Pilot Witness Comes Forward: A Global Hawk Crashed Into The Pentagon

The first time i saw the pentagon crash footage, i thought of a Global Hawk. Somewhere
on a thread i also stated it with a photo of a Global Hawk.

What happens, if it really comes out that the US Government has done the 9/11-JOB.
Much more evidence is coming every month, some is disinformation.
I feel, that the true evidence is coming. Maybe, much earlier than we expect.


[edit on 4-8-2006 by allMIGHTY]

im sure the guy will "disappear" before an investigation starts, you know how the government is.......... they only tell us what we should know, uh scratch that, they only tell us the truth thats why area 51 doesnt exist either, its just a glitch when you look at it on google eart lol

The gov't doesn't have to. He's done a good job on destroying his credibility already.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The gov't doesn't have to. He's done a good job on destroying his credibility already.

Zaphod, this reply is not pointed to you, but to everyone in this forum in general. I just liked your quote.

This is very interesting. Watching how a persons "credibility" is destroyed and everyone just goes "aw shucks, I guess it was nothing after all."

In a forum such as this, we are supposed to be beyond all this. Everyone is looking for "proof" and surprisingly look for it in the wrong place. Truth or proof is never where you expect it. Additionally, it is NEVER easy to get. This is why is is so cool to be enlightened. You have something that no one else has.

You really want to know what the hell happened that day. The problem is we weren't there. All the goodies and tidbits of data were all whisked away to some location. Where? We don't know. They tell us that this information is way beyond our pay grade. Why? We got to see flight 800 all put back together in a hanger.

We cannot look at the data. Why? We cannot look at the video. Why not? If they had video of a plane hitting the pentagon, would we not see it? Why hide proof to justify your position? We know that the pentagon is one of THE most heavily surveilled location on the planet next to Puzzle Palace. They have video of everything and everyone. To assume that they have no security cams other than the one which shows the explosion is plain stupidity. We know they have video. Plenty of it. Why not show it?

I wasn't there and I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I sure wonder why the video was not released. When they do release video, they release frames. Only tidbits of nothing but an explosion to keep us all amused.

If this were a bank robbery and we were a jury, we would want to see the bank video footage. What makes this any different? Why would a bank not want to show us the video of the robbers holding up the place? They show us other robberies. is it because that people died and it would be insensitive? Nope, they have released other video of people getting killed. What is different?

Some would say that the footage would give away the technology of their perimeter systems. I am not buying it. They have plenty of footage from external sources which could have been released to prove it one way or another.

A plane may or may not have flown into the pentagon. I don't know which. All I know is that the jury is still out and they have not shown us all the evidence. The water is too murky to see anything, much less the truth.

Even if this guy is indeed lying, we should be looking a lot further into not only this, but other cases where people are discredited. Discrediting people is so easy to do. One person comes forward and lies. The lies some more. They lie often enough to muddy the waters just enough for people to lose interest because they do not want to lose credibility themselves.

Who cares what others think of us! Truth is truth no matter what form it comes in. We may like the truth or not. We all have to look beyond name calling and jumping to conclusions. Just because it is written down on the net and is considered a "good credible source," does not mean it is true. Stories are too easily planted. Follow up and verification is very difficult. We then say, well come up with more than one source. Stories are just as easily planted in two media outlets, as it is one.

I think our letting go of some things just means we are lazy, our thinking is flawed, and are too easily swayed. Does that mean we are just sheeple that are so eaily manipulated by those who do so for a living?

Too many abandon ship before something is completely examined. Almost like we all have A.D.D. and cannot hold focus.

We think we are smarter, but we easily fall victim to the same tricks that fool those who we consider less bright.

If I had a secret to keep, I would put it out in front of everyone and then like a bad Chris Carter script, take back everything I said so that those who were emotionally and vocally invested in me had to walk away with their tail between their legs. Would it mean that my secret was not true? Depends on who you ask, but my secret would be safe. No matter who came forward afterwards, no one would believe them anyway.

People are so easily confused. Anything we post on this site is PURE conjecture and speculation anyway. Why do people get so upset that someone else's conjecture is any better or worse than their own?

None of us will never know what happened that day unless we were there and saw what actually went into that building. Those that WERE there, may know what happened, but may never know why it happened. No one will believe them, either way.

So cheers to all our theories and speculative essays. However wrong or right they may be.

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by jprophet420
show me the hundreds of witnesses.

show me the witnesses that were at the scene, that said they saw a 757 crash into the pentagon, that knew what a 757 looked like prior to september 11th. and were sure it was a 757.

Witness statements here:

911research.wtc7.net...

Witness statements are on other "credible" news sites also; as mentioned by a previous poster... just do a Google search.

