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 -

Official 9/11 photographer claims conspiracy


Ozfactor

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, W H I T E said:

Here's a live link:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/index.html?_s=PM:US

When it comes to missiles, the claim is a concern for 'accidental discharge' according to this.

Thank you for that. I got confused; I thought your claim was for fixed SAMs and not MPADS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, Obviousman said:

Thank you for that. I got confused; I thought your claim was for fixed SAMs and not MPADS.

Yes, I understand and figured that might be,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bee said:

I expect something on the top might slide over and a missile launcher thingy poke out and --- boom - :)

Like I said, just because you think something exists doesn't make it true.

It is rather hard to have a usefull discussion with someone when that person can just make up their own "facts". :no:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Like I said, just because you think something exists doesn't make it true.

It is rather hard to have a usefull discussion with someone when that person can just make up their own "facts". :no:

.

Did you miss where I said I was speculating earlier...?

Speculation and examination of circumstantial evidence is the best we can hope for - those of us who see discrepancies - 

the US government and staunch supporters of the Official Account aren't going to give an inch - and THAT'S a fact - 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, W H I T E said:

Here's a live link:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/index.html?_s=PM:US

When it comes to missiles, the claim is a concern for 'accidental discharge' according to this.

 

10 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Thank you for that. I got confused; I thought your claim was for fixed SAMs and not MPADS.

.

In WHITE'S link it says ---

The Pentagon says for "security and deterrent" reason it will not discuss the exact location of the air defense sites, but one Army Avenger missile system can be seen outside the Pentagon.

Others were visible at Bolling Air Force Base and Fort McNair in Washington.

The Avenger system is a portable Stinger missile launcher mounted on a Humvee. It is capable of firing eight Stinger missiles at one time.

 

(note it says it can be remotely operated up to a distance of 50 meters) 

 

 

I wouldn't call that a MPAD ... ?

 

.

Edited by bee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2016 at 9:26 PM, W H I T E said:

Sorry for the misspelling on your name in the last message, Abaddonire.

Interesting to find it's documented that the Pentagon has been guarded with that type defense, at least at some past points.

Don't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It is rather hard to have a usefull discussion with someone when that person can just make up their own "facts". :no:

 

Now you're getting the picture....

 

 

 

 

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2016 at 11:11 AM, Czero 101 said:

And of course this has nothing to do with him trying to sell his book or distracting people from the fact that he's still a suspect in the admittedly suspicious death of his wife and still faces criminal charges in that case...

 

From "Hiding Behind the Truther" - The New York Post, March 31, 2013
 

 

 

 

Cz

he has been tried for the murder at least twice.     

Double Jeopardy

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fightzone said:

he has been tried for the murder at least twice.     

Double Jeopardy

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense

 

 

No, fightzone, he has NOT been "tried for the murder at least twice". He has been CHARGED with it twice.

Please research the difference between "tried" and "charged."

 

Sonnenfeld has never been convicted of the crime, and for him to have been acquitted of the crime, he would have had to have gone through a full trial and been found "Not Guilty".

He was originally CHARGED in 2002, but his charges were dropped before the trial when the alleged suicide note was discovered, and at the time the prosecution retained the right to refile.

in 2004 NEW CHARGES were filed after witnesses came forward with evidence that he allegedly boasted of the crime while in custody. but he had fled the country before he could be arrested on the NEW CHARGES.

Double Jeopardy does not apply to this case at all.

His latest "conspiracy" tactics are a thinly veiled effort to avoid extradition to FACE CHARGES AND BE TRIED for the murder.

 

 

 

Cz

 

SOURCE

Quote

Sonnenfeld, 44, is charged with first-degree murder in the New Year's Day 2002 shooting death of his 36-year-old wife, Nancy, at the couple's home in Congress Park.

The case caused a sensation at the time, with friends describing Nancy as among the city's "beautiful people" and the two as "madly in love."

The charges against Sonnenfeld were dismissed just before trial in June 2002 after a note written by Nancy Sonnenfeld was found that supported Kurt Sonnenfeld's contention that she took her own life.

New charges were filed in 2004, however, after two Denver jail inmates came forward to say Sonnenfeld had confessed to them during his time in custody. By then, Sonnenfeld had remarried and was living in Argentina.

He has been fighting extradition ever since, describing the warrants against him as "a false pretext for other darker motives."

That drew a sharp rebuke Tuesday from Chief Denver District Attorney Michelle Amico.

"I have heard that nonsense from him . . . but then he has nothing to back it up," she said.

Edited by Czero 101
typos, formatting, balh blah blah....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2016 at 11:11 AM, Czero 101 said:

And of course this has nothing to do with him trying to sell his book or distracting people from the fact that he's still a suspect in the admittedly suspicious death of his wife and still faces criminal charges in that case...

 

From "Hiding Behind the Truther" - The New York Post, March 31, 2013
 

 

 

 

Cz

he has been tried for the murder at least twice.     

