Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Archives by areas of the world » Archived topics here » 9/11




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:45 pm 
Offline
Speaking out
Speaking out
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22nd, 2010
Posts: 148
Other examples of leading questions used are, "Mr X saw the plane go over here. Isn't that what you saw?"
"Some people think this is the type of plane they saw, do you think it was this? No? Are you sure?"

These types of questions can cast doubt in someone's memory, particularly if they're not aware that they're part of a biased documentary.

The Researchers in this case have one idea they want to communicate, and I see no evidence that a plane flew over.
It should have been conducted in a more open way. We have no idea what testimonials they omitted that didn't fit their theory. And they primed the viewer at the start to get them to accept that even though eye-witness accounts can be unreliable and swayed, in this case they're not.

Quote:
Could an auto pilot be programmed to crash, I doubt it


The remote-controlled or pre-set path programmed for the planes may not be the same technology as the standard auto-pilot feature. And they managed to get 2 others to crash fine.

Quote:
With a load bearing wall visible in the hole on the 2nd floor that should mean the lower floor also had a 'strong wall' between those two sets of windows. Having a wall there would make it possible to load some explosives so they were directed in the manner that the building was damaged, outwards on the bottom floor at the exterior wall and inwards for the interior columns


Yes, explosives could have been used, too.

I look at it like this, let's say the plane was on a different flight path to what is officially stated, and that it flew over the top and the building was simply detonated by explosives already inside, and then the plane carried on to the next airport or where ever.

Why didn't the plane simply follow the official flight path?
How do they benefit by having the plane on such a slightly different flight path and then having to manually knock over light poles in the dead of night and hope no one saw them all laying there the next morning?
Why risk people seeing the plane carry on overhead?
Are we then to assume that parts of a plane were planted in the building to be blown out with the explosives?

And then if we also subscribe to the idea that the plane wasn't a commercial jet at all...

If the plan was to just fly it overhead, why not use the commercial jet that had gone missing?
Does this mean that the commercial jet and all the passengers were killed elsewhere and disposed of, and that they then sent off some other jet to fly over the building?

And if so, the explosion being as big as it was, and most eye witnesses only turning away after the explosion, does that mean the explosion happened before the plane had cleared the top of the Pentagon and couldn't that have been an extremely risky manoeuvre whether it was actually piloted or not?

The entire plot becomes extremely risky with a high margin of error if we believe that the plane didn't just slam into the building.

_________________
bankruptcy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:06 am 
Offline
Speaking out
Speaking out
User avatar

Joined: Apr 20th, 2008
Posts: 181
panax wrote:
Other examples of leading questions used are, "Mr X saw the plane go over here. Isn't that what you saw?"
"Some people think this is the type of plane they saw, do you think it was this? No? Are you sure?"

These types of questions can cast doubt in someone's memory, particularly if they're not aware that they're part of a biased documentary.

They mentioned a longer version, is that the one you linked to?
I agree those were leading questions. For the oriental guy and the one officer I don't feel was the case. The body was over the building and the wing extended into the street, for me that establishes that it is a large jet. Add in the Officer's testimony and I have to examine how their testimony could be true and the event still take place. Something I recall seeing (but not when and where) was a map with about 20 lines on it, all of which were individual accounts but just compiled onto one map. They were all quite close and all of them were on the wrong side og the gas station. That jet was also on a nice gentle path even if being very low and very fast. Throttle back and pull up after the point of the fireball and nobody would be looking anyplace but where the smoke was just rising from. There is also the thing about being remote and also having pin-point accuracy. It is one thing to hit the broadside of the building and quite another to fly into a ground-floor window. (in the radar that does the guiding and the flight characteristics of the jet in two very different cases)
As time goes on those statements might get released. I doubt a Grand Jury could get them today.

panax wrote:
The Researchers in this case have one idea they want to communicate, and I see no evidence that a plane flew over.
It should have been conducted in a more open way. We have no idea what testimonials they omitted that didn't fit their theory. And they primed the viewer at the start to get them to accept that even though eye-witness accounts can be unreliable and swayed, in this case they're not.

The best way to explore that question fully would be to have access to all the transcripts of all the statements taken about that specific time. That would also mean the 'phone in's' that never had any follow up or were otherwise 'deleted' from the 'official summary' of the event. (one of several that day)

Quote:
Could an auto pilot be programmed to crash, I doubt it


panax wrote:
The remote-controlled or pre-set path programmed for the planes may not be the same technology as the standard auto-pilot feature. And they managed to get 2 others to crash fine.

