Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale
I have admit my vast ignorance.

You honestly didn't realise that some people profit from 9/11 Truth?

Does it worry you that they might have a bit of a conflict of interest now that you've discovered this?

Yes, some people make some money selling books, videos and other things related to 9/11. However, I don't think that many of these people are distorting facts just to make a sale. Sure, there's bound to be a few, just as there's bound to be a few in almost any industry. But if you're implying that it's more than just a few bad apples, I'd like to see your alleged evidence, because I sincerely doubt that's the case. From personal experience, I've found that examining the evidence concerning 9/11 generally doesn't pay a dime, but many people, such as myself, do it anyway, not to make a buck but because we think the truth should be known. I've heard official story supporters say that if truthers want an independent investigation so badly, we should pay for it. Well, in a very real way, I think we have, and continue to do so, by buying these books, videos and the like from people who have certainly put in a lot of investigative hours into the affair. This doesn't mean I think that a truly independent government financed investigation shouldn't take place, but rather that in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to continue to spent money on the books, videos and the like from those who have spent so much of their time to make them.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale
I have admit my vast ignorance.

You honestly didn't realise that some people profit from 9/11 Truth?

Does it worry you that they might have a bit of a conflict of interest now that you've discovered this?

Seeing as how the two people that are being accused of making this profit are not anyone that I have either gotten info from nor hinged any points on...no. It does not worry me, personally. I would expect there to be vultures on both sides, as there are. Far more people made money off of scared citizens than any did from the truth but that does not make it right either way. Fortunately for me, they are not people I really need to worry about for my beliefs to stay intact. I guess I will just not be looking into what they have to say any more than I have so far.

reply to post by scott3x


You said "CIT has explained how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking a plane that actually flew over the pentagon crashed into it instead. Essentially, the explosion would have probably blinded people from seeing anything but the explosion, letting the plane get away without anyone seeing it. This didn't work for someone who -didn't- see the explosion, though, named Roosevelt Roberts. He was persuaded that it was a "second plane", but the fact of the matter is that there was no other plane that was in that airspace at the time but the one that allegedly crashed into the pentagon."

Could witnesses have made a mistake about the flight path or do you accept the fact that they are unimpeachable on the flight path and completely fooled about the impact?
Think about this. The witnesses watch the plane fly toward the Pentagon. Just as it is ready to hit, it flies over while an explosion goes off some distance away from the plane. The plane cannot, according to CIT, fly over the explosion site becase it cannot make the turn on the NOC path. From the CITGO the explosion would appear at least one plane-width to the right of the plane and no one woould notice the plane. The people watching from a distance, who saw only the fire but not the impact, were also all fooled into believing the plane hit and did not notice it flying away. The military transport plane crew that saw the fireball from miles away, the second plane, was also tricked and didn't see AA77 flying away.
The plane, flying at 400+ knots, then swooped over and landed unnoticed, travelling at such a speed as to make a Reagan Airport short runway landing really exciting. Weed and our other experienced pilots will likely tell you that the maneuvers needed to do such a thing can't happen in such a short distance at several hundred feet altitude and at 400 knots. Someone would have noticed the smoking wreckage of the aircraft that attempted to do this. [you asked about my comment concerning CIT's technical skills in a previous post; here is an example] Barring the landing, the flight path would then require the plane to fly over DC at fairly low altitude with throttles buster. No one saw this happen either. Where did the plane go? Did the smoke column from the Pentagon distract people miles away? Do you think that the people of DC were staring at the ground during the 911 attacks?

Ask CIT for the proposed chain of events after the flyover and see if you get anything but handwaving and "couldas."

It coulda been teleported to Mars and we can't see it because NASA is editing the Mars images.

reply to pteridine's post #2603

Originally posted by pteridine
You said "CIT has explained how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking a plane that actually flew over the pentagon crashed into it instead. Essentially, the explosion would have probably blinded people from seeing anything but the explosion, letting the plane get away without anyone seeing it. This didn't work for someone who -didn't- see the explosion, though, named Roosevelt Roberts. He was persuaded that it was a "second plane", but the fact of the matter is that there was no other plane that was in that airspace at the time but the one that allegedly crashed into the pentagon."

