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

ATC was not affected, yet they had injects on their screen? That's what being affected is Skyeagle. Je-sus.

There were no injects on ATC radar and the data never depicted injects. Where did you get that idea from? I have seen so much confusion from the 9/11 conspiracy side of the house on radar contacts and aircraft because they have no idea what they are talking about.

They have confused newspaper reports and eyewitness accounts on United 175, United 93, American 77 and American 11, which were later clarified yet the 9/11 conspiracy folks have failed to correct their theories after the clarifications were issued.

Did you reviewed the video where the coroner slammed the 9/11 conspiracy folks for taking his comments out of context? I might add that he was very angry! Have you read the clarifications in regards to United 93 and Cleveland airport? Where are the corrections from the 9/11 conspiracy folks after the clarifications were issued?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no injects on ATC radar and the data never depicted injects. Where did you get that idea from? I have seen so much confusion from the 9/11 conspiracy side of the house on radar contacts and aircraft because they have no idea what they are talking about.

I think I understand where you are going with this.

To clarify can you inform me what radar screens did have injects on their screens that day?

Are you denying that any and all radar screens had any injects at all or just ATC screens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand where you are going with this. To clarify can you inform me what radar screens did have injects on their screens that day?

You might want to check with NORAD because the 9/11 conspiracy folks have once again misread communications to NEAD that had nothing to do with false radar blips, so here is where they blew it again!!!.

Are you denying that any and all radar screens had any injects at all or just ATC screens?

Not on ATC radars. Once again, you have to differentiate simulations from the real thing.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK gents, please fill me in on the video Boo shows above with the strike at the Pentagon? Has it been revealed as bogus?

So you guys are basing your position that a 757 struck the Pentagon partly or wholly on the lamp poles? Because the lamp poles are knocked down, there had to be a Boeing, or am I misunderstanding your positions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Toronto Star and several other news outlets reported on the use of injects in the Vigilant Guardian exercise. December 9, 2001

Others too. One quoted some controller claiming that the radar screens did not return to normal until after lunch.

You're the one so into 'simulations' SKY. That's all injects are, is simulated targets on a radar screen. They are not real airplanes and exist only on the screen. They are excellent tools to train radar controllers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK gents, please fill me in on the video Boo shows above with the strike at the Pentagon? Has it been revealed as bogus?

It is bogus and obvious.

So you guys are basing your position that a 757 struck the Pentagon partly or wholly on the lamp poles?

Nope. Why do you think American Airlines reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it's bogus, Sky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it's bogus, Sky?

The exhaust is bogus along with the explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Toronto Star and several other news outlets reported on the use of injects in the Vigilant Guardian exercise. December 9, 2001

Others too. One quoted some controller claiming that the radar screens did not return to normal until after lunch.

You're the one so into 'simulations' SKY. That's all injects are, is simulated targets on a radar screen. They are not real airplanes and exist only on the screen. They are excellent tools to train radar controllers.

Were you aware that the whole mess was based on confusion and nothing to do with false radar blips? It was later admitted by the person who started it all who said that it had nothing to do with radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys are basing your position that a 757 struck the Pentagon partly or wholly on the lamp poles? Because the lamp poles are knocked down, there had to be a Boeing, or am I misunderstanding your positions?

You completely missed my point. If a cruise missle did strike the pentagon as the video is suggesting, then why are there no explanations on the knocked down light poles?

Again I will state, there was no explanation in that video regarding the light posts and theory on how they were damaged. Hand waving off evidence that doesn't support the no plane theory? Ithink so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it's bogus, Sky?

The bigger question is, how can anyone in their right mind possibly not know that it is bogus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger question is, how can anyone in their right mind possibly not know that it is bogus?

I think you provided your own answer there, BooNy... :yes:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of bogus videos of a cruise missile, look how far some folks will go to doctor photos of cruise missiles and UAVs.

Hoaxed cruise missile photo.

missile.jpg

Hoaxed cruise missile photo

2011-09-04_1604.png

Actual Air Force cruise missile photo.

000-AGM-86C-990330-F-3588H-002.jpg

Hoaxed Viking photo.

majic-pent1-small.jpg

Hoaxed Global Hawk Photo

507a301485.jpg

Actual Global Hawk photo..

tpi110204a4.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked in at PFT and apparently they too consider the video bogus, though for different reasons. Over there it is more of a dogma developed by CIT. They claimed a few years ago to have proved beyond any doubt that nothing at all struck the Pentagon. I disagreed with them.

The rationale offered by Boo is interesting however. He apparently 'just knows' that it is bogus.

I've always considered that SOME SORT of single engine flying object struck the Pentagon, for that would explain the debris we are shown--few and small wheels, just one small turbine engine.

Oh well, I guess I'll find out when I get to heaven... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should have some of the PffffT experts give some rationale for

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should have some of the PffffT experts give some rationale for

.

Love it... :)

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should have some of the PffffT experts give some rationale for

.

Using BR logic, if the US government says its not a UFO, they must be lying and we now need a full scale investigation with NO FBI intervention what so ever!

JK BR, you know I had to throw that in for laughs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should have some of the PffffT experts give some rationale for

.

Hey BooN! That lid was reported stolen by Billy Meier a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jokes are funny guys, LOL.

Can anybody give a serious reason as to how they know the video is fake? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely missed my point. If a cruise missle did strike the pentagon as the video is suggesting, then why are there no explanations on the knocked down light poles?

Again I will state, there was no explanation in that video regarding the light posts and theory on how they were damaged. Hand waving off evidence that doesn't support the no plane theory? Ithink so.

I'm pretty sure the consensus is that the wings knocked them over...Apparently the lightpoles are knocked over in rough conjuction with where the wings would be on an incoming low flying plane....

Makes more sense to me than a missile.

Using BR logic, if the US government says its not a UFO, they must be lying and we now need a full scale investigation with NO FBI intervention what so ever!

JK BR, you know I had to throw that in for laughs

That would actually be Skyeagle if you hang around in the ET forums! :w00t:

They 110% lie about UFOs, but 110% tell us the truth about these events! :w00t:

Edited by Wandering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would actually be Skyeagle if you hang around in the ET forums! :w00t:

They 110% lie about UFOs, but 110% tell us the truth about these events! :w00t:

Hello Wandering,

Firstly I am sure the video posted by Boony had some string visible so I dont think its a real UFO but a hoax :P

Seriously though, the question you pose regarding the Government lying about UFOs versus 9-11. I have given this much thought especially since seeing Sky take a side I never thought I would see him take.

There is a big difference in my opinion between lying about UFOs versus 9-11.

Let me paint a picture: The government did know UFO's were fact. They were unable to determine the origin and arrived at the conclusion of ET (with or without evidence). The lack of knowledge (or maybe lack of scientific evidence to confirm) had them going in circles trying to understand this phenomena and to determine if it really posed a national/global threat. Covering this up because either a- they had no answers b- they knew it was ET.

9-11 is a totally different ball game IMO showing an evil side rather than an ignorant one.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quillius--what about wilful ignorance?

As for the cruise missle video, it seems to me the questions raised are 1) does it show the missle hitting the part of the Pentagon that was struck, and 2) from what platform was it taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quillius--what about wilful ignorance?

As for the cruise missle video, it seems to me the questions raised are 1) does it show the missle hitting the part of the Pentagon that was struck, and 2) from what platform was it taken?

I dont think the Government has the luxury of 'wilful ignorance' in the case of 9-11. The consequences were always going to result in many innocent deaths, so I would place wilful ignorance into the 'evil' bracket here. With regards to UFO's the consequences are an unknown (potentially), therefore 'evil' and 'wilfully ignorant' can be treated differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your analysis.

I was using wilful ignorance to describe the government's position regarding UFOs.

It does seem that the government's efforts to cover up the UFO question are every bit as thorough as its efforts regarding 911.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your analysis.

I was using wilful ignorance to describe the government's position regarding UFOs.

It does seem that the government's efforts to cover up the UFO question are every bit as thorough as its efforts regarding 911.

I appreciate that the Government has probably made many errors regarding 9-11, but again this could just be a case of covering a catalogue of errors and/or secrets but doesnt prove intent for the main crime.

The biggest difference in my eyes is that if UFOs are Extra terrestrial in nature then there may still be no evidence to confirm the same. This cant be said of 9-11, if the Government masterminded the event then there is no questioning the existance of evidence that could prove their guilt.

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.