I could never really understand why the two planes where banked as they were. Even with a sensitive remote flying level and straight would be the most accurate way of aiming/flying. Having the jets banked and still flying in a straight line is a bit unusual as banked usually means turning also. Having it hit the building in a banked position could do one of two things, or both, or none. Spread the damage out over more floors that ends up creating more damage than straight on. Hitting the building straight on might have done too much damage to a few floors that put the planned sequence into peril of not going as planned. If you have any 'theories' on that part ...I'm all ears.

The towers may also have had some sort of homing beacon to guide the plane the final few moments. If the 757 has safety features in it's auto-pilot then could it be fooled simply by having it being fed some reference points that are slightly wrong. ie the flight data actually show the height of the jet as being too high after it's loop to hit the building. If the base alt was 160ft off then that might fool the software to think it still had a safety margin when it didn't. That would also point to the jet carrying navigational charts for their 'positioning' rather than some form of active radar.

Quote:
With a load bearing wall visible in the hole on the 2nd floor that should mean the lower floor also had a 'strong wall' between those two sets of windows. Having a wall there would make it possible to load some explosives so they were directed in the manner that the building was damaged, outwards on the bottom floor at the exterior wall and inwards for the interior columns


panax wrote:
Yes, explosives could have been used, too.

Traces of which should have been able to be found.

panax wrote:
I look at it like this, let's say the plane was on a different flight path to what is officially stated, and that it flew over the top and the building was simply detonated by explosives already inside, and then the plane carried on to the next airport or where ever.

Lets say it was taken far out to sea and crashed in a manner that sunk it in one whole piece, along with flt 93. The wreckage found was in an east-west direction, the jet was said to be going in the other direction, that is a sticking point on that flight for me.

panax wrote:
Why didn't the plane simply follow the official flight path?

At the same time, why not come in at an angle that eliminated the 270deg turn completely. A small craft doesn't show up when it is at 7,000'. The C-130 doesn't even show up very clearly unless you are looking for it.

panax wrote:
How do they benefit by having the plane on such a slightly different flight path and then having to manually knock over light poles in the dead of night and hope no one saw them all laying there the next morning?

Lets say that was a 'mistake' and the loop had the 'craft' coming in fast and low over those poles where the turbulence was enough to start them whipping till they broke. The perfect part would have been a loop to synchronize the two planes but the jet wake did not factor in as causing any physical damage but since it did the 'story' had to be changed slightly and the 'other flight path' didn't happen. They do have jets that can be sent to a specific window, just not 757's.

panax wrote:
Why risk people seeing the plane carry on overhead?

You just suppress their story so it is eventually forgotten. Why risk having a few bodies survive that shows they were dead at impact time or having to explain why the 'crash' caused so much damage to a 'hardened target'. (full size jet plus explosives)

panax wrote:
Are we then to assume that parts of a plane were planted in the building to be blown out with the explosives?

So far I have only seen one wheel and parts to one engine, and a bit a skin outside on the lawn.

panax wrote:
And then if we also subscribe to the idea that the plane wasn't a commercial jet at all...

Would you agree that they do have systems that are more than capable of being flown through a specific window and they are off the shelf while getting a 'stock jet' to be that accurate means extensive modifications.

panax wrote:
If the plan was to just fly it overhead, why not use the commercial jet that had gone missing?

Which one is that if not 77?

panax wrote:
Does this mean that the commercial jet and all the passengers were killed elsewhere and disposed of, and that they then sent off some other jet to fly over the building?

No, the people on flt 77 would have been gassed as soon as the flight was taken over, once clearing the building it kept going straight far out to sea where it was crashed and sunk.

panax wrote:
And if so, the explosion being as big as it was, and most eye witnesses only turning away after the explosion, does that mean the explosion happened before the plane had cleared the top of the Pentagon and couldn't that have been an extremely risky manoeuvre whether it was actually piloted or not?

How about if the size of the loop could have been made larger or smaller depending on how it was meant to arrive compared to the 'decoy jet'.
How many would see the plane in the background without a video to 'fill in the blanks'? (about 4:45 -5:30 marks)

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... video.html

panax wrote:
The entire plot becomes extremely risky with a high margin of error if we believe that the plane didn't just slam into the building.

The entire plot involves 4 planes, each of which had to be almost flawless.
So that loop wasn't putting things at risk? Why not fly straight into the building on the 1st approach and come in on a shallow flight path?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:08 am 
Offline
Speaking out
Speaking out
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22nd, 2010
Posts: 148
MHz wrote:
They mentioned a longer version, is that the one you linked to?


Yes, with the lines drawn all over it.

Quote:
I could never really understand why the two planes where banked as they were. Even with a sensitive remote flying level and straight would be the most accurate way of aiming/flying. Having the jets banked and still flying in a straight line is a bit unusual as banked usually means turning also. Having it hit the building in a banked position could do one of two things, or both, or none. Spread the damage out over more floors that ends up creating more damage than straight on. Hitting the building straight on might have done too much damage to a few floors that put the planned sequence into peril of not going as planned. If you have any 'theories' on that part ...I'm all ears.

