Motive For Flyover?, Why fly a plane over the pentagon instead of just crash it into it Options

[DoYouEverWonder]

I don't see how your point is relevant to the question posed.

My point is that the within the M.O. of both attacks the planes were not the cause of the ultimate physical destruction.

Sure they caused some physical destruction at the WTC but it is insignificant when compared to what was implemented covertly yet people were psychologically manipulated into believing it was all from the plane in both cases.

It's certainly more on topic then the rest of the discussion.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 20 2009, 05:05 PM

[grizz]

I run into this all the time -- more aggressive Democrats, for example, who want to see Bush and the gang held responsible for the criminal acts of his Administration (but who, bizarrely, do not include 9/11 in those crimes). What I see over and over again is they don't "get it" -- they don't GET that these people are REALLY CRIMINALS and that they are representatives of a TRULY CRIMINAL CLASS that is out of control on this planet and causing ALL OF US enormous grief -- including the NEW 9/11 "economic meltdown" that began on 9/11/08. They don't GET IT that this isn't a "right/left" or "democrat/republican" or whatever other dichotomy issue; they don't get it that the SYTEM itself is being PLAYED by criminal syndicates hiding behind governmental policies and "free market" manipulations -- and that in their greed and psychopathy they are on the verge of destroying not only themselves but ALL of us.

Just blows my friggn' mind. Why should we give people who support and defend this criminality ANY consideration or wiggle room at all? Facts are facts and all they want to do is obscure and cover-up those facts and by their actions defend policies and actions which are abhorrent to all decency and human conscience. So far as I'm concerned, they are delusional psychopaths and should treated as such.

Right On! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[dMz]

Maybe this is why "Boonedoggled" is already back and lurking here, Craig and painter:

"You are probably seeing this error because the Forum is busy and we have had to limit the number of "database connections", please try again in a minute or two.

There seems to have been a problem with the the govt loyalist site Forum database."

Maybe the Obama Administration doesn't buy as much bandwidth (or bloggers) as the Bush Admin. once did. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[painter]

Maybe the Obama Administration doesn't buy as much bandwidth (or bloggers) as the Bush Admin. once did. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Wishful thinking. I had no problem connecting to their mind control feed.

[painter]

It's certainly more on topic then the rest of the discussion.

It is true -- this is what happens when we make meta-commentary within a thread.

My apologies, DYEW.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

It's certainly more on topic then the rest of the discussion.

Quite true but we were deliberately not talking about the topic.

You were responding to it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

It is true -- this is what happens when we make meta-commentary within a thread.

My apologies, DYEW.

Well, thank you, you're very kind, but there's no need for you to apologize. You didn't do anything wrong.

[saturnaspider]

There were no missiles used in the Pentagon attack.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for a missile.

Hi, Craig. It seems we are in basic agreement regarding the answer to Scott's question apart from how the explosive charge/charges were administered. You put forward pre-planted explosives, I put forward projectile-delivered explosives (however, I do not rule out supplementary pre-planted explosives at all).

I have to disagree with you regarding zero evidence of a missile. A thorough examination of the terminal ballistics involved (punch in, thru target damage characteristics, and punch out) suggest nothing other than a missile to me.

Of course, I would not readily expect eyewitness evidence for such a projectile, bearing in mind the high velocity and low visibility of a guided penetrator, but there is evidence from earwitnesses which is entirely consistent with a penetrator having impacted the Pentagon:

Lou Rains: I heard a loud, quick, whooshing sound
Sheila Moody: I heard a whistle and then a rumble and a big whoosh
Dan Fraunfelter: A strange sucking, whirring sound like a vacuum cleaner
David Theall: A certain whoosh that you hear and at the moment of impact there's a vacuum that just simply sucks the air out of your lungs
John Thurman: There was a large whoosh and then a kind of karumph sound
Tom Siebert: We heard what sounded like a huge missile and then we heard a loud boom

Then, of course, there's the documented Radiation Hose-Downs (not hoe-downs (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ) and donning of Nuke Suits, which would be a prerequisite of dealing with the aftermath of a DU laden penetrator impact.