Please come back and answer my question after you have read the hundreds of witness statements. Thanks.

Sorry Duhh, but I feel this is on topic... I am trying to gather opinions on why some people believe this non-pilot witness and a handful of others, but they do not believe the hundreds of eyewitness accounts that say something different.


[edit on 4-8-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 4-8-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 4-8-2006 by craig732]

exactly the kind of witness statements i wanted. read this:

banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

1. does not mention that its a passenger plane or a 757.
2. refers to a 270° turn as "banked slightly to the left"
3. out of the first 10 reports, not even one of them even says it was a passenger plane, much less a 757.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by jprophet420]

Off-topic, perhaps, but worth noting:

Someone's signature asserts that

"Liberalism is the art of standing on your head and telling the rest of the world it's updside down."

In reply, I say that conservatisim, as practiced in the USA, is the art of burying your head in the sand (or other dark place) and convincing yourself that you see the light.

[edit on 8/4/2006 by dubiousone]

(Deleted double post)

[edit on 8/4/2006 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Ya know, this guy would probably have alot more credibility in my mind, if he, oh I don't know, didn't wait 5 freaking years to bring this point up! It'd be the equivalent of a witness coming forward 5 years after the O.J. trial, gee thanks pal, that's helpful. I mean come on, ovbiously this guy didn't have too big of an ethical issue with the Pentagon attack not for half a decade anyway, but now he does? I suppose I'd be a neo-con if I questioned his motives.

I actually agree with this...to a point. Remember that ALOT of eyewitnesses were not included in the "9/11 Ommission Report". Maybe he did come forward years ago?

I concur with Griff and the others on this one. I have always felt that the crash at the Pentagon was not a legitimate situation and that there must have been some kind of cloak and dagger going on here. If this was perpetrated by anyone working on behalf of the United States or this admiistration it is a sad and tragic commentary on current social-political circumstances.

Originally posted by jprophet420
exactly the kind of witness statements i wanted. read this:

banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

1. does not mention that its a passenger plane or a 757.
2. refers to a 270° turn as "banked slightly to the left"
3. out of the first 10 reports, not even one of them even says it was a passenger plane, much less a 757.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by jprophet420]

How do you know that it's the 270 that they're talking about? It could have very easily been a left turn to center up on the building. Where does it SAY they're talking about the 270 turn that it made?

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
This is very interesting. Watching how a persons "credibility" is destroyed and everyone just goes "aw shucks, I guess it was nothing after all."
...
Truth or proof is never where you expect it. Additionally, it is NEVER easy to get.
...
If they had video of a plane hitting the pentagon, would we not see it? Why hide proof to justify your position?
...
I wasn't there and I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I sure wonder why the video was not released. When they do release video, they release frames.
...
If this were a bank robbery and we were a jury, we would want to see the bank video footage. What makes this any different? Why would a bank not want to show us the video of the robbers holding up the place? They show us other robberies. is it because that people died and it would be insensitive? Nope, they have released other video of people getting killed. What is different?
...
A plane may or may not have flown into the pentagon. I don't know which. All I know is that the jury is still out and they have not shown us all the evidence. The water is too murky to see anything, much less the truth.
...
Even if this guy is indeed lying, we should be looking a lot further into not only this, but other cases where people are discredited. Discrediting people is so easy to do. One person comes forward and lies. The lies some more. They lie often enough to muddy the waters just enough for people to lose interest because they do not want to lose credibility themselves.
...
Truth is truth no matter what form it comes in. We may like the truth or not. We all have to look beyond name calling and jumping to conclusions. Just because it is written down on the net and is considered a "good credible source," does not mean it is true. Stories are too easily planted. Follow up and verification is very difficult. We then say, well come up with more than one source. Stories are just as easily planted in two media outlets, as it is one.
...
We think we are smarter, but we easily fall victim to the same tricks that fool those who we consider less bright.
...
People are so easily confused. Anything we post on this site is PURE conjecture and speculation anyway. Why do people get so upset that someone else's conjecture is any better or worse than their own?

I agree with the above post (which I tried to shorten by limiting the quote to the points I considered to be the most crucial) more wholeheartedly than virtually anything else I have read on this site to date. I would like to add that people should consider making a concerted, practiced effort toward stepping out of the semiconscious or unconscious tendency to - without realizing it usually - start out with good intentions, but then unwittingly fall into the trap of wanting to be "right."

People attach themselves to their ideologies, and when someone espouses (or even suggests) a viewpoint that has in the past been used to attack their own position or belief, they assume a defensive posture in defense of their ideology in general, rather than the logical or theoretical point specifically being raised or commented upon. Not everyone has an agenda, but most people unwittingly tend to fall into the trap of defending one whether they think that's what they're doing or not.