Could witnesses have made a mistake about the flight path or do you accept the fact that they are unimpeachable on the flight path and completely fooled about the impact?

It's one thing for a person to be mistaken about the flight path by a few degrees. CIT had all the NOC witnesses draw a line of where they thought the plane flew and it's clear that they all diverge a little. But they're -all- north of the Citgo gas station. In other words, it's one thing to say that their recollection wasn't perfect; another thing entirely to say that they mistook the plane flying from the north of the citgo gas station as opposed to the south. This is especially true of the witnesses who were at the Citgo gas station itself. While much is made of the fact that Sgt. Lagasse initially mistook where he got gas that morning, when asked how sure he was that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo gas station, he stated without hesitation:

100%
Bet my life on it

Originally posted by pteridine
Think about this. The witnesses watch the plane fly toward the Pentagon. Just as it is ready to hit, it flies over while an explosion goes off some distance away from the plane.

Perhaps a good question should be, how distant did the explosion have to be? I think that, from perhaps any angle that the plane would have been visible from, with perhaps the exception of the pentagon video cameras, which have never been released, the plane would have appeared to have been swallowed up by the explosion; for many, they may have simply assumed that the plane -caused- the explosion, as few would believe that the pentagon itself was rigged with explosives, especially considering the media made so little mention of this possibility.

Originally posted by pteridine
The plane cannot, according to CIT, fly over the explosion site because it cannot make the turn on the NOC path.

That's not my understand of CIT's argument. Rather, their argument is that CIT could not have created the -damage- to the Pentagon that was found there, namely because its flight path to the crash site was inconsistent with it. But my understanding is that while it took a different -path- to the pentagon crash site, it did fly over that spot, which would mean that the explosion would indeed be a great cover for its 'getaway', if you will.

Originally posted by pteridine
The people watching from a distance, who saw only the fire but not the impact, were also all fooled into believing the plane hit and did not notice it flying away.

That's the point I'm trying to make to you- Roosevelt Roberts was in precisely such a position, and he -did- see a plane fly over the building. As mentioned previously, he has come to believe that it was a second plane. The problem with this theory is that there was no other plane at the time in this airspace. There has also been some speculation over at PFT recently that perhaps some technology to render the plane very difficult to see might have been used:
Invisiplane tech. available for low alt. flyover, Now you see a plane, now you don't

Perhaps they didn't put too much detail on its underbelly, as they didn't think many people would see it from that angle; Roosevelt may have been the only one, and only because he ran out to see what was flying overhead.

Originally posted by pteridine
The military transport plane crew that saw the fireball from miles away, the second plane, was also tricked and didn't see AA77 flying away.

You say it yourself; they say the fireball; faced with that, who would be paying much attention to a plane? And as I mentioned previously, there's also the possibility that they used this camouflage technology that is mentioned in the above thread.

Originally posted by pteridine
The plane, flying at 400+ knots, then swooped over and landed unnoticed, travelling at such a speed as to make a Reagan Airport short runway landing really exciting.

I have stated in the past that there's no need for it to have gone un-noticed. The only thing necessary is that it go unreported. As to the speed, atleast one expert witness has stated that the official story speed was false; that it was actually going much slower than this.

Originally posted by pteridine
Barring the landing, the flight path would then require the plane to fly over DC at fairly low altitude with throttles buster. No one saw this happen either. Where did the plane go?

I have now clarified how the plane could have landed at Reagan National. In the event that it didn't, however, it's been pointed out many times that in the Reagan National airspace, it's common to see planes flying around. I know there was an order to ground all planes, but I don't think all planes were grounded at the time of the pentagon attack. Furthermore, the fact that all planes were ordered to land might have actually facilitated the pentaplane's landing not being noticed, as the air traffic controllers may well have been swamped.

