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

[Boonedoggled]

____________________________
*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.

I can link to a document that explains the change in Flight 93's flight plan if you want to bump or start a thread in the Flight 93 sub forum.

[tnemelckram]

I can link to a document that explains the change in Flight 93's flight plan if you want to bump or start a thread in the Flight 93 sub forum.

Tnemelckram suggested edit: Just put link here

Why not just put the link right in the post as illustrated above instead of playing can n' mouse? Everything I say cuts both ways in in the straightest possible line.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 21 2009, 02:25 PM

[Boonedoggled]

Why not just put the link right in the post as illustrated above instead of playing can n' mouse? Everything I say cuts both ways in in the straightest possible line.

Page 11 of this PDF.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.

Unless you are willing to suggest that the WTC wasn't a controlled demolition it's clear that they were willing to take that risk that would be much more easy to pull off in the completely secure and controlled environment of the Pentagon under the guise of the renovation that had been going on for years but was conveniently scheduled to be complete the week of 9/11.

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?

There is no evidence for a drone or missile or anything at all hitting the Pentagon so this is not an issue.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I changed my mind.

I vote for IP banning the deceptive lying traitor who posts under the admitted fraudulent personality he calls "Boonedoggled".

[tnemelckram]

Hi Craig!

I vote for IP banning the deceptive lying traitor . . . .

You, on the other hand, skip the cat n' mouse and get right to the point! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But my experience has been that Boone is sensible and provides a source, as he just did again. He also seems to have his own but different doubts about the OCT. A Devil's Advocate can be a valuable thing. Again there may be more and I can only speak from my own experience.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Boone!

I said:

*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.

You responded:

Page 11 of this PDF
http://911workinggroup.org/foia/911%20COMM...m%20Package.pdf

I checked the linked document. The significant thing appears to be a statement by Cleveland ARTCC controller Linda Justice on page 11. Here is my summary. AA93 appeared to be heading to Washington so to expedite the situation she changed the routing to "reflect HGR -> DCA". Her only reason was to forward the information to the sectors the plane appeared to be tracking toward. She then called DOT sector to verbally point him out and flashed the hand off to HGR. She took the plane back when it changed to an easterly course and did not resume the hand off to ZDC (Washington) ARTCC.

I don't see how this would get the plane on the DCA landing list. She states that her purpose in changing the routing and forwarding the information is limited to tracking and says nothing about changing any landing. The arrow symbol between HGR and DCA always means direction when used; if destination was meant the word "to" must be substituted. She does not recite any information that would support any change of landing, let alone a specific change, and under the circumstances any landing was unlikely and at a specific airport even more unlikely. She does not say she contacted DCA. Her last contact was Hagerstown for the sole purpose of a tracking hand off. She is in ARTCC which is responsible for through planes, not landing planes. She specifically characterizes her hand off as being to ZDC ARTCC limiting her intentions to a through plane, not a landing plane, which is further supported by her statement that she took the plane back from ZDC, which suggests that she never changed the plane's status from through ZDC to landing at DCA. Basically she never states any reason to do so, never says she did, and says nothing that suggests that she did.

My only caveat is that I don't know the meaning or effect of calling DOT sector but once again she limits her stated purpose to pointing him out and does not mention changing the landing.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 21 2009, 11:00 PM

[Boonedoggled]

tn, Linda Justice has a file in the recently released 9/11 Commission MFRs, here is a link to her file.

My understanding is that she changed the flight plan from EWR-SFO to EWR-HGR(Hagerstown VOR)-DCA. DCA Airport being its final destination. Remember, I'm only an "undisciplined, slacker, wannabe" so you may want to ask some of the real professionals for assistance.

I contacted the FAA's FOIA liaison in DC, Celeste Colbert-King, regarding the Stark FOIA to find out where the information in the xls document came from. She asked the technician responsible for compiling the data and he said that the information in the file was based upon filed flight plans, not actual operations at Reagan National.

[dMz]

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

Partially, and it looks like we'll be seeing more of Boone: (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

"The forum will be down from 10:00 Pacific time (18:00 GMT) Sunday February 22, 2009. There will be a couple of hours of data transfer time while we move to a new host, and after that, you should see the new machine once the DNS change propagates."

[saturnaspider]

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."

"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."

"I'm not trying to be a jerk and I apologize if it comes off that way."

Hi, Craig.
You're not coming off to me as a jerk, so no need to apologize. I undertand that you have done a great deal of hard work in establishing your position, which as mentioned earlier, I am largely not disputing.

I am not saying there was no plane. Your fly-over evidence is quite persuasive.

The main reason for my belief that there was a missile is the terminal ballistics involved in the apparent impact. Once again, I have studied this in depth and can draw no conclusion, at this time, other than that a missile impacted, exploded within and penetrated though the walls of the Pentagon, which in respect of the target involved, indicates to me the deployment of a guided penetrator.

