The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Perhaps you have me confused with one you call a "911 truther". I am not that.

I am a private citizen who does not believe the official story for the simple reason that there is no evidence to support the official story. Yes, it is true that 2 Boeing type aircraft struck the towers, but that's about it.

And, the operators, American and United Airlines, reported the loss of those aircraft, which struck the WTC towers.

From impossible aeronautical maneuvers,...

The maneuvers were not impossible by any means. We have had aircraft that entered dutch rolls and other maneuvers that were considered impossible for large aircraft and yet, those aircraft survived and landed safely.

...to the absence of crash site debris consistent with the story,...

False, and crash debris from those aircraft have been shown in photos.

...to the OBVIOUS use of explosive devices for what is said to be a gravitational collapse, the official story does not pass even the most superficial scrutiny.

There were no explosives placed in the WTC buildings and experts have concluded that the structural beams were weakened by heat from the fires. You will notice that WTC north was the first building hit, but the last tower to collapse because it had less overhead weight to support than WTC south. The suport beams were damaged by impact, which meant that the surviving structural beams were struggling to maintain structural interity of the WTC towers and all it took was a bit of heat to weaken the remaining structural supports to the point of failure.

You will notice that more than 1000 pounds of explosives had failed to bring down the WTC building in 1993. Here is the result of the 1993 WTC bombing and you will notice the huge crater and yet the building remained standing.

What is absolutely CERTAIN to this social security recipient is that the government lies and covers it up with the assistance of the media. It's been lying since I was a kid in the US Army and before.

Why is it NOT lying now?

I hope you don't think that I don't know that. There are cases where I have slammed the government for lying, but in the case of 9/11, we can blame foreign terrorist for what happened on 9/11/2001. I was returning from the Philippines in August 2001 for San Francisco and as I was going through the security checkpoints at the aiport in Manila, I wondered why airport security was not as strict in the States and less than a month later, it became evident that my concern was valid.

It should also be noted that in the Philippines, a terrorist plot was uncovered to blow up airliners and to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters. The plot was known as The Bojinka Plot.

The Bojinka Plot

Ramzi Yousef

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist terrorist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up 12 airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers as they flew from Asia to the United States. The term can also refer to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995, including a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Murad proposed to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, in addition to a plan to bomb multiple airliners, which leads credence that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed evolved this plot into the 911 airliner attacks.

Despite careful planning and the skill of Ramzi Yousef, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6 and January 7, 1995. Yousef set off test bombs in a mall and theater, injuring scores of people, and one person was killed in the course of the plot a passenger seated near a nitroglycerin bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434, which could have caused enough damage to lose the entire plane.

My link

Edited December 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

When I mention the radar tack, that is in reference to the aircraft approaching the Pentagon and not witnessed to leave the area. Regarding the actual manoeuvre, it was helluva risk which the aircraft succeeded in one for one attempt… I don’t think it in the slightest likely that Hanjour was at the controls.

Edit: please see my post #49 here from earlier in the thread.

Well that is interesting. If you do not think Hanjour was at the controls, who do you think was at the controls?

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

The aeronautical maneuver I mentioned earlier was not at WTC, but at the Pentagon.

Again, I am curious as to which command at USAF you were in--fighters or bombers?

In my post above I asked Q if he is familiar with the maneuver Hanjour flew, and I pose that same question to you.

I don't know if you watch 60 Minutes, but they performed some excellent journalism a few weeks back by exposing the lies told by numerous high level inviduals at both Citibank and Countrywide.

Point is that if Ken Lay and others can lie, so too can high level execs at UAL and AA. I'm not saying they did, I'm saying that there is a certain probability that they did. If AT&T would do the NSA's dirty work by illegally intercepting emails and voice communications without warrants, what is it that guarantees that UAL and AA execs are being forthright?

[Q24]

Well that is interesting. If you do not think Hanjour was at the controls, who do you think was at the controls?

I think someone with access to a ground control station was at the controls. It’s difficult to be more specific than that but I think we all know the leading suspect groups (first person to say “the U.S. government” loses). I’m talking of those with Neocon and Zionist association, linked to the military and/or intelligence services.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

The aeronautical maneuver I mentioned earlier was not at WTC, but at the Pentagon.