Originally posted by pteridine
Do you think that the people of DC were staring at the ground during the 911 attacks?

Ofcourse not. But, like I said, I think there may well have been many airplanes in the Reagan National Airport airspace at the time.

Originally posted by pteridine
Ask CIT for the proposed chain of events after the flyover and see if you get anything but handwaving and "couldas."

I believe their theory is the most logical one. This doesn't mean that it accounts for every detail.

reply to post by scott3x


scott, scott, scott.....

Listen, I've more than covered the ridiculousness of a mystery "decoy" airplane passing overhead the pentagon, hanging a quick right, and immediately landing at DCA.

And, despite what you wrote a few posts prior to this one I'm responding to, Mr. Tino D. (turbofan) isn't really the one to ask on this matter...he has redeemed himself, in many eyes, lately for finally seeing the reality when it comes to the gollywraggle that P4T puts out, but he is NOT a pilot. Also, despite the attempts to disparage me, I AM a pilot, with experience in the Boeings used on 9/11 (among others).

Also, I have already addressed what you allude to here:

I know there was an order to ground all planes, but I don't think all planes were grounded at the time of the pentagon attack.

In case you missed it earlier, it bears repeating. This is information to help you in your assessment of what can and cannot have happened, relative to a high-speed Pentagon "overfly" with a subsequent immediate landing at DCA.

First, the grounding order. As I have already mentioned, and as has been verified many times on ATS threads (even P4T will not argue against this fact) the NOTAM that directed the groundings was issued at 1329 UTC (GMT), which is 0929 EDT. It had an effectivity time of 1330 UTC (0930 EDT).

This did two things: Firstly, those airplanes scheduled to take off, all over the country, that had not already been imposed with a 'Ground Stop' were ALL stopped from taking off, obviously. Secondly, the task of landing all that were airborne could not have been accomplished immediately. More on that, after . . .

Furthermore, the fact that all planes were ordered to land might have actually facilitated the (**pentaplane's**) landing not being noticed, as the air traffic controllers may well have been swamped.

. . . is a balls out incredible statement to assert. It displays a layman's lack of understanding (no fault implied) of aviation and its workings in the real world.

Again, as I mentioned the grounding directive before, two airports specifically excluded from consideration as places to put those airborne airplanes were DCA and IAD (National and Dulles). Not certain, but BWI (Baltimore) might have been included in that list, too...although it is a bit farther away, so that's just a guess.

SO...the notion of the controllers in the DCA Tower being "distracted" and "swamped" fails for the reason I just stated, and also is the incredible part I alluded to --- trained ATC professionals would NOT miss an airplane landing, without clearance, against the established flow, on the field where they have a FULL view from on high, on a clear, sunny day.

Not to mention (but I shall) that NO ONE else on the airport property saw this happen, either.

Now, I will invite you to once again, in case it's been a while, look at a Google Sat Image of the area...when you look at DCA airport, the longest runway is 01/19 (runways are numbered according to the nearest magnetic heading, rounded up to the closest ten, then dropping the zero. eg, runway 19 would be pointing South, on a heading of somewhere between 185-194 degrees, rounded to 190 degrees, drop the zero...)

Now, taking into account the geography, look here at an aviation chart depiction of DCA, for further clarity:



It has a lot of information, it's OK if some of it is too technical. BUT, most of it should be informative and useful.

Note, please...what SOME have suggested, runway 15 as a 'possible' landing runway for this imaginary -- ahem, **pentaplane** (I found that term usage offensive, as it is sourced, I believe, directly from the lollygaggles at CIT).

Look at its length, compared to runway 19/01. That runway is used primarily by SMALLER airplanes, like the commuters and such...and private airplanes, prior to 9/11 before the airport was so restricted.

I have now clarified how the plane could have landed at Reagan National.

No, I have have shown, and will continue to show, how that feat would not be able to be accomplished by a conventional jet airplane capable of putting on a "show" as alleged by CIT.

