Full Version: 911 In A Nut Shell
In no way do my conclusions represent the views of P4T
On 911, NORAD was involved in military exercises [war games]…some parts simulation and some parts “Real’ World”.
Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, National Reconnaissance Office drill, Operation Tripod bioterrorism exercise, plus the FBI, NASA and FEMA…all involved
Somewhere in the mix…two to four airframes [that had been modified in the past] were to be flown by remote control to targets within the realm of the War Games. But like the 7/7 London Bombings the exercise went 100% “Real World”.
Backdoor technology allowed and gave these airframes new targets. This is why the transponders were turned off…not to fool the FAA but to fool the military.
Apparently, the takeover of the WTC7/Shanksville airframe didn’t work…so Rudy Giuliani and his handlers went to plan “B” which was “Pull it”.
The Pentagon was a planned flyover using trained military pilots. The unknown object at caused the actual destruction was a planned “Black Operation” outside normal military protocol.
Only a very tight group of people could have been involved in this…some from the Department of War
Certainly a plausible scenario.
They haven't called it Dept of War since about 1948 or earlier.
Any approach to WTC7 would have been problematic, IMO, simply because of its relative 'shortness'. Steep approach would have been necessary.
They haven't called it Dept of War since about 1948 or earlier.
Any approach to WTC7 would have been problematic, IMO, simply because of its relative 'shortness'. Steep approach would have been necessary.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 17 2011, 11:41 AM) 
They haven't called it Dept of War since about 1948 or earlier.
Sure as heck was not defense after 1948…just another…government trick… or words of color…
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 17 2011, 11:41 AM)
Any approach to WTC7 would have been problematic, IMO, simply because of its relative 'shortness'. Steep approach would have been necessary.
Well these were smart planes with GPS and nothing slowed down WTC1
The Verizon Building was only 32 stories and the upper half was thin.
Piece of cake…in my book…kid stuff...
The brown building should be WTC7
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 18 2011, 07:48 AM)
In no way do my conclusions represent the views of P4T
On 911, NORAD was involved in military exercises [war games]…some parts simulation and some parts “Real’ World”.
Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, National Reconnaissance Office drill, Operation Tripod bioterrorism exercise, plus the FBI, NASA and FEMA…all involved
Somewhere in the mix…two to four airframes [that had been modified in the past] were to be flown by remote control to targets within the realm of the War Games. But like the 7/7 London Bombings the exercise went 100% “Real World”.
Backdoor technology allowed and gave these airframes new targets. This is why the transponders were turned off…not to fool the FAA but to fool the military.
Apparently, the takeover of the WTC7/Shanksville airframe didn’t work…so Rudy Giuliani and his handlers went to plan “B” which was “Pull it”.
The Pentagon was a planned flyover using trained military pilots. The unknown object at caused the actual destruction was a planned “Black Operation” outside normal military protocol.
Only a very tight group of people could have been involved in this…some from the Department of War
I agree with most of that - except for Shanksville. The degree of pre-planning required to create the Shanksville scene suggests that it was always part of the plan to create a hero story for the masses. WTC7 is strange unless that was pay-off - every building in the WTC block had to be destroyed and WTC7 was relatively far away from the towers. Just thinking aloud.
QUOTE (KP50 @ Jan 17 2011, 02:02 PM)
I agree with most of that - except for Shanksville. The degree of pre-planning required to create the Shanksville scene suggests that it was always part of the plan to create a hero story for the masses. WTC7 is strange unless that was pay-off - every building in the WTC block had to be destroyed and WTC7 was relatively far away from the towers. Just thinking aloud.
I did not actually visit the Shanksville site or any other site at that rate but eye witnesses stated that there was nothing there except for a hole in the ground and a grass fire that could have easily been caused by a small missile.
The pile of junk and plane parts were nearly 7 miles away and easily dumped there by a C-130…
Why was the plane never dug up? What if your mother, father, son, daughter or wife were in that hole…what would you demand?
If you were talking about the voice communication…it was part of the simulation…
EC-130 have that ability…several were designed for PSYOPs
EC-130 have that ability…several were designed for PSYOPs
This is an interesting theory. Perhaps the commercial flights were real flights but hijacked by the actual alleged hijacker patsies but they were remote controlled into the war games and shot down as assumed inserted targets.
Substitute planes were remote controlled into the towers perhaps with additional explosives or incendiaries as payload. This may have created fires / heat etc which was much hotter than "office or jet fuel fires"
The pentagon was a media show and apparently an attempt to knock off accountants. The data was inserted from a flight simulator... not actual flight data from that day... how are controllers to know where the data on their screens comes from? They can't. But it the DOD spooks know how to insert data onto ATC screens.
If 93 was another show which a hero cover story was created to distract people. No plane commercial jet... but perhaps some plane with remote control was exploded to bits. The hole was like an created by some ordinance dropped there.
WTC 7 was intended to become a raging inferno caused by debris from WTC 1 and then collapse from fire... though it was to be taken out with some sort of engineered explosives. The fire never really was terribly threatening so they decided to go ahead with the plan rather than let it extinguish itself or be fought. Lots of records were destroyed there conveniently....