It is really not as complicated as one might think and was actually a poorly planned approach. If he had struck an obstacle that took out the cockpit, things would have been different, however, light poles were struck by the aircraft on its approach to the Pentagon.

Again, I am curious as to which command at USAF you were in--fighters or bombers?

In Vietnam, I was attached to the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing, which flew F-100's, B-57's, and other support aircraft. At Hill AFB, we didn't have aircraft assigned to our squadron, but we were involved in combat support and some members of my squadron were involved in the transportation of Minuteman missiles, and at Travis AFB, I was involved with cargo aircraft. I am a pilot, but I did not fly as an Air Force pilot, however, I have flown as an Air Force DCC crewmember aboard the C-5 Galaxy as an Air Force reservist, which was assigned to me by the Air Force.

I received pilot training while stationed at Hill AFB,and continued pilot training after I was handed TDY orders to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. Flying out of Hill AFB provided me with cross-wind training and mountain flying and lots of it, while my flight training out of Davis-Monthan AFB, provided me with heavy turbulence flying. After my four years of active duty, I was honorably discharged and began commercial pilot training at the Ogden airport, which is only a few miles from Hill AFB. In addition, I have flown many aircraft over the years and look forward to getting my hands on the P-51 Mustang.

On another note, It was my aircraft, (C-5, 68-0213) that was tagged to fly support gear from Cubic Point, Philippines to Japan in support of recovery efforts for Korean Airlines 007, which was shot down by the Soviet Union. I was on a mission on that aircraft when we received orders to fly to Cubic Point from Clark, to pick up the recovery gear and fly the equipment to Yokota airbase, Japan.

As an Air Force civilian, I was involved with aircraft structures where I have also developed components for Air Force aircraft and support equipment for the Air Force, and defense contractors after my retirement from Air Force civil service. I have flown many types of aircraft over a period of more than 40 years, but I have never applied for an airline job. I come from a family of pilots and some of my relatives are currently flying as airline captains aboard aircraft that includes the B-767, one of whom doesn't use ACARS in his aircraft.

I have been actively involved in aviation over the years and have led the Tuskegee Airmen chapter at Travis AFB, which includes air force officers and enlisted personnel, air force civilians, and military retirees, and some members of my chapter are original Tuskegee Airmen, one of whom flew our first POW's out of North Vietnam on the 'Hanoi Taxi," and was a crewmember on the aircraft that flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. That was Colonel James C. Warren, and we still fly together.

Lt. Colonel James Warren, was the person who nominated me for president of the Lee A. Archer, Jr. chapter, Travis AFB, where afterward, its members voted me in as president, a position I held until I took on a government contract in Corpus Christi, TX.

Lt. Colonel James Warren is also the honorary commander of the 477th Fighter Group that flies the F-22 Raptor, which was his unit during World War II.

Lt. Colonel James Warren and F-22 pilots of the 477th Fighter Group

In addition, I once gave a lecture on the hazards of mountain flying to the Experimental Aircraft Association, (EAA) in Vacaville, CA. a few years ago. Look for the Tuskegee Airmen movie; "Red Tails," which is a George Lucas film and due for release on Januarty 20, 2012.

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

Woody has a question over there. I don't know if he'll bother looking over here for an answer, but I might as well provide one anyway...

In case Warren is still here...a question for you...

a DLBLK block shows that the plane has (automatically) acknowledged a message from ground control. Okay. A missing DLBLK block shows that a message from ground control (ULBLK) was not acknowledged. Okay. But acknowledging is not the same as receiving. Before you can acknowledge a message, you have to receive it, but a plane can receive a message without acknowledging it.

Is it possible that the sheer existence of a ULBLK message proves that it was received by the plane?

No Woody it doesn't. All it proves is that ARINC transmitted the message from a ground station.

Think of it like this...

It is kind of like when you take a piece of mail into your post office. You might get a receipt when you pay the postage, which is proof that you've sent it, but that doesn't mean that it actually made it to the intended recipient.

I hope that helps.

