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
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

1,812 posts in this topic

Q

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

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

Sky

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Sky

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

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

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

Such as?!

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

You bought into the deception, hook, line and sinker. So did I, for the better part of 4 years. Then I realized that my pocket had been picked, so to speak.

You still have not realized that your pocket has been picked, thus you are unable to perceive the deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

You bought into the deception, hook, line and sinker. So did I, for the better part of 4 years. Then I realized that my pocket had been picked, so to speak.

You still have not realized that your pocket has been picked, thus you are unable to perceive the deception.

You say there was a deception, yet you have provided no evidence of a deception,and, no government official has been arrested nor charged in the 9/11 attacks after more than 10 years and the reason is, there is no evidence.

I have noted that the CT folks have consistently confused themselves because they allowed themselves to be mislead by those who have no idea what they are talking about. Now, we have some CT folks claiming that no aircraft struck the WTC Towers, and that broken light poles were planted near the Pentagon the night before it was struck.

The list goes on and on, and I have posted many of their misconceptions, but it seems the CT foks have yet to grasp reality because they continue to pull things out of thin air that do not reflect reality.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the early pictures which appear to show a pristine lawn were not focused on the debris.

You refer to pictures like these: -

PENT04.jpg

0Nice%20Lawn%20at%20Pentagon.jpg

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

debrisHR.jpg

015-full.jpg

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

db_Pentagon_Debris_171.jpg

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

Yeah, those are the pics I was referring to. (I've been away from these discussions for awhile and your post made me wonder about their legitimacy)

Funny you say they are blurry and the debris may be hard to see. I, on the other hand thought they looked clear enough to show any of the debris in the later photos. I always assumed the debris was strewn across the lawn after the first pics were taken as they pulled debris from the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, those are the pics I was referring to. (I've been away from these discussions for awhile and your post made me wonder about their legitimacy)

Funny you say they are blurry and the debris may be hard to see. I, on the other hand thought they looked clear enough to show any of the debris in the later photos. I always assumed the debris was strewn across the lawn after the first pics were taken as they pulled debris from the building.

Here's another photo taken at the Pentagon.

2006-08-08-IO-Article-pic-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another photo taken at the Pentagon.

2006-08-08-IO-Article-pic-1.jpg

Thanks for the pic, I don't think I've seen that one before.

But I think that pic came later than the very earliest moments, which is what I was asking Q about. But I am curious, do you know what they're picking up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pic, I don't think I've seen that one before.

But I think that pic came later than the very earliest moments, which is what I was asking Q about. But I am curious, do you know what they're picking up?

Wing flaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wing flaps.

I’d like it to be wing flaps to further quieten ‘no plane’ theories, but…

cuaiq.jpg

It doesn’t look like any part of a 757 wing flap that I can make out.

Another image here for comparison: -

51721227+Luke+Fraza,+the+lift+the+wings+moment.jpg

skyeagle, please could you provide further input, other than just re-stating “Wing flaps”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Pieces of an identified American Airlines jet, strewn about outside and inside the Pentagon...September, 2001.

Identified remains of passengers from a certain American Airlines jet, strewn about in incomprehensible fashion inside of the Pentagon, also curiously...September 2001.

Something tells me it wasn't an everyday occurrance.

In fact, something tells me it never happened before.

I wonder what it is we're actually debating here?

Perhaps you're really interested in detached wing flaps for some reason?

Maybe slats, spoiler plates, landing gear doors, emngine nacelles, landing gear parts, thrust reversers...

I just wonder why...

We know what hit the Pentagon. We know how many people died there. We know which plane it was, without a shadow of a doubt.

perhaps we're just discussing flaps for the sake of some technical interest?

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us, I don't think I'm the only one, like to consider events from a different perspective, and ask questions.

Such as, where are those other 9 wheels? Where are those 2 engines? Since when have aluminum fuselages acquired the ability to penetrate multiple walls and still retain enough structural integrity to leave such a pretty and picture-perfect exit hole?

And how could a lousy pilot flying an airplane way bigger and faster than anything he had ever flown in his short life make such an approach at such speeds and NOT overshoot his target, threading the proverbial needle to tolerances perhaps within 1%?