Earwitness evidence is, in this regard, supplementary but significant in this regard. If there were no reports consistent with hearing missiles then I would be less certain one was used.

Lou Rains said (in addition to my previous quote) that, "it came in so fast, it sounded nothing like an airplane."
John Thurman prefaced his aural description with, "it didn't sound like much."
David Theall prefaced his description with, "I liken it to being downrange during training when an artillery round hits the ground."
Sheila Moody's "whistle" and Dan Fraunfelter's "strange, sucking, whirring, vacuum cleaner sound" don't seem to me to fit a jet-plane but are consistent with guided missiles, IMHO.
Tom Siebert's statement, "we heard what sounded like a huge missile", seems self explanatory.

As far as making anything up: I am sorry if my "glib" description of the Pentagon impact site procedures threw you off but I was referring to the decontamination corridor that was set up outside the Pentagon during "clean-up" and search, where decontamination personnel hosed and scrubbed down on-site personnel. The personnel (decon and on-site) were appropriately suited in Tyvek Coveralls (what I tongue in cheek referred to as "nuke-suits".) There were several photographs taken of this particular procedure in operation and there has been no attempt at "cover-up" regarding this aspect of the scenario by official channels.

(IMG:http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Sept06/080906decontamination.jpg)

A major part of the official story surrounding this particular issue is that the planes had DU parts, thus necessitating such precautions, although Boeing dispute that DU had been utilized on their planes. This means that officials might very well be "covering up" the motive for their "precautions". (Someone's wrong, at least: Boeing and or FBI.)

Again, this is merely supplementary evidence. The terminal ballistics evidence is the crucial part of understanding all this, as far as I am concerned.

I am certainly not wanting to spread disinfo. There is far too much of that, IMO. I merely am seeking to objectively weigh all the evidence to hand.

Respectfully, Saturna. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 22 2009, 10:45 PM

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

I believe that the plane did indeed fly over. However, I've been asked why bother. Like the twin towers, is it that the buildings would have been much less damaged if they'd simply been hit by the planes instead of with explosives? But then, why not crash them anyway; it's certainly give more credence to the idea that the planes did the damage, as it certainly did with the twin towers, making it easier to cover up the evidence that demolitions were the real things that brought them down.

what if the plane clips another building or some has to plow through a series of light poles that destroy the wings and cause it to crash too soon and therefor can't account for the preplanned damage path.

the first part in understanding why in the pentagon attack is to understand what the target of that attack was.

[Sanders]

Exactly. Remember, Rumsfeld and other big shots were in other parts of the building.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

A major part of the official story surrounding this particular issue is that the planes had DU parts, thus necessitating such precautions, although Boeing dispute that DU had been utilized on their planes. This means that officials might very well be "covering up" the motive for their "precautions". (Someone's wrong, at least: Boeing and or FBI.)

I've seen no officials make such claims at all let alone it being a "major part of the official story".

I notice you did not quote the FBI making this claim.

I have seen the decontamination suit pictures.

This is not even close to evidence for a missile or missiles.

This is a MASSIVE leap of logic and amounts to nothing but pure speculation.

Again, this is merely supplementary evidence. The terminal ballistics evidence is the crucial part of understanding all this, as far as I am concerned.

I don't get what you mean.

Are you saying that when you look at pictures of the damage that you believe it was from a missile?

Sorry but that is not evidence.

It is speculation and as long as you insist on continuing you will be hurting our efforts.

There is no way anyone can look at a picture and definitively tell what caused the damage.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/composite1.jpg)

The fact is you have still presented zero evidence for a missile because there is no evidence for a missile.

We are begging people to drop this harmful speculation and focus on the evidence that we do have.

I am certainly not wanting to spread disinfo. There is far too much of that, IMO. I merely am seeking to objectively weigh all the evidence to hand.

Respectfully, Saturna. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

I believe your intentions are honorable.

I don't believe that your goal is to harm our efforts or spread disinfo but as long as you talk about missiles that is exactly what you're doing even if it's unintentional.

If you want to objectively weigh all the evidence it's imperative that you focus on the independent verifiable evidence that exists and avoid speculation like the plague.

So far absolutely nothing you have said has been evidence based.

We provide evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job with zero speculation required. Please help us by dropping the completely unsupported missile theories and helping us spread the word about the the hard evidence proving the plane did not hit the building.

[SPreston]

A missile launch is highly visible. Nobody reported a missile launch off the ground, from an aircraft, or from a sub or surface ship off the coast. Nobody reported seeing a missile. Nobody reported sonic booms from a supersonic or hypersonic missile or missiles. It would be impossible for a missile to knock down one light pole let alone all five; so the light poles would still need to be staged.

A missile or missiles would still incorporate the same difficulties which an aircraft would have.

Failure to penetrate deeply enough to accomplish the desired damage level due to directly impacting an interior column or columns after penetrating the steel reinforced wall.

Likelihood of crashing before or overshooting the impact area

Likelihood of somebody capturing the missile or missiles on video or film

Danger of striking another object and exploding prior to the difficult 1st floor target

Military accountability of missing missile or missiles

Necessity of using explosives anyway to accomplish the necessary destruction and limit over-destruction

[SPreston]

But my experience has been that Boone is sensible and provides a source, as he just did again. He also seems to have his own but different doubts about the OCT. A Devil's Advocate can be a valuable thing.

Ban Boone; he is a devil and not a devil's advocate and has violated our rules.

(IMG:http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/circular_reasoningl.jpg)

[amazed!]

As probably the least informed and studied poster here on details, I must say that I find Saturna's points to be fairly persuasive, especially if the statements from some witnesses are accurate.

It seems that the parking lot video shows SOME KIND of flying object. Clearly NOT a Boeing, but easily a missle of some sort.

Given that that was at the Supreme HQ of the MIC, why not use multiple resources? Planted explosives and airborne assets?

Preston's objections that the missile inventory does not reflect a launch, or that nobody observed a launch, or accuracy problems, etc, etc, are not particularly persuasive. Good grief, they managed to "not observe" 5 or 6 nuclear missles loaded onto a B-52 and flown around the country. In the military, "covering your ass" is a highly evolved artform. Pencil whipping the paper work has been done for generations now.

And today's laser targeted missles very seldom miss. This was a well planned and executed military operation.

[painter]

It seems that the parking lot video shows SOME KIND of flying object.

Why would you trust the parking lot video as evidence of anything other than a cover-up? You, yourself, say "This was a well planned and executed military operation." Where did this parking lot video come from if not from the very "military operation" you believe executed the plan? Has anyone outside of an agent or agency of the US government had ACCESS to this video for independent forensic analysis? Do we know anything about the chain of custody of this video?

[maturin42]

Look at it from the viewpoint of the insiders - the high purps - assuming that some of them were required to be present in the targeted 5-sided puzzle palace that morning. And let's say the decoy aircraft is being flown by an inexperienced fanatic (not possible, but stay with me). Can you trust him to crash into the reinforced side of the building at exactly ground level and not hit the roof a glancing blow and plow into the opposite side of the building in the roof and take out those who are situated there? Or could you count on the remote-controlled drone doing better?

(Spoiler Alert for "Eagle Eye", the movie. Stop here if you care.)

I just watched a movie in which a supercomputer manipulates ordinary people into acting as its human agents. Using threats and coercion, they are induced to take incredible personal risks and perform acts that experienced stunt people could only do with much practice and a great deal of setup. They are involved in high-speed highway crashes, jumps from tall buildings, gun battles, in order to advance an assassination plot in which the already low probability of of success becomes progressively smaller at each juncture.

That plot comes to mind when you think of a human or robot pilot maneuvering an airliner to hit that exact spot on the west wall of the Pentagon. It isn't exactly a sure thing. A missile is better. A shape charge even better. A fly-over, either remotely controlled or piloted is much easier and less risky to pull off. One thing you don't do is trust Hani Hanjour, an alleged incompetent, suicidal, religious fanatic, to perform feats of arial derring-do to hit a building you are occupying, in precisely the right place to take out the bean-counters but not the co-conspirators.

Reason for edit: removing a word "drone" in second sentence

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Precisely painter.

All I can say to you amazed! is that I am amazed.

The security gate camera is not valid evidence nor is ANYTHING that has been controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.

"saturna" provided absolutely zero evidence and nothing but pure speculation.

Frankly if any of you are so behind the times on this issue that I have to literally debate this long ago debunked disinfo with you it makes me wonder why we even bother.

It's like you're completely oblivious to what we have accomplished and that you DON'T WANT the operation to be exposed!

It's more fun to sit here and speculate about bull sh*t conspiracy theories.

In fact that's it.

As the "forum leader" here I am putting a moratorium on any missile talk.

It's worse than "no plane at the wtc" nonsense because so many people have already been convinced of it.

If you aren't willing to help us focus on the TRUE independent verifiable evidence we have worked so hard to obtain that PROVES this missile nonsense fraudulent then go start a conspiracy theory forum somewhere but that is NOT what this place is about.

If Rob or the admins over-rule this please accept my resignation as "forum leader".

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Take your missile bs to the debate forum if you're so hell-bent on conspiracy theorizing but this forum is for real RESEARCH of true EVIDENCE.

There is no evidence for a missile people.

NONE!