QUOTE (Voltaire @ Sep 28 2007, 05:44 PM)
I don't know why people would plant disinfo about a misile.
Um because there was no missile and people, like you, keep chasing your tail with something that was not there.
Everything in this case seemed to have been done to make people think there was a boeing : lightpoles, witnesses, generator , false debris
You've agreat problem with the missile----NO ONE SAW A MISSILE!!!!!!!!!!!
And you are wrong. There are reports of a plane/jet along the same flight path, shadowing/chasing that veers away and/or is over the Pentagon as the explosion/fireball happens. These are cover stories developed to confuse people about the plane they saw fly over/away from the Pentagon.
We are at the same place. In my mind, nobody saw an American Airline jet fly behind the pentagon. Perhaps the C130 was here to make confusion, perhaps to launch a missile, perhaps by any chance.
"Perhaps" is not solid research. I know where the C-130 was. I have researched and documented his flight path. I know why he was there. There is no perhaps.
Like you said, it is "in your mind". Have you ever been there? Do you know the topography of the area? Did you know planes take off and fly over/near the Pentagon all the time? The plane ALSO did NOT look like AA according to some witnesses. This would make sense if it was to blend in with Reagan air traffic.
I think american people are Familiarized with jetplanes and i don't believe they can make a confusion between a C130 and a Boeing757.
You think wrong. Walk up to an average American in DC and they will not know what a C-130 or a 757 or an E4B is. I know I didn't until I started researching 9/11. Regardless, you are missing the point. the whole idea is to place a plane over DC and over the Pentagon and confuse people. It doesn't matter if
Nothing you say can show me that somebody saw this airplane after his fly-over. I can't believe it. There was plenty of people on the other side of the pentagon.
Well I really don't care. The plane was on the north side, it pulled up, a plane is reported as being over the pentagon and veering away as the explosion happened.
Don't just say, "there was plenty of people on the other side". That does not matter. There are trees, building, highways. There is not much on the other side of the Pentagon. People focused on what's in front of them oblivious to air traffic above them.
YOU CAN'T SAY "NO ONE" SAW A PLANE FLYING AWAY OR REPORTED IT!
The 911 calls and transcripts were confiscated and sequestered as Craig pointed out.
And what if someone did see or think it flew over or away from that position? What next? You see Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman talking about how they saw an American Airlines impact the building. Yet you think you saw it fly over or away. What then? Do you challenge every lying operative or asset that they used? Would you be incredibly scared after seeing a story develop that you know didn't happen? Do you go around contacting the media telling your story??? What would they do? AA and the American Gov't is telling the world American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Do you expect a mob of these flyover witnesses to come marching down Pennsylvania Ave? Is there a support group where they all meet and recount their experiences and what they saw???? Is every single flyover/away witness a conspiracy minded person or do they believe in gov't benevolence? Meaning, would they believe the second plane cover story? What about people on the impact side? Wouldn't some think it hit, while some though it went over??? Which would the reporter interview? The impact or the flyover witness? Remember two planes just hit the tower in an apparent terrorist attack. Would reporters be confused? Why did the reporter speaking with Isabel James ask her very slowly and clearly if she "*actually* saw the plane hit the building" and if she "only saw one plane"? Perhaps because she was confused by reports and accounts of the plane not hitting and a plane flying away??????
What about witnesses around the highway? Are they not subject to these same conditions? What if they did see a plane fly over or away? Have you ever been there? Do you realize how far the pentagon is from that highway in relation to the naked eye? Do you realize planes fly over or by EVERY 3 minutes?!?!?! (In fact, Levi Stephens said, while on the phone with his sister in his delivery van, that when he saw the plane come over the Navy Annex he didn't think anything of it since planes fly over all the time, it's only when he saw it turn OR BANK toward the pentagon that he began to take notice and think something was seriously wrong.) Do you realize how small a 757-737 is in relation to the Pentagon???? If someone is driving down 395 S, isn't it possible like most normal people they are looking straight ahead, then see an explosion, which catches their eye which leaves them OBLVIOUS to the jet flying AWAY from them, UP RIVER??? In fact, here is an overhead shot showing you the spots where you can see the Pentagon/flyaway(green) versus not being able to see them(red). This is only for Southbound, because northbound lanes would not have a view, because their backs would be turned. I do concede there is one portion of 395 North where you might be able to see the fly away, but you can't see the impact.http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...95ActualPOV.jpg
You would know this if you actually went there and documented things in person.
You would also know, if you actually spoke with witnesses, that people are scared. I can personally attest to this. People in Shanksville have said they DO NOT want to talk about the little UAV, because "the have kids and lives".
No-one saw a missile: yes, we are face to an illogical problem : There was no boeing that crashed in the pentagon and many witnesses said they saw an airplane.
Yes. Now you are getting it.
If fly-over is wrong , you have to consider that you don't look the problem with the right eyes.
If witnesses said they saw it, it perhaps it had the illusion of an airplane. Why the missile did'nt carry a system to make an ILLUSION ?
Listen to yourself. Illusion. Holograms?? Please stop. If we are wrong about a flyover/away...so be it. Why the HELL are you distractingeveryone from the ACTUAL smoking gun that the jet was on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up???????????
Why the f--- are you people so focused on the goddamn flyover. You have evidence now. You have a smoking gun. Stop your goddamn nonsensical fantasies and do something about the north side.
You know, i don't like exotic theories, like some at the wtc where one speak about raybeam, hologram and no plane theory where it is useless. And nobody think about an unknown technology (?) at the pentagon where it can be necessary. Perhaps , that is intended disinfo.
So i speak of a technology able to give an image of a boeing at the right and left of the missile, perhaps something like a hologram.
Oh it all makes sense now. According to you the plane didn't fly over or away because no one reported it. So in order to find out what happened and prove what happened, we need to fantasize about holograms. Oh yes, that makes more sense than embracing the north side flight path/pull-up and implications of those maneuvers.
A witness spoke (don't remember who, but can retrieve) that the plane seemed to remain immobile on the facade of the pentagon while one second. Others witnesses said that they saw the left wing of the plane touch the ground.
Valid with an image displayed for me.
You can't even post the witness. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are flailing in the water recklessly.
You have to consider the different solutions until you can't prove the fly-over.
WHO THE f*ck CARES ABOUT THE FLYOVER??????????????????????????????????????
We have proved it. We proved it with the north side and the pull-up. Plus our other evidence. I don't need someone who has done 0 research or investigating to tell me what I can prove or can't. Because I HAVE.
Clearly the "2nd plane that Wheelhouse and others described shadowing the jet was NOT the c-130.
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
There were shocked by what they saw. Perhaps they did'nt care.
Because there WAS NO 2nd plane and planted reports of one were meant to confuse people who really saw the plane fly over the building.
2nd plane is not very important to me. I don't think witnesses wanted to make several leads of disinfo. Too tortuous.
Oh of course. Well there you have it. It's not important to him, so let's just move on everyone. You are not thinking that is your problem. People lie. Intelligence agencies have assets and NOC's. If you believe the US had to go to war to secure the last oil fields on the planet, you would lie too. The fact is PEOPLE LIED about the C-130. Namely, Kieth Wheelhouse. The second plane IS the flyover plane. You can't change this, you can only poorly spin it.
Another solution is the much part of witnesses lie and the rest was subjected to threat from FBI or someonr less. I don't think so, but not imossible.
Whatever. Witnesses lied and they stuck to it. The fact remains, the C-130 was not over the Pentagon when the impact happened. So a plane/jet veered away and it wasn't the C-130.
So, i prefer the "image displayed" version because it very well explain all the avaible datas.
I have no idea what you talking about.