IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Hello - I'm Confused.

wishIwasapilot
post Jan 20 2015, 01:13 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



Hello All.

I've been a member here for some time, though I haven't participated a great deal, I have read and watched a lot. I have enjoyed and still do enjoy it all and I commend all of you who are trying to get at the truth.

I have to honestly admit that much of the flying/pilot/aeronautical stuff is hard to grasp. It's like (any course name) 101, the new jargon makes comprehending the overall concepts somewhat difficult.

You, the experts here, must have come across the following;

The 9/11 Consensus Points

Factual Evidence Contradicts the 9/11 Story

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

Has such a "consensus" compilation been done by the aviation experts here. I read articles and watch the movies but the central facts seem at times to be almost dreamlike - did I really hear/read that the NTSB and the 911 Commision had different flight paths for the Pentagon hit?? and the NTSB depiction came from the FDR?? Did I get that right, "FDR" equals Flight Data Recorder?

Please don't take this as a criticism. I truly appreciate the work you all are doing and I commend you.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jan 20 2015, 01:42 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Jan 20 2015, 12:13 PM) *
Hello All.

I've been a member here for some time, though I haven't participated a great deal, I have read and watched a lot. I have enjoyed and still do enjoy it all and I commend all of you who are trying to get at the truth.

I have to honestly admit that much of the flying/pilot/aeronautical stuff is hard to grasp. It's like (any course name) 101, the new jargon makes comprehending the overall concepts somewhat difficult.

You, the experts here, must have come across the following;

The 9/11 Consensus Points

Factual Evidence Contradicts the 9/11 Story

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

Has such a "consensus" compilation been done by the aviation experts here. I read articles and watch the movies but the central facts seem at times to be almost dreamlike - did I really hear/read that the NTSB and the 911 Commision had different flight paths for the Pentagon hit?? and the NTSB depiction came from the FDR?? Did I get that right, "FDR" equals Flight Data Recorder?

Please don't take this as a criticism. I truly appreciate the work you all are doing and I commend you.


See especially this POINT http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/

Anyone can see that NIST purposely omitted the stiffeners and lateral beams to make their failure mechanism work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Jan 21 2015, 07:05 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Jan 20 2015, 12:13 PM) *
...Has such a "consensus" compilation been done by the aviation experts here. I read articles and watch the movies but the central facts seem at times to be almost dreamlike - did I really hear/read that the NTSB and the 911 Commision had different flight paths for the Pentagon hit?? and the NTSB depiction came from the FDR?? Did I get that right, "FDR" equals Flight Data Recorder?


Nice post (from another non-pilot). I second the motion for a "consensus compilation" of aviation-related anomalies, as a concise summary of the most jarring phenomena. Some of it is covered in the 911 Consensus Panel stuff, but there are probably other things this community would highlight.

Emphasis on *consensus*, which would require a process of determination (a decently representative panel that can unanimously agree on certain points), which could be tough on some points.

For example, I believe it is predominantly the contention of experts here that no plane hit the Pentagon, based mainly on the "too high" FDR data and the witness statements about the approach path vis-a-vis the Citgo station. Personally, while I respect that view and understand that a strong case can be made for it (also taking into account the "too small" hole, paucity of debris, weird exit hole, smell of cordite, Rumsfeld's slip-of-the-tongue about a missile, etc.) -- I remain agnostic on that point. I have trouble discounting the other witnesses who claim to have seen the plane come in and hit (I acknowledge the problems with their line of sight), I have trouble with the idea that such a plan would depend to a non-fail-safe degree on a) perfect timing of missile and fly-over, and b) nobody catching the maneuver on their iPhone.

In short, with available evidence, can a true consensus be formed on that point? I am doubtful. On the other hand, "ain't no way Hani Hanjour pulled off that descent" seems virtually incontrovertible to me. So, basically, I love the idea of consensus points and I urge a rock-solid, critique-proof product (to the extent possible) that anticipates and addresses objections.

That's probably my two cents for the year, over to the experts!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 21 2015, 11:21 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (JohnS @ Jan 21 2015, 06:05 AM) *
.. I have trouble with the idea that such a plan would depend to a non-fail-safe degree on a) perfect timing of missile and fly-over, and b) nobody catching the maneuver on their iPhone.


