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 -
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Montmorency the Dog

* Yes, I saw your reply above to this question raised by others, but I still don't see why it was necessary to do all that. If, as you say, the operation requires a large aircraft impact in an area packed full of eyewitnesses, you provide a large aircraft impact, why go to all the extra trouble and complexity to provide a different large Aircraft?

And surely you're not using the "can you prove that it wasn't?" argument?

there is no proof the plane was not switched
:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

* Yes, I saw your reply above to this question raised by others, but I still don't see why it was necessary to do all that. If, as you say, the operation requires a large aircraft impact in an area packed full of eyewitnesses, you provide a large aircraft impact, why go to all the extra trouble and complexity to provide a different large Aircraft?

And surely you're not using the "can you prove that it wasn't?" argument?

:unsure2:

I’m using the argument that proof of the plane identity is as important to the official theory as any other.

Assuming a 9/11 false flag, I thought I had set out the logic for a plane switch in my post above: having some incompetent, half-demented terrorist take over the real plane and successfully manoeuvre it into the Pentagon carries a high risk of failure compared to the guaranteed method of a guided drone under precise control.

You don’t see that?

The suggestion is based on that logic and made viable due to no evidence of the Pentagon plane identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Topic transferred from this thread

Well, you may be surprised to learn that recently I've had some thoughts as to whether a small craft may have hit, or atleast exploded in front of, the pentagon. What I feel very strongly about is that there's no way that a 757 could have left so little debris there if it had crashed there, but as you say, there is no hard evidence that a 757, let alone Flight 77, actually made it to the pentagon at all. For others here, you may be interested to know that me and Q24 have discussed this for quite some time in the past, in another thread in this forum, which can be found here:

http://www.unexplain...pic=157724&st=0

To say that there was "so little debris" is simply being ignorant of the facts. There was significant 757 debris at the Pentagon.

People who know little about the Pentagon's building design also forget that not only was it the 2nd largest office building in the world (WTC was the largest, so now the Pentagon is once again the largest), but that it was built like a bunker - millions of cubic yards of poured concrete. The damage to the building is completely consistent with having an aluminum aircraft traveling at high speed hitting a massive concrete wall.

Not to mention, hundreds of people saw the freaking plane hit the building. To dismiss that simply because there might not be crystal clear video is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Sure, the problem is, with unprecedented non-identification of the Pentagon impact aircraft, there is no proof the plane was not switched. Your first question above is fair enough. I think my last post was rather more about ‘how’ the aircraft could have been switched than ‘why’.

Before I go any further, please know this is not intended to be ‘evidence’ of an inside job. I think the Pentagon event contains very limited evidence in support of that conclusion. You would really need to study the other aspects of 9/11 before, during and after and understand the potential for a false flag attack to exist to entertain why the plane(s) may have been switched.

So assuming 9/11 was an inside job, at the Pentagon there are two options: -

  1. Hani Hanjour is a real (and insane/suicidal) terrorist who will be entrusted the job of hijacking the plane and impacting the Pentagon. This carries an extreme risk to success of the operation as I will explain below.
  2. Implement a drone aircraft fitted with remote guidance technology. This carries zero risk in so far as taking control of the aircraft and successfully impacting the target.

Starting with Hani Hanjour, although he had obtained a licence, by all accounts he was a poor pilot who had trouble controlling a small Cessna aircraft during landing manoeuvres. A former employee of the flight school attended by Hanjour is on record in the NY Times as commenting: -

“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon, he could not fly at all.”

Whilst a routine landing would obviously not have been required of Hanjour on 9/11, the fact remains that he would need to perform a descent, line up and control a large Boeing 757 at extremely low altitude on approach as it skimmed above the ground. To achieve the results seen, this required avoiding impact with the ground or overshooting the target which given the topography of the area would not be altogether straightforward.

A further point of consideration in regard to the aircraft control at such low altitudes is ground effect. I have had this discussion with individuals previously and an article was put forward in favour of the official story to demonstrate that ground effect would not have prevented the aircraft approach and impact. An excerpt of the article states: -

“That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive.”

