A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[Ty]

Zook, Teakai and Fred,

Thank you for your interesting input.

Teakai, I disagree with your premise that the larger picture is a prerequisite to determining what happened. You agreed earlier that whether or not a plane hit or flew over the Pentagon depends on evidence or lack of it at the Pentagon. I would argue that the bigger picture is irrelevant to Robert's account, the most reasonable result of which is that the plane flew into the Pentagon. If you need to consider the bigger picture to evaluate any piece of the puzzle then you aren't objectively looking at the evidence, you're selecting the evidence to fit the picture.

But I agree with you in part that witnesses can get confused about what they see. I would say they very rarely are confused about WHAT they see, just about the DETAILS of it. In September Clues I used the analogy of a bank robbery. 8, 10, 12 witnesses to a bank robbery would be unlikely to all describe the robber the same way. But it would be exceedingly rare for any of them to not agree that the bank was robbed. On the other hand, 8, 10, 12 patrons in a bank that WASN'T robbed would be unlikely to think it was.

I doubt Robert was confused about whether the plane was in sight or not when the explosion occured. But let's put Robert aside.

I've done some additional research and it turns out there are a WHOLE BUNCH of eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Including one or two who might come as surprises. Like the witnesses to a bank robbery, specific details of the plane differ - primarily whether the landing gear was up or down and the color of the plane. But substantial numbers of them agree that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

That said, for the sake of argument let's look at the bigger picture required for a plane to NOT crash into the Pentagon - to fly over it instead. I hope we can all agree that in order for a deception like a flyover to occur, much planning, much preparation, split second timing and unquestioned loyalty of many participants are needed. As a short, somewhat obvious list...

• Lightpoles had to be invisibly removed the night before and strategically placed to document the plane's path (even though they have no explanation for the one the cab driver says he saw get hit by a plane that landed in the middle of the highway after skewering his cab).
• Bombs have to be strategically placed in one of the most guarded buildings in the world.
• Jet fuel has to be strategically planted as well to account for the odor witnesses reported, the burns on some witnesses and the presence of it in the lungs of at least one victim (or these people and doctors all have to be "in on it").
• First responders have to be on board to make sure the victims are delivered to the doctors who will confirm jet fuel burns and residue
• The debris field has to be instantly planted with debris, but the planting not witnessed by any of the hundreds of eyes instantly fixed on the area, including the tossing of a tire rim past James Cissell's car, the remains of the engines, melted aluminum and other debris in the North parking lot as reported by Tom McClain, and lots of other debris. Not just the big stuff but all the little bits of debris. And the really clever part of making one end of that large generator look like it got smashed by an engine and moving it TOWARDS the building, instantly without being seen, when almost any other explanation for the explosion would have moved the generator AWAY from the building - a truly brilliant touch.
• Hundreds of eye-witnesses must be planted who will claim to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon such as...

  (a) James Mosley, four stories up on a scaffold at the Navy Annex, "`... I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon"
  (b) Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
  (c) Kim Flyler was trying to sneak into a parking space near to the building when she saw the plane: "At that moment I heard a plane and then a loud cracking noise.... Right before the plane hit the building, you could see the silhouettes of people in the back two rows. You couldn't see if they were male or female, but you could tell there was a human being in there."

  ...and at least a couple hundred others.
• Air Traffic Controllers to ignore the plane after it flys over the Pentagon
• A dispatch crew to eliminate the passengers that were on the plane
• A dispatch crew to eliminate the plane
  

So I hope we can at least agree that this took months of monumental planning, coordination and probably thousands of loyal and dedicated co-conspirators all up for the grand deception.

Now let's fast forward to the day of the event. All the debris is stashed and ready to roll out, the jet fuel is in place, the lightposts were taken down the night before and are now strategically lying in wait to be discovered (except for that pesky one on the highway). All the key eye-witnesses are in place in the building, around the building, in the cars on the highways (that was one of the trickiest parts - making sure only the co-conspirators line the highway), up at the Navy Annex, on the scaffolding at the Navy Annex, even in the hotels in the area that had a clear view of the Pentagon, all these places occupied only by carefully chosen co-conspirators all in place and waiting for the go-word so they can react with convincing shock, astonishment and surpise and start spreading their amazingly similar stories about how a plane hit the Pentagon.

