757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!, page 9

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 03:53 PM

link

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Why would the FBI (or the cops in your analogy) be compelled to make their investigation findings public? To satisfy us nutcases on ATS?

Look around, there is no widespread public demand for this information. Most people have made up their minds that what appeared to happen on 9/11, is what actually happened.

Well without these reports we do not have the actual facts and information of what happened that day. Without them what poeple think happened is just a theory.

Realtruth

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 10:20 PM

link

Ultima1,

I am with you show us the facts, not some BS. What is this big vail of mystery surround the pentagon attack?

Why would they go to all the trouble to cover something up?

P.S. Where the hell is Caustic Logic I miss his input here?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Why would the FBI (or the cops in your analogy) be compelled to make their investigation findings public? To satisfy us nutcases on ATS?

Look around, there is no widespread public demand for this information. Most people have made up their minds that what appeared to happen on 9/11, is what actually happened.

Well without these reports we do not have the actual facts and information of what happened that day. Without them what poeple think happened is just a theory.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Realtruth]

PHARAOH1133

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 10:43 PM

link

Very compelling videos I like the one which is over an hour to the end of your first post, I have seen it before and am going to watch it here again, It so obvious that this was a inside job there is so much evidence, but like when I was just talking to a friend he said what can I do? Nothing he went on, and I'm not going to until something happens like terrorist attacks. He also is just so uninformed and people are so blind and don't want to or care about investigating things indepth like myself and others like you. What can we do to tell people "Hey look at this stuff" and try convincing them that something should be done about it. Another person is just scared that the government will find out and she doesn't want that stuff on her computer, because she is really scared gov. agents will take her away for being a terrorist (See it's all about fear, the fear tactic).
They seem to live in this day dream world where all they do is just try to convince themselves that things are ok in the little world that they live in.

Good post keep up the fight

[edit on 22-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

darkbluesky

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 02:11 PM

link

Originally posted by Realtruth
Ultima1,

I am with you show us the facts, not some BS. What is this big vail of mystery surround the pentagon attack?

There is no mystery surrounding the attack on the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77, with 58 passengers, and a flight crew of six on board, was seized by terrorist scum and crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Realtruth

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 02:26 PM

link

Then why don't they lay all the cards on the table for all to see? Videos, pictures, reports, etc......

Why?

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Realtruth
Ultima1,

I am with you show us the facts, not some BS. What is this big vail of mystery surround the pentagon attack?

There is no mystery surrounding the attack on the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77, with 58 passengers, and a flight crew of six on board, was seized by terrorist scum and crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:05 PM

link

Originally posted by darkbluesky
There is no mystery surrounding the attack on the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77, with 58 passengers, and a flight crew of six on board, was seized by terrorist scum and crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Its too bad you do not have any real evidence to back up that theory.

darkbluesky

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:05 PM

link

Then why don't they lay all the cards on the table for all to see? Videos, pictures, reports, etc......

Why?

Well in my opinion, and this is just my opinion: It was so damned obvious they didn't need to.

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:15 PM

link

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Well in my opinion, and this is just my opinion: It was so damned obvious they didn't need to.

What was obvious ?

1.We know the planes imapcts did not casue the towers to collapse and the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

2. Thier is no hard evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

3. Thier is evidence that flight 93 was shot down.

4. What about the NORAD excercises and we also have things like flight 1989.

So please tell me what is obvious.

darkbluesky

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:26 AM

link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Well in my opinion, and this is just my opinion: It was so damned obvious they didn't need to.

What was obvious ?

1.We know the planes imapcts did not casue the towers to collapse and the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Just for the sake of debate I'll accept your premise and respond by asking why the conspirators thought it necessary to use airplanes in NY but something else in DC?

2. Thier is no hard evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

There is none that proves one didn't. And in terms of "soft evidence" there is much more that proves one did, than there is that proves one didn't.

