There's No Independent Verifiable Evidence For A Missile At The Pentagon, if you disagree please post evidence here Options

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Pentagon ? Hell if i know. Some say missle,
Some say bomb.........
I think it was a plane, maybe a 757 or an F-4,
both with explosives. Drones controlled from the
E-4B. But i dont know for sure.
Its not that important to me right now.
Whats important is to get the evidence to
the investigators and get it done.

Hi Aero,

You need to view this first hand evidence we obtained. The witnesses put it to rest:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

[dMz]

Actually TN and Aero, I just remembered the link to the NTSB Accident Investigations Manual. I've posted links to much of the FAR stuff (over here in the Aircraft sub-forum IIRC).

It can be dowloaded (with Appendices too) at:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/inv_guides.htm

I don't believe that the NTSB ever did any investigation on any of the 4 events, though. Hmmm....

[aerohead]

Aldo,

Thank you for that excellent video.
Awesome work !
Another peice of the puzzle seems to be solved.
I never would have guessed that senario.
I cant help but wonder if the plane was a
drone being flown remotely or a skilled operator.
And if a bomb(s) were dropped/launched or planted.
Doesnt matter really, it will come out later.

But what i do know is that this evidence, along with
th work of other organizations like A&E, is enough to get the ball rolling
towards justice for the guilty and the restoration of Liberty
and Freedom from the tyrant organizations in our country.

It wont be long now, till it cant be withheld
from the mainstream news. And when it breaks,
i sure hope they dont try to pull any more BS.

Cuz our country was founded on........
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death "
(-Patrick Henry)
And if it comes to that, im totally ready.

[lunk]

There were no bombs dropped or rockets fired.

A fire ball went off where the plane looked like it was going.
A second, later, explosion damaged the inside of the building.
Being compartamentalized, the pilot of the plane, only knew the
point he was to fly over, and not the exact aproach, to coinside with the downed lightpoles and the direction of the internal damage,
to the pentagon.

That's my guess.

[aerohead]

Thank you Lunk,
I was watching the video and wondering
"why would they stage the light poles and
taxi in the wrong flight path".

Well the only answer is what you've said.
Pilot error, wrong path and dead givaway.

Not a perfect crime by any means.

[lunk]

To fake an airplane crash must have taken a lot of pre-planning. The operation
must have had many departments. Planting the bombs, downing the light poles, a plane flyover, and all the post-explosion propaganda/cover-up.
I'm sure that most everybody involved must have been working on a "need to know" basis, from their bosses.
Perhaps this was their downfall, and the reason for the North flight path, when everything was staged for a South approach.

[dMz]

To fake an airplane crash must have taken a lot of pre-planning. The operation
must have had many departments. Planting the bombs, downing the light poles, a plane flyover, and all the post-explosion propaganda/cover-up.
I'm sure that most everybody involved must have been working on a "need to know" basis, from their bosses.
Perhaps this was their downfall, and the reason for the North flight path, when everything was staged for a South approach.

[COUGH * COUGH * COMpartmentalized "departments..." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) ]

"Not that there's anything WRONG with that..." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Obwon]

This is NOT a debate about DU!

<snips>

To you GroundPounder,

I'm not trying to "dictate" anything.

I am merely trying to make crystal clear the FACT that there is ZERO independent evidence for a missile as NOBODY has provided a single piece in this thread or anywhere.

So if you choose to accept this theory based on pure speculation that is entirely your business.

Of course this is extremely harmful and completely undermines everything we have accomplished proving 9/11 was an inside job but if that's how you want to contribute obviously I can't stop you.

However if you choose to do it here I can make sure you at least keep it in the debate section where it belongs because it is not valid research.

It is speculation.

If you can't provide any independent evidence the least you could do is admit that much.

First let me say that my research is "heuristic" for several reasons of my own. But mainly because, I feel that way, I can see the "big picture" and better "tickle" out what may be true, and what might be missed or remain unknown or uninvestigated.

It is because of this, my proceedure is to look at evidence and think, "what if this evidence is false?" Then look again and ask, "what if this evidence is true?" Then follow each thread until it leads to a point where other, either true or false evidence, either confirms or discredits whats known or believed. It's a very complicated process, hard to explain, but it often exposes some real gems to ponder.