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

Ok, so evidence more direct to the shoot down of Flight 93 which I will split into five main headings…

*snipped for brevity*

Thank you Q24. You do present a compelling and thought provoking case, however it is riddled with speculation. Don't get me wrong, you've communicated a plausible "shoot down" hypothesis about as clearly as one can be given, but there isn't really any substantial evidence in support of the speculation and an overwhelming body of evidence in support of the official account. The transcript of the cockpit voice recorder alone makes it pretty clear; to me at least. Wouldn't there be some kind of hint about this in the cockpit voice recorder if it had happened?

Question for you though... if an engine had been shot to disable the aircraft and it had been smoking on the way down, would you expect to see some remnant of that smoke trail in the initial photos after the crash?

Aside from the upward billowing smoke cloud from the crash itself, I don't see any sign of a downward smoke trail; dissipating or otherwise. Shouldn't there be some vestige of a smoke trail if the engine was burning?

I'm curious though, where exactly did you find this reference and do you have any more information about it:

• Flight 93 trailing smoke and flames in one instant.
  

I've not heard this before and would like to know where it came from.

Cheers.

[Obviousman]

Can I also add to Sky's reply that apart from being a private pilot myself and being involved in various aspects of military aviation for 20 years, I have also spoken to A-10 pilots, F-15 pilots, F-16 pilots, B767 pilots, B747 pilots and A380 pilots. They all agree that hitting the Pentagon would have been easy, even for a novice flier, with minimal training.

[badeskov]

Woody has a question over there. I don't know if he'll bother looking over here for an answer, but I might as well provide one anyway...

<snip>

Good grief, BooNy. I just went to that horrible place and it is clear that common sense and critical thinking has pretty much been eradicated there. Doubt that we will ever see some of those proponents here again.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[booNyzarC]

Good grief, BooNy. I just went to that horrible place and it is clear that common sense and critical thinking has pretty much been eradicated there. Doubt that we will ever see some of those proponents here again.

Cheers,

Badeskov

It is indeed a dismal landscape, I completely agree.

[badeskov]

It is indeed a dismal landscape, I completely agree.

Indeed it is! I thought some of the corners of our little UM universe were rather detrimental to rational discussion, but reading a couple of pages of that thread discussions here look like a high level logical, philosophical discussion

Just wow.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[wstutt]

Hi booNy,

Woody has a question over there. I don't know if he'll bother looking over here for an answer, but I might as well provide one anyway...

No Woody it doesn't. All it proves is that ARINC transmitted the message from a ground station.

Think of it like this...

It is kind of like when you take a piece of mail into your post office. You might get a receipt when you pay the postage, which is proof that you've sent it, but that doesn't mean that it actually made it to the intended recipient.

I hope that helps.

Cheers.

I saw the question and have given Woody a more detailed response in a PM which comes to the same conclusion as yours:

Hi Woody,

In case Warren is still here...a question for you...

I'm replying to you via PM rather than a post since according to Rob my posts will not be approved until I acknowledge something which is wrong.

a DLBLK block shows that the plane has (automatically) acknowledged a message from ground control. Okay. A missing DLBLK block shows that a message from ground control (ULBLK) was not acknowledged. Okay. But acknowledging is not the same as receiving. Before you can acknowledge a message, you have to receive it, but a plane can receive a message without acknowledging it.

Yes, it is correct that a plane can receive a ULBLK message from ground control without ground control receiving a DLBLK acknowledgement. In fact, I can see an instance that this happened for UA93 in pages 72 and 73 of the full ACARS message log that I have been referring to. However, I can also see an instance in pages 89 and 90 where UA93 did not receive a ULBLK message from ground control on the first two of three attempts.

These cases are exceptions however. Before UA93 crashed, most ULBLKs from ground control were acknowledged by DLBLKs which were received by ground control.

Is it possible that the sheer existence of a ULBLK message proves that it was received by the plane?

From the above, the existence of a ULBLK message does not prove that it was received by the plane.

Warren.

P.S. You can post this PM on the forum if you like.

Warren.

[Wandering]

The landing gear wheel of American 77 at the Pentagon.

