Hmmm. Pentagon. Plane? MISSILE??

[shadow355]

Been browsing StumbleUpon and found this. Thought I would share it.

StumbleUpon

Conspiracy theorist - geeze you people never stop. This is better than a "UFO hit the Pentagon" thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0GI-1gja5Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMWbHAqRHvI

These are the radar tapes and radio conversations from "Washington Center" ( Air traffic Control ) on "9/11". Other planes seen the aircraft strike the Pentagon.

They are somewhat long - but well worth watching.

The radar is "Secondary Radar" and does not need an aircraft to "Squak" ( send out a radio transmission ) to pickup on radar.

I have been having computer problems - if for some reason the links do not work - "Google" = Washington ATC - 9/11


Shadow 355

 

[westwall]

Hey westwall or anyone who might know this: my freaked out friend mentioned something I did think interesting. that a passenger airplane wouldn't be able to cruse that low to ground for any period of time without crashing first. this is on the one that flew into the pentagon.

He claimed some jets would but not a passenger airplane.

Not true. Flying at low altitude is a skill. Any jet can do it if the pilot is good. This one wasn't even flying low. It was at about 500 or so feet IIRC before it made the final plunge.

 

[shadow355]

When jets hit hard things they basically disintegrate

Wrong.

Different metals, and other items have different melting and ignition temperatures.

An aircraft just does not disappear after it explodes, or strikes a building or the ground in a crash.

Steel - aluminum - glass and other materials just does not "Evaporate".


Shadow 355 ( Fire Service & EMS service Certified )

 

[westwall]

When jets hit hard things they basically disintegrate

Wrong.

Different metals, and other items have different melting and ignition temperatures.

An aircraft just does not disappear after it explodes, or strikes a building or the ground in a crash.

Steel - aluminum - glass and other materials just does not "Evaporate".


Shadow 355 ( Fire Service & EMS service Certified )

As I said, engines and landing gear are the exceptions. Everything else will go. Especially if there is a fire. I have cleaned up far more plane crashes than I care to think of.


This was the last one I was involved with. 2011 Jimmy Leeward and 11 others died when Galloping Ghost impacted the ramp about 100 feet from where I was standing. Fortunately there was no fire.

 

[shadow355]

Hey westwall or anyone who might know this: my freaked out friend mentioned something I did think interesting. that a passenger airplane wouldn't be able to cruse that low to ground for any period of time without crashing first. this is on the one that flew into the pentagon.

He claimed some jets would but not a passenger airplane.

Not true. Flying at low altitude is a skill. Any jet can do it if the pilot is good. This one wasn't even flying low. It was at about 500 or so feet IIRC before it made the final plunge.

Radar tapes say different.

What I don't understand is when the aircraft come on the radar screen, is why the FAA was not contacted so they can alert the Military to intercept the aircraft.

I can not access "Youtube", but if one of the videos I posted ( I watched them before ) shows the aircraft * Not answering the radio * - or the guard ( radio frequency - emergency frequency that is monitored by ALL aircraft ) frequency, why was there not a Military intercept ( Intercept the aircraft - try to make radio contact - wave wings - fly in front of the aircraft - fire a volley of tracer ammo in front of the aircraft ) and if the commercial aircraft did not answer or acknowledge.....it should have been shot down. The passengers were going to die anyway, and in most instances if there is no radio contact......the aircraft is a flying bomb. Radio contact means terrorist want something = money - terrorist release from prison...ect. No radio contact means again......the plane is a flying bomb.

The FAA is partially to blame for this ( "9/11" aircraft incidents ), in my opinion. They failed to notify NORAD in a timely manner. The Federal Aviation Administration and Washington ATC Supervisors......could have saved lives and property. My opinion and assessment only.

Shadow 355

 

[westwall]

Hey westwall or anyone who might know this: my freaked out friend mentioned something I did think interesting. that a passenger airplane wouldn't be able to cruse that low to ground for any period of time without crashing first. this is on the one that flew into the pentagon.

He claimed some jets would but not a passenger airplane.

Not true. Flying at low altitude is a skill. Any jet can do it if the pilot is good. This one wasn't even flying low. It was at about 500 or so feet IIRC before it made the final plunge.

Radar tapes say different.

What I don't understand is when the aircraft come on the radar screen, is why the FAA was not contacted so they can alert the Military to intercept the aircraft.

I can not access "Youtube", but if one of the videos I posted ( I watched them before ) shows the aircraft * Not answering the radio * - or the guard ( radio frequency - emergency frequency that is monitored by ALL aircraft ) frequency, why was there not a Military intercept ( Intercept the aircraft - try to make radio contact - wave wings - fly in front of the aircraft - fire a volley of tracer ammo in front of the aircraft ) and if the commercial aircraft did not answer or acknowledge.....it should have been shot down. The passengers were going to die anyway, and in most instances if there is no radio contact......the aircraft is a flying bomb. Radio contact means terrorist want something = money - terrorist release from prison...ect. No radio contact means again......the plane is a flying bomb.