3. Thier is evidence that flight 93 was shot down.

Why would the conspirators shoot down a jet that was part of the conspiracy? Why wouldn't they let it hit another target? If UAL 93 was
shot down, and I think this likely, wouldn't that point to real terrorists, and a real terrorist threat?

4. What about the NORAD excercises and we also have things like flight 1989.

I am not familiar with these topics.

ULTIMA1

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:53 AM

link

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Just for the sake of debate I'll accept your premise and respond by asking why the conspirators thought it necessary to use airplanes in NY but something else in DC?

There is none that proves one didn't. And in terms of "soft evidence" there is much more that proves one did, than there is that proves one didn't.

Why would the conspirators shoot down a jet that was part of the conspiracy? Why wouldn't they let it hit another target? If UAL 93 was
shot down, and I think this likely, wouldn't that point to real terrorists, and a real terrorist threat?

I am not familiar with these topics.

1. We do not know if was an airplane or not in VA.

2. Thier is no evidence that proves a 757 or flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The photos of parts shown could have come off other aircraft, thier are no reports matching the parts found to a 757 or flight 77.

3. I am trying to find the truth. If it was a conspiracy to let the planes hit
not everybody would have been in on it. Thier was a change in the NORAD chain of command the morning of 911.

4. NORAD had some excercises going on that week leading up to 911. Some of the excercises included having false planes on the air traffic control radar. Another exercise pulled aircraft from thier normal patrol routes to moniter a Russian Air Force excercise (which we have airborne and spaceborne platforms to moniter)

Thats why when you hear the tape of the FAA calling NORAD the duty officier asks if its an excercise or real time.

As far as flight 1989, it overflew flight 93s route and the air traffic controllers confused it with flight 93 for a few minutes. Flight 1989 landed in Ohio, the pilots had called in an emergency.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

infinityoreilly

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 09:14 PM

link

Originally posted by darkbluesky
There is no mystery surrounding the attack on the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77, with 58 passengers, and a flight crew of six on board, was seized by terrorist scum and crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

What about the six terrorists? Was thier DNA ever confirmed?

[edit on 27-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

johnlear

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 10:26 PM

link

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Well in my opinion, and this is just my opinion: It was so damned obvious they didn't need to.

It may obvious to the uninformed but it certainly isn't obvious to millions of others especially those familiar with airplanes, engineering, and accident investigation.

There are enough people interested in the truth at this point that you can go ahead and show one, just one video camera that photographed a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. And to save the feelings of the squeamish maybe just show it a couple of hundred feet away, you don't have to show the actual crash. Thanks.

mlmijyd

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 04:36 AM

link

A near perfect punched hole damage? Some spectacular precision flying? Very specific smoke damage (Parking Sign aside)? Is the mangled wreckage inside or out? If inside, then I'd have liked to have seen the entry image/imprint, something like the one on the WTC earlier as it was a 'similar' craft albeit meeting a different impacting material? All that non-specific and pristine 'wreckage' that came as a result of hitting something and breaking up before it hit? No, that can't be right then it wouldn't have probably broken up before it hit? ( The light poles I hear mentioned heheheh ;o) ). The tail section........ hmmmm? Two video's stand out the CCTV frames one that shows a light grey, long slender object very close to the ground but missing those big engines I thought most passenger airliner have ( yeah, where did they go?). The other is the reporter one from above post and probably the weakest but you know it just has a non-rehearsed, honest feel to it and I believe that what he is being told to say or what he has seen is as per what he’s telling us i.e. that what he is seeing is not the scene from a conventional passenger plane crash. So what was it? Well given that we’ll never see the real CCTV footage or film then I’m going with a plane and a missile. One does the damage the other to provide evidence for the official report but may be didn’t actually crash?

For what its worth, I’m staggered at the amount of time and energy is wasted contemplating whether our (US/UK) governments are telling us the ‘Truth’’! I think that the time and investigative resources applied by people on here, no matter what side of the “did it, didn’t it hit” fence you sit on, would be better utilised if the simple fact is accepted. We are used and lied to for a purpose that we may never know, everyday of our existence on this earth!!

