Charles Burlingame III, Flight 77 Pilot.

Thought I'd try and found out a bit more about him, as loose change see to imply he was in on it, They claim he took part in a drill involving a plane strike on the pentagon LESS THAN A YEAR before 9/11, strange considering he retired from the military in 1996;

He was a 1971 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and an honor graduate of the Navy "Top Gun" school, in Miramar, California. He flew F-4 Phantoms for the Navy and served aboard the USS Saratoga. He continued military service as a reserve officer retiring at the rank of Captain in 1996.

Source

They also dont mention much about his time spent at the pentagon, the only reference I can see is this;

His family is certain that hijackers killed Chic on 9/11 before his plane crashed into the Pentagon, that there is no way he would have crashed the plane himself into that building -- even with knives at his throat.

"The Pentagon was hallowed ground to him," Brad said.

That's because Chic was a Navy man who had once worked at the Pentagon when he was in the Navy Reserves.

No disrespect to the man in any way,but he doesnt fit the bill of a top ranking pilot that would be chosen for a suicde mission to fly into the pentagon, only flew in service for 8 years and spent 17 year as a reservist!

His daughter doesnt seem to think anything out of the ordinary either;

My father was the captain of that plane. I know that was the only plane he flew. I know that he left Dulles airport that morning in a Boeing 757. I know he crashed into the pentagon, where we found pieces of his remains, and his plane.

Source

It would seem strange a high ranking officer working at the pentagon to retire to work as an airline pilot, but it didnt happen like that, he joined American Airlines in 1979!!! staying as a reservist for the next 17 years.

He left the Navy in 1979 to pursue a flying career with American Airlines. He was furloughed in 1980 and went to work in the Washington office of Lockheed Aerospace. According to classmate Marks, Chic was well thought of at Lockheed -- to the point that even after his recall to American in 1984 he stayed on as a consultant with Lockheed until 1987.

Source

So it would seem that it was just a VERY big coincedence that Charles Burlingame was the pilot of flight 77 that day. Loose change seems to imply he was some head honcho who was involved in the drill similar to the 9/11 pentagon strike, then suspiciously retires and within a year is not only on board but piloting the plane that follows the drill, however they obviously didnt do much research into the facts.

Sorry for any mistakes, first attempt at researching something my self and finding sources to qoute!

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Ernold Same]

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Ernold Same]

A quick look around tells me that the source of the Burlingame story is supposed to be a Washington Post story. Take a look at that, though, and it just says this:

...Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon...
www.washingtonpost.com...

So presumably there must be more. Mustn't there?

Never said he wasnt involved in terrorism drills, I'd assume working at the pentagon would mean EVERYONE would have to take part in such drills, its not exactly your local Macdonalds is it? so its not exactly news that he was involved in such drills.

My point was Loose change say he retired from the military and less than a year later was involved in 9/11.

As my post shows he retired from active duty in 1979 which is hardly less than year before 2001! and even if they meant fully retired from reservist duty they were still 5 yrears out.

He was an average pilot who just so happened to work at the pentagon for a few years as a reservist, nothing odd about that at all, If they were going to pick somebody for the job, it wouldnt be somebody as obvious as him now would it?

Originally posted by Ernold Same
Never said he wasnt involved in terrorism drills, I'd assume working at the pentagon would mean EVERYONE would have to take part in such drills, its not exactly your local Macdonalds is it? so its not exactly news that he was involved in such drills.

Apologies, Ernold -- I'm actually agreeing with you! What I meant was there's no support in the Washington Post story for the claim that he had anything to do with these exercises, so by saying "there must be more" I was hoping that those who say he did had more reliable evidence. My guess is they don't, though, in which case you've picked up a definite error.

Very nice find, it is refreshing to see people doing a little research.