The towers may also have had some sort of homing beacon to guide the plane the final few moments. If the 757 has safety features in it's auto-pilot then could it be fooled simply by having it being fed some reference points that are slightly wrong. ie the flight data actually show the height of the jet as being too high after it's loop to hit the building. If the base alt was 160ft off then that might fool the software to think it still had a safety margin when it didn't. That would also point to the jet carrying navigational charts for their 'positioning' rather than some form of active radar.


This video is a very well thought out and calculated breakdown of UA175 flight. Have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ


Quote:
You just suppress their story so it is eventually forgotten.

Yeah, like the dancing Israelis

Quote:
Would you agree that they do have systems that are more than capable of being flown through a specific window and they are off the shelf while getting a 'stock jet' to be that accurate means extensive modifications.


I agree. The have the time and money for modifications, too.


panax wrote:
And if so, the explosion being as big as it was, and most eye witnesses only turning away after the explosion, does that mean the explosion happened before the plane had cleared the top of the Pentagon and couldn't that have been an extremely risky manoeuvre whether it was actually piloted or not?

Quote:
How about if the size of the loop could have been made larger or smaller depending on how it was meant to arrive compared to the 'decoy jet'.
How many would see the plane in the background without a video to 'fill in the blanks'? (about 4:45 -5:30 marks)

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... video.html


The video is heavily compressed. With the naked eye you could see a plane.

Are you saying this decoy plane went straight through the explosion over the top, though?
Don't you think that pressure would adversely affect the craft and be a big risk?


Quote:
The entire plot involves 4 planes, each of which had to be almost flawless.
So that loop wasn't putting things at risk? Why not fly straight into the building on the 1st approach and come in on a shallow flight path?


I don't think a loop is a risk. If it was piloted then maybe, but I don't believe any of the crafts were piloted so I see no risk in the flight paths themselves.

_________________
bankruptcy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:06 pm 
Offline
Speaking out
Speaking out
User avatar

Joined: Apr 20th, 2008
Posts: 181
panax wrote:
This video is a very well thought out and calculated breakdown of UA175 flight. Have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

That sort of reinforces my point, why make some sudden moves right near the very end rather than line up from far away. Dip, turn, and crash is risky for a piloted craft, under auto/remote the move would 'draw attention' to a jet only for the last few moments. ie the first tower hit after the jet was low enough to make people look up. Were there any witnesses that 'looked up' before that time (no need to actually see the crash itself)

Quote:
You just suppress their story so it is eventually forgotten.

panax wrote:
Yeah, like the dancing Israelis

Anybody request transcripts of their Q&A sessions? I'm not sure they were parked and filming when the 1st crash happened. That would leave them as just driving around doing some sort of Mossad shit and being clued in only when the two crashes appeared before their very eyes. The exit of the OSB relatives is another. Seems like all of them were very easily and swiftly located and departed. One was with Bush Sr if I recall correctly, watching his son become the world's first quadruple spy.


Quote:
Would you agree that they do have systems that are more than capable of being flown through a specific window and they are off the shelf while getting a 'stock jet' to be that accurate means extensive modifications.

panax wrote:
I agree. The have the time and money for modifications, too.

That craft wasn't out of service before then so could a software change be made while the jet is under autopilot or manual via remote. Getting the pilot to turn off the transponder as 'part of the airlines co-operation' with the military in a war game where they 'are hi-jacked'. That move is the one that gives away their control of the flight deck.


panax wrote:
And if so, the explosion being as big as it was, and most eye witnesses only turning away after the explosion, does that mean the explosion happened before the plane had cleared the top of the Pentagon and couldn't that have been an extremely risky manoeuvre whether it was actually piloted or not?

Quote:
How about if the size of the loop could have been made larger or smaller depending on how it was meant to arrive compared to the 'decoy jet'.
How many would see the plane in the background without a video to 'fill in the blanks'? (about 4:45 -5:30 marks)

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/20 ... video.html


panax wrote:
The video is heavily compressed. With the naked eye you could see a plane.

Are you saying this decoy plane went straight through the explosion over the top, though?
Don't you think that pressure would adversely affect the craft and be a big risk?

Over the top and then the explosion, that is the purpose of the loop, it's size was what was needed to synchronize the fly-over and the explosion.

Quote:
The entire plot involves 4 planes, each of which had to be almost flawless.
So that loop wasn't putting things at risk? Why not fly straight into the building on the 1st approach and come in on a shallow flight path?


panax wrote:
I don't think a loop is a risk. If it was piloted then maybe, but I don't believe any of the crafts were piloted so I see no risk in the flight paths themselves.

