It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But why would he lower his landing gear at that speed ? an experienced pilot is not going to lower the gear at that speed. Also the plane was still an good distance from the airport.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
If you haven't seen that film, it is worth taking the time to watch it. Considering two of the interviewees are Police officers, I'd say the chances of them being bribed or otherwise lie about what they saw is just too far out.
There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me your evidence of flight 77 being remotely controlled. I have only seen talk about the remote control of planes in case of hijackers but that is only recently been discussed by Boieng and other companies.
There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).
I'd like to see a full cataloguing of evidence to bear that out. It'd take too much time, of course, but somehow I doubt that conclusion.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).
I'd like to see a full cataloguing of evidence to bear that out. It'd take too much time, of course, but somehow I doubt that conclusion.
Well, it is in the PentaCon video of him running to his car then backing out of there pretty quickly (unless they fabricated it??).
I haven't seen the film, and know that cops can be bribed, but when they're showing CCTV alongside what they're saying, unless the whole thing is a total fabrication, then I'd say the chances were pretty remote.
Regarding what they saw, [...] the inaccuracy of his report with regards to the aircraft type is insignificant as the major details (number of engines, time, flight path etc) are consistent with the other witnesses.
Originally posted by gottago
I simply can't believe any pilot who could fly that plane as it was reported to have crashed was the green arab hijacker, and if he was a real pro, as the evidence indicates he was, why would either the govt, al Quaeda, or the pilot himself want to sacrifice such a valuable person?
Originally posted by gottago
I simply can't believe any pilot who could fly that plane as it was reported to have crashed was the green arab hijacker, and if he was a real pro, as the evidence indicates he was, why would either the govt, al Quaeda, or the pilot himself want to sacrifice such a valuable person?
So I go with RC. Especially considering that I firmly believe 9/11 was an inside job and the Pentagon attack was meant to be a bit of kabuki to make people believe it wasn't the Pentagon that cooked it all up, when obviously it was.
both Eastman (thanked in the credits) and Lagasse have "come together" to help craft this new flyover theory. Coincidence?