly understand why the reporter was asking if she "actually saw it enter the building". She saw a plane, saw the explosion through trees and DEDUCED that it hit. And said "Why yes , I saw the plane hit the building".

SHE COULD NOT AND DID NOT SEE AN IMPACT.

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8818&pid=9929006&mode=threaded&start=0#entry9929006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aldo Marquis of CIT doesn't think so. Here's his take on Isabelle James testimony:

Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8818&pid=9929006&mode=threaded&start=0#entry9929006

How many witnesses do we have that observed a jetliner flying over the Pentagon and departing the other side at high speed and low altitude?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American Airlines Flight 77

The Boeing 757 departed at 08:20 from Dulles Airport, Washington, bound for LA. About half-an-hour later the hijacking began.

At 09:38, the plane crashed into the Pentagon travelling at 530 mph.

All 64 on board, including six crew, were killed. On the ground, 125 military and civilian personnel died.

Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, US solicitor general Ted Olson, to tell him the plane had been hijacked. Her call was cut off but she rang again only to hear her husband inform her of the two earlier hijacks before she was finally cut off.

The hijackers were Majed Moqed, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi and his brother Salem al Hazmi. Apart from Mihdhar, who came from Yemen, the others were all from Saudi Arabia. Hazmi and Mihdhar both enrolled at a flying school in San Diego but their grasp of English was so poor they had to give up. Hani Hanjour was the pilot of flight 77. He began flight training in Arizona and obtained a commercial pilot's licence in April 1999.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many witnesses do we have that observed a jetliner flying over the Pentagon and departing the other side at high speed and low altitude?

Admittedly, this list is short. CIT sums up the people who are known to have possibly seen this here:

Flyover/away witnesses and connections:

1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts

2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)

3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"

4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"

5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

Source: http://z3.invisionfr...hp?showtopic=82

I believe someone tried to get the Arlington, Virginia 9-1-1 calls released for 9/11 in order to see if anyone reported seeing strange events, such as a plane flying around where it shouldn't, but that the FOA request was denied. Recently, I heard that someone requested the files, but were told that they were disposed of due to the time that has passed:

http://letsrollforum...oia-t26098.html

This being said, there -was- an unusual plane near the pentagon, an E4B. Some have said that people wouldn't have confused it for a 757. I'm not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the 9/11 Mystery Plane, aka one of the 4 E4B U.S. airborne command and control centers, I found out some interesting information suggesting that perhaps it was indeed the pentaplane; as many know, the pentaplane dissapeared from radar a while before it hit the pentagon. Here we go:

"Did the US Military use a new kind of stealth technology on 9/11?

Last week on Dr Bill Deagle's radio program the doctor and I reviewed the anomalous eyewitness accounts and press reports of a low-flying large plane spotted in the vincinity of the White House on September 11, 2001. At least two witnesses described it as a Boeing 747, and one of these went further and actually identified it by its military nickname: a doomsday plane. The problem is that the radar data for 9/11 shows no radar track within two miles of the White House. How then to explain the anomalous evidence?

Dr Deagle and I took the issue to another level. Daring to be bold, we posed what seemed to us the next logical question: Did the US military use some kind of radar-cloaking technology on 9/11 to conceal this plane? Assuming this were the case, its mission could not have been innocent and must necessarily have been clandestine. Of course, all we could do was speculate. Still, it was fun to explore the possibilities.

Then we got a break. After the show a listener contacted Dr Deagle with some stunning information. The listener claims to be a stockholder in a certain high-tech company that services the Department of Defense, a company that specializes in this very kind of stealth technology! The listener claims that many years ago while attending a stockholder's convention he witnessed an engineer describe the company product in detail and how radar cloaking technology works."

Source: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Lyb-xD5-TVw

They also have cloaking devices that actually make an object atleast partially invisible. Here's an example:

Edited by Scott G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the 9/11 Mystery Plane, aka one of the 4 E4B U.S. airborne command and control centers, I found out some interesting information suggesting that perhaps it was indeed the pentaplane; as many know, the pentaplane dissapeared from radar a while before it hit the pentagon. Here we go:

"Did the US Military use a new kind of stealth technology on 9/11?

Last week on Dr Bill Deagle's radio program the doctor and I reviewed the anomalous eyewitness accounts and press reports of a low-flying large plane spotted in the vincinity of the White House on September 11, 2001. At least two witnesses described it as a Boeing 747, and one of these went further and actually identified it by its military nickname: a doomsday plane. The problem is that the radar data for 9/11 shows no radar track within two miles of the White House. How then to explain the anomalous evidence?

Dr Deagle and I took the issue to another level. Daring to be bold, we posed what seemed to us the next logical question: Did the US military use some kind of radar-cloaking technology on 9/11 to conceal this plane? Assuming this were the case, its mission could not have been innocent and must necessarily have been clandestine. Of course, all we could do was speculate. Still, it was fun to explore the possibilities.

Then we got a break. After the show a listener contacted Dr Deagle with some stunning information. The listener claims to be a stockholder in a certain high-tech company that services the Department of Defense, a company that specializes in this very kind of stealth technology! The listener claims that many years ago while attending a stockholder's convention he witnessed an engineer describe the company product in detail and how radar cloaking technology works."

Source: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Lyb-xD5-TVw

They also have cloaking devices that actually make an object atleast partially invisible. Here's an example:

Cloaking on a 747? Absurd! Part of radar stealth comes from the surface coating or paint but a large part comes from the shape of the vehicle. The 747 has no stealth characteristics. A stealth aircraft also must hide its engine intakes as the radar returns from the fan blades are big enough to show on any radar. The 747 has 4 very large engines with no attempt to shield them.

There were no radar tracks near the White House likely because it is next to impossible for a ground observer to accurately determine altitude of a jet from the ground. If they got the altitude wrong they also got the location wrong. Highly likely with a 747 as many don't understand just how big it is as they are used to smaller aircraft. The E-4B has its secondary base at Andrews AFB. It is highly likely that it was seen only because it was on a standard takeoff or landing path into Andrews. I doubt it was ever really near the White House.

I still doubt anyone with eyes could mistake a 747 for a 757.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.