I suppose that's all possible. After all, we're talking high level strategists and operatives here, right? They coordinate all this intricate staging without a hitch, every thing is going according to plan, the plane is arriving right on schedule. But wait a minute? What's it doing over there? No No No. It's supposed to be SOUTH of the Columbia Pike, not NORTH of it. Now how do we explain these downed lightposts? We've got all these light posts strategically placed and no way to explain how they got there. And the explosion. THE EXPLOSION. It was set to coorespond to a Southern strike and now the plane's coming in from the North. WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE PLANE? Wait 'till I get my hands on THAT IDIOT.

So we're to believe that the same masterminds that pulled off all the logistics needed for this deception blow it by FLYING THE PLANE IN THE WRONG PLACE?

But that's OK because all the planted co-conspirators will still confirm the intended path. And sure enough, all the hundreds of witnesses fall into line and support the lie - well except the dozen or so on the Citizen Investigation Team's video. Guess they just couldn't be bought off. Kind of makes you wonder why they needed a plane at all if they could just produce all these witnesses to say they saw one fly into the Pentagon.

So in a nutshell, this, or something very much like it, is what's required to believe the fly-over scenario.

Now, back to reality...

Remember Terry Morin, the Navy Annex witness with aviation experience? Here's an excerpt from his personal account of that day:

The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound.

But this guy with aviation experience who has been watching this plane doesn't notice it fly over and keep going? Seems unlikely to me.

Also, it seems like Sean Boger's recollection has changed a bit over the years. In the video he says he covered his head and dropped to the ground and didn't see it hit. But here's what he said in a Nov 16, 2001 article:

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Looking still at the bigger picture, like I said above, there are hundreds of such accounts. Many are gathered in specific archives. I noticed Terry Morin's name in one archive and followed the link. The site was no longer active so I had to go to the archives. I'm sure there are hundreds of others available there as well for anyone willing to look. I just don't feel obligated at this point to further make my case. Until someone can explain away all the eywitness accounts, of a plane hitting the Pentagon, I'm afraid the only reasonable conclusion is that a plane hit the Pentagon.

In closing, here's one more critical bit of info. I don't live too far from DC so took a trip down that way and was walking along the Potomac and saw a sheath of papers sticking out from under a rock. My curiousity got the best of me of course and in looking through them I couldn't believe my good fortune. Turns out they are top secret classified minutes of a meeting between Rumsfeld and two of his top strategists. Here's the incriminating part...

Rumsfeld: OK guys. We need a trigger event, something dramatic and undeniable that will get the public behind military action in Afganistan and Iraq.

Strategist 1: I know. Why don't we fake a plane crashing into the Pentagon?

Rumsfeld: Fake a plane crash?

Strategist 1: Yeah - we can make it look like a plane crashes into the Pentagon and blame it on Al-Queda.

Rumsfeld: What will really happen?

Strategist 1: I guess we can actually have the plane fly over the Pentagon and time an explosion to occur at that exact time then scatter a bunch of plane parts to make it look like it crashed. We can even throw in some engine parts from an engine not used by that plane just to cause some confusion. And plant witnesses, hundreds of them, all over the place to say they saw it crash.

Rumsfeld: I'm liking the sound of this. But why do we want to cause confusion? I want dramatic and undeniable, not confusing.

Strategist 1: OK. Well scratch that then. Oh, here's an idea - we'll take down some light posts to provide a clear attack path.

Rumsfeld: Good idea - what about the crash itself?

Strategist 1: We can use bombs. Maybe plant some jet fuel in the building so people report smelling it burn. Buy off a few doctors who treat patients with jet fuel burns on their skin and in jet fuel in their lungs. And just to add some confusion we'll plant the bombs so they create a hole that many will think too small for the plane to cause.

