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
Were The Alleged Flt 77 Official South Path Eyewitnesses Real People?, Or were they misrepresented by the lying media as crash witnesses?

SPreston
post Jan 7 2009, 10:11 AM
Post #1


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



.

Or were some of these alleged crash eyewitnesses fake people invented to present a lie to the American people?

Or were they misrepresented by the lying media as crash witnesses when they were not?


From the list of Pentagon Witness Accounts (here)

Penny Elgas - Standstill northbound on Hwy 27 - saw aircraft to the side of and above Citgo gas station - claims aircraft passed over cars 4-5 car lengths in front of her - claims aircraft debris piece fell through open sun roof onto car seat - doesn't look like aircraft aluminum does it? - nor is it burned or scorched - Another North of Citgo eyewitness?



Well where is Columbia Pike perpendicular to Hwy 27? That is the portion of Columbia Pike which she claims she saw the aircraft fly across. And the blue line above is to the side of and above the Citgo gas station isn't it; just like she claimed? She also claims the aircraft banked slightly to the left didn't she? Penny Elgas is most definitely not an official south flight path eyewitness is she?

QUOTE
Penny Elgas

"For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error." "Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was 'Oh My God, this must be World War III!' "In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers."



Stephen McGraw - Left lane northbound Hwy 27 - Plane flew 20 feet above car roof - exact same spot on road as HunkaHunka ATS alleged witness

Christine Peterson - Gridlock northbound Hwy 27 in front of helipad
Rodney Washington - Standstill northbound Hwy 27 - Aircraft hit ground at helipad

13 - Corporate owned paid propagandists enlisted to control the American people

Steve Anderson - USA Today - Gannett Co. Inc.
Richard Benedetto - USA Today reporter - Gannett Co. Inc.
Lisa Burgess - Stars & Stripes reporter - owned by Library of Congress
Bob Dubill - USA Today - Gannett Co. Inc.
Fred Gaskins - USA Today - Gannett Co. Inc.
Christopher Munsey - Navy Times Reporter - Gannett Co. Inc.
Vin Narayanan - USA Today reporter - Gannett Co. Inc.
John O'Keefe - Influence American Lawyer Media publication lobbyist
Mary Ann Owens - Gannet News Service - gridlock northbound Hwy 27 - aircraft flew directly over car
Kate Snow - CNN congressional correspondent
Joel Sucherman - USA Today editor - Gannett Co. Inc. - Claimed he heard a sonic boom, Hwy 110 on west side of Pentagon, and Reagan National across river
Greta van Susteren - CNN legal analyst - parking lot at Reagan - not a crash witness
Mike Walter - USA Today reporter - Gannett Co. Inc. - Standstill northbound on Hwy 27 - Got caught lying
Dave Winslow - AP radio reporter - located 10th floor Pentagon City

Lt Colonel Stuart Artman - walking near Washington Mall to the west of the Pentagon and the Potomac - not a witness to a crash

9 - place aircraft Over Naval Annex or ANC to the north

Sean Boger - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex straight at him
Albert Hemphill - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
William Lagasse - Aircraft flew Over Naval Annex
Lincoln Leibner - Thought aircraft was flyover Arlington National Cemetery
William Middleton Sr - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
Terry Morin - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
Steve Patterson - Aircraft flew over Arlington National Cemetery - small 8-12 passenger aircraft
Dewey Snavely - Aircraft over Arlington National Cemetery
Levi Stephens - Aircraft flew Over Naval Annex

6+ - not crash witnesses

D.S. Khavkin - View of Pentagon blocked by Sheraton Hotel - not a crash witness
Kat Gaines - on Hwy 110 southbound east of Pentagon - could not possibly see light poles nor crash
Scott P. Cook - across Potomac on 5th floor - not a crash witness
Ken Ford - across Potomac on 15th floor - not a crash witness
Lesley Kelly - office in DC- not a crash witness
Steve Snaman - across Potomac at Fort McNair- not a crash witness