The FAA is partially to blame for this ( "9/11" aircraft incidents ), in my opinion. They failed to notify NORAD in a timely manner. The Federal Aviation Administration and Washington ATC Supervisors......could have saved lives and property. My opinion and assessment only.

Shadow 355

"Radar tapes"? I don't know what those are but this is reality. Big jets fly low to the ground all the time. They don't spontaneously combust...

 

[Grandma]

Radar tapes say different.

What I don't understand is when the aircraft come on the radar screen, is why the FAA was not contacted so they can alert the Military to intercept the aircraft.

The FAA is partially to blame for this ( "9/11" aircraft incidents ), in my opinion. They failed to notify NORAD in a timely manner. The Federal Aviation Administration and Washington ATC Supervisors......could have saved lives and property. My opinion and assessment only.

Shadow 355

Even with air traffic shutting down and the military on alert it still takes time to get fighter pilots off the ground and to their target. For all we know, those intercept planes had been sent out, but they never would have had time to do any good.

 

[wihosa]

Right, when airplanes come into contact with something hard they disintagrate... Unless of course it is the side of a 500,000 Ton tower in which case it flies right through the side like a ghost, then once entirely inside it explodes!

There were no planes, wake up dupes!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hey westwall or anyone who might know this: my freaked out friend mentioned something I did think interesting. that a passenger airplane wouldn't be able to cruse that low to ground for any period of time without crashing first. this is on the one that flew into the pentagon.

He claimed some jets would but not a passenger airplane.

Not true. Flying at low altitude is a skill. Any jet can do it if the pilot is good. This one wasn't even flying low. It was at about 500 or so feet IIRC before it made the final plunge.

Radar tapes say different.

What I don't understand is when the aircraft come on the radar screen, is why the FAA was not contacted so they can alert the Military to intercept the aircraft.

I can not access "Youtube", but if one of the videos I posted ( I watched them before ) shows the aircraft * Not answering the radio * - or the guard ( radio frequency - emergency frequency that is monitored by ALL aircraft ) frequency, why was there not a Military intercept ( Intercept the aircraft - try to make radio contact - wave wings - fly in front of the aircraft - fire a volley of tracer ammo in front of the aircraft ) and if the commercial aircraft did not answer or acknowledge.....it should have been shot down. The passengers were going to die anyway, and in most instances if there is no radio contact......the aircraft is a flying bomb. Radio contact means terrorist want something = money - terrorist release from prison...ect. No radio contact means again......the plane is a flying bomb.

The FAA is partially to blame for this ( "9/11" aircraft incidents ), in my opinion. They failed to notify NORAD in a timely manner. The Federal Aviation Administration and Washington ATC Supervisors......could have saved lives and property. My opinion and assessment only.

Shadow 355

"Radar tapes"? I don't know what those are but this is reality. Big jets fly low to the ground all the time. They don't spontaneously combust...

Not at 500 mph they dont.

 

[candycorn]

No fuel? No nothing? Just..evaporates?

You may remember the fireball.

The volume of which was roughly the same size as both WTC1 and WTC2.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Radar tapes say different.

What I don't understand is when the aircraft come on the radar screen, is why the FAA was not contacted so they can alert the Military to intercept the aircraft.

The FAA is partially to blame for this ( "9/11" aircraft incidents ), in my opinion. They failed to notify NORAD in a timely manner. The Federal Aviation Administration and Washington ATC Supervisors......could have saved lives and property. My opinion and assessment only.

Shadow 355

Even with air traffic shutting down and the military on alert it still takes time to get fighter pilots off the ground and to their target. For all we know, those intercept planes had been sent out, but they never would have had time to do any good.

Do you know how far you can fly in a fighter jet in half an hour?
I say half an hour to be nice,they can scramble fighter jets in minutes.
The answer is around 750 miles,thats of course if you assume they were criminally slow getting jets in the air.
It would be closer to 1,500 miles.
And remember,the hijacked planes flew around for an hour.

 

[candycorn]

The Pentagon...

Anyone claiming it was something other than AA77 needs to account for the physical evidence:

Wreckage found in and around the Pentagon.
The ATC tracking of the "bogey" into Pentagon air space but not out of the space
The 5 downed light poles and the generator that was damaged by whatever hit the Penatagon (i.e, planted bombs wouldn't do it and neither would missiles which have a tendency to go "boom" when they hit something).

 

[chikenwing]

Many people on the highways that are around the Pentagon,saw that it was a jet not a missile.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Many people on the highways that are around the Pentagon,saw that it was a jet not a missile.