So we see from this that Hanjour may have had to make “adjustments” or “fine corrections” that required “finesse and familiarity with an aircraft’s flight characteristics” where at least a basic level of “expertise” was required to counter whatever level of ground effect there was. This is then relevant for consideration in the discussion.

Finally, regarding the level of skill involved, two pilots have attempted to recreate the flight path of the alleged Flight 77 in a training simulator. Whilst each of their attempts was indeed successful in impacting the Pentagon, it must be noted that the simulation was far from the real life circumstances as topographical features were not present in the programme and the approach altitude did not match with that on 9/11.

So that’s what we know of Hanjour and what as required of him - I would not trust success of the operation to this individual.

Now on the other hand look what remote guidance technology is capable of: -

  • From the Boeing website, description of a cruise missile reads, “Speed: 500 mph” and “Flies complicated, low-altitude routes to a target by utilizing a terrain-contour-matching guidance system and GPS/INS”. I categorically do not believe a missile impacted the building, this is intended purely to show what guided systems are capable of.
  • Just over a year prior to 9/11, a form of GPS guidance - the Wide Area Augmentation System – was implemented. A feature of this system is the use of descending constant radius turns to line the aircraft up for final approach in landing.

Now compare the above to the manoeuvre on 9/11 - it compares most favourably with the speed, descent and final approach of the aircraft which impacted the Pentagon.

An air traffic controller who watched the aircraft on radar before impact has stated, “The speed, the manoeuvrability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” At the time of viewing, experienced air traffic controllers thought they were watching a military aircraft on radar.

So taking all evidence into account we have a poor pilot performing manoeuvres to be expected of guidance systems and military aircraft… well fancy that. Of course that is not impossible, but each must decide for themselves which theory - Hanjour or the guided approach - is more plausible in context of such a vital operation. If you were planning the operation, which would you have gone for?

Rubbish - it's only a difficult flight maneuver if you intend to walk away at the end. If that's not your primary goal, well, you get the picture.

The hardest part of flying is landing. Crashing on the other hand is quite easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Rubbish - it's only a difficult flight maneuver if you intend to walk away at the end. If that's not your primary goal, well, you get the picture.

The hardest part of flying is landing. Crashing on the other hand is quite easy.

Thank you for your opinion, but I have to take the word of the guy I quoted above; you know, the one who actually attended flight training with Hanjour.

I also regard the word of these guys higher than your opinion: -

  • “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”
    ~Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)
  • “Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.”
    ~Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force
  • “The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. …”
    ~Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Note they are not saying the manoeuvre was physically impossible to achieve, and neither am I. Though the fact remains, skimming feet above the ground at 530 mph does carry an obvious risk, more so to an amateur pilot on his first real flight. Whoever was in control of the aircraft… the descent, turn, final approach and impact were all performed rather well (too well, one might be forgiven for considering).

Evidence of an inside job? Not really.

Something to think about along with everything else? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

I’m using the argument that proof of the plane identity is as important to the official theory as any other.

Assuming a 9/11 false flag, I thought I had set out the logic for a plane switch in my post above: having some incompetent, half-demented terrorist take over the real plane and successfully manoeuvre it into the Pentagon carries a high risk of failure compared to the guaranteed method of a guided drone under precise control.

You don’t see that?

The suggestion is based on that logic and made viable due to no evidence of the Pentagon plane identity.

Oh, I see what you're arguing there, yes; I'm just wondering why it couldn't have been done by having someone trustworthy, someone qualified as a pilot, to take over the actual plane and carry out the mission. Surely, if Mossad (if not the CIA) were as ruthless as they're made out to be, there must have been someone willing to carry out a suicide mission if it was this important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog
"commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort"

Commander Muga obviously hasn't flown with Ryanair, then. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Oh, I see what you're arguing there, yes; I'm just wondering why it couldn't have been done by having someone trustworthy, someone qualified as a pilot, to take over the actual plane and carry out the mission. Surely, if Mossad (if not the CIA) were as ruthless as they're made out to be, there must have been someone willing to carry out a suicide mission if it was this important?