Apparently gold was taken from the vaults under the towers as pay off for whomever.
Once the cover story was trotted out to the media, everyone jumped on board and if they didn't they were branded unpatriotic. That lasted long enough to get the wars going and shove 9/11 facts down the memory hole of manufactured history.
Substitute planes were remote controlled into the towers perhaps with additional explosives or incendiaries as payload. This may have created fires / heat etc which was much hotter than "office or jet fuel fires"
The pentagon was a media show and apparently an attempt to knock off accountants. The data was inserted from a flight simulator... not actual flight data from that day... how are controllers to know where the data on their screens comes from? They can't. But it the DOD spooks know how to insert data onto ATC screens.
If 93 was another show which a hero cover story was created to distract people. No plane commercial jet... but perhaps some plane with remote control was exploded to bits. The hole was like an created by some ordinance dropped there.
WTC 7 was intended to become a raging inferno caused by debris from WTC 1 and then collapse from fire... though it was to be taken out with some sort of engineered explosives. The fire never really was terribly threatening so they decided to go ahead with the plan rather than let it extinguish itself or be fought. Lots of records were destroyed there conveniently....
Apparently gold was taken from the vaults under the towers as pay off for whomever.
Once the cover story was trotted out to the media, everyone jumped on board and if they didn't they were branded unpatriotic. That lasted long enough to get the wars going and shove 9/11 facts down the memory hole of manufactured history.
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 17 2011, 05:33 PM)
This is an interesting theory. Perhaps the commercial flights were real flights but hijacked by the actual alleged hijacker patsies but they were remote controlled into the war games and shot down as assumed inserted targets.
Interesting yes...but how did flights that never existed...get hijacked?
How did they bring back to life a plane and the not so dead hijackers?
I've always thought the best tool/friend in untangling the 9/11 hoax is viewing it as an elaborate magic trick. Nothing was as it seemed. Start from there, assume nothing.
QUOTE (Sanders @ Jan 16 2011, 04:16 AM)
I've always thought the best tool/friend in untangling the 9/11 hoax is viewing it as an elaborate magic trick.
Yep, every aspect of it reeks of smoke and mirrors, and I don't mean holograms with that latter. Even voices in the street in NYC such as '...that was no American Airlines...' could have been from plants just like 'Harley Man'.
But, speculation only helps as far as pointing to things that should be investigated thoroughly and without prejudice just as Rob and his team and CIT have done. How to follow up and get a real investigation, one with teeth, underway is higher level ball game entirely.
Well, with regards to Shanksville, this lady's testimony I believe is a major clue as to how the op was carried out in that area. The fact that it's been largely overlooked over the years (myself included), shows just how well oiled the media spin actually is.
As regards the "War Games" (as with 7/7 in London) I personally believe that they were used on multiple levels. Radar, confusion, total control and a means to maybe set "patsies" and innocent civilians up (phone calls - Mark Bingham's "This is Mark Bingham, you do believe me don't you Mom?" always sounded to me like either a coded message or a piss-take).
It's only speculation, and it's good to talk about it, as long as we don't start pinning our flags to it without proof. The bastards have done a good job having us chase our own tails for years.
As regards the "War Games" (as with 7/7 in London) I personally believe that they were used on multiple levels. Radar, confusion, total control and a means to maybe set "patsies" and innocent civilians up (phone calls - Mark Bingham's "This is Mark Bingham, you do believe me don't you Mom?" always sounded to me like either a coded message or a piss-take).
It's only speculation, and it's good to talk about it, as long as we don't start pinning our flags to it without proof. The bastards have done a good job having us chase our own tails for years.
That’s perfect OSS…Mrs. Bingham…is that you Mom?
Susan = Small, cylinder shape, spoiler, pure white, fiberglass looking, low noise, missile or 1 manned plane
Gofer 06 was there at 10:03 am…that’s pretty strange too..
Pentagon...
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.”
Susan = Small, cylinder shape, spoiler, pure white, fiberglass looking, low noise, missile or 1 manned plane
Gofer 06 was there at 10:03 am…that’s pretty strange too..
Pentagon...
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.”
Interesting stuff Elreb! The callsigns do tell a story, for sure.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 19 2011, 04:29 PM)
Interesting stuff Elreb! The callsigns do tell a story, for sure.
Pan in mythology was a spirit of “All”…meaning he was recognized as a companion of everyone…
In one form Pan inspired sudden fear in crowded places = panic
In another form Pan inspired seeing all = Panavision
Think about that…in one hand you have the vision to see everything and in the other hand you can create fear…
Fear prevents reason and logic…
[quote name='elreb' date='Jan 17 2011, 02:48 PM' post='10793412']
In no way do my conclusions represent the views of P4T[quote]
My enhancements of elreb "conclusions" carry the same disclaimer...
On 911, NORAD was involved in military exercises [war games]…some parts simulation and some parts “Real’ World”.
Scheduled, and overseen by "someone" (other than President Bush) in a secure bunker, perhaps?
Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, National Reconnaissance Office drill, Operation Tripod bioterrorism exercise,
did you "forget" to mention CIA, and mercenary (for hire) "corporate related" involvement (ie. Haliburton/Blackwater deritives)?
plus the FBI, NASA and FEMA…all involved...
along with the MSM, NIST, NSA, and Homeland Security.... after the fact, for "investigation" and "cover-up".
Somewhere in the mix…two to four airframes [that had been modified in the past] were to be flown by remote control to targets within the realm of the War Games. But like the 7/7 London Bombings the exercise went 100% “Real World”.
I will not speculate about "aircraft" involvement, at this time.
Backdoor technology allowed and gave these airframes new targets. This is why the transponders were turned off…not to fool the FAA but to fool the military.
"Backdoor technology" is a good way to describe the possibility of aircraft involvement. Use of radar beacon transponder "switching" for "deception" is possible. However, the "MODE S" datalink capabilities of these transponders, (serial port wireless data link--similar to internet "dial-up"), may have been used for "remote guidance" of the aircraft, through existing autopilot systems.
Apparently, the takeover of the WTC7/Shanksville airframe didn’t work…so Rudy Giuliani and his handlers went to plan “B” which was “Pull it”.
Don't you mean Larry Silverstein? He doesn't own any part of the WTC, yet he collects TWICE what he insured them for; 7+ BILLION dollars just 3 months prior to 9/11. The PANYNJ has to pay all the NYC taxes on the entire site.... as well as a very stiff DAILY penalty to Larry for every day their "site" isn't ready for him to "rebuild" even taller buildings.
Shanksville, HAH! I refer you back to your forum with lunk concerning "Plate Tectonics".
The surface of the Earth just opened up and "swallowed" that airplane "Whole". It is now flying in the skies, above the "inner crust" of our HOLLOW EARTH!
The Pentagon was a planned flyover using trained military pilots. The unknown object at caused the actual destruction was a planned “Black Operation” outside normal military protocol.
Only a very tight group of people could have been involved in this…some from the Department of War and the Department of Deception, but most likely those in control at the Department of MONEY!
In no way do my conclusions represent the views of P4T[quote]
My enhancements of elreb "conclusions" carry the same disclaimer...
On 911, NORAD was involved in military exercises [war games]…some parts simulation and some parts “Real’ World”.
Scheduled, and overseen by "someone" (other than President Bush) in a secure bunker, perhaps?
Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, National Reconnaissance Office drill, Operation Tripod bioterrorism exercise,
did you "forget" to mention CIA, and mercenary (for hire) "corporate related" involvement (ie. Haliburton/Blackwater deritives)?
plus the FBI, NASA and FEMA…all involved...
along with the MSM, NIST, NSA, and Homeland Security.... after the fact, for "investigation" and "cover-up".
Somewhere in the mix…two to four airframes [that had been modified in the past] were to be flown by remote control to targets within the realm of the War Games. But like the 7/7 London Bombings the exercise went 100% “Real World”.
I will not speculate about "aircraft" involvement, at this time.
Backdoor technology allowed and gave these airframes new targets. This is why the transponders were turned off…not to fool the FAA but to fool the military.
"Backdoor technology" is a good way to describe the possibility of aircraft involvement. Use of radar beacon transponder "switching" for "deception" is possible. However, the "MODE S" datalink capabilities of these transponders, (serial port wireless data link--similar to internet "dial-up"), may have been used for "remote guidance" of the aircraft, through existing autopilot systems.
Apparently, the takeover of the WTC7/Shanksville airframe didn’t work…so Rudy Giuliani and his handlers went to plan “B” which was “Pull it”.
Don't you mean Larry Silverstein? He doesn't own any part of the WTC, yet he collects TWICE what he insured them for; 7+ BILLION dollars just 3 months prior to 9/11. The PANYNJ has to pay all the NYC taxes on the entire site.... as well as a very stiff DAILY penalty to Larry for every day their "site" isn't ready for him to "rebuild" even taller buildings.
Shanksville, HAH! I refer you back to your forum with lunk concerning "Plate Tectonics".
The surface of the Earth just opened up and "swallowed" that airplane "Whole". It is now flying in the skies, above the "inner crust" of our HOLLOW EARTH!
The Pentagon was a planned flyover using trained military pilots. The unknown object at caused the actual destruction was a planned “Black Operation” outside normal military protocol.
Only a very tight group of people could have been involved in this…some from the Department of War and the Department of Deception, but most likely those in control at the Department of MONEY!
Re the alleged comments of Mark Bingham. "Hi Mom, It's Mark..... Mark Bingham".
I ask any guy in this world who has ever spoken to his mom (or dad for that matter) " Have you ever used your surname in identifying yourself to them?". It just NEVER happens.
As postulated above, it was either a bad mistake by the impostor, or a coded warning.
I ask any guy in this world who has ever spoken to his mom (or dad for that matter) " Have you ever used your surname in identifying yourself to them?". It just NEVER happens.
As postulated above, it was either a bad mistake by the impostor, or a coded warning.
QUOTE (Skeptik @ Jan 20 2011, 12:50 PM)
Re the alleged comments of Mark Bingham. "Hi Mom, It's Mark..... Mark Bingham".