You say that some (or a few) witnesses discount the speed of the airplane that approached the Pentagon. This, I think, is yet another red herring, destined to confuse and distract. The majority of witnesses saw it moving at a high rate of speed. The 84RADES data allow us to estimate its speed. The FDR has recorded airspeed data from on board, showing at least 460 knots indicated.

SO, in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it sure looks like the recollections of a few are in error. Could it be attributed to the psychological phenomenon of subjective time slowing down, when a person is stressed? Has anyone considered that possibility?

But, just for argument's sake, let's say a "decoy" was at about one half that speed...say, 250 kts. It is physically impossible for an airplane, assuming that initial velocity, to begin the slowing and configuring (landing gear, flaps/slats) form a point right over the Pentagon, then turning to DCA and making a landing. It can NOT slow down in that limited time and distance. That would require science fiction technology that, as far as I know, does not yet exist.

In the event that it didn't, however, it's been pointed out many times that in the Reagan National airspace, it's common to see planes flying around.

And this, the most ridiculous claim by CIT of them all, from none other than Ranke, I expect.

He tries to foist this garbage in some of his photographs...I called him on it a long time ago, no answer. He deceptively, in one case (perhaps others) used a telephoto lens to distort the image, hoping that his deception of the perception would fool people. Seems, it does fool some. However, people who live here and are familiar with the routes flown by normal DCA air traffic would notice something out of the ordinary...which is what people DID notice, on the morning of 9/11...a passenger jet impact the Pentagon, form a direction that no other airplane ever flies in the area, right down at very low altitude along Columbia Pike (Route 244), heading East/NorthEast bound, passing SOUTH of the Navy Annex and SOUTH of the gas station, to impact some light poles at the interchange cloverleaf where Route 244 meets Route 27 (Washington Blvd.) just instants before impacting the Pentagon.

THAT is the reality of that morning. CIT is only two-thirds correct in any of their title: They are (seem to be ) citizens, and I guess they are a 'team' (two can be a "team", right??)
_______________________________________________________________
edit [BB]

[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by scott3x

But, like I said, I think there may well have been many airplanes in the Reagan National Airport airspace at the time.

...and another thing! (Sorry, had to use that. It's title of a new book based on Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Big fan.)

Other thing I neglected to point out, above, is we also have the ATC recordings from that morning. I suggest you listen to them sometime. Not sure where those links are, atm; will look later.

Basically, though, you will hear a lot of 'dead air' in the recordings. This means what, exactly? It means that the airspace around DCA and IAD was not all that busy between 0830 and 0945 that morning.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Basically, though, you will hear a lot of 'dead air' in the recordings. This means what, exactly? It means that the airspace around DCA and IAD was not all that busy between 0830 and 0945 that morning.

So this proves that there were NO OTHER planes in that airspace? I am just asking because it sounds like you are saying the tapes demonstrate a huge lack of work being recorded but no actual proof that there were NO planes. Just curious.

reply to post by Lillydale


Sorry, allow me to be more clear.

The various ATC recordings out there will be of a certain frequency, each.

One I refer to is the 'local' frequency, and it is also called the 'Tower' frequency.

Listen to, or read transcripts. Radiotelephony (yeah, that IS a real word, despite what my spellcheck thinks). Here, on a lark I Googled it, this is an example, from Australia, that popped up first:

www.auf.asn.au...

Air traffic control communication standards are mostly common worldwide, with only minor specific differences.

Anyway, when a controller gives a pilot a frequency change it is stated like: "United one two three (or, sometimes...'one twenty three'), contact National Tower (for DCA) one one nine point one."

(Or, to be more correcter the "nine" should be said as "niner", so it's not mistaken for "five").

Pilots can be less strict, more casual (although really it is kinda sloppy) but as long as it's understood, it works. When reading back, for instance, a frequency change the pilot might just say "Nineteen-one, United one twenty three."

Part of the give-and-take in radiotelephony is the acknowledgment, in a 'read back' by the pilot. The controller wants to hear that his message was A) understood properly and, B) received by the proper airplane.