Rumsfeld: You know I think this just might work. But stop with adding confusion. Make it a big hole. A giant hole. Just like a plane would make. We want this to be convincing. No one should have any doubts that we crashed that plane into the Pentagon. Hey - you've been awfully quite. What do you think?

Strategist 2: Why don't we just fly a plane into the Pentagon?

Rumsfeld: Naw - who'd ever believe that? Besides - that'd be way too complicated and risky.

Well, you've all been good sports to engage me and I do appreciate it. If it's the truth you're fighting for, and you still believe and defend the no-planes theory, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I guess one man's truth is another man's fantasy.

As for the documentarians. I give them credit for asking Robert the obvious question. But fault them for not including it in the released video. There are also examples of distortion and misrepresentation that I noticed but not worth adding to the fray here. At any rate, I choose to withhold my apology to them and hope you understand and forgive.

As I said elsewhere, if you put enough magnifying glasses on an event like this you will find discrepancies. There are problems with the official story. There are problems with the fly-over theory. There are problems with the missile theory. What really happened may never be known. What most likely happened is probably whichever story has the fewer or smaller discrepancies. The fly-over theory, in my opinion, has enough holes in it to, well, fly a 757 through.

Again all, thanks for taking the time. Hope I at least gave you something to think about.

Others can decide for themselves, which is the more reasonable scenario - a plane crashing into the Pentagon, or the whole thing is faked so one can fly over instead (because after all, that would have the same effect and be so much easier to pull off as a black op...)

[Kent Fallman]

Great video. The info from Lloyd was really something...

[silentghost80]

I dont know what to say but this documentary is great

[Teakai]

Hi Ty - the math alone makes the official story impossible.
The story has nowhere to go after that.
Even if we disprove the testimony of every witness - the math stays the same.

You're absolutely right that one doesn't need the rest of the story to draw a conclusion on this one, I didn't mean to imply that it did.

[Ty]

Posted by Teakai (here)
Hi Ty - the math alone makes the official story impossible.
The story has nowhere to go after that.
Even if we disprove the testimony of every witness - the math stays the same.

You're absolutely right that one doesn't need the rest of the story to draw a conclusion on this one, I didn't mean to imply that it did.

Unless the math is wrong. Perhaps you can provide an example of what math you're talking about.

[Ty]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
Absolutely

The bit that made me laugh, was when the Director of Rolls Royce in the US visited the Pentagon said “ I am not familiar with that engine” meaning that’s not one of our engines!

Unless he meant that he wasn't familiar with that engine. What division/department was he the director of?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Fred259 (here)
These are the WTC engines, do you notice anything wrong!

Yes I do. This is a thread about whether there was a flyover at the Pentagon. What happened in NY has no bearing on that.

[Ty]

Posted by NoTingles (here)
I think there are some debunkers, here and elsewhere on the internet who just enjoy being a bur under someone's saddle blanket, they enjoy stirring the pot just to see it boil, but they don't offer anything to put into the soup- they focus only on tearing down the view that differs with the officially sanctioned one, and in my book that makes them questionable. Might even be a troll. My thanks to Zook for posting that video- good on ya!

What really makes me angry is that there were thousands of innocent people who were murdered on that day. Niggling over small, semantic points diminishes that, yet it should never be forgotten what happened to our fellow citizens. And the only way the official version of events will hold water is if you wish away all the holes in it. It's not unpatriotic to question the motives of the government of your country...

I don't know if you're directing this at me or not. For the record I have no problem questioning the official theory. If I did I wouldn't have bothered watching the video. Everyone who proposes a theory does so knowing full well that it will be questioned and put under a microscope or is a fool.

Robert's testimony isn't a "small semantic point." It's quite apparent to anyone objectively following it to a conclusion instead of trying to make it fit a pre-determined theory. If you think questioning that diminishes the event just think how the survivors of those victims feel abouot a theory that suggests they didn't die when their plane crashed into he Pentagon but were somehow disposed of later. With nothing but a handful of witnessess who didn't see anything but where the plane was before it did or didn't crash into the Pentagon. Except for Sean Boger, the Helicopter Tower guy what actually did see it crash into Pentagon along with a couple hundred other people. Who's testimony has to be ignored or diminshed in order for a lfy-over to hold water.