4+ - political hacks

Gary Bauer - NeoCON - professional liar and NWO political insider
Bobby Eberle - GOPUSA - professional liar and NWO political insider
Steven Gerard - Justice Department - political insider
Fred Hey - Congressional staff attorney - political insider

13 - untraceable and not witnesses at all

"Barbara"
"Dave"
"Div Devlin"
"Gus"
"K.M."
"M.J."
"Rick M."
"skarlet"
"Steve"
"Whisper2i"
Unidentified man - 20 passenger corporate jet
Unidentified man
Unnamed Navy admiral



3 at Reagan Metro platform where view was blocked by high buildings in Crystal City

Susan Carroll - Metro subway platform at Reagan National
Allen Cleveland - on Metro train pulling into Reagan National platform southbound
Meseidy Rodriguez - on Metro train pulling into Reagan National platform



Out of 127 alleged witnesses on this list, there are 13 of which are untraceable without names, and 9+ which place the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex or Over ANC or North of the Citgo, and 13+ are media propagandists, and 4+ are political insiders, and about half of the remainder did not really see a crash, and a bunch were too far away to see anything at all or at Reagan National with the tall buildings of Crystal City blocking the view of the alleged crash site.

Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts

This post has been edited by SPreston: Jan 8 2009, 10:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jan 8 2009, 10:16 AM
Post #2


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Alleged crash witness Phillip Thompson was driving eastbound in the I-395 HOV lanes even with the Naval Annex, and the aircraft he saw a couple hundred feet off the ground (the Naval Annex was on a hill above him) could easily have been the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Thompson saw the fireball, but not the alleged aircraft crash into the 1st floor. As anyone can see, the Pentagon itself was below the hill out of sight of Thompson.



QUOTE
"on my way to work Sept. 11, I saw an American Airlines jet come overhead and 'slam into the Pentagon' "... Thompson, Phillip
http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/911_1068139.html


Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts

This post has been edited by SPreston: Jan 8 2009, 05:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 8 2009, 02:41 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



"the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane"

And for some reason, no effects on the car or the ones in front of her from the jet wash!

Sounds to me like embellishment or fiction.





Edited for spelling...

This post has been edited by SwingDangler: Jan 8 2009, 03:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 8 2009, 03:03 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



From SP's link above:

http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/911_1068139.html

"...I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument.

I heard the scream of a jet engine and, turning to look, saw my driver’s side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner. It was flying only a couple of hundred feet off the ground — I could see the passenger windows glide by. The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady. But, strangely, the landing gear was up and the flaps weren’t down.

I knew what was about to happen, but my brain couldn’t quite process the information. Like the other commuters on the road, I was stunned into disbelief. The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast hit us in a wave. I don’t remember hearing a sound...."

"The writer [Philip Thompson] served with the 1st Marine Division in the Gulf War and is a senior fellow with the Lexington Institute, a public-policy foundation in Arlington, Va."

There is some interesting reading about this Lexington Institute "think tank" at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ngton_Institute

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.shtml

"It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive. "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 8 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (SPreston @ Jan 7 2009, 07:11 AM) *
9 - place aircraft Over Naval Annex or ANC to the north

Sean Boger - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex straight at him
Albert Hemphill - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
William Lagasse - Aircraft flew Over Naval Annex
Lincoln Leibner - Thought aircraft was flyover Arlington National Cemetery
William Middleton Sr - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
Terry Morin - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
Steve Patterson - Aircraft flew over Arlington National Cemetery - small 8-12 passenger aircraft
Dewey Snavely - Aircraft over Arlington National Cemetery
Levi Stephens - Aircraft flew Over Naval Annex

From this same source:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Marine Cmdr Mike Dobbs would appear to put an American Airlines aircraft over the Navy Annex, although the numerous "it"s are rather ambiguous.