I ask any guy in this world who has ever spoken to his mom (or dad for that matter) " Have you ever used your surname in identifying yourself to them?". It just NEVER happens.
As postulated above, it was either a bad mistake by the impostor, or a coded warning.
I ask any guy in this world who has ever spoken to his mom (or dad for that matter) " Have you ever used your surname in identifying yourself to them?". It just NEVER happens.
As postulated above, it was either a bad mistake by the impostor, or a coded warning.
I've tried to imagine any circumstances where I personally would use my surname in identifying myself to my mother. Can't do it. Even in an allegedly highly adrenalized state of mind. The "You do believe me don't you Mom?" and "I'm calling you from the air phone." reinforced my belief that
a) it was done at gunpoint
b) he believed that he himself was part of a "terrorist exercise"
I rule "b" out on the grounds that nobody would put their parents through the ordeal of making them believe that they are going to die just for the sake of a "military exercise".
911Myths claims that ..
QUOTE
No mystery here according to Bingham’s mother, then, who’s surely better placed to address this issue than anyone else. And now, if these phone calls were faked, it suggests the faker had to know Mark Bingham sometimes spoke that way: how likely is that?
There were no personal details or quirks mentioned at all in the alleged phonecall to his mother. She tried to explain him using his own surname by saying that he was a "young businessman". It wasn't a regular occurrence as 911Myths tried to imply. She was rationalizing the "last words" of a loved one.
Nothing can be proved from this but it may be a good indicator of how part of the op was orchestrated.
2cents
ETA: Typos
IMO, like all the cellphone "calls", Bingham's was created out of whole cloth, an utter fabrication using modern voice technology.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 20 2011, 04:55 AM)
IMO, like all the cellphone "calls", Bingham's was created out of whole cloth, an utter fabrication using modern voice technology.
I agree…I have tried over a dozen times to use a wide range of cell phones and once you are above the towers…they just do not work…
By the way Mrs. Bingham…aah…I mean “Mom” we are all going to die because some rag-head has a 1/2'” razor blade in his hand…zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I understand why so many glaring errors can be found in the official story when I consider the prospect that Sept. 11 was just "Biziness As Usual" and one of hundreds of such operations the wizard of oz develops continually for us.
This whole charade smacks of sloppy workmanship by bored participants who didn't think we'd see the magic trick more than once.
This whole charade smacks of sloppy workmanship by bored participants who didn't think we'd see the magic trick more than once.
QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Jan 20 2011, 09:43 AM)
I understand why so many glaring errors can be found in the official story when I consider the prospect that Sept. 11 was just "Biziness As Usual" and one of hundreds of such operations the wizard of oz develops continually for us.This whole charade smacks of sloppy workmanship by bored participants who didn't think we'd see the magic trick more than once.
Besides all the War games going on at the exact time…
The date 9-11 stands out…sounds like something David S. Addington came up with…he did work for the CIA
To a Saudi Arabian it was something like 23 Jumaada [6] 1422 in Hijri Dates…which does not exactly roll off the tongue…
PSS: How come they are not called Defense games or Defense on Terrorism, Defense on Drugs, Defense on Poverty…
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 20 2011, 03:55 PM)
IMO, like all the cellphone "calls", Bingham's was created out of whole cloth, an utter fabrication using modern voice technology.
Option "c".
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 20 2011, 10:59 AM)
Option "c".
And now with Rob’s new report that the data on decoy 77 was faked…we can totally remove “All” commercial flights from the equation…
No pilots, crew members, passengers or hijackers killed on 911…
That’s why I think there is more to Guantanamo than what meets the eye…
It is the modern “Witness” protection program…it saves American lives or was it lies?
Shanksville...
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 21 2011, 11:00 PM)
Shanksville...
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zMdjqrAZkDw" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zMdjqrAZkDw" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
What incident was that?
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 21 2011, 04:33 PM)
What incident was that?
WARSAW — A plane carrying the Polish president and dozens of the country’s top political and military leaders to the site of a Soviet massacre of Polish officers in World War II crashed in western Russia on Saturday, killing everyone on board.
"Real" crashes" have real dead people...oh and an airplane...
But getting back to Susan McElwain…what was she looking at…
Small, cylinder shape, spoiler, pure white, fiberglass looking, low noise, missile or 1 manned plane…
Did it look like this?
Boeing AGM-86D Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile is able to destroy buried or hardened targets from standoff ranges of hundreds of miles. It incorporates a penetrating warhead capable of piercing up to 12 feet of reinforced concrete and near-precision, GPS guidance. Top Speed 500 mph (Mach 0.67)
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q4/nr_011129n.htm
Small, cylinder shape, spoiler, pure white, fiberglass looking, low noise, missile or 1 manned plane…
Did it look like this? Boeing AGM-86D Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile is able to destroy buried or hardened targets from standoff ranges of hundreds of miles. It incorporates a penetrating warhead capable of piercing up to 12 feet of reinforced concrete and near-precision, GPS guidance. Top Speed 500 mph (Mach 0.67)
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q4/nr_011129n.htm
I disagree--all things considered the execution was brilliant. One can only speculate as to how close to "flawless" it might have been....