Something i am trying to understand is that out of 4 aircraft not one person could make the call or hit the emergency code button on the transponder for help before or during the hijacking.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Something i am trying to understand is that out of 4 aircraft not one person could make the call or hit the emergency code button on the transponder for help before or during the hijacking.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Wheres your source to say they didnt

Originally posted by Ernold Same

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Something i am trying to understand is that out of 4 aircraft not one person could make the call or hit the emergency code button on the transponder for help before or during the hijacking.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Wheres your source to say they didnt

Try the Commissions book itself, it is widely known that no one except 93 was able to alert control to the hijack in progress by holding down the mic and screaming "mayday" and "get out of here".

Even the 911 Commission says that it is a mystery how they were able to breach the cockpit doors and then take control of the first three aircraft without any of the crew notifying control during the process.

Originally posted by Ernold Same

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Something i am trying to understand is that out of 4 aircraft not one person could make the call or hit the emergency code button on the transponder for help before or during the hijacking.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Wheres your source to say they didnt

I have ULTIMA1 on ignore, but I see his statement here.

First of all, there is NO EMERGENCY CODE button on the transponder to indicate a hijacking or an emergency. Each individual digit of the appropriate code must be set in the transponder by one of the pilots. It is not an instantaneous or rapidly accomplished procedure as is implied with the use of the word "button".

HERE is a typical control panel for a transponder. It is only provided as an example and is not meant to imply that this is the specific model used in any of the involved aircraft on 9/11. However, all civilian models are very similar.

The "muscle hijackers" were training killers specifically trained for the job they accomplished. Imagine yourself tightly strapped (with both a seat belt and 2 shoulder harnesses) into a chair in a confined space looking forward concentrating on doing your job. Two or more maniacs enter the cockpit behind you intent upon killing you quickly. Don't you think the normal reaction would be to throw up your arms and attempt to defend yourself?

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat


Thank you Reheat for that post. I see the goal posts moving in ....

5-4-3-2.....

I will leave the goal post right there for the both of you.

If indeed 3 of the 4 airplanes did not alert anyone to the situation, no matter how this is accomplished, it would set precedent yet again.

We have already established that precedent was set by not identifying the airplanes 4 times in one day. THats a pretty large anomaly in itself. Now add the precedent that this was also the first time in history that the hijackers managed to thwart the notification process and we have another anomaly of huge proportions.

Add them together and the oods are astronomicaly against the scenario going down like that.

reply to post by jprophet420


Speaking of precedents. Please list another scenario where aircraft were hijacked and flown into buildings.

Also, you might list another scenario where the NTSB was tasked by the FBI to provide basic assistance for aircraft that were INTENTIONALLY CRASHED as opposed to involvement in an accident.

So, you don't know the identity of those aircraft?

The Airlines who owned them know.
The victims who died in the crashes know.
The victims families who accompanied those victims to the airport and saw them board know.
The thousands of workers who cleaned up the wreckage's know.
The pathologists who gathered the "little bitty pieces" of human beings and then identified them via their DNA know.

Since you didn't witness your conception and birth, do you really know who you are?

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by jprophet420


JP -

Unprecedented ... yes!

Can you set your mind back to pre-911? How were typical hijackings done?

Were there "strong men" that attacked the pilots and slashed their throats?

Were the hijackers trained pilots?

Was the plane used as a weapon to destroy buildings?

Back pre-911 hijackers used planes and passengers as leverage to get what they wanted. (flights to Cuba, prisoners released...etc)

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


unprecendented is two buildings made to withstand plane crashes falling in one day (never before happened). Also, the third world trade building falling with closer ones (to the main two building) not falling is unheard of. AS IS the similarity of all 3 buildings falling in non-pancake fashion (physics prove this claim of "pancaking" to be false)= explosives were used.

reply to post by Reheat

90% of wreckage missing,everybodys dna found except for high jackers, cctv missing, impossible manouvers etc etc something is very wrong, every time hard questions need to be answered most people look for the emotions card oh think of the families get behind the troops you know just like bill oreily,some guy on us news said once that it is wrong and blasphemous to question the official theory,wtf,,just answer the questions if you can with out wanting to kill someone and we might just get to the truth