You appear to have typed incorrectly here skyeagle. What you meant to say was 'The landing gear wheel of a B-757 at the Pentagon.

No matter what you might think no investigation was performed that conclusively paired the missing parts with Flight 77. To suggest the parts have been confirmed as coming from Flight 77 by an official investigation is misleading.

This is how American 77 approached the Pentagon just before impact. You can see the vertical stabilizer and while smoke trailing in the background.

Oh lord, again. Please do an outline of the plane in paint for me. I really fail to see what that 0.5 fps video proves for you and whereabouts at any point you see a 'vertical stabiliser'.

Q,Boony,Czero, just so I know if I'm going mad or not...Can you see this mysterious vertical stabiliser in that video? I know a plane hit the Pentagon, but that videos a little blurry.

The maneuvers were not impossible by any means. We have had aircraft that entered dutch rolls and other maneuvers that were considered impossible for large aircraft and yet, those aircraft survived and landed safely.

By professional, trained, experienced pilots...You are comparing that to people who barely or did not pass flight school? Shame...

The call of Edward Felt

The Secondary Debris Field(s)

The Rumsfeld comment

Great information Q, certainly leaves one with something to think about.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Wandering

[skyeagle409]

You appear to have typed incorrectly here skyeagle. What you meant to say was 'The landing gear wheel of a B-757 at the Pentagon.

It is all very simple. American Airlines, the operator of American 77, which was the B-757 that crashed into the Pentagon, has said that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon, was its B-757.

No matter what you might think no investigation was performed that conclusively paired the missing parts with Flight 77. To suggest the parts have been confirmed as coming from Flight 77 by an official investigation is misleading.

On the contrary, and here's the loop again, American Airlines, operator of the B-757, a.k.a., American 77, reported that it was its aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. No matter how many times you go into denial model, reality remains the same.

Oh lord, again. Please do an outline of the plane in paint for me. I really fail to see what that 0.5 fps video proves for you and whereabouts at any point you see a 'vertical stabiliser'.

Keep looking at that photo because it is there, and if you are having a bit of a problem, just follow the white smoke trail.

By professional, trained, experienced pilots...You are comparing that to people who barely or did not pass flight school? Shame..

It really doesn't take much to control the B-757 once it is lined up on a target. Some folks are more comfortable flying heavier aircraft than smaller planes, which is how we acqured a Beechcraft Skipper for our chapter. A female pilot had difficulty flying the single-engine craft so her husband decided to sell the aircraft because his wife was more comfortable flying their larger and heavier twin-engined Beechcraft Baron. And another thing, we have had commercial pilots ground-looping Piper Cubs and other tail-wheeled aircraft at the airport.

Since it is obvious that you are not familiar with the way things are in the real world of aviation, may I suggest that you refrain from clouding the issues any further?

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Oh lord, again. Please do an outline of the plane in paint for me. I really fail to see what that 0.5 fps video proves for you and whereabouts at any point you see a 'vertical stabiliser'.

Since you are having great difficulty, this video should help you out. Examine the video carefully between timelines: 2:17 and 2:42

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

It is all very simple. American Airlines, the operator of American 77, which was the B-757 that crashed into the Pentagon, has said that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon, was its B-757.

On the contrary, and here's the loop again, American Airlines, operator of the B-757, a.k.a., American 77, reported that it was its aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. No matter how many times you go into denial model, reality remains the same.

Does this carry the same legal weight as an investigation which confirms the above statement would? You believe in Aliens, yet you don't believe it is possible for a company to lie if it's in it's interests? This boggles the mind. How have you survived so far being so naive.

Companies tell the truth, all the time. Is this your bottom line?

Keep looking at that photo because it is there, and if you are having a bit of a problem, just follow the white smoke trail.

If you look at something long enough, you can see anything. Is this the trick you're trying on people here? Telling them it's there until their mind invents it? What I asked is not hard but you have a problem performing the task.

Can YOU even see it skyeagle? You give no frame of reference other than 'its there'....

It really doesn't take much to control the B-757 once it is lined up on a target. Some folks are more comfortable flying heavier aircraft than smaller planes, which is how we acqured a Beechcraft Skipper for our chapter. <snipped unrequired drivel>

Is that so? Just line it up in between the windows and go straight forwards aye? Sounds easy! Why is everyone under the impression being a pilot is hard. From the way you describe it my Grandma could jump in and start flying around.