Great picture of the ALCM! Quite likely that's what Susan saw.
Great picture of the ALCM! Quite likely that's what Susan saw.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 23 2011, 08:35 AM)
Great picture of the ALCM! Quite likely that's what Susan saw.
The interesting thing about the Boeing AGM-86D is that it did not become public until shortly after 911, therefore it was a UFO.
With the right pods, these critters can be launched by a C-130.
Boeing got a fat contract.
Powered by a turbofan jet engine that propels the missile at subsonic speeds, the CALCM deploys its folded wings, tail surfaces and engine inlet upon launch.
It possesses the following operational characteristics:
· Flies complicated, lowaltitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour
matching guidance system and GPS/INS
· Has a small profile that reduces the likelihood of detection by radar
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 23 2011, 06:25 PM)
But getting back to Susan McElwain…what was she looking at…
Small, cylinder shape, spoiler, pure white, fiberglass looking, low noise, missile or 1 manned plane…
Did it look like this?
Boeing AGM-86D Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile is able to destroy buried or hardened targets from standoff ranges of hundreds of miles. It incorporates a penetrating warhead capable of piercing up to 12 feet of reinforced concrete and near-precision, GPS guidance. Top Speed 500 mph (Mach 0.67)
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q4/nr_011129n.htm
Small, cylinder shape, spoiler, pure white, fiberglass looking, low noise, missile or 1 manned plane…
Did it look like this? Boeing AGM-86D Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile is able to destroy buried or hardened targets from standoff ranges of hundreds of miles. It incorporates a penetrating warhead capable of piercing up to 12 feet of reinforced concrete and near-precision, GPS guidance. Top Speed 500 mph (Mach 0.67)
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q4/nr_011129n.htm
I personally believe that Susan McIlwaine's testimony is key to the Flight 93 op.
That craft is what she described except that it had like a three bar "spoiler".
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 23 2011, 10:33 AM)
That craft "is" what she described except that it had like a three bar "spoiler".
At 500 mph what do you define as “Three Bar”?
So far…it appears that Lt Colonel Steve O’Brien was flying the control vehicle for the UFO operation over Shanksville and the Pentagon.
The Lockheed C-130 Hercules is notorious for psychological warfare and stand-off projects. O’Brian could deploy, destroy, and dump materials and also psyop communication all from one point. “Big-Brother” was in the sky above him… Word 31: B742 [E4B], a NAOC (National Airborne Operations Center)
In different configurations the C-130B-II was distinguished by its “false” external wing fuel tanks, which were used to disguised “Signals Intelligence” (SIGINT) receiver antennas.
In the C-130E form it is an extended-range development of the C-130B, with two under-wing fuel tanks and increased range and endurance capabilities.
Similar to the E model, the C-130H was updated T56-A-T5 turboprops, a redesigned outer wing, updated avionics, and other minor improvements.
It would have been a no brainer to attach two [or more} Boeing AGM-86D and disguise them as external fuel tanks.
I personally do not believe that the Pentagon was totally...pre-staged …but it was definitely pre-planned…
The Lockheed C-130 Hercules is notorious for psychological warfare and stand-off projects. O’Brian could deploy, destroy, and dump materials and also psyop communication all from one point. “Big-Brother” was in the sky above him… Word 31: B742 [E4B], a NAOC (National Airborne Operations Center)
In different configurations the C-130B-II was distinguished by its “false” external wing fuel tanks, which were used to disguised “Signals Intelligence” (SIGINT) receiver antennas.
In the C-130E form it is an extended-range development of the C-130B, with two under-wing fuel tanks and increased range and endurance capabilities.
Similar to the E model, the C-130H was updated T56-A-T5 turboprops, a redesigned outer wing, updated avionics, and other minor improvements.
It would have been a no brainer to attach two [or more} Boeing AGM-86D and disguise them as external fuel tanks.
I personally do not believe that the Pentagon was totally...pre-staged …but it was definitely pre-planned…
IMO a B-52 would be a better platform for the ACLM, and from a distance. No need to be close to the target, and probably better to be further away.
I have seen the C-130 used for the SIGINT and jamming operations. There is nothing hidden about its antennae--it's bristling with them.
I have seen the C-130 used for the SIGINT and jamming operations. There is nothing hidden about its antennae--it's bristling with them.
I was trying to stick to the facts here…
We know that the same exact C-130 flew over both the Pentagon and Shanksville and it was capable of carrying the ALCM…that just so happens was not released to the public for another two months.
The only point of the SIGINT was to show the ability to disguise "things" to look like fuel tanks.
We know that the same exact C-130 flew over both the Pentagon and Shanksville and it was capable of carrying the ALCM…that just so happens was not released to the public for another two months.
The only point of the SIGINT was to show the ability to disguise "things" to look like fuel tanks.
THEY CAN ALSO DROP JUNK TOO...
AGM86D Payload: Advance Unitary Penetrator
Flies complicated, low altitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour matching guidance system and global positioning system (GPS) receiver and inertial navigation system (INS)
An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement), and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). All inertial navigation systems suffer from integration drift.