I don't see theories as harmful, no matter how much or little they offer. This is because any truth that is worth it's salt, is going to overwhelm false theories. Except for the disingenuous people for whom false theories -- strongly held -- discredit themselves.

It seems to me now, at this point in time, that the missile theory is just as unsupportable as a theory of planes, so I shun it, even if I do so too early on, because I see no "tie ins" that would add to the logic of having a missile theory.

A NPT on the other hand, is a derivative theory, not an assertive one. As a derivative theory, it springs from the fact that the evidence of planes is terribly discredited. It does not assert that there is evidence that no planes were used, but instead, that the evidence we have, points more favorably to a theory that any plane would be difficult if not impossible to insert as the cause of the evidence we see.

Since this scheme is built up around the illusion of planes, and since a missile would only be accurate within a tolerance of several feet. It creates just as many problems to use missiles as it does to use aircraft, when they must be used in conjunction with explosives, planted to create the precise damage configurations that are needed. Too many chances for intolerable errors. So to simplify and advantage the greatest level of detection avoidance, it would be wiser to use either a plane, a missile, or explosives alone.

Explosives alone yield the greatest measure of precise control, precise timing, and precision damage configuration. Whereas either planes or missiles come with various complexifying quirks. They can arrive early, late or not at all. They can hit too high, low, or to far left or right. Worse yet, they can leave hard evidence laying around, that must be controlled collected, altered and/or disposed of, at scenes that you must not appear to be so ready
to take control of, if you are to appear "surprised". All first responders are potential "souvenir" collectors, with a scheme as sensitive as this, under national scrutiny, better there be nothing at all for anyone to collect. At least nothing that you don't want to "supply" for collection.

One thing I wish for, is that people who are reading and trying to figure out what really happened, keep in mind that this is no "free and easy" exercise, it is a highly visible and critical enterprise that has to be figured to come under close scrutiny. Therefore if it is an "inside job", it is also an act of treason, punishable by life imprisonment or death. Any insider who is culpable, has got to think twice about any particular thing they do, and they also have to have an 'exit' strategy of some sort. An "exit strategy" which in this case appears to be the time taken to break the case, is longer than the public's interest in it, as well as making other important people "co-conspirators" by extending them the means of being culpable or complicit, even if only by appearances, enough to keep them in line.
So keep that in mind when examining some theory that occurs to you, because "too risky" means it probably won't work and therefore is not likely true.

[elreb]

Seemed like a busy day, over or near the Pentagon…on or around 09:30 including:

Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17 = T-2 Buckeyes scheduled flights of the area for a 13 minute period beginning at 9:25

Word 31: B742 [E4B], a NAOC (National Airborne Operations Center) flight, according to the flight strip, that staged at 7:36 hrs. Word 31 was airborne at 9:27.

Venus 22: A Gulfstream 3, airborne at 9:16 on a scheduled flight to West Virginia; it landed back at Andrews at 9:54

Gofer 06: A Minnesota Air National Guard C130H, airborne at 9:33, ultimately an observer to the aftermath of the alleged impacts of AA 77 and UA 93.

Venus 77: B747, airborne under VFR rules at 9:45; it became the “white plane.”

NEXT

Who is to say what % of this file has been tampered with? I think the UFO is real!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8

The cop car in the film is real and here he is after traveling next to the building after the gate opens the second time.

(IMG:http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG)

This post has been edited by elreb: Sep 18 2010, 04:48 PM

[23investigator]

Seemed like a busy day, over or near the Pentagon…on or around 09:30 including:

Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17 = T-2 Buckeyes scheduled flights of the area for a 13 minute period beginning at 9:25

Word 31: B742 [E4B], a NAOC (National Airborne Operations Center) flight, according to the flight strip, that staged at 7:36 hrs. Word 31 was airborne at 9:27.

Venus 22: A Gulfstream 3, airborne at 9:16 on a scheduled flight to West Virginia; it landed back at Andrews at 9:54

Gofer 06: A Minnesota Air National Guard C130H, airborne at 9:33, ultimately an observer to the aftermath of the alleged impacts of AA 77 and UA 93.

Venus 77: B747, airborne under VFR rules at 9:45; it became the “white plane.”

NEXT


Who is to say what % of this file has been tampered with? I think the UFO is real!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8

The cop car in the film is real and here he is after traveling next to the building after the gate opens the second time.

(IMG:http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG)

Interesting photograph this for a number of reasons.