Also worthy of inclusion (IMO) is 9/11 Commissioner, Tim Roemer's slip of the tongue on CNN: "Standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile - er - airplane". (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 21 2009, 12:34 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Lou Rains: I heard a loud, quick, whooshing sound
Sheila Moody: I heard a whistle and then a rumble and a big whoosh
Dan Fraunfelter: A strange sucking, whirring sound like a vacuum cleaner
David Theall: A certain whoosh that you hear and at the moment of impact there's a vacuum that just simply sucks the air out of your lungs
John Thurman: There was a large whoosh and then a kind of karumph sound
Tom Siebert: We heard what sounded like a huge missile and then we heard a loud boom

There is hard evidence for a plane on the north side of the gas station.

We know there was a plane on the north side.

All of this "ear" evidence fits a plane.

NONE of it is direct evidence for a missile as opposed to a plane.

Then, of course, there's the documented Radiation Hose-Downs (not hoe-downs (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ) and donning of Nuke Suits, which would be a prerequisite of dealing with the aftermath of a DU laden penetrator impact.

That is not evidence for a missile.

Apparently you made up the term "nuke suit" and also this fabricated "pre-requisite" because you certainly have not provided evidence for these wild claims.

Also worthy of inclusion (IMO) is 9/11 Commissioner, Tim Roemer's slip of the tongue on CNN: "Standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile - er - airplane". (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

That is not evidence for a missile.

That is evidence for a slip of the tongue or else evidence that the 9/11 Commissioner planted a seed of disinfo in your brain.


The fact is that there is no independent verifiable evidence for a missile and this proven false theory that has kept us off track for so long has been debunked as absolutely 100% deliberate disinfo.

I'm sorry but this type of speculation is extremely harmful and does nothing but dilute the hard evidence we have worked so hard to obtain.

Therefore we can not tolerate it.

I'm not trying to be a jerk and I apologize if it comes off that way but we have no time for this.

Please visit our website and familiarize yourself with all the independent evidence we present because it proves that 9/11 as an inside job without resorting to any speculation of this nature.

[paranoia]

no one saw a missile.
not one.

we spoke to them, over half a dozen witnesses in a position to see a missile or anything else,
and no one saw a missile.

they saw a two engined commercial type plane, loud and low.
and no one saw that plane, fire a missile.

thus, there is ZERO evidence of a missile.

to even come near establishing there was a missile,
you have to explain why none of these aforementioned witnesses saw it.

and you have to find a source for that missile.

where did it come from? a plane? a truck - like a mobile scud unit? a shoulder launcher? a navy ship? a helicopter?

then you're back to having to explain why no one saw any of these sources, or a missile for that matter. you're best bet for that notion, is to try and prove that the 2 engined commercial looking jet, which was seen by everyone, shot the missile. but some of the witnesses we spoke to were directly under the plane and saw its belly, and none of them describe and appendage to allow for a missile, or a missile.

maybe, the missile was on top of the plane! thats why most people didnt see it! im being facetious, but thats the only way i can see a missile in this equation, and even then i think its an extremely unrealistic scenario.

besides, why a missile? a missile alone couldnt mimic the damage path they were going to hope portrayed a 757 going southwest to northeast inside the building. a missile couldnt/wouldnt make such linear damage, but EVEN IF IT COULD, the plane was going in the opposite direction of that damage. SO if the jet plane launched a missile and that plane was flying NORTHWEST to SOUTHEAST, then a missile launched from that plane would have to follow that same path. but it doesNt.

so for a missile launch, you need a source somewhere in the southwest cutting towards the poles and the building. yet not one witness exists to have seen that source or even a missile.


NOTE - that all of the source you give are of people describing sound, not sight. a low loud plane and ensuing explosion could sound like alot of things, even a missile - i guess. afterall, how often have you heard a missile in your life? i dont know what the hell a missile sounds like, but i might use one to figuratively describe the sound of a plane diving by.


the missile was a false path in the pursuit of the truth. even i passionately and devotedly believed it for the longest time. but now i know better. there was a plane. cit has witnesses who saw it and are on record, and i know of 3 other not-on-the-record witnesses who saw it, as well as one who felt/heard it passing by but didnt see it (she was inside asleep and awoke to the loudness of it).

so there was at least a plane.

but so far, ZERO evidence of a missile.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

[scott75]

Thanks everyone for your comments. 2 posts in particular I found most answered what I wanted to know:

...the motive for the flyover is obvious.

The main difference between the WTC and the Pentagon attacks is the fact that they did not plan to completely demolish their own headquarters.

Naturally they would want complete control of the damage down to surgical precision and this would not be able to be accurately predicted with a large airliner as opposed to pre-planted explosives.

On the other hand, if someone found out that explosives were used instead of the planes, there'd be a fairly large problem; a problem that wouldn't exist if the plane did it. However, there's another issue here- if the plane was a drone, then the debris wouldn't match up with flight 77. But then the question becomes, why use a drone?

Therefore it was virtually the exact same M.O. as at the WTC.

Real planes used as psychological tools while the true destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

In both cases the planes were relatively insignificant to the end result when considering the physical destruction.

Nods.

Another factor would be the terrain and obstacles which would make it extremely difficult to impossible to hit their target wall without crashing due to light poles, or hitting the ground due to angle and speed.

I was thinking of that possibility myself as well :-p.

[paranoia]

i dont think there is actually a motive for flying over. the flyover itself is necessary because it is dictated by other factors. bare with me and i will try to explain...


why not use a plane and crash it? i dont know, but looking back now with hindsight at the event some thoughts about objectives vs. parameters come to mind:

if you crash a real plane, (as craig mentioned) you wont have a surgical strike of a very specific area. a plane crash is unpredictable and may not destroy enough of the building. "enough"? by that i mean that specific areas and occupants were direct targets, so at the top of the objectives, is the main goal of neutralizing very specifc people and/or computers and/or other data, and to do so these targets were place in a very specific region of the building. my guess is that if you could access whoever it is that designates rooms to occupants as well as the chronological records of these room assignments, you would find that either knowing or unknowingly the people tasked with doing the assigning were led to put certain people in what would in the future end up being the alleged plane crash site. group by group various targets were assigned rooms in that section of the building. explosives were either already placed or were placed later, when they were placed is not exactly that important. what is important is when the groups were moved. if u could pinpoint that information, you would have an idea of how long ago the plan/blueprint (yes - for 9/11 at the pentagon) had been drawn up.

so the targets were decided on, actions/directives were implemented to get them moved to the desired location, and bam. at around 9:38 tuesday september 11th 2001, a wave of heat and debris leveled the targeted locations, killing most of the people within the blast zones.

back to the plane:

so your real plane crash scenario doesnt successfully achieve the intended objectives (of neutralizing inside-the-building targets). you could do it anyway (crash a 757 into the west wall along with bombs inside the building), even if one of the liabilities to the psyop factor is going to be that a major chunk of the plane is gonna end up on the lawn, which might lead some to wonder how the damaged penetrated so deep, when most of the length of the plane is outside instead of inside the place. but so what? if they can (and did) lie and get away with saying that a plane crashed where none did, then surely they could have lied about the inside building damage if a plane was crashed and burning on the lawn.

SO i think there is another major problem, or parameter if you will, and its revealed because "they" didnt crash an actual plane, and it has to do with the alleged passengers. had they crashed a plane, not only would a huge chunk of it be sitting on the lawn, but most of it would be kept from burning all the way up. so there SHOULD be remains and bodies and luggage and all sorts of plane crash remnants. given how publicly accessible the crashed area would be, and the many military people involved, they would have tried majorly to rescue any people in this would-be plane wreckage.

so why didnt they go with that option - of actually crashing a plane?

the fact that they didnt says to me they did NOT have the bodies necessary to facilitate the lie they intended to tell. unlike the out of reach tower crashes, the pentagon wreckage would have been crawling with people (fire trucks and crews especially) and they would have reached what was supposed to be inside those planes, and cameras would be around and rolling. it would be very hard to explain or contain being exposed or caught in the lie, if the wreckage didnt add up to the right number and type of people (like babies and children).

the flyover (or absence of an actual plane crash) is an indication to me, that the passengers were never onboard the plane that did the flyover - their plane disappeared over west va and ohio - and they probably arent even dead (not all of them anyway). to me, more than the would-be inability of the perps' to come up with bodies, is the perps' need to have certain people from these groups alive.

for example: if the people were disposable and meant nothing and were kill-able, then "flight 77" could have easily had all the alleged people (barb olson and co.) onboard gassed and dead, and the plane flown via remote into the pentagon building. the rest of the damage, including the deep all the way to the c-ring damage could be explained away the same as is the current explanation (lies and bullshit).

but again, they did NOT do that (even tho on the surface it would seem they could've).

so because they didnt, i think that not all the people (if any) were disposable.
i dont know if i've explained it all in a way that's clear (and sorry if its long winded),
but to me:

-targetted pentagon workers/data were the key objective,
-keeping at least some of the passengers alive was the 2nd major objective;

-the inability to provide the necessary bodies for an
on-the-lawn crash scene was their most-limiting parameter.


add it all up, and you have to fly the plane over the scene instead of crashing into it.


***

so then the question is where is the plane?

AA collected on it, did they not? are they in on it or not? or maybe not... i know the gov trusts AA enough to let them carry the space shuttle around and hang out at nasa sites, so AA might not be your average airline company. but even if AA doesnt know about it, that plane went somewhere and it wasnt the pentagon's interior. i dont know how, or if you can launder a plane, but maybe thats what became of it. with a car its not so hard, tho thanks to computers, its alot harder than it used to be. but planes' have a million "vins", all sorts of parts tagged and serial numbered. maybe its easier - if you have enough authority and access - to simply get rid of all the records to the plane parts and numbers, than to get rid of the plane itself - honestly i dont know. but if wiping clear or falsifying its records not easier, then my guess is that just like the missing passengers, its best that the plane and/or any of its parts better not show up anywhere ever again.

and im fairly certain the perps have taken adequate measures to ensure that.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 21 2009, 04:36 AM

[tnemelckram]

Hi all!

Here's my two cents worth on the themes that have developed on this thread:

1. Why Fly Over

Painter wisely said that "we have to stick with what we DO know and not go too far off in the direction of what we can only speculate about." Craig said that the obvious motive for a flyover and why it is different from the WTC is that they wanted complete and precise control of the damage which is better achieved by using pre-planted explosives as opposed to an airliner. That's what I was going to post until I saw that Craig had already done so.

Keeping both points in mind by sticking to facts apparent in the record, I think that certain general classes of people and entities have motive, opportunity and necessary means.

For example, Rumsfeld's 9-10-2001 revelation that there were discrepancies in the defense accounts to the tune of (I think) 2 trillion dollars. Because the last Clinton fiscal year ended on 7-31-2001: (1) the scandal did not touch the new Administration; (2) gave it at least eight months from 1-20-2001; (3) to assemble the facts and time the revelation in a way that maximized the obvious political benefit. Maybe that's fair play in politics. Those implicated have two trillion worth of motive. The investigation would not tread lightly and give almost eight months warning and an opportunity to acquire (properly or improperly) advance information about terrorist plans. The availability of the necessary means of deception and destruction is an inherent part of the scandal.

Speculation starts when you try to identify classes of people and entities meeting this profile and specific identifications are even more tenuous. However, without speculation, right now the list can be significantly narrowed to classes of people and entities positioned to steal this money, and can only include those that actually did so. Obvious candidates are defense contractors, their management, high ranking military officers, and high elected, appointed or hired civil officials.