And why in hell won't the government settle this question by releasing any of the many videos it must possess that would prove their story conclusively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us, I don't think I'm the only one, like to consider events from a different perspective, and ask questions.

Such as, where are those other 9 wheels? Where are those 2 engines?

They were all there in the wreckage.

Since when have aluminum fuselages acquired the ability to penetrate multiple walls and still retain enough structural integrity to leave such a pretty and picture-perfect exit hole?

With the landing gear retracted in the horizonal position and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, it is not unusual to see something like this.

physics911pentagon.jpg

Explosives definitely didn't create the damage you saw at the Pentagon. and the reason why is because the structure of the Pentagon had suffered from impact damage and in one of the photos just before the B-757 struck the Pentagon, you can see the vertical stabilizer of the B-757.

asce-illus-2.gif

ACSE_030127-12A.jpg

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like it to be wing flaps to further quieten 'no plane' theories, but…

cuaiq.jpg

It doesn't look like any part of a 757 wing flap that I can make out.

Another image here for comparison: -

51721227+Luke+Fraza,+the+lift+the+wings+moment.jpg

skyeagle, please could you provide further input, other than just re-stating "Wing flaps".

Look at the flap traiing edges.In the following photo, what can you tell me what you see other than where the red arrow is pointing?

0901_163.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

I assume that it is your position that the government always tells the truth? Or seldom deceives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us, I don't think I'm the only one, like to consider events from a different perspective, and ask questions.

Such as, where are those other 9 wheels? Where are those 2 engines? Since when have aluminum fuselages acquired the ability to penetrate multiple walls and still retain enough structural integrity to leave such a pretty and picture-perfect exit hole?

That you do not understand how something could or did happen does not mean that it did not or could not happen. The fuselage and everything inside the fuselage penetrated the wall because of its kinetic energy.

In the same way a fleck of paint measuring 0.2mm traveling at orbital velocities can create a 4mm impact crater in the windshield of the Space Shuttle [sOURCE], an aircraft weighing over 200,000 pounds and traveling at around 500 mph has sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate a reinforced concrete wall.

You can disagree with me and whomever else brings this to your attention, but in the end, its basic physics that you are trying to say is wrong, not me or anyone else.

And how could a lousy pilot flying an airplane way bigger and faster than anything he had ever flown in his short life make such an approach at such speeds and NOT overshoot his target, threading the proverbial needle to tolerances perhaps within 1%?

And once again, as you have been told several times, he wasn't making "an approach". He was pointing the aircraft at the side of a building and hoping to hit it. You are the one ascribing super-human abilities, not us or anyone else. He was good enough to turn the aircraft around, point it at the Pentagon, firewall the throttles and keep it pointed there until he hit it, and that's really all he needed to be able to do. It didn't need to be pretty, it didn't need to be comfortable for the passengers, it didn't need to be safe for the aircraft. He didn't need to know how to do an "approach" or e4ven how to land the aircraft. It was a controlled crash, with perhaps a little luck thrown in that he didn't hit the highway first and cartwheel the aircraft into the Pentagon.

And why in hell won't the government settle this question by releasing any of the many videos it must possess that would prove their story conclusively?

Given your well known distrust of any information coming from the Government, it is highly hypocritical of you to be so incredulous that they haven't released any information that you wouldn't believe anyway.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us, I don't think I'm the only one, like to consider events from a different perspective, and ask questions.

I think we all understand that different perspective.

Such as, where are those other 9 wheels? Where are those 2 engines? Since when have aluminum fuselages acquired the ability to penetrate multiple walls and still retain enough structural integrity to leave such a pretty and picture-perfect exit hole?

ong ago, we discussed in detail kinetic energy. 100 tons of metal impcting at 800 feet per second. It's unimaginable almost, how much energy is liberated there.

Ever read about a piece of straw being embedded in a tree trunk, having been propelled by tornadic winds, and never even being broken...simply penetrating the wood by a couple inches? That kind of phenomenon you should think about...

And how could a lousy pilot flying an airplane way bigger and faster than anything he had ever flown in his short life make such an approach at such speeds and NOT overshoot his target, threading the proverbial needle to tolerances perhaps within 1%?

A good pilot couldn't have done it (it just doesn't fit the mindset...).