  1. I’m not sure suicide attack is a favourite of the West, good luck finding volunteers there.
  2. It would still leave the unnecessary risk of human error compared to the guided option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

But why choose that method, when that just multiplies the complexity (and the scope for something going wrong) by hundreds of percent? Why couldn't it have been the same one, flown into the Pentagon by agents from the CIA or Mossad or whoever? Why is it logically not possible that it could have been the same one?

This line of argument is based on a false interpretation of Occam's razor. The simplest theory is not necessarily the true theory. Period.

As far as the alleged swap of AA77 is concerned, maybe you should analyze its radar track. And compare it with that of AA11. What results is not a simple coincidence, but a pattern.

I wonder how many possibilities really exist that two supposedly hijacked aircrafts get into a radar hole within the same day and get out from there to hit their own target.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Duplicated post. Removed.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

  1. I’m not sure suicide attack is a favourite of the West, good luck finding volunteers there.
  2. It would still leave the unnecessary risk of human error compared to the guided option.

Oh come on, if MOSSAD are as fanatical and ruthless as they're always made out to be, i really do not believe that that's such a preposterous idea. And even with guided options, there'd have to be either someone programming it to fly the precise flight path, (and as it could hardly be tried out for real beforehand, it would have to be practised entirely through simulation), or someone actually flying it a remotely piloted device at one remove. Either way, exactly the same arguments about risk of error would apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Oh come on, if MOSSAD are as fanatical and ruthless as they're always made out to be, i really do not believe that that's such a preposterous idea. And even with guided options, there'd have to be either someone programming it to fly the precise flight path, (and as it could hardly be tried out for real beforehand, it would have to be practised entirely through simulation), or someone actually flying it a remotely piloted device at one remove. Either way, exactly the same arguments about risk of error would apply.

I’m not opposed to speculation where there are gaps in the evidence but I do like to have something in support of it. I can provide a case of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of staff planning to use drone aircraft to stage a false flag attack, many examples of unmanned aircraft and guidance systems, along with indication the use of remote aircraft to impact the WTC was more recently considered. But could you provide an example of a Mossad agent carrying out a suicide attack?

I mean, I’m open to options, I just see no evidence, likelihood or precedent for your suicide pilot Mossad idea. I think I’d go with the official story before that, seeing as at least there is recent precedent for suicide attacks from Islamic individuals.

Perhaps also have a look into remote/guided technology - it was already well developed, tested and extremely accurate prior to 9/11. The whole flightpath would not need to be manually programmed, just a series of co-ordinates - the onboard computer then calculates the correct adjustments faster and more precisely than any human could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Thank you for your opinion, but I have to take the word of the guy I quoted above; you know, the one who actually attended flight training with Hanjour.

I also regard the word of these guys higher than your opinion: -

  • “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”
    ~Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)
  • “Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.”
    ~Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force
  • “The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. …”
    ~Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Note they are not saying the manoeuvre was physically impossible to achieve, and neither am I. Though the fact remains, skimming feet above the ground at 530 mph does carry an obvious risk, more so to an amateur pilot on his first real flight. Whoever was in control of the aircraft… the descent, turn, final approach and impact were all performed rather well (too well, one might be forgiven for considering).

Evidence of an inside job? Not really.

Something to think about along with everything else? Yes.

As have been shown time and time again, even experts can be misled by their own personal biases and just because someone is a/an (insert whatever expert qualification you'd like here) doesn't mean they aren't rabid believers in conspiratorial nonsense.

I ask you this, given the mountains of evidence for a 757 hitting the Pentagon and the fact, as you even admit, that your experts and you say that it wasn't "physically impossible" for a 757 to make the required maneuvers, doesn't it make sense to at least consider that it was, in fact, a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Let's also keep in mind that, while radical, the maneuvers were well within the performance limitations of a Boeing 757.