Why perfect timing of missile?
How about perfect timing of planted bombs?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Jan 22 2015, 12:54 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 21 2015, 10:21 PM) *
Why perfect timing of missile?
How about perfect timing of planted bombs?


Yep. The bombs could have been the failsafe in case the mystery missile had problems. The bombs, probably three or so, took the attention away from WTC. It also kept eyes focused on Pentagon while the lie at Shanksville 'occurred'. The s.o.b.s pulled it off. For a while at least. Now back to writing book.

One other thing, there may have been more bombs that would have gone off had missile had not worked at Pentagon. Back-up plan for a back-up plan for the hoped for original plan. Something like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Jan 23 2015, 06:11 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 21 2015, 10:21 PM) *
Why perfect timing of missile?
How about perfect timing of planted bombs?


OK: or bombs, even a better example, even more unreliable. Like in Building 7. I believe the greatest likelihood with Building 7 is it was supposed to go down around the same time as the towers. We have witness testimony -- Barry Jennings and Michael Hess -- about explosions in Building 7 around 9:30 or so. I seriously doubt that Plan A was to wait until 5:20 and then do the world's most obvious controlled demolition. I think something went wrong. It took them a while to sort it out. That's maybe some fairly wild speculation, I'm not a bomb expert, but I reckon: flyover with timed bombs = not the greatest, most fool-proof plan.

And again, it's kind of a miracle that nobody had a cellphone video of the plane coming in, with everyone on edge by 9:37 that morning. What kind of plan would count on that miracle? "OK we fly over the Pentagon and then with split second timing we blow up some bombs or shoot a missile." "What if somebody has an iPhone out?" "We'll just have to hope that doesn't happen."

Right?

I mean, again, I respect the evidence *against* plane hitting the Pentagon. I don't know *what* to believe. Like I say, I'm agnostic. I don't happen to find any of the competing theories very satisfying. I don't think it matters. I guess my original point was to suggest that a better consensus point might be about the unlikelihood of Hani Hanjour pulling off that spiral descent, leveling off and flying at 400+ mph a couple inches off the ground.

Whatever: I just like the idea of a concise summary of solid consensus points. I'd be happy to read whatever the pilots came up with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Jan 23 2015, 06:19 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



QUOTE (Truthissweet @ Jan 22 2015, 11:54 AM) *
Yep. The bombs could have been the failsafe in case the mystery missile had problems. The bombs, probably three or so, took the attention away from WTC. It also kept eyes focused on Pentagon while the lie at Shanksville 'occurred'. The s.o.b.s pulled it off. For a while at least. Now back to writing book.

One other thing, there may have been more bombs that would have gone off had missile had not worked at Pentagon. Back-up plan for a back-up plan for the hoped for original plan. Something like that.


Good points, although not a lot of time to quickly switch to the backup plan while the plane is busy flying a couple hundred feet over the Pentagon. And there's still the issue of people with cellphone videos -- that didn't happen, apparently, which I find surprising, but it's not the least likely thing in the world that *could* have happened, it's not as if it were a fantastically remote possibility. Which would make a flyover a pretty shoddy bit of planning. Or so it seems to me.

But, I hasten to add once again, there is good evidence against a plane hitting the Pentagon: I know. I choose not to care about what hit it, in favor of a good certainty that, whatever it was, it wasn't Hani Hanjour suddenly manifesting super-ace pilot skills out of nowhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 24 2015, 11:47 AM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (JohnS @ Jan 23 2015, 06:19 PM) *
Good points, although not a lot of time to quickly switch to the backup plan while the plane is busy flying a couple hundred feet over the Pentagon. And there's still the issue of people with cellphone videos -- that didn't happen, apparently, which I find surprising, but it's not the least likely thing in the world that *could* have happened, it's not as if it were a fantastically remote possibility. Which would make a flyover a pretty shoddy bit of planning. Or so it seems to me.

But, I hasten to add once again, there is good evidence against a plane hitting the Pentagon: I know. I choose not to care about what hit it, in favor of a good certainty that, whatever it was, it wasn't Hani Hanjour suddenly manifesting super-ace pilot skills out of nowhere.