"Marine Cmdr. Mike Dobbs, 9/11/01 [C], standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window.
"It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle. It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course. It seemed to be almost coming in in slow motion. I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running." Scripps Howard News Service

Mike Dobbs, 9/13/01 [A] . "... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ... It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized. ... At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level... Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn't hear it." St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Lexis-Nexis - Philip Dine)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 8 2009, 03:33 PM
Post #6


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Thanks for putting all this together, SPreston.

And, dMole, this is really interesting stuff you're adding here. The Mike Dobbs report is especially fascinating.

What I'm seeing over and over is people describing an aircraft NOT traveling at top speed.

What does "on a zero-to-zero course" mean?
Reason for edit: typo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 8 2009, 04:00 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 8 2009, 02:18 PM) *
It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course. Mike Dobbs, 9/13/01


"Zero - to - Zero course" (ie; 020 degrees) is consistent with the north approach to over the Annex.... before the bank to the right (when it appears Dobbs started to run).

"Zero-Seven-Zero" or 070 is needed for south approach.

If GL's want to take such words as "parallel" literally... Mike Dobb's course statement makes Dobbs yet another NoC witness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 8 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (painter @ Jan 8 2009, 12:33 PM) *
What does "on a zero-to-zero course" mean?

Were I to guess, and it is exactly that (although an educated one in the DoD sense), Commander Dobbs would be meaning a zero-degrees relative aircraft vector (i.e. headed directly at Mike Dodd's physical "compass" bearing that he was facing out that upper story Pentagon window). Think navigation charts, naval ships, torpedoes, etc.

A hypothetical aircraft could be on a 30-degrees left/port [or 80 degrees starboard, etc.] heading relative to one's "compass" heading.

Of course if that same "observer" person turns say from westward to northeast, the "vector" picture changes considerably (or more likely is no longer even visible...)

It's still just my interpretative opinion, though painter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 8 2009, 04:21 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Or what Rob said. "Zero-two-zero" could be interpreted very differently from "zero-to-zero." You've gotta keep an eye on those M$M reporters. wink.gif Isn't "Zero-two-zero" [brg: 020 degrees] pretty much NNE and away from the Pentagon if over the Navy Annex though? dunno.gif

EDIT: Here's a visual navigation aid for all the laypersons out there [be warned- "zero" is taken relative to 2 different kinds of "north"- Geographic or "True" North (Earth's northern physical axis point of rotation) and "magnetic north" which varies quite a bit]:

http://www.navigationaid.com/enlarge.html

EDIT2: Bearing 020 degrees absolute would be NNE. A relative bearing of 020 would indeed be 20 degrees right (,clockwise, or starboard) of the relevant aircraft momentum vector heading. And I generally prefer Geo[graphic] North to magnetic.
Reason for edit: Added visual aid
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jan 8 2009, 04:27 PM
Post #10


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (painter @ Jan 8 2009, 02:33 PM) *
Thanks for putting all this together, SPreston.

And, dMole, this is really interesting stuff you're adding here. The Mike Dodds report is especially fascinating.

What I'm seeing over and over is people describing an aircraft NOT traveling at top speed.

What does "on a zero-to-zero course" mean?


You're welcome painter; and also fewer and fewer of the original alleged '104 witnesses' are turning out to be actual eyewitnesses to the official Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. If the ones that actually were real people, were eventually tracked down and interviewed on camera; it would likely turn out that very few or even none of them would admit to being eyewitnesses to the alleged aircraft crash into the Pentagon 1st floor. Many were in a position where they could not possibly see the light poles nor the aircraft if it were down below the roof at lawn level. And many were obviously misrepresented by the mainstream new media.

Great stuff guys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 8 2009, 04:34 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 8 2009, 03:21 PM) *
Isn't "Zero-two-zero" [brg: 020 degrees] pretty much NNE and away from the Pentagon if over the Navy Annex though? dunno.gif


"Away" from the pentagon would be anything left of about 330 degrees. 020 degrees is more consistent with the "crossing over" the Annex to the North side flight path, than the course required for the south path, which has no room for error.. .and is 070 degrees according to the NTSB.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 8 2009, 06:05 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 8 2009, 12:03 PM) *
There is some interesting reading about this Lexington Institute "think tank" at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ngton_Institute

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.shtml

"It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive. "

It would appear that the Lexington Institute has been receiving some money from Exxon:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=80

EDIT: See also:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1509.html
Reason for edit: Added link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jan 9 2009, 10:32 AM
Post #13


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE
posted by SPreston
As anyone can see, the Pentagon itself was below the hill out of sight of Thompson.