That's better

darkbluesky

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 09:41 AM

link

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Well in my opinion, and this is just my opinion: It was so damned obvious they didn't need to.

It may obvious to the uninformed but it certainly isn't obvious to millions of others especially those familiar with airplanes, engineering, and accident investigation.

John, I may be abrasive, and at times outright rude in my posts, but I am not uninformed, I think I've demonstrated that. That is all I have to say.

Thank you[/]!

[edit on 3/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 3/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 3/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

johnlear

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link

Originally posted by darkbluesky

John, I may be abrasive, and at times outright rude in my posts, but I am not uninformed, I think I've demonstrated that. That is all I have to say.

Please accept my apologies if you felt I insulted you darkbluesky.

What I meant to say was that anybody who still believes a Boeing 757 passenger plane hit the Pentagon is uninformed.

micpsi

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link

John, no doubt you know that two Pentagon Police Officers have said that they saw a large jet plane fly low towards the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station. Assuming that we believe them, why would those behind 9/11 lay down a phony approach path on the south side by knocking over five light poles if this plane took as planned the north path? Do you think the fast, descending 270 degree turn it was supposed to have taken was so difficult to make that the plane was off course by the time it flew past the Citgo, taking the north flight path instead of the planned south one? I would welcome your thoughts.

johnlear

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link

Originally posted by micpsi
John, no doubt you know that two Pentagon Police Officers have said that they saw a large jet plane fly low towards the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station. Assuming that we believe them, why would those behind 9/11 lay down a phony approach path on the south side by knocking over five light poles if this plane took as planned the north path? Do you think the fast, descending 270 degree turn it was supposed to have taken was so difficult to make that the plane was off course by the time it flew past the Citgo, taking the north flight path instead of the planned south one? I would welcome your thoughts.

Remember there are 2 incidents: The alleged Boeing 757 crash which caused the explosion at the Pentagon heliport clock at 9:32 (see Pentagon Clock).

And the airplane/missilel/whatever, tracked by ATC that crashed into the Pentagon at 9:43 ATc time or 9:37:46 (AA#77 FDR tabular data).

If there was a plane at 9:32 it must have oveflown the Pentagon because it did not crash into it.

The airplane/missile/whatever that crashed into the Pentagon did so at 9:37:46 (AA#77 FDR tabular data) or as ATC originally reported 9:43. It was not a Boeing 757. It couldn't have been because no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

The airplane/missile/whatever that crashed into the Pentagon flew the south path and the light standards or poles were probably not knocked down by this craft. The light standards were probably knocked down by someone or something else in order to coincide with the aircraft/missile/whatever.

If 2 Pentagon Police Officers saw a Boeing 757 take the north path at 9:32 then it overflew the Pentagon or they were watching a holograph because there was no airplane, specifically no Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon at 9:32.

Whatever ATC was tracking at 9:43 later revised to 9:38 was what crashed into the Pentgon and it was not a Boeing 757.

The Flight Data Recorder allegedly from the crashed Boeing 757 says the airplane crashed at 9:37:46 or more accurately the FDR tabular data stops at 9:37:46 as there is no indication of a crash; no rise in G force or any other indication usually associated with a crash. No w this might have been edited out. If so it was edited out o the graphic FDR data and that would be difficult to do.

What was probably supposed to happen was that whatever flew over the Citgo at9:32 was supposed to coincide exactly with whatever ATC was tracking which was supposed to take the southern track.

Maybe the aircraft/missile/whatever arrived early and decided to do a 270 degree turn and ended up late or it just arrived late.

Whatever happened there was some kind of foul up and if it hadn't been for the Pentagon heliport clock stopped at 9:32 they might have gotten away with it. But since ATC recorded the object they tracked as crashed at 9:43 they have had to back down that number by changing the FDR tabular data to 9:37:46 splitting the difference and hoping for the best.