And even your statements that the pilot wasn't a very good pilot don't really prove anything. So what, he might not have been that technically proficient, but history is replete with examples of idiots who got lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I ask you this, given the mountains of evidence for a 757 hitting the Pentagon and the fact, as you even admit, that your experts and you say that it wasn't "physically impossible" for a 757 to make the required maneuvers, doesn't it make sense to at least consider that it was, in fact, a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Let's also keep in mind that, while radical, the maneuvers were well within the performance limitations of a Boeing 757.

And even your statements that the pilot wasn't a very good pilot don't really prove anything. So what, he might not have been that technically proficient, but history is replete with examples of idiots who got lucky.

Yes…

To clarify: I believe a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon.

Evidence of an inside job? Not really.

I think you just proved people don’t really read what they are responding to.

Or… there’s another Q24 around here making arguments I don’t know about.

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psychoticmike

I sincerely doubt it. That's the thing with agencies; it's all just one big agency, names of who did what within it is rarely given.

Yep, I wouldn't put it past them.

This is one thing that Q24 and I agree on. There is tons of evidence that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. Put what if it were a small drone that only -looked- like a 757? A small scale version perhaps. What if this piece of debris:

pentagon1.jpg

doesn't look like you guys agree on that.

was actually part of the "windows" of the plane? Food for thought anyway.

of which plane a drone? or the official stories plane? doesn't look like part of a window to me, but then again i am no airplane expert.

Here's an article I just found regarding the Pentagon Attack:

Who Is This Man?: What Role Did Lloyd England Play In The 9/11 Attack On The Pentagon?

The author is clearly influenced by CIT's work. From the my skim through it, I thought it was pretty good. For more on the main subject of his article, you may want to see CIT's documentary on Lloyd England here:

Some recommend seeing CIT's National Security Alert first, up to you, but the video of theirs that captivated me the most was Lloyd England's.

yes Lloyd is clearly lying about quite a few things, it was an intriguing and revealing video thanks for the link.

as for your second link, haven't checked it yet but i will when i have the time, i have been looking through the forums on pilots for 911 truth and there seems to be some good info there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

yes Lloyd is clearly lying about quite a few things, it was an intriguing and revealing video thanks for the link.

as for your second link, haven't checked it yet but i will when i have the time, i have been looking through the forums on pilots for 911 truth and there seems to be some good info there as well.

Mike, you know I have been honest with you and also that I do not accept the official 9/11 story. It is up to you whether to take or leave what I’m about to say. There is something not right at Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT - please take their commentaries with caution and assess the evidence of your own volition.

The Pentagon eyewitnesses can be split into two broad groups: -

  1. Those who support a flightpath from the South, aligning with all known damage.
  2. Those who describe a flightpath further Northward, irreconcilable with any damage.

Please understand that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT will vigorously pursue any discrepancy or perceived problem against accounts of the larger first group in order to avoid acceptance of that evidence. In contrast, they will excuse any discrepancy or perceived problem against accounts of the smaller second group in order to promote that version of events.

They do not assess eyewitnesses to the same standard.

They divide eyewitnesses by preference into ‘truthful’ and ‘liar’ whilst failing to recognise that eyewitness evidence is notoriously diverse and often inaccurate due to natural human perception, more so when recalling a sudden and traumatic event many years later.

Note that the taxi driver, Lloyd England, is a member of the first group of eyewitnesses - he provides evidence the aircraft clipped the light poles located on the South approach. This is why they will use any error of memory or open comment in his account to discredit and paint Lloyd as a ‘liar’.

They have an agenda, whether intentional or of foolishness, to promote their flyover theory - it’s your decision whether to be brainwashed by their biased presentations or research the many eyewitness accounts for yourself.

By the way, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT simply will not allow me to present the list of eyewitnesses belonging to the first group on their forum - my attempts have resulted in bans and post deletion. The fact they do not allow honest discussion and control information flow to their followers should tell you everything you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

The Pentagon eyewitnesses can be split into two broad groups: -

  1. Those who support a flightpath from the South, aligning with all known damage.
  2. Those who describe a flightpath further Northward, irreconcilable with any damage.

Hi Q24,

I am new to this forum. I read a lot of posts of you in several threads and about different topics during the last days and I have found them in most cases impressive. While I sincerely admire your level of competence and your efforts, I must confess that I do not support and do not even fully understand your theory about the Pentagon. My fault, probably.