QUOTE
posted by CameronFox

Spreston, you are being dishonest sir. The photo you clipped from Google Maps you can not confirm that it is Thompson's POV. You chose almost the furthest point away from the Pentagon. Thompson stated that he could see the roof of the Pentagon. Him along with hundreds of other commuters that were in traffic.


CameronFox you are being much too critical . . . too defensive. The point of this thread is that a large portion of the mystical '104 witnesses to the Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon' that government loyalists and defenders like to throw at us, do not exist. Some overly imaginative Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY fanatics even throw the figure of 'hundreds of crash witnesses' at us don't they?

Oh yeah, CameronFox I forgot to mention that your photo is in the westbound lanes of I-395 and much closer to the Naval Annex; a minor infraction but not completely honest either? Correct, since you were slinging mud?

The reason I moved Thompson back on the highway a bit is because there is a curve there on I-395, and since this alleged Flight 77 was officially moving at 784 fps, I thought Thompson would more likely see it if his car was facing it a bit more. I was debating with myself on which position would make more sense. Both positions showed the roof of the Pentagon and both positions were opposite the Naval Annex. At 784 fps, if Thompson caught a movement out of the corner of his eye, in the second it took to turn his head, the aircraft would no longer be Over the Naval Annex would it? His car was still opposite the Naval Annex in my image, but facing it a bit more, and since we all know for sure now that the actual aircraft was flying Over the Naval Annex; then Phillip Thompson is another witness to the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex isn't he? He said the aircraft was a couple of hundred feet off the ground, and I assume it meant the ground at his location which was below the Naval Annex hill. That would place the aircraft higher than the Naval Annex, and apparently he saw it after it had passed the taller Sheraton, and he never stated he saw it come between his view and a building did he? Therefore Over the Naval Annex.

Craig have you been able to find Phillip Thompson and reinterview him on video? Of course the actual decoy aircraft was moving much slower; perhaps half the speed. (270 mph - 395 fps) Thompson may have watched it for 10 whole seconds and it apparently never left his sight until the explosion. No, apparently Thompson is another witness that the light poles were staged.

QUOTE
"on my way to work Sept. 11, I saw an American Airlines jet come overhead and 'slam into the Pentagon' "... Thompson, Phillip
MilitaryCity.com


Then we find out that MilitaryCity.com which services the four military journals owned by major propaganda corporation Gannett News Services added this lie above to Phillip Thompson's original account. Didn't they? Can you explain why they lied? Why did MilitaryCity.com add that little lie when Thompson explicitly stated he could see the roof of the Pentagon? And we all know the aircraft was supposed to have struck at the ground level which was 77 feet below the roof, don't we?

Thompson had about 5 seconds at 784 fps to watch the decoy aircraft from Over the Naval Annex a couple of hundred feet off the ground before the explosion at the Pentagon. He did not say a word about it diving down the hill did he? What he said was "the plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady" didn't he? Not one word about the decoy aircraft flying out of sight behind the hill because it needed to dive down in order to strike the #! and #2 light poles. How come Thompson never lost sight of the aircraft before the explosion? Because it never dived down the hill? Because it never struck the light poles?