Avoiding roadside infrastructure such as road signs, guardrails, light poles and other assets would require a current land videograph.
They have an extremely tough casing and a delayed fuse which contains three hard-backed (Depleted Uranium steel alloy) contact penetrating, tunnel and final-depth penetrator charges. Basically, the bomb doesn't go off till a few seconds after it hits the target. This allows the bomb to penetrate (or burrow into the structure or ground) as far as possible before it explodes.
Flies complicated, low altitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour matching guidance system and global positioning system (GPS) receiver and inertial navigation system (INS)
An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement), and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). All inertial navigation systems suffer from integration drift.
Avoiding roadside infrastructure such as road signs, guardrails, light poles and other assets would require a current land videograph.
They have an extremely tough casing and a delayed fuse which contains three hard-backed (Depleted Uranium steel alloy) contact penetrating, tunnel and final-depth penetrator charges. Basically, the bomb doesn't go off till a few seconds after it hits the target. This allows the bomb to penetrate (or burrow into the structure or ground) as far as possible before it explodes.
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 26 2011, 09:43 AM)
AGM86D Payload: Advance Unitary Penetrator
Flies complicated, low altitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour matching guidance system and global positioning system (GPS) receiver and inertial navigation system (INS) <snip>
They have an extremely tough casing and a delayed fuse which contains three hard-backed (Depleted Uranium steel alloy) contact penetrating, tunnel and final-depth penetrator charges. Basically, the bomb doesn't go off till a few seconds after it hits the target. This allows the bomb to penetrate (or burrow into the structure or ground) as far as possible before it explodes.
Flies complicated, low altitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour matching guidance system and global positioning system (GPS) receiver and inertial navigation system (INS) <snip>
They have an extremely tough casing and a delayed fuse which contains three hard-backed (Depleted Uranium steel alloy) contact penetrating, tunnel and final-depth penetrator charges. Basically, the bomb doesn't go off till a few seconds after it hits the target. This allows the bomb to penetrate (or burrow into the structure or ground) as far as possible before it explodes.
It looks like you could load a dozen of those cruise missiles into that B52.
But what is that "CAMERA" mounted to the top of that thing for? It looks like the means to "remotely guide that thing to its target "VISUALLY", using all the other "guidance systems" you mention above as "secondary embellishments" to a VISUAL CONTROL system.
That "camera" reminded me of this:
Just stick it on with a little Hot Glue
Then "connect the battery" and put on the "Pilot View" Goggles:
And you can control the FLIGHT of your MODEL AIRPLANE... or your CRUISE MISSILE... as if YOU ARE SITTING at the CONTROLS INSIDE...... by "VIEWING" the Virtual Video Display on the inside of the GOGGLES.... and you don't even have to SEE the airplane to do it....
Pilotview video
Watch this guy fly STEEP TURNS... CLOSE TO THE GROUND, all around himself: (after 7 min)
Steep turns, close to the ground vid
Freakin AWESOME!!.... If I had something like this when I was a kid; just think of all the money I could'a saved on FLYING LESSONS!! I could'a taken pictures... made videos... spied on my neighbors... flew it over the Nudist Colony....
or put a bomb in it... and flown it into "something" while flying it real fast and close to the ground... so no one would "see" it... or even know what the HELL it was... DUH!??
All this can be "yours" for only $549 if you are a kid, or an Islamic Terrorist...
Pentagon/DOD models available....
Priced "Slightly Higher: Just add 6 Zeros ie $549,000,000 or Call for QUOTE
More info here
Disclaimer: I learned about this "Visual Radio Remote Control System" from an "Amatuer Radio" publication... The FCC has violated "Lobby Hobby" for retail sale of "Illegal 2.4 GHz Transmitters" in the USA. It seems they can interfere with "Cordless Phones" and other devices.
elreb said:
Which would penetrate far enough into the Pentagon, to make that nice round "exit" hole at "C" ring, maybe??
Which is something the "radome" on the nose of ANY aircraft CAN NOT DO!
In order for an aircraft "radar" system to "SEE" anything (weather... ground mapping, etc), its "dish" antenna, (or sometimes a "flat plate" antenna) is usually mounted in the NOSE of the aircraft fuselage, behind a non-metallic faring that is TRANSPARENT to microwave radar frequency waves.
The aircraft "RADOME" is very WEAK structually, to be as "transparent" as possible for the radar system to work properly. You can break it with your BARE HANDS if you are not careful!
It is also very weak "aerodynamically" in some applications, like LARGE AIRPLANES... The AIR PRESSURE in front of the airplane, if it is going too fast, can "DISTORT" the shape of the RADOME and break it! [sometimes, the "ram air pressure" against the aircraft nose at high speeds, is the "limiting factor" in determining the aircraft's VMO (maximum airspeed) near the ground]
Aircraft with LARGE Nose mounted RADOMES, will "duct" some "ram" air behind the RADOME to "equalize" the pressure.... or perhaps even "pressurize" it, to add "strength" to the RADOME.