Please understand that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT will vigorously pursue any discrepancy or perceived problem against accounts of the larger first group in order to avoid acceptance of that evidence. In contrast, they will excuse any discrepancy or perceived problem against accounts of the smaller second group in order to promote that version of events.

They do not assess eyewitnesses to the same standard.

This is probably true to some extent. Still their theory is based on solid evidence. They do not have simple witnesses. What they have is a trend of witnesses who strongly corroborate their own accounts. This makes their claim credible, in my opinion. While NoC witnesses do not rule out completely conflicting theories (impact, plane on the official track etc., after all, all witnesses can be wrong), any theory about the Pentagon should take them into account. They can't be easily dismissed.

They divide eyewitnesses by preference into ‘truthful’ and ‘liar’ whilst failing to recognise that eyewitness evidence is notoriously diverse and often inaccurate due to natural human perception, more so when recalling a sudden and traumatic event many years later.

I recognize a certain level of arrogance in some CIT's and P4T's positions. Also, it is absolutely right that "eyewitness evidence is notoriously diverse and often inaccurate due to natural human perception", as you say above. Nonetheless, I still have not found a comparable trend within the SoC witnesses along these years. Whenever I tried to debate this particular issue with debunkers in other forums, the only answer I got was that "80 is bigger than 13 or 15", so bigger wins and NoC theory should be dismissed because "it is in conflict with evidence". I know how things work with debunkers. "Evidence" is anything that supports official theory, "non evidence" is anything that is in conflict with it. However, now I am debating with a serious and sincere researcher like you. Therefore I would be very interested in knowing your list of SoC witnesses. I think it should be important to analyze their own accounts one by one to see if a comparable trend exist as for NoC witnesses.

Note that the taxi driver, Lloyd England, is a member of the first group of eyewitnesses - he provides evidence the aircraft clipped the light poles located on the South approach. This is why they will use any error of memory or open comment in his account to discredit and paint Lloyd as a ‘liar’.

Sorry, here I fully disagree. Lloyd is not a member of the first group. He's a confessed liar. Not because he's a "bad man", but because he admitted he was part of a stage for some unspecified reasons he wouldn't further clarify. But he was part of it. He admitted himself. Even if you do not accept what he says to Ranke while he thought not to be recorded, photos completely dismiss his own account. Sorry, Lloyd England is neither a SoC nor a NoC witness. He is simply not a credible witness.

They have an agenda, whether intentional or of foolishness, to promote their flyover theory - it’s your decision whether to be brainwashed by their biased presentations or research the many eyewitness accounts for yourself.

At the moment flyover is not a real theory. No strong evidence supports it. It's just a speculation that arises as a consequence of a solid evidence (NoC path). However, while flyover can not be proven, it can't be either completely dismissed. At least, not as long as another more solid theory is proven.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I am new to this forum. I read a lot of posts of you in several threads and about different topics during the last days and I have found them in most cases impressive. While I sincerely admire your level of competence and your efforts, I must confess that I do not support and do not even fully understand your theory about the Pentagon. My fault, probably.

I have been in agreement with your posts also.

The theory I have about the Pentagon attack is simple. First, a plane impacted the building just as was seen possible at the WTC (due to the evidence here). Second, these were not the airliners that had originally departed but drones equipped with remote guidance systems (due to the lack of aircraft identification, FDR discrepancies, radar gap, location of impact, manoeuvre and numerous other points).

This is probably true to some extent. Still their theory is based on solid evidence. They do not have simple witnesses. What they have is a trend of witnesses who strongly corroborate their own accounts. This makes their claim credible, in my opinion.

Well of course they have a trend - they pick and choose eyewitnesses from the full body of accounts who do not fit an approach matching the damage path and then set out to discredit all those remaining.