So Phillip Thompson never did see the crash into the Pentagon did he? So why didn't he see the flyover? Perhaps like everybody else, his eyes automatically focused on the bright explosion, ignoring everything else. Or perhaps he did see the flyover and the FBI paid him a visit. The FBI was paying lots of visits to witnesses, confiscating films and videos, and informing people of what they saw were't they? For several days; weeks; months; years? They had agents guarding Lloyde England and his staged taxi withing several seconds didn't they? How could the FBI or whichever agency those guards belonged to, be already out of their cars photographed by Jason Ingersoll guarding the scene, if they were not prepared beforehand and on stage ready to go into action long before the explosion at the Pentagon? Perhaps the FBI made sure that Thompson understood that it was an American Airlines jet he saw too. Sometimes people do not understand what they see, and the J Edgar Hoover trained political arm FBI role is to make sure they do understand perfectly. Can't have incorrect information confusing The People can we?

CameronFox you do agree that many of the alleged witnesses to the Pentagon crash cannot possibly be actual witnesses don't you, as I pointed out in my OP? Why is it you chose to ignore the OP and instead focused on Phillip Thompson? Is your little dream world falling to pieces?

This post has been edited by SPreston: Jan 14 2009, 10:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 9 2009, 12:41 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (SPreston @ Jan 9 2009, 07:32 AM) *
Then we find out that MilitaryCity.com which services the four military journals owned by major propaganda corporation Gannett News Services added this lie above to Phillip [Thomp]son's original account. Didn't they? Can you explain why they lied? Why did MilitaryCity.com add that little lie when Thompson explicitly stated he could see the roof of the Pentagon? And we all know the aircraft was supposed to have struck at the ground level which was 77 feet below the roof, don't we?

Turning over a few more "Gannett rocks,"

http://www.atpco.com/

"Army Times Publishing Company is a Gannett subsidiary. It publishes newsweeklies widely read by United States military people and their families, federal employees and defense and aerospace industry leaders worldwide. "
-------------------
http://www.atpco.com/publications.html

" Army Times Publishing Company produces six weekly papers.

Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times are the "bibles" of the military market. Each paper is edited separately for its branch of the service and serves as an unofficial source of information affecting service people and their families. These publications reach 72% -- almost three-quarters of the entire active duty military every week. Over the course of a year, they reach 92% of all officers 43 times; 92% of non-commissioned officers 41 times, and 89% of all enlisted personnel an average of 40 times. They also reach 65% of all military wives an average of 27 times.

Defense News and Federal Times -- Also on a weekly basis, Army Times Publishing Company puts out two papers aimed towards the civilian sector. In 1965, the company launched Federal Times in an effort to provide the same type of personnel coverage among the civilian employees of the federal government as it did among the military. Defense News serves as a concise package of information, targeted at key decision makers, but readable by the general populace.

Each of the papers has an online presence, which you can visit via the dropdown box below: ..."
----------------------
http://www.atpco.com/history.html

"Army Times Publishing Company was established as an independent firm in 1940. Army Times, the newspaper, was first published August 17, 1940. Since then, the company has been branching out into other publications in the civilian and military market:

* Armed Forces Journal -- first published in 1863
* Army Times -- first published in 1940
* Air Force Times -- first published in 1947
* Navy Times -- first published in 1951
* Federal Times -- first published in 1965
* Defense News -- first published in 1986
* Marine Corps Times -- first published in 1999

Army Times Publishing Company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. on Friday, August 1, 1997. Gannett is a nationwide news and information company that publishes 75 daily newspapers, including USA Today, and USA Weekend, a newspaper magazine. Gannett also operates 21 television stations and cable television systems in major U.S. markets. "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 9 2009, 01:15 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 8 2009, 12:03 PM) *
From SP's link above:

http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/911_1068139.html
...
I heard the scream of a jet engine and, turning to look, saw my driver’s side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner. It was flying only a couple of hundred feet off the ground — I could see the passenger windows glide by. The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady. But, strangely, the landing gear was up and the flaps weren’t down.

Aside from the other glaring inconsistency(ies) in the quote in my post #4 above, let's examine this "driver's side window filled with the fuselage..." business a little closer.

The fuselage "height" of a B757-200 is "Delta Y = -13'-1 15/16" " according to the .DXF CAD file that I obtained from Boeing. FWIW, the "tube" is a little "narrower" than "tall" with wing roots, gear, and such.

I think my driver's window subtends at least 90 degrees of arc or angle in my vehicle (plus we don't know what Mr. Thompson was driving down the I395).

If we interpret "a couple of hundred" to mean 200 feet, then arctan (13.1666666667 feet / 200.0 feet) ~= 3.7665370006 degrees of angle. [Unfortunately, this would be the largest angle possibly subtended were Thompson directly underneath that hypothetical B757 directly over his head]. Oblique observation angles are only going to serve to "narrow" the subtended angle- do the math.

Oh hell, let's do a 300.0 feet of "viewing range" for everyone here since my calculator is warm. arctan (13.1666666667 feet / 300.0 feet) ~= 2.5130353636 degrees of subtended arc.

Of course arguments could be made here about "half-angles" and such, but I'm going to call "small angle approximation" here since they were both considerably less than 10 degrees. Google it if anyone has questions on that part. 2-4 degrees of angle isn't going to fill any of my "driver's side windows" (unless I were driving APC and peeping through a gunport).
-------
Oh yeah, on those "passenger windows-" both the B757-200 and B767-200 CAD files put those as rectangular "ovals" with axes 10" wide x 14" high.

arctan (1.1666666667 feet / 200.0 feet) ~= 0.3342215896 deg. That's 1/3 of one degree for the largest possible "couple of hundred feet" observation angle (for the largest of the "passenger window" axes). This Thompson story smells hella fishy to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 9 2009, 01:42 PM
Post #16


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 9 2009, 08:41 AM) *
Turning over a few more "Gannett rocks,"


All this in the context of an organized perception and influence management operation.

Just a few snippets to show the GL's we're not making this sh*t up. Perception Warfare and Information Operations are topics taught, studied and implemented by US agencies and military:

QUOTE
Information is no longer a staff function but an operational one. It is deadly as well as useful.
--- Executive Summary, Air Force 2025 report

It is a fundamental mistake to see the enemy as a set of targets. The enemy in war is a group of people. Some of them will have to be killed. Others will have to be captured or driven into hiding. The overwhelming majority, however, have to be persuaded.
--- Frederick Kagan, "War and Aftermath," Policy Review, Aug., 03

Definitions:
from AFDD 2-5

Influence operations are focused on affecting the perceptions and behaviors of leaders, groups, or entire populations. Influence operations employ capabilities to affect behaviors, protect operations, communicate commander’s intent, and project accurate information to achieve desired effects across the cognitive domain. These effects should result in differing behavior or a change in the adversary’s decision cycle, which aligns with the commander’s objectives. The military capabilities of influence operations are psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), operations security (OPSEC), counterintelligence (CI) operations, counterpropaganda operations and public affairs (PA) operations. Public affairs, while a component of influence operations, is predicated on its ability to project truthful information to a variety of audiences.

These activities of influence operations allow the commander to prepare and shape the operational battlespace by conveying selected information and indicators to target audiences, shaping the perceptions of decision-makers, securing critical friendly information, defending against sabotage, protecting against espionage, gathering intelligence, and communicating selected information about military activities to the global audience.

Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 7/3 defines Human Factor Analysis (HFA) as, “The psychological, cultural, behavioral, and other human attributes that influence decision-making, the flow of information, and the interpretation of information by individuals and groups at any level in any state or organization.”


NOTE: "truthful information" is whatever information they tell us it is. This explains something I observed over in the current Loose Change Forum:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...88&t=985177

Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you. The operational decisions you make in your life will be based upon what you believe to be true whether it is true or not. Given that James Randi is/was a master magician who knew well the slight-of-hand tricks of directed attention, it is beyond ironic that those associated with his name spend so much time trying to prove that those of us who question the 9/11 narrative are a bunch of loony-toon idiots. WAY beyond ironic.