What I am saying is.... "It wasn't the "NOSE" of ANY normal aircraft that I know of, that "punched" that round hole through the "C" ring wall at the Pentagon.
And if Hani Hanjor wasn't flying whatever alledgly "struck" the Pentagon, then who else could have done it?? Maybe it was someone like this:
Just Kidding 
I wonder if anyone saw someone walking around the Pentagon, wearing goggles, and playing with radio transmitter on 911 ???
QUOTE
They have an extremely tough casing and a delayed fuse which contains three hard-backed (Depleted Uranium steel alloy) contact penetrating, tunnel and final-depth penetrator charges. Basically, the bomb doesn't go off till a few seconds after it hits the target. This allows the bomb to penetrate (or burrow into the structure or ground) as far as possible before it explodes.
Which would penetrate far enough into the Pentagon, to make that nice round "exit" hole at "C" ring, maybe??
Which is something the "radome" on the nose of ANY aircraft CAN NOT DO!
In order for an aircraft "radar" system to "SEE" anything (weather... ground mapping, etc), its "dish" antenna, (or sometimes a "flat plate" antenna) is usually mounted in the NOSE of the aircraft fuselage, behind a non-metallic faring that is TRANSPARENT to microwave radar frequency waves.
The aircraft "RADOME" is very WEAK structually, to be as "transparent" as possible for the radar system to work properly. You can break it with your BARE HANDS if you are not careful!
It is also very weak "aerodynamically" in some applications, like LARGE AIRPLANES... The AIR PRESSURE in front of the airplane, if it is going too fast, can "DISTORT" the shape of the RADOME and break it! [sometimes, the "ram air pressure" against the aircraft nose at high speeds, is the "limiting factor" in determining the aircraft's VMO (maximum airspeed) near the ground]
Aircraft with LARGE Nose mounted RADOMES, will "duct" some "ram" air behind the RADOME to "equalize" the pressure.... or perhaps even "pressurize" it, to add "strength" to the RADOME.
What I am saying is.... "It wasn't the "NOSE" of ANY normal aircraft that I know of, that "punched" that round hole through the "C" ring wall at the Pentagon.
And if Hani Hanjor wasn't flying whatever alledgly "struck" the Pentagon, then who else could have done it?? Maybe it was someone like this:
Just Kidding I wonder if anyone saw someone walking around the Pentagon, wearing goggles, and playing with radio transmitter on 911 ???
I have long thought that some sort of ALCM or SLCM was the weapon of choice for the Pentagon, besides the explosives planted at strategic locations inside the building. Such a missle might explain what some witnesses described as a "whooshing" sound, and I think some reported seeing a smaller airplane, commuter type, or something like that.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 27 2011, 04:32 AM)
I have long thought that some sort of ALCM or SLCM was the weapon of choice for the Pentagon, besides the explosives planted at strategic locations inside the building. Such a missle might explain what some witnesses described as a "whooshing" sound, and I think some reported seeing a smaller airplane, commuter type, or something like that.
I think Susan McElwain is as good a place to start and reverse engineer this. Her UFO came in from the South on a heading to the North East and targeted itself perfectly into an existing mining excavation in a fairly safe location.
Viola Saylor on the other hand describes the C-130 flyover with its external fuel tanks appearing to be silver fins. Both Susan and Viola witness more than one plane and as Viola put it…the white one had 2 eye balls…indicating that it was Word 31: B742 [E4B].
Somewhere in the mix Gopher 06 had deployed ALCM-2 and dumped some decoy debris that floated toward or from Indian Lake…up to two miles off course.
In no way, shape or form was the FBI interested in these witness accounts. [And possibly anyone else’s]
Now…if you buy the above account…then Gopher 06 had also deployed ALCM-1 and decoy debris into the Pentagon. Due to the particular nature of the AGM-86D…it could have easily taken out all the light poles and generator without a hitch.
Decoy 0077 had to have flown north of the gas station to avoid any conflicts in flight paths with Gofer 06.
Word 31: B742 [E4B] was high above controlling the whole show.
Smaller planes [Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17] could have been used as spotters or runners…
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 27 2011, 05:50 AM)
Due to the particular nature of the AGM-86D…it could have easily taken out all the light poles and generator without a hitch.
Can you please elaborate on this? Especially, please, how it would "easily taken out all the lightpoles"?
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 27 2011, 10:48 AM)
Can you please elaborate on this? Especially, please, how it would "easily taken out all the lightpoles"?
Directly from the Boeing owner’s manual it states that the AGM86D flies complicated low altitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour matching guidance system and global positioning system receiver and inertial navigation system but Avoiding roadside infrastructure such as road signs, guardrails, light poles and other assets would require a current land videographer.
In other words, the navigation system would detect touching or hitting an undesired object and make correctional changes by moving slightly away from it…somewhat like a “Pinball”.
All inertial navigation systems suffer from integration drift. Without knowledge of all external components the AGM-86D would fly as if blindfolded and pinball from an object while maintaining its primary course.