This suggests that some interesting people may not be involved beforehand. If Rumsfeld was involved in the flyover, what is the benefit of announcing the scandal the day before? Clinton's Administration is the obvious first target to blame. The Bush Administration was not an apparent target and would not benefit by burying it under the next day's events. Of course it might go back years to Bush's dad or to companies in which that Rumsfeld or other current or former officials had interests. However, I'm not aware of anything such as an impending expose that compelled a preemptive announcement; why call any attention at all to it and instead just keep it going? It is easy to foresee that an announcement the day before would lead to adverse inferences. On the other hand, the political opportunity to skewer the previous administration seems to be a good independent motive for the announcement. Afterward, Rummy quickly realized the implications and got involved in the cover up.


2. Boone

I don't think he should be banned. He has been helpful on some tangential issues. He provided a source that satisfied me by identifying squawk 2230-3 as an Air Canada flight, which allowed me to move on to other things. His analysis of the AMT133, UAL583 and DCA Landing List* issues is similar to mine and I think his conclusion is the same- there is an easy, adequate and innocuous explanation and further research won't be fruitful. I agree that he is hard to read and I don't know what he does on other Boards, but I also think this Board is tough minded enough to separate good information from bad.
____________________________
*I am convinced that the List does not show or mean that AA93 landed at DCA. However, the question of why the "terrorists" would change the flight plan to DCA and get on the list in the first place, or how the plane otherwise got on the list, should be explored.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 21 2009, 06:11 AM

[rob balsamo]

I also dont think Boone should be banned outright, just because he disagrees with us.

However, i also understand and know why he only lurks and rarely ever engages on this forum... (if past experience is any indication). Boone doesnt have much to offer when confronting real professionals with his OCT BS. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

My .02 (which probably cannot be traded on the pink sheets)

[dMz]

I'd like to put down one vote for selling Boone to the Gypsies. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[rob balsamo]

I'd like to put down one vote for selling Boone to the Gypsies. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Careful, he may like that. Especially if they're hot... considering the amount of time he spends obsessed with people he thinks are nuts. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[lunk]

How was this deception carried out?
The pentagon attack, that is.

We know that everything is compartmentalized, in a psy-op.
The legs of the spider don't question each other, only obey the spider.

There must have been different "departments" unbeknown to each other,
used to carry out this operation, under orders from a central source.

For instance, since we know that the airplane, didn't hit the Pentagon,
Yet, the light poles were downed, outside of it's flight path. One can only conclude
that the light poles were taken down by a group, under orders, who could not have
been informed about the actual direction of the incoming plane (that flew over).

The right hand can not be allowed to know what the left hand is doing.
As a result, mistakes in the "plan" were made. i.e. The downed light poles
were not in line with the flight path. Therefore, one can only conclude that the light poles were not hit by the plane, and could not have been hit by a missile because they were too far apart.
So the light poles must have been individually taken down in advance.

So, to me this is proof, that this whole, false flag, was planned under orders from a central
source to, compartmentalized divisions, of its' structure, on a need to know, but not everything, basis.
This is why mistakes were made.

The destination of the flyover was told, but the proper trajectory was kept a secret, to whoever took down the light poles.

The guys running this particular false flag operation, obviously, were not pilots.
The guys running this particular false flag operation, thought only of the destination, not the route. The goal not the path.

...and it is in the path, that we see their errors.

imo, lunk

[dMz]

What do you think Boone? This guy looks like a real "boy scout." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

http://flickr.com/photos/szilagyipp/2530953976/

[painter]

What do you think Boone? This guy looks like a real "boy scout." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
http://flickr.com/photos/szilagyipp/2530953976/

I know you weren't asking me but, WOOF! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[painter]

We know that everything is compartmentalized, in a psy-op.
...

Yeah, everything you said, lunk.

I'll only add that it might be interesting to count the number of legs on the spider and try and figure out where they're all connected. Who has the operational capability to successfully stage an "attack" on the Pentagon? -- keeping in mind that MOST (not all) of the witnesses directly involved were themselves not privy to the deception. I think CIT is right about Loyd England being a key figure in all this. Damn, I wish we could get him in front of a grand jury and under oath!