It is really very simple. Either a Boeing 757, specifically AA Flight 77, weighing 250,000 lbs. impacted the Pentagon or it didn't. Rationally, simply, one would think, given this story, EVIDENCE would be abundant. All we are doing, really, is pointing out that it is NOT abundant and much of the evidence that DOES exist is inconclusive if not contradictory. One data set shows one thing, one data set shows another. But, ASTOUNDINGLY, rather than finding this of any interest and engaging in the mystery to find the answer to the conundrum, the GL's suggest over and over and over that there are no contradictions, no conundrums, no mystery what so ever. I'm reminded of the old Jedi Mind trick: "These Aren't The Droid's You're Looking For." A) Do no research of your own, accept fully and unquestioningly proclamations from media and government sources as truthful and factual; B) Denigrate any research that questions accepted opinion as "foolish"; C) Keep all questions mired in endless debate, the more detailed the better, such that nothing can be determined as factual, only a matter of "opinion,"; and D) When all else fails, lie your ass off, obfuscate and endlessly move the goal posts of "what determines fact".

SWEEET!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 9 2009, 02:31 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (painter @ Jan 9 2009, 10:42 AM) *
All this in the context of an organized perception and influence management operation.

Just a few snippets to show the GL's we're not making this sh*t up. Perception Warfare and Information Operations are topics taught, studied and implemented by US agencies and military:

Thanks painter. I'd be honored if you would mirror your excellent post (or even add to it and elaborate) on the "cousin" thread that I started here:

Military Report: Secretly 'recruit Or Hire Bloggers'
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11687

Maybe also on that thread that you started (and I moved and pinned) here:

If You Wish To Destroy A Movement, HOW DO YOU DO IT?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7253

Also here is a source on that USAF Doctrine Document 2-5 (and a bunch of other highly informative stuff):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 9 2009, 02:54 PM
Post #18


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 9 2009, 10:31 AM) *
Thanks painter. I'd be honored if you would mirror your excellent post (or even add to it and elaborate) on the "cousin" thread that I started here:


Mirrored as requested. No time for further elaborations just now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 9 2009, 03:19 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Has everyone been comparing the "104? witnesses" to this pinned list as we proceed?

Witness List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10632
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 9 2009, 08:00 PM
Post #20


dig deeper
Group Icon

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



The writer served with the 1st Marine Division in the Gulf War and is a senior fellow with the Lexington Institute, a public-policy foundation in Arlington, Va. His e-mail address is olemissgrad84 at hotmailcom. (i changed the formating of his email addy in case of spambots)


http://www.olemiss.edu/mwp/dir/thompson_phillip/index.html

QUOTE


Phillip Thompson

In his startling first novel, Enemy Within ( http://www.salvopress.com/ ), Phillip Thompson wove together two central themes from his own background—his rearing in Mississippi and his service as a U.S. Marine. The book examines the frightening possibility of armed troops being dispatched to Mississippi to destroy an armed militia, a possibility some feel could happen sooner rather than later.

A native of Columbus, Mississippi, Thompson was born on March 26, 1962, the same day as fellow Columbus native and Mississippi playwright Tennessee Williams. He spent his first three years living in the tiny West Lowndes railroad hamlet of Artesia before moving to Meridian. In 1970 he returned to Columbus, where he lived until he attended Ole Miss to pursue both a journalism degree and a commission in the Marine Corps.

He joined the Marine Corps in 1984 as an artillery officer and spent the next twelve years in various duty stations in California and Hawaii. He served in combat with the 1st Marine Division during Operation Desert Storm. While on active duty, he began to put together the ideas that eventually became his first novel, and he penned several historical pieces for Civil War magazine.

After leaving the Marine Corps in 1996 to pursue a journalism career, he worked as a reporter at his hometown newspaper, the Commercial Dispatch, and as an editor at the Tupelo-based Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. In late 1997, he moved to Virginia to work as a reporter and editor with Marine Corps Times, an independent newspaper that covers the Marine Corps and the Navy. He has since completed a second book, a non-fictional account of his service during Operation Desert Storm, and is at work on his second novel.

(Article first posted June 1999)


This post has been edited by paranoia: Jan 9 2009, 08:02 PM
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: 26th August 2019 - 06:28 AM