And that’s an area where it really falls apart - in attempting to discredit the larger body of eyewitnesses. The excuses start adding up: government employees are in on it, media reporters are in on it, people with a Jewish name are in on it, they were inside a building so they are lying, he made an innocuous comment so he is lying, trees were in the way (this is a favourite) so they are lying, one account doesn’t quite match another so they are lying, a slight variation is made to the account years later so they are lying, that person looks shifty to me so they are lying, I have a gut feeling so they are lying… and on and on.

Yet none of these same standards are applied to ‘the chosen’ eyewitnesses.

That a theory could be based on this method is laughable.

Nonetheless, I still have not found a comparable trend within the SoC witnesses along these years.

Have you looked?

Top tip: don’t hold your breath waiting for Pilots for 9/11 Truth or CIT to present them to you. According to the latter, no such eyewitnesses exist. Oh they have interviewed a number of them… had the damage-matching flight path drawn out in front of their own eyes… but they still don’t exist.

Therefore I would be very interested in knowing your list of SoC witnesses.

We can go through them.

I’d like to know if you have looked first though.

Sorry, here I fully disagree. Lloyd is not a member of the first group. He's a confessed liar. Not because he's a "bad man", but because he admitted he was part of a stage for some unspecified reasons he wouldn't further clarify. But he was part of it. He admitted himself. Even if you do not accept what he says to Ranke while he thought not to be recorded, photos completely dismiss his own account. Sorry, Lloyd England is neither a SoC nor a NoC witness. He is simply not a credible witness.

Incorrect - photographs do not “completely” dismiss the account of Lloyd England. What they do is prove he was actually a few seconds drive further along the road than when he recalled from memory many years later. Well gee-whiz, we gotta big fat ‘liar’ on our hands there.

Please go ahead and quote his ‘confession’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Topic transferred from this thread

Well, you may be surprised to learn that recently I've had some thoughts as to whether a small craft may have hit, or atleast exploded in front of, the pentagon. What I feel very strongly about is that there's no way that a 757 could have left so little debris there if it had crashed there, but as you say, there is no hard evidence that a 757, let alone Flight 77, actually made it to the pentagon at all. For others here, you may be interested to know that me and Q24 have discussed this for quite some time in the past, in another thread in this forum, which can be found here:

http://www.unexplain...pic=157724&st=0

In this photo, you will note the Pentagon in the background and wreckage left by an American airlines B-757.

13.jpg

The landing gear.

rim1.jpg

rim2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

I’m not opposed to speculation where there are gaps in the evidence but I do like to have something in support of it. I can provide a case of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of staff planning to use drone aircraft to stage a false flag attack, many examples of unmanned aircraft and guidance systems, along with indication the use of remote aircraft to impact the WTC was more recently considered. But could you provide an example of a Mossad agent carrying out a suicide attack?

I mean, I’m open to options, I just see no evidence, likelihood or precedent for your suicide pilot Mossad idea. I think I’d go with the official story before that, seeing as at least there is recent precedent for suicide attacks from Islamic individuals.

Perhaps also have a look into remote/guided technology - it was already well developed, tested and extremely accurate prior to 9/11. The whole flightpath would not need to be manually programmed, just a series of co-ordinates - the onboard computer then calculates the correct adjustments faster and more precisely than any human could.

hang on, "i see no precedent"? Can you point to a precedent for a government, or the Secret Service of a supposedly friendly government, carrying out an attack againt [either] its own military nerve centre, or the nerve centre of its most important ally, using such an elaborate and ambitious method? So therefore surely whatever modus operandi may have been used, it would have been without precedent? Where is the evidence, likelihood or precedent for the remote-control-planes concept actually ever being used in practice before on an operation of this scale? (or indeed, for a false-flag operation of this scale ever being planned before by anyone); it completely redefines the false-flag ballpark, any precedents that anyone could come up with pale into insignificance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

In this photo, you will note the Pentagon in the background and wreckage left by an American airlines B-757.

13.jpg

The landing gear.