Similar-sounding call signs can cause confusion. That's one reason America West used to be 'Cactus'...at first, they were "America West' on the radio. Quite a few times an American flight responded, or vice versa, to the wrong call.

But, that is protocol, and controllers are required, per their 'handbook', to stay very strict whenever possible, with the terminology. It also is routine, you might say "scripted". It gets to where you know what they're going to say, and when they're going to say it...but the saying is the important part, especially the words "cleared for" when appropriate. Vital. They know that we know the proper frequency, and might not need to state it. There are occasions where, say, you're being vectored for an instrument approach.

The communication will go something like, "United 123, turn left heading two five zero, intercept the runway 22 right localizer, maintain one hundred eighty to the marker, cleared ILS runway two two right. Contact Newark Tower at the outer marker."

They might say "you're cleared"..."you are cleared"...and "for the ILS"...etc...all are acceptable. (I think you can buy aviation band radio scanners at Radio Shack, to listen in, if interested).

SO, in that example, the pilot and controller are on a different frequency than local control, they are on what's called 'approach control'. This, and 'departure', refer to the TRACON facility that is responsible for traffic arriving and departing at major airports that have radar capability. That would be just about most passenger airports in the USA.

Back to the ATC recordings...they're around ATS somewhere, one of these threads. I may have an old U2U with a link, will search....

I've heard the DCA local 'Tower' recording...that's the one that is pretty sedate, not much happening. An America West arrival, if I remember (their radio call sign was 'Cactus'...now they've merged with USAir...)

There was a commuter airplane, was on approach for runway 1, but the first airplane in line on the ground for takeoff (waiting, at first, because of the ground stop in lieu of the WTC attacks) was a Delta. It was decided that Delta wanted to go back to the gate, and the only way, from where he was, was to taxi down the active runway --- one (01) --- to an available turnoff to a taxiway.

Like, referring to the diagram, taxiway Foxtrot, Golf or Mike (G, F or M)



So, the little commuter flight was asked, by the Tower, if he'd slide over to land on runway 33, instead of 01. Which he agreed to do.

There was no "mad scrambling" or controllers being "swamped" with the task of landing a multitude of airplanes at National, after the directive for all airplanes to land was issued. Also, as mentioned....DCA was NOT a destination for those flight, for obvious reasons.



[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why are you having such a hard time answering simple questions. We already know you like to ramble about details that have little to add to anything but sound as if you are reading from a textbook. You know, the over compensation of a bad liar is what I usually read in your posts. This garbaldy gook is more like a distraction. I got bored shortly after the example from austrailia. See, I do not see what I would need any examples of anything or even more than one sentence. It was a simple question. Please just give me a simple answer or do not bother to answer at all. Thanks.

reply to weedwhacker's post #2605, Part 1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
scott, scott, scott.....

Listen, I've more than covered the ridiculousness of a mystery "decoy" airplane passing overhead the pentagon, hanging a quick right, and immediately landing at DCA.

I remain unpersuaded, but I admit there are many things I don't yet fully understand.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, despite what you wrote a few posts prior to this one I'm responding to, Mr. Tino D. (turbofan) isn't really the one to ask on this matter...he has redeemed himself, in many eyes, lately for finally seeing the reality when it comes to the gollywraggle that P4T puts out, but he is NOT a pilot.

He knows a hell of a lot more than I do on the technical details though, which is what counts here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Also, despite the attempts to disparage me, I AM a pilot, with experience in the Boeings used on 9/11 (among others).

Nods. The main problem here seems to be that there doesn't seem to be a truther pilot in this forum, or atleast not one that posts regularly. Faced with this, it seems that we'll either have to do as best we can with people who are atleast fairly technically knowledgeable, such as turbofan, or go looking for a truther pilot.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Lillydale


Sometimes what you may think is a "simple" question isn't simple at all, without some background exposition.

And, I dare say, I have been a 'victim' more than once of typing a shorter reply and having it taken out of context by you-know-who (and others).