If you are not familiar with the way things are in the real world of aviation, don't cloud the issues any further than they are now.

Ah, one of your favourite quotes. How many times have you been corrected in this thread again Skyeagle? Have you offered any evidence other than your own opinion, statements from companies(on a loop) and photos of parts that were never investigated?

You claim to be 'familiar with the way things are in the real world of aviation' so why let BoonY and Czero do all the legwork for you? Could it be that....You just don't know the answers?

Why was this the first incident in which no investigation on the aircrafts parts were performed?

[Wandering]

Since you are having great difficulty, this video should help you out. Examine the video carefully between timelines: 2:17 and 2:42

Irrelevant post.

This video is not based on Factual Data, as you have been told before.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Wandering

[skyeagle409]

Does this carry the same legal weight as an investigation which confirms the above statement would?

Bring in common sense.

You believe in Aliens, yet you don't believe it is possible for a company to lie if it's in it's interests?

Prove the company lied. Since it is very obvious that you do not know how things work in the real world of aviation, you need to do some serious research on your own since you are not in the habit of listening to the facts nor examining the evidence in detail.

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Irrelevant post. This video is not based on Factual Data, as you have been told before.

How amusing!! You posted this:

[

Can YOU even see it skyeagle? You give no frame of reference other than 'its there'....

And I posted that you examine the video between timeline: 2:17 and 2:42, and look what you posted!!

When faced with the facts and evidence, you turn and run.

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Is that so? Just line it up in between the windows and go straight forwards aye? Sounds easy!

It is easier than you think. When we take children between the ages of 8-17 years old in our aircraft under our Young Eagles program, we let them take over the controls at altitude and you would be amazed how nicely they handle an aircraft for the very first time.

Now, if you can't handle an aircraft in flight, just let a child do it for you.

Young Eagles

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

How amusing!! You posted this:

[

And I posted that you examine the video between timeline: 2:17 and 2:42, and look what you posted!!

When faced with the facts and evidence, you turn and run.

?

You have taken quotes from 2 seperate posts of mine and mixed them together. I am not sure what you are attempting to achieve here.

[skyeagle409]

?

Just examine the video between timelines: 2:17 and 2:42 until you see something like this. I am very sure you can see the smoke trailing behind that B-757 in the distance.

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

It is easier than you think. When we take children between the ages of 8-17 years old in our aircraft under our Young Eagles program, we let them take over the controls at altitude and you would be amazed how nicely they handle an aircraft for the very first time.

In small planes, not performing advanced manouveres... When will you stop comparing apples with oranges?

Bring in common sense.

If you attempted to apply common sense to many actions the Government performs, how well do you think you would do? Would it appear that everyone in the world acts according to common sense?

I understand your point, but really it is moot. You are attempting to draw attention away from the fact that there was NO investigation. Regardless of how 'obvious' it may have been that those planes crashed it has been more obvious which planes crashed in commercial accidents....which where then investigated.

Your 'vertical stabiliser' appears to be in the last frame of the video as well. After it crashed? What's the official excuse for it trailing smoke Skyeagle? Did the little light poles hurt the big plane?

[skyeagle409]

In small planes, not performing advanced manouveres... When will you stop comparing apples with oranges?

Now remember, the terrorist were not interested in landing the aircraft because all they wanted to do was to slam their aircraft into a building, which isn't difficult at all, but landing is another question.

If you attempted to apply common sense to many actions the Government performs, how well do you think you would do? Would it appear that everyone in the world acts according to common sense?

Question for you! Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the operators (United and American Airlines) have confirmed their aircraft have crashed at the locations reported? They are not government agencies.

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Your 'vertical stabiliser' appears to be in the last frame of the video as well. After it crashed? What's the official excuse for it trailing smoke Skyeagle? Did the little light poles hurt the big plane?

No doubt those little light poles did some damage to the B-757. After all, look what soft-bodied birds can do to aircraft.

Edited December 29, 2011 by skyeagle409