The FDR tabular data indicates that the Boeing 757 was being flown by professional pilots who used the autopilot throughout the descent, reset the altimeters to field barometric at exactly FL180, disconnecting it and reconnecting it at various intervals, then finally disconnected the autopilot at 7000 feet and flew a flawless profile which including a stable descent and a perfectly coordinated turn and level off without any corrections to hit the Pentagon dead center. Quite a feat for an arab hijacker flying a Boeing 757 for the first time.

.

kix

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link

Great post John !!!

Now to add even more data, if the wings of the 757 had colided with th e poles at high speed, at least we would have parts of the slats, maybe some lights and small parts that make the leading edge of the 757 wing. Also if (A BIG IF) the 757 slats by chance resisted the force of the colision with th e poles, they would have been cut like a knife going through butter and impart some kind of inertia to them, not simply tear them down of bend them down....

I am not even sugesting that the plane did not overflew the "area" that the official version portrais and the PENTACON pushes, For the sake of non circular argumentation I am ASSUMING the path is the official one, and no t even there the damage coincides....

micpsi

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link

Thank you, John, for your interesting answer to my question.

I realise that you can only speculate. But why do you think TWO planes or plane+missile were involved at the Pentagon? Given that what crashed was NOT a Boeing 757 (that's very obvious to me, too) and that what did crash flew by the South of the Citgo gas station, although not knocking over light poles, what was the point of the plane seen by the two Pentagon Police Officers and why was this plane not remote-piloted into the Pentagon? Is not piloting by remote-control technology accurate enough to guarantee hitting whatever one wants, such as a section of the Pentagon where, supposedly, U.S. Army accountants were searching for the few trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld had announced the previous day as missing
thewebfairy.com...
Did accuracy demand that whatever crashed into the Pentagon had to be a small plane or a missile? Was the plane seen by the policemen Flight 77 or another plane that had been masquerading as it? Did Flight 77 and its passengers even ever exist?

Finally, why do you think the FDR data stops one second before the crash? Is it because it refers NOT to what crashed into the Pentagon but to the plane that the policemen saw, with .csv file data being (badly) manipulated to indicate a southern rather than a northern flight path, as reported by Pilots for 911 Truth at z9.invisionfree.com..., so that the data for that vital second had to be removed in order to hide the fact that it extended beyond the time of the crash because the plane flew over the Pentagon? If this data had come from a plane that actually crashed, there would be no need to conceal the last second of it and it would surely still exist.

micpsi

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link

The point is worth repeating. Here is a photo of Flight 77 with tail number N644AA in flight:
www.airliners.net... YNK%20%2F%20XYNK%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Pnyvsbeavn&ktODMp=Wnahnel%2022%2C%201999&BP=1&WNEb25u=Erzv%20Qnyybg&xsIERvdWdsY=A644NN&MgTUQtODMgKE=Guvf%20nvepe nsg%20%28nf%20syvtug%2077%29%20jnf%20qryvorengryl%20penfurq%20vagb%20gur%20Cragntba%20ba%20Frcgrzore%2011%2C%202001%20nsgre%20orvat%20uvwnpxrq%20ol%20 greebevfgf.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=40413&NEb25uZWxs=2001-10-12%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=24602%2F365&static=yes&width=1022&height=681&sok=JURER%20%2 0%28ert%20%3D%20%27A644NN%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=3&prev_id=0290718&next_id=0188155&size=L
Here are 12 other photos of Flight 77

www.airliners.net... ator=September11&disp_order=asc

They show that its fuselage was bare metal. No paint.

Now look at the scraps found on the Pentagon lawn:

media.popularmechanics.com...

and

77debris.batcave.net...

No doubt about it.

The background to the lettering is pale blue paint. NOT blue sky reflected in polished metal. PAINT. PERIOD.

Conclusion: the fragments on the lawn did not come from a plane with tail number N644AA, as clearly marked beneath the tail in the large photo. Therefore, it was NOT Flight 77.
QED