I bet that if you check, cellphone cameras were rare in 2001.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Jan 24 2015, 05:37 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 24 2015, 10:47 AM) *
I bet that if you check, cellphone cameras were rare in 2001.


I did check: and I think you're right! Good point, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 25 2015, 04:00 AM
Post #10


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Jan 20 2015, 12:13 PM) *
...You, the experts here, must have come across the following;

The 9/11 Consensus Points

Factual Evidence Contradicts the 9/11 Story

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

Has such a "consensus" compilation been done by the aviation experts here. I read articles and watch the movies but the central facts seem at times to be almost dreamlike - did I really hear/read that the NTSB and the 911 Commision had different flight paths for the Pentagon hit?? and the NTSB depiction came from the FDR?? Did I get that right, "FDR" equals Flight Data Recorder?



wishiwasapilot - i believe this page might address some of the ntsb vs. commission contradictions:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77


also, there is a smoking gun contradiction between the fdr path and where the plane actually flew.
from the site you linked to: http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-2/

QUOTE
Second, the Commission’s revised account contradicted several facts:

1. The FAA’s memo of May 21, 2003, said that the military was notified earlier than 9:24, not later.

2. The FAA memo was supported by a story published four days after 9/11, which said: “During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.”5

3. The Commission claimed that, although the FAA’s Command Center had known about American 77’s troubles since 9:20 AM, this knowledge did not get passed to the military. However, Ben Sliney, the operations manager at the FAA Command Center (located in dc), said that the Command Center had a “military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11. . . . [E]veryone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.”6


that military liason inside the faa might be this guy:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053263/T8-B2-F...dr-4504-MFR-719
QUOTE
He communicated with ATT 200 (special military operations branch at FAA headquarters) SCOTT HAGEN.


wether he is the guy sliney is refering to or not, what hagen saw is quite significant:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17218142/T8-B6-F...r-33004-MFR-875
QUOTE
..Dianne Creen, Karen Pontius, and Scott Hagen were in his office that day. (Dianne Creen, Karen Pontius left durin evacuation) - but He (steenbergen) and Scott stayed behind. Scott went into the TSD room, while Steenbergen stayed on the line with Garabito. Scott said he had AAL 77 spotted on the TSD. according to Steenbergen, "Scott watched it come around the Potomac out the window." he was yelling out to Van Steenbergen were [sic] the thing was. the location was rough because of the delay in the feed...


further dicussion about the above:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10806678

related - about the smaller loop the plane flew (versus rades84 in particular):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18027

hagen is not alone at the faa in witnessing the plane crossing into dc, there are others along with him, who live, in real time, are looking out the windows of the faa building downtown, presumably expecting to see the unidentified target on radar headed their way, and and at some point it physically arrived and they saw it in the flesh, not just a blip on the screen. but in outright contradiction of the later released fdr path and the rades84 path, the plane circled the capitol and made a smaller loop than the one the data supposedly reveals it did, and more than one witness in the faa building saw it and that information was relayed live (or spoken directly by said witness) in to the threat conference call - which had at least the military, secret service, and faa, listening/broadcasting in on it. misinformers, who apparently arent aware of hagen's account, would have you believe the plane that circled the capitol was the e4b, but in hagen (and at least one other faa building witness who im keeping under wraps for now), we have an ironclad official east of potomac witness who the debunkers and disinformers cant deny or spin away.

in the years since 9/11, not one of the faa witnesses who saw the plane cross into the dc with their own eyes AND who must be aware of that reality being so clearly contradicted in the official paths (fdr/rades84) has objected or drawn attention to the discrepancy. the faa witnesses arent alone, at the very least chris stephenson (atc on duty at dca tower who is on record as having seen the plane do a smaller loop) must by now recognize the difference in paths and understand the contradiction and its damning implications. he willingly spoke with author lynn spencer years after 9/11, but did not raise any concern about the discrepancy, or if he did it was not published. eager to probe him or at the very least to simply document his exact account, i helped find his contact info, and multiple attempts were made by craig ranke to reach him (voicemails were left on stephenson's cell phone), but he never responded to us.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthissweet
post Jan 25 2015, 03:09 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 245
Joined: 25-August 14
From: Third rock from the sun
Member No.: 7,913