(1) It clearly shows the spread of the 'fire' damage away from the 'understood point of impact'.
(a) All to the left of the 'understood point of impact'.
(b) Quite intense 'fire' at localised points on the ground, to the left of the 'understood point of impact'.

(2) The "police car", and for that matter the policeman, certainly looks like the one that passed by the security gate immediately before the explosion.
(a) It could be said that this was totally coincident, but another way of looking at it could be that it was totally convenient.
(b) Why would the car have been driven immediately to the location it is shown in the photograph?
(it can be seen to do so in the video).
© Surely the officer's first action should have been to have gone to the immediate area of the explosion, to assist in the rescue of anybody injured???
(d) It seems the officer was more interested in cordoning off the area.

I do not know if there has been an interview of this officer, but it would be interesting to understand, what he may have seen prior to the explosion, and the reason for his actions after the explosion, and if he did that under instruction, who from.

On the subject of interesting people to talk too, there is another individual, who was on the scene very early in the piece, and seemed to have a lot of control over what was going on, particularly, in removal of evidence in front of the building.
He shows up time again , in his white shirt, and his trousers held up by red braces.

"He", was giving lots of orders, 'instruction', but he was obviously under orders himself.
Get him to talk and we will all learn a lot.

I rather doubt the individual whoever he is is likely to volunteer himself, but I think 'you all' as the rest of us, deserve some explanation of what he was up to, whose orders he was under.
Action has been taken previously in your Courts for people effected, by the murderous acts associated with the Pentagon and WTC towers.
Here you have an individual, who violated all the normal "protocol' of proper 'forensic procedure'.
He has been guilty by those actions, of implementing the withholding of evidence, to a criminal act, which murder clearly is, multiple murder, way beyond any act that would be tolerated otherwise.

Go after him, by what ever means available, within the structure of the law.

[23investigator]

Interesting photograph this for a number of reasons.

(1) It clearly shows the spread of the 'fire' damage away from the 'understood point of impact'.
(a) All to the left of the 'understood point of impact'.
(b) Quite intense 'fire' at localised points on the ground, to the left of the 'understood point of impact'.

(2) The "police car", and for that matter the policeman, certainly looks like the one that passed by the security gate immediately before the explosion.
(a) It could be said that this was totally coincident, but another way of looking at it could be that it was totally convenient.
(b) Why would the car have been driven immediately to the location it is shown in the photograph?
(it can be seen to do so in the video).
© Surely the officer's first action should have been to have gone to the immediate area of the explosion, to assist in the rescue of anybody injured???
(d) It seems the officer was more interested in cordoning off the area.

I do not know if there has been an interview of this officer, but it would be interesting to understand, what he may have seen prior to the explosion, and the reason for his actions after the explosion, and if he did that under instruction, who from.

On the subject of interesting people to talk too, there is another individual, who was on the scene very early in the piece, and seemed to have a lot of control over what was going on, particularly, in removal of evidence in front of the building.
He shows up time again , in his white shirt, and his trousers held up by red braces.

"He", was giving lots of orders, 'instruction', but he was obviously under orders himself.
Get him to talk and we will all learn a lot.

I rather doubt the individual whoever he is is likely to volunteer himself, but I think 'you all' as the rest of us, deserve some explanation of what he was up to, whose orders he was under.
Action has been taken previously in your Courts for people effected, by the murderous acts associated with the Pentagon and WTC towers.
Here you have an individual, who violated all the normal "protocol' of proper 'forensic procedure'.
He has been guilty by those actions, of implementing the withholding of evidence, to a criminal act, which murder clearly is, multiple murder, way beyond any act that would be tolerated otherwise.

Go after him, by what ever means available, within the structure of the law.

--continuing the theme of my previous post
There is another person, who it would seem, could be very helpful if spoken to.

I have looked at a series of 'video' which are said to have been taken by the person and recently released by the "FBI">
[I have no verification for this, other than what has been put with the title of the videos.]

It appears the person who took the original video footage, was in a traffic snarl near the Pentagon building.
From various things shown in the video, it appears the person, 'acquired' a video camera from a lady also in the traffic snarl.
The person appears to have sought some hurried instruction on the functions of the video camera, then abandoned his car, setting off to take video of the events at the Pentagon building.
[It is not known how the FBI, then came into possession of the video footage taken, or whether compositing was carried out by the person or the FBI, but it does appear that portions of the current video footage released by the FBI have gone through some kind of 'compositing'.]

The original background taken by the person, whilst in the position of where his car was parked, places the smoke from the Pentagon building ahead of him to the left.
[There is a large overhead road sign, immediately ahead of where the person is positioned, with a street lamp on the right side of the road between the person and the overhead road sign.]
[Immediately to the right there appears to be a very large parking area associated with the Pentagon precinct.]
[Back down the road from where the person is positioned is a large overpass which appears to go behind the parking area at the south end of the Pentagon precinct.][This seems to place the starting point of the video at the southern end of the western side of the Pentagon precinct.]

It appears from the general actions of people at the 'traffic snarl', that they had all just experienced an event immediately "above" them.

The first things noticeable as the camera was "panned" on the roadway and footpath as the person got nearer to the Pentagon precinct, were many small pieces of 'white debris', which had the appearance of only recently being on the ground.
[The general appearance of the debris, appears to be of small pieces of 'carbon composite' material.]

On arrival at the edge of the western side lawn area, it is apparent that it is very early, following the explosions.
[There is fire burning in various places along the face and in front of the building in a northerly (to the left) of the 'apparent impact point'.]

The person is most definitely positioned more towards the southern end of the western lawn area.

The fire near or in the 'mobile generator? unit' is not intense, with mostly black smoke, and a trace of white drifting to the right.
At some later point of time after initially focussing on this, there was a noisy eruption from the immediate vicinity of the 'mobile generator? unit'.
[It appears the eruption of white looking gaseous material, was from a rupture in some type of pressure vessel or pipework, associated with the 'mobile generator? unit'.]
[The eruption continued for some time with the jet of white gaseous material reaching quite a vertical distance, to eventually die down without any further explosion.]

The fire at the back of the 'fire truck' located near the heliport building at the northern end of the fire activity is very intense.
There are various other locations of intense fire in front of the building between the 'apparent point of impact' and the 'fire truck'.

In the background immediately to the right of the burning 'fire truck' a person can be seen at the large doorway into the building which he appears to have eventually opened.
[The person appears to be the one in the white shirt and red braces.]

A little to the right more in the foreground is a group of three male persons.
[One of them appears to have been in charge.]
[He is dark haired with a moustache and has what appears to be a mobile phone or two way radio in his hand.]
[This person, in particular, along with the other two need to be spoken to.]

It is apparent the three persons were discussing actions regarding the fire at the 'fire truck' and another fire immediately to the left of a 'station wagon' parked in the background.
At this time a 'green fire truck' passed in front of the video camera heading in a northerly direction.
The person with the 'moustache' broke away from the group intercepting the green fire truck, appearing to give the driver some instruction.

The footage then panned back towards the 'mobile generator? unit'.
[It was at this time the intense 'white eruption previously mentioned' occurred.]


Flames can still be seen forward of the building about midway to the 'burning fire truck' in the northern direction by the heliport building.
Various circumstances are then shown, with the footage then panned back towards the 'green fire truck'.
As the footage zooms in on the 'green fire truck', it issues a large 'jet of water', towards the Pentagon building wall.
There is a smaller jet of water coming from low near the ground, appearing to be from an extension spout at the front of the 'green fire truck'.

Further to the left and nearer to the building it appears that the flames of the 'burning fire truck' had been extinguished, with only smoke and vapour rising from the back of the previously 'burning fire truck'.

There are now two black looking objects on the ground in front of the 'green fire truck'.
There is also a long object, to the right, closer to the Pentagon building wall.
There is a small amount of flame at ground level at the front of the object, which is partially obscured by water spray from the 'green fire truck'.
It apparent that there is also heat vapour issuing from the top of the object.

The footage then zooms in on the 'green fire truck'.
One of the objects on the ground in front of the 'green fire truck', nearest to the fire truck that was on fire, can be seen to move along the ground, in a direction towards the wall of the Pentagon building, and the large door that had been opened.
[It does not appear that the 'green fire truck' had anything to do with the movement of the object, but the intensity of spray from the 'green fire truck' increased markedly, effectively screening off vision of what ever was going on with the two objects on the ground.]
[The increased intensity of spray also effectively screened off vision of the long object on the ground.]

[The fire truck driver and any operator within, should be spoken to, regarding the object that they extinguished at the back of the 'burning fire truck', and the long object on the ground that they extinguished.]
[They should also be spoken to regarding the screening spray they appeared to supply, and who instructed them to carry out the action.]

The footage then pans back in a southerly direction, showing a group of firemen walking towards the 'apparent impact point' past the 'mobile generator? unit'.
By this time the 'mobile generator? unit' had broken out into an intense fire.

There can be little doubt from the footage, that the two objects that were extinguished at the back of the 'burning fire truck' were parts of a jet engine, which were secreted away.
There can be litle doubt from the footage, that the long object that was extinguished was the airframe of the aircraft that impacted the Pentagon building, which was secreted away.
[The general proportions of the airframe fit that of a Global Hawk, with the aiframe positioned upside down, the notch where the wing fitted, apparent, at proportion to the construction of the Global Hawk.]

The video referred to can be found on GOOGLE as, FBIFOIPA Pentagon After the Plane Crash Clip 1---on YouTube.

There is a further video showing much of the above detail, as Clip 2 which can be located under the same listing on GOOGLE --YouTube.

[DoYouEverWonder]

I've often wondered about the 'generator'? Why is there so much fire there and yet no signs of plane debris? I've always thought it was odd that the generator was parked on an angle. Even the fence appears to follow the angle of the generator, which is very un-military. Could there have been an explosive device that they fired at very short range into the building? The angle of the generator lines up pretty close to the supposed path of the damage.

(IMG:http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Generator_burning.jpg)

Maybe that's why the gov got stuck with the SOC story and had staged everything for a SOC path, but in real time the 'plane' came in too far north? At that point, it would have been too late to adjust the story line and before the internet it wouldn't have ever made a difference. Just a thought.

[elreb]

I would be very interested in having a “Civil” conversation on planted evidence such as the generator, light poles and taxi.

I do not believe for one second that there were no witnesses.

Regardless if the crime scene were pre-staged or if an undetermined object created the damage…there were witnesses.

In either case…reporting this knowledge would guarantee you a free ride to a bad place.

This takes us back to the pentagon video and the determination of what we believe we are seeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8

[paranoia]

I've often wondered about the 'generator'? Why is there so much fire there and yet no signs of plane debris? I've always thought it was odd that the generator was parked on an angle. Even the fence appears to follow the angle of the generator, which is very un-military. Could there have been an explosive device that they fired at very short range into the building? The angle of the generator lines up pretty close to the supposed path of the damage.

(IMG:http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Generator_burning.jpg)

Maybe that's why the gov got stuck with the SOC story and had staged everything for a SOC path, but in real time the 'plane' came in too far north? At that point, it would have been too late to adjust the story line and before the internet it wouldn't have ever made a difference. Just a thought.

greetings DYEW and happy new year! allow me to offer some insight/opinion on the WHY for the two distinctly different paths:

1st the premise/foundation/supposition: the FDR path was flown prior to 9/11 (in the late night less than 2 weeks prior to that tragic tuesday morning). i have presonal evidence of this via 3 earwitnesses (all of them located less than 2 miles west of the pentagon and within a few blocks of columbia pike) who were frightened awake by the sound of a loud (commercial-type) jet in the wee hours of morning, a very short time prior to 9/11.

so for all intents and purposes, the 9/11 decoy jet "77" intended to mimic or imitate this preflown path (as close as its pilot could), a path that stays WEST of the potomac and does a wide loop which reaches as far west as Springfield.


BUT on 9/11, there was one factor beyond the control of the perps: the wind. wind direction is what dictated (and still dictates) which direction the planes at DCA (reagan national airport) would be departing and landing from. as it so happens, at around the time in question (tuesday morning between 9:10 and 9:30) the planes were taking off to the NORTH/northwest*. "decoy 77" happened to be arriving/approaching from the NORTH/northwest, and in my assessment, was forced to swerve/divert EAST (of the river and into washington airspace), and as a result made a smaller loop - one that never reached beyond the western boundary of arlington. this deviation is also what forced the plane to cross north of columbia pike (near ed paik's shop and the navy annex buildings) instead of starting further west (per FDR and RADES data) which would have made it easier for the plane/pilot to visually line up with columbia pike and for it to have imitated (as close as was possible) the original preflown SoC (and west of potomac) path.




*this is the plane that i suspect flew into "77's" path:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2359103

The aircraft in question is an American West 757-2S7 (airline now owned by US AIRWAYS and the aircraft is now wearing US AIRWAYS Paint). It departed KDCA airport on 9/11/01 as follows:


FLIGHT# HP0085
Date: 09/11/2001
A/C :Boeing 757-2S7
REG/License: N903AW
Flight Plan: DCA-LAS
ATD: 08:59
WUT: 09:10

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10788732

According to the government-released video of the DCA Radar Screen(fn1), a flight denoted as "AWE85" took off at about 9:29 AM. After proceeding a short way (about 2 minutes) northwest along the take off route, at 13:31:20 it veers to the southwest. This is about the same time as the renegade return later labeled LOOK and purported to be AA 77 appears on the screen to coming out of the west and into the screen. Perhaps the difference between the wheel up and other time is that that info is flight plan data while the Radar Video shows what actually happened is a late take off.

Three interesting things about AWE85:

1. It looks like it makes that turn into the path of "AA77", and at 13:33:30 actually takes evasive action by deviating from its path. At that time AWE85's altitude is shown as 10,800 feet.

2. It appears to be the last flight to take off before the ground stop took effect.

3. Although it might just be my imagination, I swear it appears that WORD31 out of ADW is tracking and trying to get into some kind of formation with it.

there is also this:

http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf

Fortunately, no plane crashed into the White House. One reason for this false alarm may have been a split-second decision by an air-traffic controller. When the hijacked plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan National Airport as scheduled. Without the data from Flight 77’s transponder and not knowing the intention of the hijacked plane, the controller ordered the departing aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected airspace above the White House.

-i dont dispute that the article worded exactly as it is above could indeed provide cover for the flyover plane, by at least creating confusion or injecting misinfo. but i think it contains an error (intentional or otherwise), without which the whole thing makes more sense and is more likely to be true and less likely to be disinfo:

if the last part is changed and instead of the "departing aircraft" its the decoy 77 that swerved into dc airspace, then it becomes true, for we know (from multiple witnesses) that the plane did indeed fly over dc briefly.


and thats what i believe happened: decoy "flight 77" was on approach to do its pre-practiced / pre-recorded loop, but was forced off its entry point by the outbound plane from dca which was now directly in its way. how far from the airport this occurred, im not sure yet (still digging), but given the speeds at which both planes were going while being headed towards each other, i think its plausible to think they would have had to react (and divert to avoid any possible collision).

[onesliceshort]

That's a really interesting point regarding the windspeeds maybe affecting the "plan" P.

[elreb]

That's a really interesting point regarding the windspeeds maybe affecting the "plan" P.

Would this indicate that decoy 77 was piloted by humans?

I had previously stated that I believe that there were two military trained pilots…at the helm…

This would also explain why the cabin door was never opened during engine on to engine off…

[DoYouEverWonder]

That's a really interesting point regarding the windspeeds maybe affecting the "plan" P.

Even the best laid plans of mice and men....

9/11 was a well planned attack but not everything went their way that day. Not even the wind.

Thanks for the explanation paranoia. I've come close to crashing into more then a couple of docks in my life, so I can definitely relate to the difficulty of such things.

Happy New Year (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[elreb]

(IMG:http://fcmmktg.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/stork_and_baby.243131855_std.jpg) Gofer 06 should have been called “Stork One” because he was delivering something…Aka “Crap out the Back”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=clnk&gl=us

Look at several clips...

This post has been edited by elreb: Jan 13 2011, 06:52 PM

[onesliceshort]

Would this indicate that decoy 77 was piloted by humans?

I had previously stated that I believe that there were two military trained pilots…at the helm…

This would also explain why the cabin door was never opened during engine on to engine off…

That is one sticky subject that opens a Pandora's Box for some.
If there were no pilots, and they actually were drones or remote controlled, that opens a can of worms for the alleged phonecalls.

For any flyover, military pilots may have been the safer option given the timing and precision of the op.

I really can't answer that but whether piloted or not, the wind would be a factor IMO.

[elreb]

That is one sticky subject that opens a Pandora's Box for some.

Yes and this is why I am waiting for Realitycheck to show up and put his "Shine" on...

Brother Watson..hello...please show up...we love you...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgZxdVJH8fc

Come on...god and king... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9IoeEx-lmc...&playnext=4

This post has been edited by elreb: Jan 14 2011, 10:09 PM