And you are of course an experienced heavy-iron pilot and know what lousy and adequately trained to fly straight and level, or even to fly straight at all is?

Oh, and that 1% tolerance you speak of as if it means something.

Quantify that 1%. 1% of what?

And why in hell won't the government settle this question by releasing any of the many videos it must possess that would prove their story conclusively?

How many do they have?

Where are they?

Have you asked?

You see, we understand the different perspective.

I do, at least.

There's something lacking in the total perspective's logical / rational modality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

I assume that it is your position that the government always tells the truth? Or seldom deceives?

I am not implying that the government always tell the truth, but the 9/11 conspiracy folks have yet to provide evidence of a government conspiracy. You continue to ignore the fact that the black box was recovered along with remains of bodies of passengers and crew of American 77, and remember, American Airlines reported that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all understand that different perspective.

ong ago, we discussed in detail kinetic energy. 100 tons of metal impcting at 800 feet per second. It's unimaginable almost, how much energy is liberated there.

Ever read about a piece of straw being embedded in a tree trunk, having been propelled by tornadic winds, and never even being broken...simply penetrating the wood by a couple inches? That kind of phenomenon you should think about...

A good pilot couldn't have done it (it just doesn't fit the mindset...).

And you are of course an experienced heavy-iron pilot and know what lousy and adequately trained to fly straight and level, or even to fly straight at all is?

Oh, and that 1% tolerance you speak of as if it means something.

Quantify that 1%. 1% of what?

How many do they have?

Where are they?

Have you asked?

You see, we understand the different perspective.

I do, at least.

There's something lacking in the total perspective's logical / rational modality.

Glad you mentioned that 1% MID.

By that I mean the alignment of the airplane, according to the official story and pictures provided here by Sky, relative to the building it supposedly struck. Sky provided a picture with the outline of the airplane superimposed over the building at that magical moment it struck the building.

If the airplane had been a foot or 2 higher, part of the vertical tail would have missed, and ended up probably partially intact a few hundred feet beyond. If it had been a foot or 2 lower, the engine cowlings would have struck the ground and left their marks.

The left-right alignment is also very close. Considering the dimensions of the airplane and the building, it was a perfect strike, and I'm just guessing the actual strike alignment was within 1% of where it positively had to be.

Now I don't really care what other folks believe in. I am always happy to agree to disagree, and can speak only for myself.

That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.

Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe.

Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity. Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

But a man is entitled, if he wishes to, to believe any group of pathological liars he sees fit. I'll pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* unsupported opinion snipped for brevity *

I think this pretty much sums up every argument Babe Ruth has brought up to date.

Argument from Incredulity / Lack of Imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.

It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

[sOURCE]

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that I mean the alignment of the airplane, according to the official story and pictures provided here by Sky, relative to the building it supposedly struck. Sky provided a picture with the outline of the airplane superimposed over the building at that magical moment it struck the building.

If the airplane had been a foot or 2 higher, part of the vertical tail would have missed, and ended up probably partially intact a few hundred feet beyond. If it had been a foot or 2 lower, the engine cowlings would have struck the ground and left their marks.

Are you now denying that an aircraft stuck the Pentagon?

That said, I know very well that me and a handful of Boeing pilots are right in calling out the very high improbability of the Hani maneuver.

Yet, that foreign terrorist flew American 77 into the Pentagon, which once again, was confirmed by American Airlines.

Further, kinetic energy or not, aluminum airframes will not penetrate through six walls, or whatever the number is, and leave a perfect exit hole as we are told to believe. Wrecking balls and hammers are not made out of aluminum for a very good reason--aluminum is far too soft and light a metal to act in that capacity. Maybe a jeweler's small hammer, but not something to crush concrete with.

Are you implying that this small jet was made of iron and steel? You also notice that wreckage goes right through the building, and later, a portion of the building collapsed, which is exactly what happened at the Pentagon when a portion of the building later collapsed after it was struck by American 77.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMe1ruG-Tfc

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky... the portion of that video showing a plane is fake...

The building did collapse, but no plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky... the portion of that video showing a plane is fake...

The building did collapse, but no plane.

That part is a simulation of what happened.The building in the video is a steel-structured building that I posted some time ago.

Edited by skyeagle409

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.