I read that the FAA sent all of its employees a National Security Letter. I have the link on my Pocket app but mysteriously all my files are gone. Hmmmmm. Lol. Hopefully Pocket backed them up in cloud.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 25 2015, 05:37 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (JohnS @ Jan 23 2015, 05:11 PM) *
OK: or bombs, even a better example, even more unreliable. Like in Building 7. I believe the greatest likelihood with Building 7 is it was supposed to go down around the same time as the towers. We have witness testimony -- Barry Jennings and Michael Hess -- about explosions in Building 7 around 9:30 or so. I seriously doubt that Plan A was to wait until 5:20 and then do the world's most obvious controlled demolition. I think something went wrong. It took them a while to sort it out. That's maybe some fairly wild speculation, I'm not a bomb expert,


The way things turned out, WTC7 is indeed a very red herring or smoking gun.
Unless you flesh out your thoughts more thoroughly, I can't buy the idea that WTC7 should have gone down around the same time as the towers.
Do you mean with or without a plane hitting it?

QUOTE
but I reckon: flyover with timed bombs = not the greatest, most fool-proof plan.


Perhaps not fool-proof, but then, was anything that occurred on 9/11 fool-proof?
If you wanted people to 'see' a 757 approach the Pentagon, would you use a 757 or a missile?
Timing bombs to coincide with a flyover that no one was keeping an eye on doesn't seem too difficult a feat to pull off. It's not like thousands of people were standing outside the Pentagon ogling it (like at the WTC), waiting for something to happen.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Jan 26 2015, 09:55 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 25 2015, 04:00 AM) *
2. ... military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.”5


The brain center for the US military was asking these other folks "what to do"?! What a competent bunch.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Feb 1 2015, 01:30 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



Prior to 9/11/01, how "easy/difficult" was it for anyone to enter the cockpit? Was the door locked, requiring a physical action to gain admittance?

Any info or links would be much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Feb 1 2015, 01:37 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 24 2015, 11:47 AM) *
I bet that if you check, cellphone cameras were rare in 2001.


But hotel, gas station videos were not rare. What gave the FBI the right to waltz in and confiscate personal property, ie. videos?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 1 2015, 02:31 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Feb 1 2015, 12:37 PM) *
But hotel, gas station videos were not rare. What gave the FBI the right to waltz in and confiscate personal property, ie. videos?


I was thinking about the hotel/gas station videos recently again.

The FBI has the 'right' to do whatever they wish it seems. They are above the law.

I think the bigger question is "On a day when there was total chaos and panic in the country, what would motivate
anyone in the FBI to think about cameras outside the property of the Pentagon?"

There is no logic to that at all. Unless of course forethought was given to it and commands as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wishIwasapilot
post Feb 2 2015, 05:11 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 2-December 10
Member No.: 5,484



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 1 2015, 02:31 PM) *
I was thinking about the hotel/gas station videos recently again.

The FBI has the 'right' to do whatever they wish it seems. They are above the law.


That's not at all how a rule of law country works but I know you know that, NPM. Why weren't right wingers, left wingers, the ALCU, lawyers, ... screaming to high hell?

QUOTE
I think the bigger question is "On a day when there was total chaos and panic in the country, what would motivate anyone in the FBI to think about cameras outside the property of the Pentagon?"

There is no logic to that at all. Unless of course forethought was given to it and commands as well.


I've thought about that often. And why wouldn't everyone want the videos shown to once and for all shut up all you crazy PsFT conspiracy wackos?

smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 3 2015, 12:47 AM
Post #18


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 1 2015, 01:31 PM) *
...The FBI has the 'right' to do whatever they wish it seems. They are above the law.

I think the bigger question is "On a day when there was total chaos and panic in the country, what would motivate
anyone in the FBI to think about cameras outside the property of the Pentagon?"