The Block IA improvement was to achieve very high precision terminal guidance. It features an extremely accurate optimized multi-channel GPS receiver, and also incorporates enhanced shallow and steep terminal dive capability. The projected accuracy is said to be 3 m (10 ft). Development of Block IA started in 1998, and the first missiles were delivered to the USAF in January 2001.
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 27 2011, 09:59 AM)
Directly from the Boeing owner’s manual it states that the AGM86D flies complicated low altitude routes to a target by using a terrain contour matching guidance system and global positioning system receiver and inertial navigation system but Avoiding roadside infrastructure such as road signs, guardrails, light poles and other assets would require a current land videographer.
In other words, the navigation system would detect touching or hitting an undesired object and make correctional changes by moving slightly away from it…somewhat like a “Pinball”.
All inertial navigation systems suffer from integration drift. Without knowledge of all external components the AGM-86D would fly as if blindfolded and pinball from an object while maintaining its primary course.
The Block IA improvement was to achieve very high precision terminal guidance. It features an extremely accurate optimized multi-channel GPS receiver, and also incorporates enhanced shallow and steep terminal dive capability. The projected accuracy is said to be 3 m (10 ft). Development of Block IA started in 1998, and the first missiles were delivered to the USAF in January 2001.
In other words, the navigation system would detect touching or hitting an undesired object and make correctional changes by moving slightly away from it…somewhat like a “Pinball”.
All inertial navigation systems suffer from integration drift. Without knowledge of all external components the AGM-86D would fly as if blindfolded and pinball from an object while maintaining its primary course.
The Block IA improvement was to achieve very high precision terminal guidance. It features an extremely accurate optimized multi-channel GPS receiver, and also incorporates enhanced shallow and steep terminal dive capability. The projected accuracy is said to be 3 m (10 ft). Development of Block IA started in 1998, and the first missiles were delivered to the USAF in January 2001.
Sorry but I still dont see the point how it would take the 5 lightpoles down. Hopefully you don't think I would believe the missile would have also the zig-zag flight feature.
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 27 2011, 12:17 PM)
Sorry but I still dont see the point how it would take the 5 lightpoles down. Hopefully you don't think I would believe the missile would have also the zig-zag flight feature.
Gosh no…never…my “Bad”…
It's been awhile since I've seen the material, but it seems one of those PA gals was pressured by the FBI as to her testimony. She didn't say what they wanted her to, and left.
More people than one might think were in on it.
More people than one might think were in on it.
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 28 2011, 11:39 PM)
Gosh no…never…my “Bad”…Elreb. Tume raised a valid point.
And who said that the UFO Susan McIlwaine saw was going "500mph"? Did you listen to what she said?
I wasn't deriding the speculation about the craft you've been discussing, just that she was the one who described the "fender", as she called it, as having "three bars" on the tail of it.
It's good to speculate but there's no need to be defensive about it when flaws are pointed out.
Peace
OSS
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 29 2011, 06:12 AM)
And who said that the UFO Susan McIlwaine saw was going "500mph"? Did you listen to what she said?
I did go back and listen to her description with headphones on and did not hear or find the "Fender" or “three bars” part…you are describing…was that on a different tape?
Her UFO did seem to have the ability to change direction quickly…at least according to her description…
I was almost to the stop sign…it came down right above my van..cleared those trees…seemed to be below the power lines [25 foot]…came in swooped up…cleared those trees…banked to the right and crashed…{all in a span of 500 to 550 feet}
In “Top Fuel” Funny Car, they travel at over 330 mph in less than 4.6 seconds…with a quarter mile being 1320 feet
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 28 2011, 05:42 PM)
It's been awhile since I've seen the material, but it seems one of those PA gals was pressured by the FBI as to her testimony. She didn't say what they wanted her to, and left.
If this were indeed a major crime…why was the investigation taken so lightly?
QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 29 2011, 07:07 PM)
I did go back and listen to her description with headphones on and did not hear or find the "Fender" or “three bars” part…you are describing…was that on a different tape?
Her UFO did seem to have the ability to change direction quickly…at least according to her description…
I was almost to the stop sign…it came down right above my van..cleared those trees…seemed to be below the power lines [25 foot]…came in swooped up…cleared those trees…banked to the right and crashed…{all in a span of 500 to 550 feet}
In “Top Fuel” Funny Car, they travel at over 330 mph in less than 4.6 seconds…with a quarter mile being 1320 feet
Her UFO did seem to have the ability to change direction quickly…at least according to her description…
I was almost to the stop sign…it came down right above my van..cleared those trees…seemed to be below the power lines [25 foot]…came in swooped up…cleared those trees…banked to the right and crashed…{all in a span of 500 to 550 feet}
In “Top Fuel” Funny Car, they travel at over 330 mph in less than 4.6 seconds…with a quarter mile being 1320 feet
Try this extended interview:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8051395578107358759
She had time to look at it and get a description. I'm not saying that I know it wasn't going at whatever speed but 500mph seems excessive. Here's a good video that puts it in perspective (for me anyway).
An object travelling 500mph over 750ft (even less than the alleged speed of "Flight 77" travelling down that obstacle laden steep hill..).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6lrtS_LcJ8
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.