Double Jeopardy

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same. 

does the united states make a habit of extraditing people to america for murder charges based on the word of jailed people with no names. its obvious the jailed peoples credibility is already tarnished. using them to build a case would not hold up in any fair court. the cost to extradite requires more proof than people in jail said so. i was wrong about trial tho

Edited by fightzone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, fightzone said:

he has been tried for the murder at least twice.     

Double Jeopardy

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same. 

does the united states make a habit of extraditing people to america for murder charges based on the word of jailed people with no names. its obvious the jailed peoples credibility is already tarnished. using them to build a case would not hold up in any fair court. the cost to extradite requires more proof than people in jail said so. i was wrong about trial tho

NO.

HE.

HASN'T.

 

The people who reported that he had boasted of the murder knew details of the crime that were not released to the public. They only way they could know was if they were there, were part of the investigation or were told by someone who was there.

 

THAT GIVES THEM CREDIBILITY. Enough at least to warrant a new investigation and new charges.

 

Again, though,... CHARGES.... Not a TRIAL... CHARGES. Please learn the difference between the two.

 

Sonnenfeld has NEVER BEEN TO TRIAL for his wife's murder.

 

Please do try to keep up.

 

 

 

 

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something tells me fightzone doesn't want to hear that, perhaps even doesn't care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 7/22/2016 at 1:36 AM, bee said:

.are we seriously meant to believe that when America was already under attack and on the highest security alert that a plane
in the hands of Islamic Terrorists was, in reality, going to be allowed to hit the White House or the Pentagon .. ?

 

Not allowed, but what was there to stop them? What would have happened if an airliner was shot down over Washington D.C by mistake? An off-course aircraft does not mean that aircraft represents a threat. Let's take a look here.

Would a Fighter Pilot Shoot Down a Private Airplane?

A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, found 3,400 violations of restricted airspace, or about three a day, in the 39 months following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which rewrote the rules of U.S. aviation. About 88 percent of the offenders were general aviation pilots, and seven percent were military. 

 All the same, military aircraft have engaged interlopers “hundreds of times” over American skies since 9/11, says Davi D’Agostino, the GAO’s director of Defense Capabilities and Management. 

On April 6, 2009, what turned out to be a mentally disturbed young Canadian pilot entered U.S. airspace over Lake Superior without warning, and led Air National Guard F-16s on a five-hour chase over four states before finally landing on a country road in Missouri. Minnesota Air National Guard pilots were the first to intercept the Cessna 172 near Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. National Guard units from Wisconsin and Louisiana took over as the pilot continued south without responding to the military jets.

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/dont-cross-that-line-5841988/?no-ist

How many of those violators were shot down?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2016 at 2:38 PM, bee said:

.

or...

Minion : (at 9:03)  Sir, America is under terrorist attack - what's the plan, what'll we do.?

Pentagon Officer: Nothing - we haven't got any surface to air defense missiles - just keep your fingers crossed -

Minion: shall we evacuate everyone then, Sir .?

Pentagon Officer: No we won't bother to do that - we'll just hope for the best, maybe close our eyes and pray -

 

~or maybe~

 

Minion: Sir America is under terrorist attack, shall we evacuate.?

Pentagon Officer: No need - nothing will get passed our surface to air missile defense -

Minion; Oh **** the temporary disguised Missile Battery stationed by the renovation area has gone off and hit the building -

Pentagon Officer:  oh **** that's embarrassing  - quick think of something QUICK - 

 

:whistle:

 

 

.

not much of a Defense Headquarters is it ---- if it can't even defend itself from Incoming --

.

There was a time when certain airbases were surrounded by surface-to-air missiles during the 1950's and 1960's, but that is no longer the case. In fact, my brother was attached to an air defense unit near Travis AFB, CA., which is where I spent most of my Air Force career. I might add that airliners and private aircraft regularly fly near, and over military bases, yet there are no air defense missiles surrounding those bases.

On June 25, 2016, my chapter, along with other aviation-related chapters, were invited by Air Force officials of Travis AFB to take a special tour of its ATC facilities under its flight safety program. Travis AFB closed its airspace to other aircraft in order for us to land our aircraft at the base.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/2695647/travis-afb-mid-air-collision-avoidance-maca-fly

 We were then given a briefing and taken  for a tour of its ATC facility. We watched radar screens that depicted many aircraft near the base. What good would an air defense system be in that case?  In addition,  we were taken for a tour in the control tower and provided tours of the KC-10 and C-5M aircraft. Of the 38 photos in that link, you will find my photo in one of them. 

There is no need to place missile batteries around the Pentagon, but who would pay the price for shooting down an airliner by mistake, which just happened to crash into a heavily populated section of Washington D.C.? If  such an incident occurred, it would be my opinion that ***oops *** would not be the word to choose when explaining the incident to the media..

Edited by skyeagle409
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.