There is also getting to within 10 ft of the ground with a jet that size when the pressure wave is pushing up harder the closer you get to the ground. Military guidance systems should be able to fly down a windy canyon. Civilian software should have all bells and whistles going off as speed increased with the rapid descent and cornering. I'm not sure the data records show any 'warning' lights at all, or if auto was turned off . (leaving remote as the in control device and flying by a pre-programed flight path that is on their system alone)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:23 pm 
Offline
Speaking out
Speaking out
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22nd, 2010
Posts: 148
MHz wrote:
Over the top and then the explosion, that is the purpose of the loop, it's size was what was needed to synchronize the fly-over and the explosion.


Most eye-witnesses followed the plane until the explosion. If the explosion happened after the plane went over the top wouldn't that be apparent to an onlooker?

At the very least, someone would have said that the plane went over the Pentagon and then blew up

_________________
bankruptcy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:16 am 
Offline
Anti-Neocon novice
Anti-Neocon novice

Joined: Nov 5th, 2007
Posts: 38
panax wrote:
MHz wrote:
Over the top and then the explosion, that is the purpose of the loop, it's size was what was needed to synchronize the fly-over and the explosion.


Most eye-witnesses followed the plane until the explosion. If the explosion happened after the plane went over the top wouldn't that be apparent to an onlooker?

At the very least, someone would have said that the plane went over the Pentagon and then blew up


if there was a fly over it seems it was the C-130 that is hardly mentioned in any of the witness testimony still in circulation...but it was there and admitted flying over the pentagon after the impact of "the plane"... that`s the official account anyway....or was it the decoy flight path that provided the radar reading and flew over while the "plane" hit..then covered up by a few minutes changed in the timeline and a dive by?...could be..here are some witness testimony about the C-130...

"The image of a jet slamming into the side of the Pentagon continues to haunt Pam Young and Keith Wheelhouse. The brother and sister had just finished burying her brother-in-law at Arlington National Cemetery when they witnessed the final seconds of American Airlines flight 77.

Perhaps more remarkable is her insistence that a second plane was flying near and along the same path as the hijacked jet. Her brother, Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first.

The second plane looked similar to a C-130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon."...Disaster Viewed From Arlington by Terry Scanlon, Daily Press September 14, 2001.



"Planes never pass over her Fairfax County apartment, she said, so when a low-flying, high-speed plane buzzed the high-rise, she jumped up, ran to the windows and saw the rear of a jet heading toward Washington, D.C. A few seconds later, a second plane that seemed to be chasing the first passed over at a slightly different angle, she said.

"Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane," Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason."

Hampton Roads Woman Says She Too, Saw Plane Following Jet That Hit Pentagon by Terry Scanlon, Daily Press, September 15, 2001



My [Scott P. Cook] office is located on the fifth floor of the Portals building, at 1280 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington DC. It's the southernmost building at the end of 14th Street, right at the Tidal Basin and Maine Avenue.[...] As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent [sic] towards the Pentagon. Cloth Monkey, September 2001

Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the many commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. [...] "The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared ...me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible. "Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. New York Lawyer, September 12, 2001

"The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast hit us in a wave. [...] Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic. I tried to reassure people that the plane was not a threat. All around me people began to panic, fleeing for their lives." militarycity.com/sept11/911_1068139.html, September 2002

C-130 witness, Allen Cleveland: My brother inlaw also witnessed the same [C-130] following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.
.....................................

Here`s the pilots view of events on the one year anniversary, notice he confirms he was at both flight 77 and flight 93 official crash sites as the confirming eye witness.......

"Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota [Air] National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.

"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.

"The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon."

O'Brien asked the controller whether he should set up a low orbit around the building but was told to get out of the area as quickly as possible. "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume." [!]

He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. [!]

Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. "I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he'd just lost a guy off the scope pretty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in AM radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect - a really bad day for airplanes." Minnesota Star-Tribune, September 11, 2002


i think the C-130 holds alot of answers, which is probably why it hardly gets mentioned..


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:26 pm 
Offline
Super Anti-Neocon
Super Anti-Neocon
User avatar

Joined: Jun 27th, 2005
Posts: 31505
Location: Japan

http://www.pumpitout.com/pentagon.htm

Look at that massive hole jackasses.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter

"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us."
Batman
Image
Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed




ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you



Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A plane hit the pentagon
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:38 am 
Offline
Speaking out
Speaking out
User avatar

Joined: Apr 20th, 2008
Posts: 181
Ry wrote:

http://www.pumpitout.com/pentagon.htm

Look at that massive hole jackasses.

Did you review the whole vid? At the 2:55 mark the witness is describing the flight path. Which direction from the Hotel did it fly, left or right.

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/map1.jpg


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Board index » Archives by areas of the world » Archived topics here » 9/11


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: