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.

Welcome to the forum.

You ask for speculation and what you'll get is a lot of differing opinions.

The FACT is, we do not know.

People you may be trying to educate will ask these questions as if they are intelligent questions. It is like the proverbial "well if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?" Well, we don't know. This question has nothing to do with what we DO know. We have to stick with what we DO know and not go too far off in the direction of what we can only speculate about.

Because, IMHO: if it had have been able to hit the Pentagon (instead of the more likely scenario of a ground crash) the plane would not have penetrated like a missile. Missiles penetrate like missiles (and the military pays top dollar for the privilege of owning such specialized projectiles) and planes crash like planes.

My

There were no missiles used in the Pentagon attack.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for a missile.

But the motive for the flyover is obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with painter as well as Craig...everything is pure speculation and focusing on sensible motives (or arguing that point) can be troublesome, because it is so difficult for the average person to believe anyone (let alone perhaps forces within our own government) would ever have a justifiable or understandable motive for such horrifying acts to begin with...does or can any of this ever make any sense to someone who is good, trustworthy and kind? No.

However, if I had to guess, I would say that the reported use of commercial airliners to accomplish these acts has a far greater psychological impact on the US public then the use of explosives or other means. But again, as Craig pointed out, ctually using aircraft would not and could not have created the type of damage we saw, so the correct means were used in each case to accomplish the intended physical damage.

Each and everyone one of us who has ever flown on a plane or known a loved one who has thinks to himself, "That could have been me on that plane!" Most people have an innate fear of flying already and this strikes at the heart of that fear. That is what terrorism is all about, whether it is "homegrown" or not...to strike fear in the hearts of the average person...it is far easier to manipulate and control a populace which is under the influence of fear.

The planes weren't just a psychological tool. In order for the attacks to work financially, there had to be no breaches of security. If they ever admitted that explosives were involved, then that would mean there were major breaches of security. If the victims could prove that explosives were involved, all those 'victim compensation' deals would be null and void and the law suites would fly.

I might be stating the obvious here, but I think the reason for the flyover was to generate hundreds or thousands of eye witnesses to a low flying airliner headed in the general direction. That would, and did, make it apparent that the official story was true. People calling in to the media would instantly become credible witnesses supporting the official story.

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

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

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

Boonedoggled,

You creep me out.

Stop obsessively lurking and go hang out at the traitors lodge or something.

Absolutely true but I think the question in the OP is why didn't they simply fly the plane into the building.

Complete control of the damage is plenty enough motive but as others have said we can never know all of the reasons why they carried out the operation exactly they way they did.

9/11 was carefully planned and strictly controlled, DUH!!! - Was it an accident that the area struck had just been renovated and strengthened? Joint Chiefs were there in the building. Generals were in the building, Rumsfeld was in the building. It was carefully controlled and planned. The flyover was simply for the benefit of witnesses (from what I can figure).

Nothing was left to chance. So much better to do the damage some other way - with a missile or a bomb.

Should I consider that as a warning coming from a moderator or a personal provocation?

Neither.

Just sharing how the mere sight of your wretched name causes a little bit of vomit to rise up and get stuck in the back of my throat.

If anyone doesn't know who "boonedoggled" is and wonders why I feel this way they should read this.

Craig, is there some reason why we shouldn't just IP ban him?

He hasn't broken any rules.

I just know from his history at other forums that he is a deceptive war-crime-apologist and a creepy coward who obsessively lurks and pays attention to every little thing we do or say every day of his God forsaken life.

But whatever.

I don't think we should automatically ban our enemies but imho there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Item 5 of the forum rules clearly state:

• Those who advocate without sincere question the government's OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory -- so called "debunkers") are REQUIRED to read Post #1 of this thread, the links contained in it and ANSWER the questions asked. Failure to do so will have your posting privileges suspended until you do. (If your posting privileges have been suspended, ask a Moderator or Administrator via Private Message to be allowed to post your answers in the thread.) Answers that can be shown to be false or deceptive will get you banned. We also ask that any "debate" be kept in the DEBATE forum.


What is the point of allowing someone who has no respect for us or our questions to participate or even lurk on our forum? It might be one thing if he was here to debate a specific topic in the debate forum, or if he'd been invited here for some specific reason, but otherwise -- what is the point?

Alright then.

You guys are the bosses!

I stay out of these types of decisions but I sure can vouch for the fact that he is an "OCT supporter".

FWIW, "Boonedoggled" did answer the questions at post #37:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10762713

It wasn't exactly informative and didn't look to have much effort put into it. (It reminded me of some of that old Oliver North Congressional testimony from what I recall, but that was years ago).

Well, actually, I wish you wouldn't "stay out of these types of decisions". I'm actually asking for your input -- and if you'd rather do that privately, we could do that, too. I'm just curious.

I find the thread you linked to, for example, with the photographs of the service men who have suffered as a result of this war (not to mention all the wounded and dead citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan) right on the mark. That is what people who support the OCT are supporting: death, destruction, pain and suffering on an enormous scale based on what we have very good reason to say -- not "believe" but "say" -- are LIES.

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

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

I'm with you 100%.

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

Right On!

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

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

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

Maybe the Obama Administration doesn't buy as much bandwidth (or bloggers) as the Bush Admin. once did.

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

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

My apologies, DYEW.

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

You were responding to it.

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

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

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

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

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

Then, of course, there's the documented Radiation Hose-Downs (not hoe-downs ) and donning of Nuke Suits, which would be a prerequisite of dealing with the aftermath of a DU laden penetrator impact.

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

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.




That is not evidence for a missile.

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




That is not evidence for a missile.

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


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

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

Therefore we can not tolerate it.

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

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

no one saw a missile.
not one.

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

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

thus, there is ZERO evidence of a missile.

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

and you have to find a source for that missile.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

so there was at least a plane.

but so far, ZERO evidence of a missile.

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



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




Nods.



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

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


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

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

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

back to the plane:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


***

so then the question is where is the plane?

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

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

Hi all!

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

1. Why Fly Over

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

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

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

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

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


2. Boone

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

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

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

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

I'd like to put down one vote for selling Boone to the Gypsies.

Careful, he may like that. Especially if they're hot... considering the amount of time he spends obsessed with people he thinks are nuts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

imo, lunk

What do you think Boone? This guy looks like a real "boy scout."

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

I know you weren't asking me but, WOOF!

Yeah, everything you said, lunk.

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

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.

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.

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.



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

I changed my mind.

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

Hi Craig!



You, on the other hand, skip the cat n' mouse and get right to the point!

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.

Hi Boone!

I said:



You responded:



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.

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.

Partially, and it looks like we'll be seeing more of Boone:

"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."

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.



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.