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with the official story. Does that mean the fly-over gets a free pass? Why do you have such a hard time holding it to the same standard to see how much water it holds?

[mrmalco]

This documentary really seems to put another piece in the puzzle.

Re. the Twin Towers the big questions that remain for me are:
What were those explosion sounds that are audible on a number of different videos before the towers came down and were commented upon in real time on camera by interviewees?
What caused the extraordinary underground furnace that went on for so long (was it a month or more) after the event?

I'm getting old and need to do go at this huge topic bit by bit.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Those who could see the Pentagon said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, and a thirteenth said it did not fly over the Pentagon.

CIT claims that Maria de la Cerda is a flyover witness but she said:
North side flyover part 2 at 26:30
Craig: "Does that mean you didn't necessarily see the plane approach, it was already ah, but you do remember seeing an object."
Maria: "Yea, I saw the impact, I saw a fireball."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2030910430700#

Sean Boger - Official interview 11-14-01
"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

Robert Turcios
NSA Supplemental at 25:30
Craig Ranke: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert Turcios: Fly over the Pentagon??? No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) collided.

Sgt. Brooks
NSA Supplemental at 37:56
Craig Ranke: Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon

Sgt Lagasse
NSA Supplemental at 42:38
And it flew into the building with very slight control movements. Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam....ntaconsgv.html

Keith Wheelhouse
2nd plane cover story at 9:36
And then it just evaporated into the side of the building.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3411025014760#

Penny Elgas
Interview with Jeffrey Hill - 2010
"It just flew in,. . . . . Just when it got to the wings I think, then there was an explosion which was all black smoke."
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3
Original interview
"I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...ting.asp?ID=30

Terry Morin
Original interview
"As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. . . . . . . The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ses/sgydk.html

Dawn Vignola
2:00 "I saw the, it was an American Airlines 757 and it came in, it hit the side, it hit the heliport, it came down Columbia Pike and hit the heliport.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zvmtq98Qv6A

Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman
0:40 "And I saw it hit right in front, it didn't crash, it didn't appear to crash into the building."
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zhUhExuv6vk

Vin Narayanan
"At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...rst-person.htm

Joel Sucherman
8:20 "I seen it coming across my windshield and then I'm looking out the side passenger window and that's where I see the collision with the Pentagon.
Craig "So did you see it impact or were there trees in the way?"
Joel "No, there were no trees in the way at all. I did see it impact."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4191989953274#

Albert Hemphill
"He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level."
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam....-5-24-2010.mp3

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Those who think CIT use the scientific method are wrong. They are poor researchers IMO.

As a seperate issue, for those that think there is no evidence of a plane at the pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/parts.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ompressor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/rotor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...yardparts.html


Now if people are REALLY interested in justice, the CIT way will not get any answers EVER.

This is the way to do it....

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice. And one that wont.

1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?

2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?

4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).

5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?

7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?

8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?

10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?

11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?

12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.


The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”

“How did they really die?”

“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

[Fred259]

Posted by Ty (here)
Unless he meant that he wasn't familiar with that engine. What division/department was he the director of?

¤=[Post Update]=¤




Yes I do. This is a thread about whether there was a flyover at the Pentagon. What happened in NY has no bearing on that.

Sorry in England we would call him a Director, in the US he would be the CEO.

The engine manufacturer Rolls Royce Plc Derby England, have a subsidiary company in the US Rolls Royce Inc at Indianapolis where they manufacture engines.

Flight 77 was a B757 powered by Rolls Royce engines.

The CEO of Rolls Royce at Indianapolis said “I am not familiar with that engine” He was referring to engine wreckage from the Pentagon. It’s a polite way of saying in diplomatic circles that the engine did not come from a Rolls Royce powered B757.

Likewise in New York. Both aircraft were fitted with General Electric CF6 engines. The engine shown on the sidewalk is not a General Electric CF6 engine.

At both the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre damaged engine parts were neither Rolls Royce RB-211 nor General Electric CF6.

What they did show at New York was the French engine manufacturer Seneca CFM 56 series engine. This engine is unable to lift a 757 / 767 and as such would never be fitted to these aircraft.

In conclusion what they did was take damaged engine parts from the scrap yard and leave them on sidewalks and within the pentagon compound as part of the deception.

[Fred259]

Posted by mrmalco (here)
This documentary really seems to put another piece in the puzzle.

Re. the Twin Towers the big questions that remain for me are:
What were those explosion sounds that are audible on a number of different videos before the towers came down and were commented upon in real time on camera by interviewees?
What caused the extraordinary underground furnace that went on for so long (was it a month or more) after the event?

I'm getting old and need to do go at this huge topic bit by bit.

Here Dr Judy Wood provides some possible answers to your question.

http://drjudywood.com/

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

IMO Judy wood is in the same camp as CIT. Very poor researcher IMO. Nanothermite is a much more logical answer for those questions.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
IMO Judy wood is in the same camp as CIT. Very poor researcher IMO. Nanothermite is a much more logical answer for those questions.

I do agree with you, I said that Dr Wood provides some of the possible answers.

I also have concerns about CIT, this thread is based on the video research from pilots for truth. But the CIT involvement and the presenter in particular are missing key and in some cases glaring and obvious anomalies.

Terry Morin from the Navy Annex, I don’t believe is a credible witness at all. He changed his story, works for the Navy, could see very little if indeed anything from where he was, and has made some very basic errors with the statements he has made.

The 8 witnesses are good, indeed very good but the fact 5 of the 8 work for the government needs to be considered.

It’s a very good effort and professional investigation, but its possible CIT could have been infiltrated.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

yeah, I think we are on the same page.

[Fred259]

Eyes Wide Open, you ask in your post:

8). Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

The airport and aircraft side of 9/11 never happened. It was just a sequence of events on paper and played out for the world’s consumption.

It would also have been impossible to receive a false transmit squawks from an aircraft that didn’t exist in the air, so they told you that the aircraft weren’t transmitting or squawking.

They didn’t do this, because if they had done so secondary surveillance radar would have located the position of the aircraft both laterally and longitudinally at all times + - 100 feet.

The Hijack code isn’t secret 7500 for hijack,7600 radio failure 7700 mayday squawks are internationally used and recognised codes that are transmitted in an emergency. When transmitted every SSR radar mast in the eastern seaboard as far west as Kansas, satellites, coast guard and airborne AWACS aircraft would instantly X the position and track the distress signal. Why would they want to give the game away? They don’t really want assistance do they!

When they talk about radar returns they are referring to primary radar. With primary radar everything and anything comes back into the radar parabolic dish and paints on the controllers screen. This will include all aircraft at all levels, clouds ice and rain and above all shadow. No precise information is received back from a primary return.


11). How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?

Agreed, practically impossible to impossible. If he spent any time in any aircraft at all it would have been a single piston engine Cessna weight 750kgs speed 90Kts or 1.5miles/minute and then he just jumps from the Cessna and into a 767 weight 130,000kgs Speed 500kts 8 miles /minute. No simulator training or anything it just cant be done.

Its impossible be able to hand fly any aircraft weighting 130 tons at 500kts. What about velocity, inertia and a host of other factors, I suppose like Newton’s 3rd law of motion they didn’t apply that day!

An utter abomination.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Those who think CIT use the scientific method are wrong. They are poor researchers IMO.

As a seperate issue, for those that think there is no evidence of a plane at the pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/parts.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ompressor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/rotor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...yardparts.html


Now if people are REALLY interested in justice, the CIT way will not get any answers EVER.

This is the way to do it....

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice. And one that wont.

1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?

2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?

4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).

5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?

7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?

8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?

10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?