I have seen countless examples of statements such as, "I don't know for certain what hit the Pentagon," which is a perfectly rational statement for someone who did not witness the event, being taken as equivalent to, "I think the government is responsible for 9-11." That is then attached to, "I suspect President Bush, or members of the current administration, are/were involved in 9-11," and the debate immediately becomes divided along partisan or ideological lines. I consider this to be wholly unnecessary and, at least potentially, playing into the hands of the powers that be.

"I don't know for certain what hit the Pentagon," simply means, "I'm undecided and wish to keep an open mind," unless otherwise stated. Again I say: not everyone has an agenda. Partisan division is an extremely effective means of inhibiting conversation, and initiating circular logic traps.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
So cheers to all our theories and speculative essays

However wrong or right they may be

Most sensible post I've read in a long while

www.ogrish.com...


What hit the pentagon also has passengers. What kind of missle carries passengers?

Originally posted by jprophet420


1. does not mention that its a passenger plane or a 757.
2. refers to a 270° turn as "banked slightly to the left"
3. out of the first 10 reports, not even one of them even says it was a passenger plane, much less a 757.

Erm... Maybe they describe 270° turn as banked slightly to the left because they don't describe the 270°turn That turn happened over miles of area and I'd guess very few people outside the ATC center would be able to notice it unless they were on a good lokout starring into the skies and knowing what to look for.
What the witnesses do describe is what they were able to see in seconds when they were able to see a low-lefel full-speed passing jet.

I don't know if these Pictures where still posted here on the forum but
if realy a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon what about these pictures
from burned passengers (Pics are Grafic)
Alleged Victims of 9-11 Pentagon-Crash

I can't imagine Global Hawk's are carrying Passengers
For me there is one Question left, are these Pics really from
the Pentagon Crash and not from another one.

Originally posted by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO
I don't know if these Pictures where still posted here on the forum but
if realy a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon what about these pictures
from burned passengers (Pics are Grafic)
Alleged Victims of 9-11 Pentagon-Crash

I can't imagine Global Hawk's are carrying Passengers
For me there is one Question left, are these Pics really from
the Pentagon Crash and not from another one.

Yes that is the main problem, there is no source for the pics at the pentagon. Their is no name of photographer, and the date or time they were taken.

The photos were entered into evidence at a trial, I can't imagine that there's anything that can demonstrate that they are legit if that can't.

my question is if those pics are from the pentagon are they passengers or workers?

maybe this is coming from out in left field, but am i missing something? everyone keeps making remarks about pictures and security camera footage, but wasnt there actual footage from the parking lot cameras of the plane hitting the pentagon?

Originally posted by snafu7700
wasnt there actual footage from the parking lot cameras of the plane hitting the pentagon?

I am a firm believer that a 757 hit the Pentagon, however, the footage they released has a very low frame rate and is very poor quality.

I see a lot of highjacking of the thread.
A. the engine is not from a 757 but is a arxicillary 3007ab engine possibility only. Rolls Royce spokeperson did not identify engine as being made by them or being from a 757. Six different types of engines go on 757 worldwide. Spokesperson is not expert on engines he does not count. If pictures are real then are they of the plane passengers or of the pentagon employee list? The blades of the engine have no meaning in what hit the pentagon. All pictures from the pentagon have not been certified by the NTSB as being or belonging to a specific type of aircraft. Identification of said pictures were the newscasters themselves and pictures have many meanings.
The craft that hit the building impacted then exploded should there not be body parts on the pentagon lawn. We al have seen pictures of the route through the pentagon some experts have stated that the plane liquified it contents into the building and went through about what 7 limestone walls. The 757 engines weigh about six tons apiece are set five feet from the main body on either side. They stand about 9 feet tall indeed the picture of the engine does not match such a thing
and people are drawing conclusions by taking measurements from a picture and not the crime scene. A Global Hawk has not been proven nor has a 757 been proven, what has been proven is a moving object hit and exploded into a fire ball
making a 13 foot hole into the pentagon and killing many within the area of strike.
Remember the body of the 757 is 13 feet wide minus the wings and engines and this is not taking into the fact the tail stands 45 high and from the top of the aircraft the tail is 23 feet high. The pentagon shows no tail hit and the engines would have added about five feet to each side thus making the original 13 hole 23 feet wide but it was not. Did the wings fold and lay flat against the body and move with the plane into the pentagon. The 757 wings are designed to break loose on a specified pound per square inch impact since there was not wing drag marks on the lawn then the plane must have beenpreatty level during it travel and strike on the pentagon. So what happens to 757 engines make of titituim that melts at what 7000 degrees. No proof yet of a hawk or 757 hitting the pentagon.