Originally posted by itallmakesperfectsense
reply to post by Reheat

 

90% of wreckage missing,everybodys dna found except for high jackers, cctv missing, impossible manouvers etc etc something is very wrong, every time hard questions need to be answered most people look for the emotions card oh think of the families get behind the troops you know just like bill oreily,some guy on us news said once that it is wrong and blasphemous to question the official theory,wtf,,just answer the questions if you can with out wanting to kill someone and we might just get to the truth

EVEN IF YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY OF ONE THE TRUTH IS STILL THE TRUTH

Originally posted by itallmakesperfectsense
reply to post by Reheat

 

90% of wreckage missing,everybodys dna found except for high jackers, cctv missing, impossible manouvers etc etc something is very wrong, every time hard questions need to be answered most people look for the emotions card oh think of the families get behind the troops you know just like bill oreily,some guy on us news said once that it is wrong and blasphemous to question the official theory,wtf,,just answer the questions if you can with out wanting to kill someone and we might just get to the truth

No, actually, 90% of the information the truthers are basing their gripes upon is complete drivel. Case in point:

a) they found what they believe to be hijacker remains but the families in Saudi Arabia are refusing to supply DNA to verify. They don't want to prove the hijackers were actually their relatives. The "no hijacker DNA" is a deliberate distortion

b) Noone has ever proven there are any additional Pentagon footage to be released. Security cameras aren't trained against blank walls, they're trained against high traffic areas like entrances, parking lots and security gates. Making an unfounded claim and then basing an argument on an unfounded claim is a strawman argument

c) I've looked up the supposed "impossible maneuver" and I found out what it was- it's flying almost in a complete circle. I'm not a pilot but I'd have thought "flying in a circle" would be the second thing they taught student pilots after "flying in a straight line".

...but when I point this out you people either accuse me of being a gov't shill or you simply run away and avoid it the same way three card monty players do when the cops show up. You truthers simply do not want to hear anything that shows why these conspiracy stories being passed around are hogwash, so go ahead, either accuse me of being a gov't shill or explain why it's so impossible to fly a plane in a circle.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


JEEZ NOT THIS CRAP AGAIN, AND IF YOUR NOT A PILOT WHY EVEN IMAGINE ABOUT FLIGHT TRAINING ,MANY CAMERA ANGLES OF THE INCIDENT THERE WAS,NOT JUST A CAMERA STARING AT A BLANK WALL,WHICH SHOWS NEXT TO NOTHING...LOL ...YOU ARE VERY PATRIOTIC I UNDERSTAND,TRUST YOUR GOVERMENT AND GET UP NICE AND EARLY TOMORROW AND GET YOURSELF INTO WORK

reply to post by itallmakesperfectsense



Well, GoodOldDave may not be a pilot, but I am.

IF YOUR NOT A PILOT WHY EVEN IMAGINE ABOUT FLIGHT TRAINING...

What would you like to know?

....MANY CAMERA ANGLES OF THE INCIDENT ...

Do you mean the standard surveillance cameras that were at the Pentagon? Have you ever been there (here...because that's where I am...not THERE, but in the vicinity. You can walk pretty close, look for yourself. Walk to the Metro station, the bus stations, etc. You can see for yourself the "many" (cough*cough) cameras!) /sarcasm

Some of the other locations' cameras (though not aimed at the Pentagon, of course...they had their OWN properties to cover) have vague indications of the impact, but nothing specific. It is a sad fact that the claim of all this "video camera coverage" of the Pentagon building's OUTSIDE is a load of hogwash.


OK, back to flying and hitting the Pentagon. Well, it was demonstrated as part of this Dutch television documentary:

Google Video Link

Now, if you don't wish to see the entire program, F/F to about 22:00, for the discussion leading up to scenes where they use a full motion flight simulator to re-create the Pentagon attack. Prior to the simulator demonstration, they discuss some of that crap that was spewed by Dylan Avery, in his "Loose Change" junk film....