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.
Don "Puppy" Bouchoux was driving in vicinity of the Pentagon and literally had the airliner fly over the top of his car.
Donald Bouchoux: I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So was it *literally* on top of his car or 200 yards in front of him? Is Donald going around telling people it was "literally" on top of his car, Pinch? Tsk tsk.
Did you ask him which side of the Citgo he saw it approach on??? Why not? Did you show him the Noc interviews? Why not?
Mike Rioux saw the approach and impact from Rosslyn? All the way from Rosslyn? Did he have binoculars and how did that little plane grab his attention? Couldn't have missed the flyaway? Suuuure he could have. A large explosion would keep him fixated on just that and a low flying plane in South parking would blend into the mismash of trees and buildings. Did you ask him which side of the gas station he saw it on?
What is funny is how you have a problem with someone like Bouchoux who quite obviously shoots your theory to hell with his witnessing of the aircraft hitting the building while you DON'T have any problems with Brooks or Lagasse or Boger or Walter witnessing the aircraft hit the building. Selective witnesses approval from CIT, I guess.
Mike Rioux saw the approach and impact from Rosslyn? All the way from Rosslyn? Did he have binoculars and how did that little plane grab his attention? Couldn't have missed the flyaway? Suuuure he could have. A large explosion would keep him fixated on just that and a low flying plane in South parking would blend into the mismash of trees and buildings. Did you ask him which side of the gas station he saw it on?
Have you interviewed Rioux? Do you know what office he was in in Rosslyn? Do you know what view he had? Have you been to his office or from his view point? Have you been to the view point I had from the 11th floor of Crystal Park 3 where I saw the smoke plume just begin to billow and never saw any "fly over"?
Let me know those things before you continue this farce.
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.
And why didn't Chris Stephenson see the "overflight" of the south parking lot when he had an absolutely perfect view of that area? Do you think that he would have missed an aircraft flying low from a direction where aircraft *never* fly headed straight for P-56?
Aircraft were landing from the south so witnessing an aircraft flying around the south parking headed up or across the river would have been VERY noticeable to a trained tower observer like Stephenson. A large explosion (which he and others saw and watched for "several seconds") meant they would have most definitely seen a "large commercial aircraft" (Robert's description) at "fifty feet or less than a hundred feet" toodling its way across a multi-thousand car parking lot ("a large commercial aircraft" flying across a mulit-thousand car parking lot at 50 to 100 feet and nobody sees it - uh-huh).
"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station."
-Sgt William Lagasse
Originally posted by pinch
but those with whom he flew see him as he is... a fool and an idiot.
LAUGHING my freaking HEAD off!
Originally posted by pinch
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
No I have never been to the floor of Crystal Park 3.
Originally posted by johndoex
Originally posted by pinch
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.
Quote directly where i "claim" the above or admit you lied and retract.
One thing that really stands out when i first saw this video a few days ago (briefly) was that it has radar returns well past the pentagon for "LOOK", meaning east of the pentagon, even east of the potomac.
How can "LOOK" (presumably AA77) be generating radar returns east of the pentagon when it allegedly impacted the pentagon according to the govt story?
For those who would like reference...
You can clearly see P-56 reference/outline in UT's video above and that "LOOK" generates radar returns almost to the east side of P-56.
See P-56 here and notice the east end of the outline. Well east of the Potomac... and.. .drum roll... pentagon...
They are past the Potomac anyway and are not supposed to be.
Originally posted by johndoex
Tell us "Pinch", who exactly on that thread "flew with" Kolstad. It appears they're still trying to figure out who he is!
Hey Pinch, you ever make it to Top Gun? Envy is a sin ya know..
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, before I get 'Flamed'....I should point out that I do actually have several thousand hours in both the B757 and B767.
Gear stays up, Max Throttle....just aim and hit the target. No Slats/Flaps needed, since we don't know how to land this thing....just aim and destroy!!
Originally posted by pinch
Spoken like someone who has never strapped on a tactical jet.
Originally posted by pinch
As far as a "low flying plane" goes, you really need to get your stories straight with Captain Bob and his minions. He is claiming now that the "overflight" has the aircraft flying straight into P-56.
Quote directly where i "claim" the above or admit you lied and retract.
From your post on your site on Oct 3 2008, 12:43 AM in the "Faa 2008 Replay" thread:
One thing that really stands out when i first saw this video a few days ago (briefly) was that it has radar returns well past the pentagon for "LOOK", meaning east of the pentagon, even east of the potomac.
How can "LOOK" (presumably AA77) be generating radar returns east of the pentagon when it allegedly impacted the pentagon according to the govt story?
For those who would like reference...
You can clearly see P-56 reference/outline in UT's video above and that "LOOK" generates radar returns almost to the east side of P-56.
See P-56 here and notice the east end of the outline. Well east of the Potomac... and.. .drum roll... pentagon...
Preston even says, same thread (qualifying the description of "minions"):
They are past the Potomac anyway and are not supposed to be.
Since you and your league of extraordinary pals claim AA77 (or "The Aircraft") didn't hit the Pentagon,
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
03/26/07
PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: [email protected]
OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:
The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.
The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.
snip...
Signed: pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Returning to the above quoted words, any claim of a flight path "almost to the east side of P-56" (Captain Bob) and "past the Potomac" (Preston) would indicate a belief that, since an aircraft cannot stop in mid-air (unless The Aircraft NOW has vectored thrust), said flight path would have to fly into or transit P-56.
I'm curious how you will twist the above words into something it isn't.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Gear stays up, Max Throttle....just aim and hit the target. No Slats/Flaps needed, since we don't know how to land this thing....just aim and destroy!!
Originally posted by weedwhacker
I will NOT argue this issue with you, unless you can tell me that you have actualy physically been here, in the area, and have seen, with your own eyes, the Pentagon (as I have).
Please tell me why my testimony is invalid.
Originally posted by johndoex