There is no logic to that at all. Unless of course forethought was given to it and commands as well.


here is an account of someone working inside the FB#2 (aka the navy annex), who saw people wearing "fbi" jackets, running around inside one of the navy annex buildings, moments after the explosion(s) at the pentagon (keep in mind that normally the annex is under the jurisdiction of the dps and or the military police not the fbi):

QUOTE
Mr. Coneleous "Doc" Alexander - He went to his office and called Defense Protective Service (DPS) to see if the Threatcon for the building was changing. He couldn't reach them by phone so he emailed his question to them. He immediately received a response that the threatcon was not going to change, it would remain at Bravo. He thought that was wrong and he mentioned that if the terrorists flew a plane into the World Trade Center then they could try to attack the Pentagon. People thought the Pentagon was protected by missiles surrounding it, which was not true. He felt the easiest target to hit was the Pentagon. He sent Craig Bryan to the meeting at the Pentagon so he could handle the water main break and other things going on at FB#2. Not five minutes later he heard a loud explosion. He knew immediately it was the Pentagon. He ran to the front of the building and saw the smoke. He thought about Craig Bryan who he had just sent to the Pentagon. A few minutes later Craig came back and told him "You won't believe what I saw". He gave (unintelligible) fire alarm and started getting people out of the building. They had no instructional directions from Defense Protective Service at all. Due to his training he knew they had to get the people out of the building. When they pulled the fire alarm and people started to evacuate the building he noticed about 10 FBI agents (they had FBI written on the back of their jackets) going down the halls. This puzzles him to this day. He does not know where they came from.... source



also, another "odd" character present at the annex minutes after the "attack":
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8818
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 3 2015, 01:27 AM
Post #19


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (wishIwasapilot @ Jan 26 2015, 08:55 AM) *
The brain center for the US military was asking these other folks "what to do"?! What a competent bunch.

what were they gonna do anyway in the case of the plane headed east toward dc (allegedly "flight 77")? all they knew, until they (at the faa at least) visually saw it, is that the radar showed something headed east and for most of that path, the plane was over populated areas, substantially so in the last stretch, thus shooting it down would not have been feasible. intercept, yes, but shoot down, no - way too many p.r. disasters to deal with in the aftermath... fortunately for the perps, the efforts to delay the response succeeded, so there never was any real chance of an intercept, much less a shootdown.

the perps had already stacked the deck prior to the event with the simulated drills, but as of mission start they must have monitored the defensive responses and reacted accordingly (helping the "77" plane's pilots for example, to navigate to their target successfully). at some central command location, amongst a myriad of mini mission objectives, someone had to manage the aviation pieces by the minute, from start (first plane going radio silent) to end (explosion in shanksville and successful disappearance of that plane). the rogue group (inside the military imo) that executed the physical event, knew the weaknesses in the system and exploited them, rendering the response impotent and calculated to fail. those on the outside of this group, had no chance, they were left reacting instead of proactively preventing. but once the planes had set in motion in the sky, the only way to thwart the events would have been to at least intercept if not shoot down the commercial airliners (supposedly filled with innocent americans) while over populated u.s. cities (actually filled with innocent americans), something they could never do anyway. the crooks knew that by using commercial planes (flying on allegedly commercial flights) they would take the response itself hostage, almost guaranteeing mission success of the aviation-based objectives


i do suspect however that there was always a contingency plan in place for the unidentified flyer in case the fighters intercepted it before it accomplished its pentagon fly-by objective. i suspect it was an AA liveried plane, but was not tail numbered as "aa flight 77" was. if it was intercepted early, it would play innocent and claim it was looking for a place to land. after the explosions - with the primary mission objective completed, it could relax a bit (flying "friendly" instead of like a "foe") as it now blended in as a diverted plane seeking a place to comply with the ground stop, and posing as such, it headed to and landed at a nearby commercial airport (BUT NOT at Regan National). then the plane and its crew of no more than 4 (the plane was void of passengers) got lost in the shuffle and chaos of forced airport evacuations.

the bts records for at least dulles and bwi (two closest big airports to dc) for the hours after the attack, is missing many tail numbers, flight numbers, as well as wheels on time, for many of the planes that were forced to land - making it easy for this plane to "disappear" or simply get lost in the mix. but i wonder if any of the radar data (although that data is suspect due to the false path it shows for the "aa77" plane), shows a plane suddenly appearing within a few mile radius of the pentagon, which heads to (and lands at) a commercial sized airport...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 3 2015, 01:55 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Good assessment paranoia.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 07:00 AM