To infer that a long explanation (even if technical, it is accurate and as correct as I can possibly make it, so as to not be misunderstood) is an indication of "lying" then...I have nothing else to say to you.

People like yourself who claim to want to understand, to seek the real "truth", but are unwilling or unable to actually accept the truth when it is presented aren't really after a truth at all, are they?

Another thing about a forum like this is, I could show or explain verbally what I'm describing in about one tenth the time it takes to write it out.

The medium is, thus, a limitation that must be dealt with.

However, if I am just going to be insulted after performing a good deed, then I think that speaks volumes, to others, about the character of the one doing the insulting.

reply to post by scott3x

...or go looking for a truther pilot.

Good luck, and if you find one, bring it on.

Oh, wait....that was Balsamo. Well, better find one that's able to discuss without spouting nonsense. P4T has but a few....and based on the people in the business that I contact, they are just about the only ones in the entire world.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Sometimes what you may think is a "simple" question isn't simple at all, without some background exposition.

Nope. It is a simple question. Does it prove there were NO planes in the area or not? Hint: yes or no.

reply to weedwhacker's post #2605, Part 2

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...I have already addressed what you allude to here:

Originally posted by scott3x
I know there was an order to ground all planes, but I don't think all planes were grounded at the time of the pentagon attack.

In case you missed it earlier, it bears repeating. This is information to help you in your assessment of what can and cannot have happened, relative to a high-speed Pentagon "overfly" with a subsequent immediate landing at DCA.

First, the grounding order. As I have already mentioned, and as has been verified many times on ATS threads (even P4T will not argue against this fact) the NOTAM that directed the groundings was issued at 1329 UTC (GMT), which is 0929 EDT. It had an effectivity time of 1330 UTC (0930 EDT).

This did two things: Firstly, those airplanes scheduled to take off, all over the country, that had not already been imposed with a 'Ground Stop' were ALL stopped from taking off, obviously. Secondly, the task of landing all that were airborne could not have been accomplished immediately.

Good to know the details, but it only confirms what I thought; the planes hadn't all been grounded yet.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
Furthermore, the fact that all planes were ordered to land might have actually facilitated the (**pentaplane's**) landing not being noticed, as the air traffic controllers may well have been swamped.

. . . is a balls out incredible statement to assert. It displays a layman's lack of understanding (no fault implied) of aviation and its workings in the real world.

You know I'm a layman. It's quite possible that a truther pilot some other truther who has a fairly good understanding of such things has come up better details for this part of the theory, but if so, I'm unaware of it, and so have attempted to forge on ahead unguided.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Again, as I mentioned the grounding directive before, two airports specifically excluded from consideration as places to put those airborne airplanes were DCA and IAD (National and Dulles). Not certain, but BWI (Baltimore) might have been included in that list, too...although it is a bit farther away, so that's just a guess.

SO...the notion of the controllers in the DCA Tower being "distracted" and "swamped" fails for the reason I just stated, and also is the incredible part I alluded to --- trained ATC professionals would NOT miss an airplane landing, without clearance, against the established flow, on the field where they have a FULL view from on high, on a clear, sunny day.

Perhaps the pentaplane got special clearance? I suppose it might have flown to somewhere like Baltimore as well, but at present, my working theory is Reagan National.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not to mention (but I shall) that NO ONE else on the airport property saw this happen, either.

How would you know?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
Note, please...what SOME have suggested, runway 15 as a 'possible' landing runway for this imaginary -- ahem, **pentaplane** (I found that term usage offensive, as it is sourced, I believe, directly from the lollygaggles at CIT).

It's simply a term used to describe the plane that approached the pentagon on 9/11.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Look at its length, compared to runway 19/01. That runway is used primarily by SMALLER airplanes, like the commuters and such...and private airplanes, prior to 9/11 before the airport was so restricted.

Perhaps the pentaplane landed on runway 19. Alternatively, perhaps runway 15 was long enough, given the fact that an expert eyewitness believes the plane was going much slower than the official story would have us believe.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted scott3x
I have now clarified how the plane could have landed at Reagan National.

No, I have have shown, and will continue to show, how that feat would not be able to be accomplished by a conventional jet airplane capable of putting on a "show" as alleged by CIT.

I'm not sure what this "show" is that you claim CIT alleges. In any case, I'm aware that you know a fair amount about planes, but I remain unpersuaded, in part because there are many pilots over at PFT that I believe agree that the plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You say that some (or a few) witnesses discount the speed of the airplane that approached the Pentagon. This, I think, is yet another red herring, destined to confuse and distract. The majority of witnesses saw it moving at a high rate of speed.

To an amateur witness, any plane may be thought of as moving at a high rate of speed. The expert witness, however, estimated the amount of knots it was going at, and it was a lot lower than the official story's version.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The 84RADES data allow us to estimate its speed. The FDR has recorded airspeed data from on board, showing at least 460 knots indicated.

I think that both may have been falsified.

reply to weedwhacker's post #2605, Part 3 (last part)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO, in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it sure looks like the recollections of a few are in error.

I have yet to be persuaded that the evidence against CIT's theory is overwhelming...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Could it be attributed to the psychological phenomenon of subjective time slowing down, when a person is stressed? Has anyone considered that possibility?

Perhaps we should leave this particular issue for now...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, just for argument's sake, let's say a "decoy" was at about one half that speed...say, 250 kts. It is physically impossible for an airplane, assuming that initial velocity, to begin the slowing and configuring (landing gear, flaps/slats) form a point right over the Pentagon, then turning to DCA and making a landing. It can NOT slow down in that limited time and distance. That would require science fiction technology that, as far as I know, does not yet exist.

Mm. Perhaps it didn't land in Reagan National.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
In the event that it didn't, however, it's been pointed out many times that in the Reagan National airspace, it's common to see planes flying around.

And this, the most ridiculous claim by CIT of them all, from none other than Ranke, I expect.

He tries to foist this garbage in some of his photographs...I called him on it a long time ago, no answer. He deceptively, in one case (perhaps others) used a telephoto lens to distort the image, hoping that his deception of the perception would fool people. Seems, it does fool some. However, people who live here and are familiar with the routes flown by normal DCA air traffic would notice something out of the ordinary…

Perhaps they did but were told to keep quiet?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
which is what people DID notice, on the morning of 9/11...a passenger jet impact the Pentagon, form a direction that no other airplane ever flies in the area, right down at very low altitude along Columbia Pike (Route 244), heading East/NorthEast bound, passing SOUTH of the Navy Annex and SOUTH of the gas station,

I have found that all of the reliable witnesses place the plane over the navy annex and north of the citgo gas station, which completely ruins the official story's south flight path account.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
to impact some light poles at the interchange cloverleaf where Route 244 meets Route 27 (Washington Blvd.)

Other then the north of the citgo gas station witnesses ruining the idea that the plane could have knocked over the light poles, there has also been a significant amount of discussion on the unlikeness of Lloyd England's account of his car being speared by a light pole and for that light pole not to have opened his car up like a tin can when it swerved to a stop instead of magically remaining in place, not even scratching the hood of his car.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
CIT is only two-thirds correct in any of their title: They are (seem to be ) citizens, and I guess they are a 'team' (two can be a "team", right??)

I think you unfairly malign CIT...

[edit on 17-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Lillydale


OK....since you asked nicely.

You ask for "proof" of 'no planes in the area'.

I wrote about the ATC recordings, the ones that are from the Washington National control tower frequency. On those recordings, there are NO airplanes landing at DCA after the commuter airline and the America West jet.

But, that's only one frequency. You have to listen to the TRACON (Potomac Departure control). There is also the Andrews AFB Tower, and Ground control too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edit in here, forgot: Recall, any flights within the TRACON airspace would have been directed to OTHER airports, as part of the directive to land ASAP.

Does everyone know that DCA remained CLOSED to all traffic for several months AFTER 9/11??? Really torqued me off, made it very difficult to commute to work. Amtrak was my salvation, but that got very expensive.

Even when DCA re-opened, was at greatly reduced schedule, no B-757s were allowed anymore, there was a huge rigamorole "security" procedure for airplanes arriving (remember the 30-minutes before landing, can't be out of your seats rule?) and a pointless "secret code" for pilots to use, on initial call to approach control ...a "code', changed daily, that anyone with a radio scanner would figure out in about five seconds....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BUT, back to DCA local....they did NOT say, on the air, anything about this alleged airpalne that magically landed there....

Something like that, showing up in their airspace?? It would also be on their radar...

Soemone would have challenged, in some way. "unidentified aircraft, do you hear National Tower?"


[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


What is it about "yes or no" you are having such a hard time with? Please U2U me or something and I can explain what it means and how to apply it. I am sorry I have thrown such a curve ball at you but I really assumed that you would be able to handle this. I certainly did not think I would be asking a 5th time. After this, if you do not seek out my help and do not answer yes or no, then I have no choice but to just give up on you.

reply to post by Lillydale


All of the answers you seek are there, young Padawan.

It has been my pleasure to service you.

The ability to improve others' comprehension is not within my realm of expertise, I fear. Perhaps a re-reading, while in a nice warm soaking tub or other relaxing environment will be useful.

(Print out, do NOT take the computer with you into the tub).

This recommendation brought to you by the kind folks at "Rub-a-Dub Tubs".

Their motto? "You slip, we flip." No one has ever understood what that is supposed to mean, exactly...but there's strong evidence it refers to their law team....

reply to post by weedwhacker


I like this bit, snipped from one of the links provided by cesura in another thread, about the FDR AAL 77:

The 9/11 truth movement began as an honorable and patriotic response to the US government's attempts to limit the scope of the 9/11 Commission, to impede its investigations, and to ignore its recommendations. Although most of the commission's records are still neither accessible to the general public nor subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know some government agencies and officials were more concerned to hide evidence of their incompetence than to tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission or to the public.

Sums up, very nicely, what has led to this "revoltin' development" known as the "Truth Movement"!

(For the youngsters, "revoltin' " is a catch phrase from an old radio comedy, "Life of Reilly". 1940-ish....)

Originally posted by scott3x

I'm sorry, but there's a limit to how much time I want to spend on this and I just don't feel that motivated to do what you ask. I don't just take anyone's word for things. I've given many reasons why I go for the flyover theory. This being said, this doesn't mean that I've stopped asking questions on the whole issue, as my last response to pteridine demonstrates.

Don't you think this subject deserves somewhat more personal analysis than simply accepting what someone with a rather obvious personal agenda wants to dictate to you? That's bordering on giving your one and only source a religious distinction.

I've brought up a number of significant things you admitted very little knowledge of and yet you're not prepared to look deeper into them and I have to wonder why. You may be able to prove my findings incorrect and I'd be fine with that because I'm interested in getting the facts straight no matter which way they lead.

Weedwhacker gave a very good explanation of the impossibility of the supposed landing at Reagan for example and all you need is an Arlington street map to reassure yourself that it is , in fact, impossible. I have such a map here and I can tell you it's close to 5200' from the impact point on the Pentagon to the closest point of the runway you suggest the plane landed on. Even if you use the NOC approach to the Pentagon, the plane still has to execute a 90 degree turn in less than the width of the Pentagon to align with that runway, lowering the landing gear at the same time (witness concensus is the gear was up). Please have a go at showing it to be at all possible if you still believe that.

The final recorded speed of the plane is 483 knots which is over 800'/sec so we're talking about less than 10 seconds to execute that landing including the 90 degree turn BTW but you can attempt it at half that speed if you think it is more reasonable.

Here's a map showing the relative locations of the Navy Annex, Pentagon and the runways at Reagan:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5a0fc850d1a4.jpg[/atsimg]

EDIT - for typos

[edit on 17/12/2009 by Pilgrum]