Prove to me that that was landing gear from a 757. It looks like a scrap of metal that could have been easily placed there for a photo op. And where is the tail and wing sections?

rim1.jpg

rim2.jpg

This initial picture has no background to it; how do i know that it was actually photographed at the pentagon? Secondly, even if you could find that, what evidence do you have that it actually came from the sky? Perhaps it was placed in one of the trailers outside beforehand so it could later be tagged as evidence that a plane hit. The important thing is, there was very little debris found; no tail, no wings; in essence, nothing that couldn't have been surreptitiously placed beforehand or quickly afterwards.

But the most damning thing in my mind remains the simple fact that a 757 simply couldn't have crashed there. Not by the official path, and not by the North of Citgo flight path either. Pilots for 9/11 Truth makes this abundantly clear. Hopefully one day you'll study their research.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

In this news report on THE DAY the last 3 minutes or so are especially relevant to the Pentagon Story.

No mention of a plane from people being evacuated...but eyewitnesses reported an explosion and

a military? helicopter circling the building just before the explosion.

In the chaos the Official Story hadn't yet been set in stone.

It is also important to the Inside Job conspiracy supporters (Q24... :)) that a plane hit

because otherwise the conspiracy starts to fall apart?

(I think that flight 77 was taken by remote control out to sea and 'brought down'....and that the

Plane at the Pentagon is a mock up to cover this fact).......damage limitation re Public Relations

and for political reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

i wonder if i could ask, bee or anyone else who might want to, if there were without doubt two planes that were involved in NY, (unless anyone wants to prefer the theory that they were holograms or something), why go to all this extraordinary lenghts to not fly a plane into the Pentagon? Why was it so essential to the plan that something hit the Pentagon, so much so that if they decided that it was impractical to fly a plane into it, they had to do it some other way? If the WTC really wasn't enough to provide justification for the wars that they wanted, couldn't they have engineered a hit at the White House or something, since the President was safely a long way away? But surely all this insistence that no plane could possibly have hit the Pentagon doesn't alter the fact they undoubtedly did hit the WTC? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

i wonder if i could ask, bee or anyone else who might want to, if there were without doubt two planes that were involved in NY, (unless anyone wants to prefer the theory that they were holograms or something), why go to all this extraordinary lenghts to not fly a plane into the Pentagon? Why was it so essential to the plan that something hit the Pentagon, so much so that if they decided that it was impractical to fly a plane into it, they had to do it some other way? If the WTC really wasn't enough to provide justification for the wars that they wanted, couldn't they have engineered a hit at the White House or something, since the President was safely a long way away? But surely all this insistence that no plane could possibly have hit the Pentagon doesn't alter the fact they undoubtedly did hit the WTC? :unsure2:

I personally definitely think planes hit WTC 1 + 2.....piloted by Islamic jihadist hijackers.

We don't know if Flight 77 was actually heading for the Pentagon..it might have been heading for the White House?

My 'theory' goes (as you might remember) that flights 77 and 93 were brought down by the US military

as a defensive move.

In the circumstances I think that the US being forced to kill many citizens in the planes was decided

to be of the utmost sensitivity and this is why a mock up at the Pentagon was done to explain away

what happened to flight 77.

I wouldn't want to take anything away from the poor passengers on Flight 93...maybe they WERE staging a fight-back...

but I think this one was brought down by the US military as well.

Don't know if that answers your question(s).....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

In the circumstances I think that the US being forced to kill many citizens in the planes was decided

to be of the utmost sensitivity and this is why a mock up at the Pentagon was done to explain away

what happened to flight 77.

I wouldn't want to take anything away from the poor passengers on Flight 93...maybe they WERE staging a fight-back...

but I think this one was brought down by the US military as well.

Just my opinion, of course.

Sorry, but your theory makes no sense at all.

A mock up requires an accurate planning. You can't mock up a plane hitting the Pentagon and causing a damage path like that without:

1) a real plane hitting the facade (official version, Q24 version)

2) a stage (NoC/flyover version)

Whatever happened at the Pentagon, either a plane really hit the building or it was a planned stage, whereas the latter requires months of accurate planning and, of course, foreknowledge of the event. You can't stage such a scenario in half an hour just because the US force took the decision to shoot down the plane minutes before.

Flight 93 is a completely different story.

Regards

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.