11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?

12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.

The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”

“How did they really die?”

“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

Regarding your question about dead passengers.




Airports & Aircraft


It was a paper exercise only.

No aircraft ever left the ground.

The passengers never existed.

Muslims are alive and well today.



Pentagon Hijacker – Alive & Well - Non Pilot – Works in Petro Chem in Saudi – Never been to the United States.

The other two men accused of being terrorists are Salem Al-Hamzi and Ahmed Al-Nami. Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck.

“He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon”.
He said: "I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey.




WTC 1 North Tower Hijacker-Alive & Well – Non Pilot – Works for Saudi Telecom.

Mr Al-Omari, who was accused of hijacking the American Airlines plane that smashed into the the World Trade Centre's north tower, said that he was at his desk at the Saudi telecommunications authority in Riyadh when the attacks took place.

He said: "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. “I am here. I am alive”. “I have no idea how to fly a plane”. I had nothing to do with this.




Sharpeville Hijacker – Alive & Well – Non Pilot – Works for Saudi Airlines – Never been to Pennsylnania

Mr Al-Nami, 33, from Riyadh, an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines, said that he was in Riyadh when the terrorists struck.He said: “I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked."

Source - London Daily Telegraph – 23 September 2001 HERE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...dentities.html

[Teakai]

Posted by Ty (here)
Unless the math is wrong. Perhaps you can provide an example of what math you're talking about.

This math:

and this math

And the math that says that if a plane went through it would have knocked down all the pillars in its path, not left some standing in its wake. That's phsyics, I think

[Nairnia]

Wow, my first post and Im diving into this one?

Back in 2005 while living in Virginia, I went on a date with a lovely woman who worked in Alexandria. I had just began reading about these conspiracy theories although I dont believe PC was on the go then and coincidently, I was reading about the evidense to suggest that it wasn't that plane that hit the building but a missile.

During our dinner together, while she was talking about her job, where she worked, I casualy mentioned that there was an idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, I still remember the look she gave me! She went on to tell me how she had been standing at a photocopier overlooking the Pentagon and saw the plane fly over and watched in horror as it hit the building. I quizzed her on the details of the plane (which I no longer remember) but her testimony, to me was sound. I believed her.

Now, if someone I trust tells me they saw a flying horse, I don't care how much evidense you present to show that horses can't and don't fly, as far as I'm concerned, they saw a horse fly!

Ive seen the compelling evidense, Ive seen the youtube documentories, but as far as I'm concerned, a plane hit the Pentagon.

[Teakai]

Posted by Nairnia (here)
Wow, my first post and Im diving into this one?

Back in 2005 while living in Virginia, I went on a date with a lovely woman who worked in Alexandria. I had just began reading about these conspiracy theories although I dont believe PC was on the go then and coincidently, I was reading about the evidense to suggest that it wasn't that plane that hit the building but a missile.

During our dinner together, while she was talking about her job, where she worked, I casualy mentioned that there was an idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, I still remember the look she gave me! She went on to tell me how she had been standing at a photocopier overlooking the Pentagon and saw the plane fly over and watched in horror as it hit the building. I quizzed her on the details of the plane (which I no longer remember) but her testimony, to me was sound. I believed her.

Now, if someone I trust tells me they saw a flying horse, I don't care how much evidense you present to show that horses can't and don't fly, as far as I'm concerned, they saw a horse fly!

Ive seen the compelling evidense, Ive seen the youtube documentories, but as far as I'm concerned, a plane hit the Pentagon.

Thanks Nairnia, I wonder then - if maybe there is something legitimate to thetheory that both the planes used in the twin towers were holographic. I've not really given that idea much credence - but now that you mention what you have, perhaps all were holographic.

A holograph wouldn't have to follow the rules.

If the whole world is going to be convinced of a new world religion using holograophics it must mean that their technology is extremely advanced.

But then, if a holograph was used, you'd think they would have it taking the 'official' flight path.

Curioser and curioser.

I need to look into this holographic stuff a bit more.