And there were people who said it was a missile.

There are to many things that are hinky about the whole thing in my mind.
Three buildings come down and one of them was never hit by a plane and all three came down in their own footprint.
I just find that a little hard to believe.

 

[phoenyx]

Been browsing StumbleUpon and found this. Thought I would share it.

StumbleUpon

This is my favourite short video clip of the Pentagon event on 9/11. It certainly doesn't include all the points against the official narratives concerning the Pentagon event, but it can whet the appetite to learn more on the issue.

 

[phoenyx]

Many people on the highways that are around the Pentagon,saw that it was a jet not a missile.

And there were people who said it was a missile.

I don't believe any of the witnesses who saw aircraft for the longest periods of time have said that. Have you seen CIT's video National Security Alert? If not, you may want to take a look...

 

[candycorn]

Many people on the highways that are around the Pentagon,saw that it was a jet not a missile.

And there were people who said it was a missile.

There are to many things that are hinky about the whole thing in my mind.
Three buildings come down and one of them was never hit by a plane and all three came down in their own footprint.
I just find that a little hard to believe.

.

LOok at the physical evidence...

A missile cannot knock down 5 light poles that are not in a straight line (or even if they were in a straight line), hit a generator hard enough to knock it off it's moorings, THEN hit the building causing an explosion.


It just cannot happen.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Many people on the highways that are around the Pentagon,saw that it was a jet not a missile.

And there were people who said it was a missile.

There are to many things that are hinky about the whole thing in my mind.
Three buildings come down and one of them was never hit by a plane and all three came down in their own footprint.
I just find that a little hard to believe.

.

LOok at the physical evidence...

A missile cannot knock down 5 light poles that are not in a straight line (or even if they were in a straight line), hit a generator hard enough to knock it off it's moorings, THEN hit the building causing an explosion.


It just cannot happen.

Eye witnesses said it didnt happen that way.
And when you look at the damage to the pentagon it doesnt add up.

 

[candycorn]

Many people on the highways that are around the Pentagon,saw that it was a jet not a missile.

And there were people who said it was a missile.

There are to many things that are hinky about the whole thing in my mind.
Three buildings come down and one of them was never hit by a plane and all three came down in their own footprint.
I just find that a little hard to believe.

.

LOok at the physical evidence...

A missile cannot knock down 5 light poles that are not in a straight line (or even if they were in a straight line), hit a generator hard enough to knock it off it's moorings, THEN hit the building causing an explosion.


It just cannot happen.

Eye witnesses said it didnt happen that way.
And when you look at the damage to the pentagon it doesnt add up.

Well, anyone doubting it has to come up with explanations for the physical evidence which was there. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable as most people in law enforcement would tell you. Additionally when you're asking eye witnesses to deduce events happening at 500+ mph (most people have never witnessed anything up close moving half that fast) you're on thin ice if you're asking for accurate accounts. Major leage batters face pitches moving 20% as fast and are often at a loss for what the pitch is.

I am curious though, when you "look at the damage" as you say, "It doesn't add up"...what are you expecting to see that you're not seeing? More wreckage like in other crashes? There is a good reason for that...in those events, the Pilot is trying to save the craft and the passengers so they are slowing air speed, avoiding objects, etc... Hani Hanjour who was at the controls of AA77 had no such intent.

If you're stating that wreckage was planted outside the Pentagon, that is a huge problem given the range of where the wreckage was found (some up by the building, some several dozen yards away (fuselodge pieces complete with the insulation that keeps the cabins cool and heated) but what is even more problematic is how wreckage was found inside the Pentagon. It would seem odd that our uniformed servicemen and women would plant evidence--sometimes evidence weighting several hundred pounds--in so many different places.

And then there is the DNA which we won't get into because it feels like I'm piling on but there is that, the phone calls, the ATC tracking of AA77 into the Pentagon, the video that shows basically the same sized explosion we saw in NYC twice, and the eye witnesses that saw a plane. Beyond the evidence cloud...lurks the question of "why". If you're one of the conspirators and the reason is to get us to go to war in the ME through terrorist attacks...a bunch of Al Queda terrorists with a missile seems to me to be much more fear inducing than a hijacking which is old hat for terrorism outside of the US. In other words...why go through the trouble of staging a plane crash when a missile does the job better???

 

[phoenyx]

What I don't understand is when the aircraft come on the radar screen, is why the FAA was not contacted so they can alert the Military to intercept the aircraft.

Which aircraft are you referring to, Flight 77? In any case, Pilots for 9/11 Truth covers all the 9/11 aircraft in its documentary 9/11: Intercepted. I think you might find it to be very interesting. Unfortunately, I believe you can't access Youtube? I will try to transcribe of the parts that relate to Flight 77 a little later. For those who -can- access youtube, the documentary can be seen here: