PrisonPlanet Forum
May 25, 2013, 04:36:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11  (Read 115531 times)
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #400 on: May 05, 2008, 08:41:16 PM »

however, I have seen several times people call into very serious doubt the ability of the plane to cope with the turns at such speed.

The fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:

REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002

...
1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs. 2   

How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.

RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)

If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two
. [/b]
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #401 on: May 05, 2008, 08:46:38 PM »

Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/12/expertopinions.charlieporteronmensfashion
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #402 on: May 05, 2008, 09:00:51 PM »

What do the witnesses say?

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening

at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.

at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.

at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up. 
 
at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.

at least 3 The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)

at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)

at least 25 The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html#ref1

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
Logged
superfender
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,010



« Reply #403 on: May 05, 2008, 09:16:33 PM »

I'll admit, the pentagon not releasing the hundreds of videos is suspicious, but I personally think a Jet Plane hit the Pentagon, maybe it was guided by remote though.
Logged
DAVIDE MTL
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,385


« Reply #404 on: May 05, 2008, 09:28:46 PM »

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force  – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.  Retired commercial pilot.  Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.  Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777.  30,000+ total hours flown.  Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon.  "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.  The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane.  And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.  There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77.  We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com

Hoffman  concludes that,  “the crash of a 757 was engineered to make it appear that no such plane had crashed.”
Jimd do you want us to believe that the government DID crash a 757 into the Pentagon; then deliberately made it appear as if one hadn’t crashed there ?   give me a break
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #405 on: May 05, 2008, 10:10:52 PM »

Quote
Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon.  "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.  The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...
Yea, well thats the point. "with a total amateur at the controls"... Hani wasn't flying the plane that flew in the pentagon, you might want to use that as a 911 truth point instead of an invisible missile, flyover , military global hawk, or any other fantasy that is backed by no evidence or witnesses.
 
Quote
There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77.
The evidence says it was. This is blatant disinfo and dishonest. It doesn't matter if you can't face reality.
These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm


 
Quote
We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com
If you thought it was a big pink bunny you would have the same evidence and the same witnesses as your cruise missile....so what? Wing TV  Roll Eyes uh...you might want to consider your sources a bit better.


Quote
Jimd do you want us to believe that the government DID crash a 757 into the Pentagon; then deliberately made it appear as if one hadn't crashed there ?   give me a break
No, I want you to find the truth instead of ignoring witnesses, while promoting false edited clips, and ignoring evidence in favor of a fairy tale backed by nothing. I would prefer you stop helping the perps, who always use this stupid theory against 911 truth as proof we are idiots, and can't face reality. I want you to realize that this is smoking gun proof, that these planes were not flown by the hijackers. And stop the DisInfo.
Logged
cover fire hero
Guest
« Reply #406 on: May 06, 2008, 02:14:33 AM »

I agree with Craig, they did a flyover to create an illusion. It's the only viable explanation after reviewing all of the physical evidence along with the eye witness testimony(including the people he interviewed). It's the simplest and most viable explanation of the phenomenon in my opinion and I believe if we ever get the footage(assuming it's not already destroyed) that is what we'll see.
Logged
cover fire hero
Guest
« Reply #407 on: May 06, 2008, 02:34:16 AM »

I remember Alex reporting they were doing a drill in the pentagon that day as well where they were simulating a bomb being planted in the building, so that's the modus operandi, the drill wasn't for a plane but a bomb.
Logged
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #408 on: May 06, 2008, 05:26:22 AM »

from Jimd3100
Quote
How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.

RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)

If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two


this is insufficient as proof, no reason given for the use of the constant 0.00118 and no air resistance is taken into account.
Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #409 on: May 06, 2008, 05:27:15 AM »

nice to see you back Craig

It's impossible for the plane to have hit the Pentagon because it has been proven to be on the north side of the former CITGO station.



And then pulled up:




The recently released CMH interviews validate this claim even further.  (more to come on that soon)

It's really quite simple.

The true flight path proves the witnesses were deceived and the official flight path has been proven to be aeronautically impossible.



Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #410 on: May 06, 2008, 01:48:06 PM »

It's impossible for the plane to have hit the Pentagon because it has been proven to be on the north side of the former CITGO station.


You're movies are a joke, and a disgrace to the truth movement with outrageous smears on ordinary citizens. Spreading even more preposterous DisInfo than missiles, and no planes.
We've already gone over it.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=27201.0
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #411 on: May 06, 2008, 01:58:32 PM »

The proof that Hani Hanjour couldn't fly flt 77 into the pentagon. - These are the facts--The perps want you to focus on flyovers, missiles, no planes and other ridickulas DisInfo tactics. Anything but the proof of Remote control-which explains not just this flight--but all of them.
The flightpath. http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_final_maneuver.png

Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision." -Detroit News (9/13/01

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.""The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." -CBS (9/21/01)
from: http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:-fE_bMFSruEJ:www.aldeilis.net/english/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D1742+%22+Daryl+Strong%22+pilot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon--9/11 commission
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch10.htm

The popular mechanics article debunking 9/11 conspiracies talks of the proof that a passenger jet hit the pentagon and exposes the problem of a "missile" hitting the pentagon. This is precisely why this disInfo has been deliberately brought into the truth movement. You wont see them discussing the piloting skills of Hani Hanjour and how the strike on the pentagon was done with amazing precision, that could only be done with incredible piloting skills.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

When forced to address the issue Jim Meigs says this....
Q: First of all, one of the key ones is that the pilots simply did not have the skills to fly, one of the key points is that Hani Hanjour who supposedly flew the plane that went into the Pentagon was simply too lousy a pilot to do it, he could barely fly.....How do you respond to the Hani Hanjour criticism?

Meigs: This is a widespread thought, that the pilots just weren't qualified to fly these planes. The fact is that what they did that day wasn't particularly hard.....they flew them into the largest buildings in the city that were their destination. It wasn't a particularly challenging assignment as a pilot....They weren't very good pilots, their flying was sloppy, but it was good enough for what they set out to do that day.

Q:  In particular, though, the Pentagon pilot, the flight that hit the Pentagon, is in dispute, simply because of that 330-degree turn that that pilot would have to make, then he would have to go down 7,000 feet in a matter of seconds, and then skim over the lawn without making a mark, and then essentially hit the Pentagon.

Meigs: The pilot who hit the Pentagon definitely made some pretty wild maneuvers, which is a sign of his inexperience. He wasn't a great pilot. A more experienced pilot would line that right up much more accurately, not have to make all these kind of wild maneuvers. But he was good enough, he did hit the Pentagon, and the plane was recovered......so if you're going to say that he wasn't flying the plane, then who was?
from: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911meigs.html

So meigs wants you to believe that this was a wild ride that didn't make any sense, and Hanjour was lucky? The truth is, it was the maneuvers that enabled the plane to hit the first floor of the pentagon just refurbished and was sparsly populated. It was a precision hit with pinpoint accuracy.
Meigs does two things.
1. pretends it wasn't an incredible display of flying skills. and
2. Refuses to go into how impossible it was for Hanjour to do this. He would prefer to discuss how silly it is for a missile to hit. I wont give him that luxury. I have already shown, he is misleading you by claiming it was a sloppy job, and he wont discuss just how bad of a Pilot Hani was. I will, and I will answer Meigs question of if he wasn't flying the plane who was?

Who was Hani Hanjour?

Susan Khalil said she recognized Hanjour in photos the FBI recently showed her and recalled him as "painfully shy" with "really poor hygiene" when he lived with her family for two months in 1996.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html

Khalil was a friend of the family and Hani lived at her house for a time in 1996. He didn't like to bathe or brush his teeth. He stunk, and never said much or did anything but stay in his room read the koran and talk to Allah.

He kept to himself, managing to melt unnoticed into the sprawling suburban neighborhoods here. And he was so polite and timid that when he arrived from his native Saudi Arabia without any toiletries, he did not even ask his hosts for a spare toothbrush.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EFDF153BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

He was a man with a purposefully itinerant American experience who changed apartments frequently, lived in different cities and sometimes shuttled between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

''He didn't want to impose on us to get him a toothbrush,'' she said. ''So after a couple of weeks, I remember asking my husband, Do you know if he brushed his teeth?''

Mr. Hanjour, a small and slender man, led a very lonely existence for that month, staying mostly in his room and praying.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HmJUf_f26Q8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=%22Hani+Saleh+Hassan+Hanjour%22&source=web&ots=kMr6zg2Xg3&sig=AWj4qwpMzONiaDn9VvpZz-iL5h8&hl=en

In 1996 he was still basically a loser an idiot who could not fly a plane.....

In March 1996, Mr. Hanjour arrived in Florida, after his older brother telephoned the Khalils and asked if they could put him up

From September to November 1996, he took classes at the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale. But he was a lackadaisical student who often cut class and never displayed the passion so common among budding commercial airline pilots, said Paul V. Blair, the center's controller.

Mr. Hanjour spent $4,749 for his instruction, but did not receive a private pilot's certificate. He returned in December 1997, only to leave again after a month
from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EFDF153BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

T. Gerald Chilton Jr., a corporate officer for CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., said a Hani Hanjoor received pilot instruction there for three months in 1996 and in December 1997. Hanjoor put down a $100 deposit toward additional training in 1997, but attended no other classes, Chilton said.

"We have notified the FBI of this and turned over all our records," Chilton said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/terror/response/1048799.html


Mr. Hanjour later moved to a small studio apartment in Mesa, and in 1999, according to Federal Aviation Administration records, he finally received his pilot's license.

Even so, as recently as last month, Mr. Hanjour still seemed to lack proficiency at flying, said a flight instructor in the Washington suburb of Bowie, Md. Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the school, said Mr. Hanjour showed up in Washington asking to rent a single-engine plane. But he was told that he had to prove his skills before being allowed to do so.

Mr. Bernard said Mr. Hanjour made three flights with two different instructors but was unable to prove that he had the necessary skills.

Mr. Hanjour spoke broken English, paid with cash and made no unusual statements. He listed his local address as a hotel in nearby Laurel, Md. And while his behavior was mosly unremarkable, Mr. Hanjour looked dejected when told that he would not be allowed to fly and left without saying a word.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EFDF153BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

OK, so how did he get a pilots license in 1999?


 Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam
http://www.higherpraise.com/News2.htm

Agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.
That instructor, who also is a pilot for a U.S. airline, told AP that he told authorities that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

The instructor said he has passed an FBI polygraph exam and is not under investigation
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,52408,00.html

FAA records show that Hani Saleh Hanjoor [sic] was certified as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot" on April 15, 1999, by Daryl Strong, a designated pilot examiner in Tempe, Ariz. It was the last of three certifications Mr. Hanjour obtained from private examiners.

Daryl Strong doesn't sound like an arab name to me.

Mr. Strong, 71, said his flight logs confirm that he conducted a check ride with Mr. Hanjour in 1999 in a twin-engine Piper Apache but that he remembers nothing remarkable about him.


Mr. Strong, who has more than 50 years of flying experience, much of it as a commercial crop duster, said that until recently, he conducted about 200 such check rides each year, at $200 per flight.


Mr. Hanjour was "just a number to me," Mr. Strong said. For his earlier commercial instrument rating, Mr. Hanjour was checked out by another designated pilot examiner, Donald S. Judd of Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Judd remembers Mr. Hanjour as a well-trained pilot with 75 hours of instrument training, nearly twice the requisite 40 hours. He also recalls that he was proficient in English.

Proficiency in English is required for pilot licensing in the United States. Pilots and aviation instructors "must be able to read, write and speak the English language," according to a 1997 FAA advisory. "If the applicant cannot meet these requirements of English fluency, an airman certificate cannot be issued."

The people Hani Hanjour went to to get "a pilots license" were contracted out by the FAA....Hani never had to see an actual member of the FAA to get his license, and he conveniently found some people in the system who give out the license if you give them the money..i.e Strong and Judd....hence.."just a number to me," Strong said. Someone is paying for his fees and getting him to people who easily hand out the licences.

But some FAA inspectors say the granting of multiple licenses to Mr. Hanjour illustrates the risks associated with the FAA's heavy reliance on designated pilot examiners - free-lance contractors who now issue most student, private, commercial and airline transport pilots' licenses.

Part of the accountability problem, say critics, is the way designees are paid: They receive an examination fee directly from the applicant. The more check rides they conduct, the more they get paid. Some designees conduct as many as 600 check rides per year at $200 to $300 per flight.

In a recent case, the FAA declined to renew the designation of one high-volume pilot examiner in Southern California after concluding that his testing methods were deficient. The examiner retained an attorney and applied to the FAA for reinstatement. After being "retrained" by the agency's National Examiner Board and evaluated by FAA field officials, some FAA inspectors said, he was allowed back into the program, much to their dismay.

Mr. Cusimano of the FAA said the agency "will not hesitate one bit" to remove a substandard designee from the program or allow the designee's authorization to lapse. However, he said he was unsure how many designees had been dismissed in recent years because the information is not kept in a central location.


The man suspected of flying a plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 obtained three federal flight licenses from private contractors working for the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency spokesman confirmed Thursday.

The certification from the private contractors enabled Hanjour to take a class in how to fly passenger jets at an Arizona flight school, the newspaper reported. Hanjour failed the flight training class.
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0602/061302m1.htm

So he has licenses but as we go into 2000 he still can't fly a plane......

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997," Chilton said.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Then we enter 2001 and Hani Hanjour is still taking lessons but this time the school he goes to is stunned to see he was issued a license in 1999 and insist that the FAA investigate this, as guess what? He still can't fly a plane.

Enter the FAA and John Anthony. The FAA gives two stories...one is that their representative just happens to be sitting in the same class as hani and it's a coincidence...but then they also admit they were contacted by the school to send someone to check out Hani. They also claim that Hani speaks good English...in other words...the FAA is lieing....

The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour.
"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager. She also has been interviewed by the FBI.
The FAA official "did observe Hani's limited knowledge of flying" and "did check his flight credentials. He did tell us they were valid, so he did follow up on our concern," she said. Hanjour did not finish his studies at JetTech and left the school.
FAA officials confirm their inspector, John Anthony, was contacted by Pan Am in January and February about Hanjour and, at the request of the school, checked Hanjour's commercial pilot's license to ensure it was valid
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,52408,00.html

The FAA's Brown said Anthony was taking some of his own training at JetTech in January 2001 and coincidentally sat in the same classroom with Hanjour for one course. But she said Anthony didn't note any major language problems.

``The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English,'' Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

``He offered a translator,'' Chevrette said. ``Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.''

There was no answer this week at Anthony's home phone and FAA officials said he was out of town and unavailable to be interviewed. But Brown, the FAA spokeswoman, said Anthony did not observe any serious language problems and did not suggest a translator for Hanjour.

Chevrette said she contacted Anthony twice more when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license.

``I don't truly believe he should have had it and I questioned that. I questioned that all along,'' she said.

FAA inspector John Anthony was sent to observe the Saudi citizen and review his records but found no compelling reason to revoke his certificates, according to FAA employees familiar with the review. Repeated attempts to contact Mr. Anthony were unsuccessful.

"There should have been a stop right then and there," said Michael Gonzales, an FAA inspector speaking as president of the PASS chapter in Scottsdale. He said Mr. Hanjour should have been re-examined as a commercial pilot, as required by federal law.

Mr. Hanjour ultimately failed the 737 training class, said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president with JetTech's parent company, Pan Am International Flight Academy in Miami.


"He did not have the flying skills to match the [commercial] license already in hand," Ms. Ladner said. "He was worse than what we would call just being a little bit rusty."



The ease with which Mr. Hanjour passed through the certification system contrasts sharply with the experience of another Pan Am International flight student, Zacarias Moussaoui. Mr. Moussaoui - now on trial as the so-called "20th hijacker" - showed up for Boeing 747 training in Minneapolis last August holding only a student pilot certificate.


This was a "major red flag" that prompted school officials to report Mr. Moussaoui to the FBI, Ms. Ladner said. Had Mr. Hanjour appeared at JetTech in Phoenix with similarly weak credentials, she said, "He would have stood out."

Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.


''The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level,'' said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said.

''He ended up observing Hani in class,'' Ms. Ladner added, ''though that was not his original reason for being there.''

Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.

''There was no suspicion as far as evildoing,'' Ms. Ladner said. ''It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' ''

But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly

Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ''He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course,'' the ex-employee said.

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63

The instructors at the school and the FAA are in direct disagreement about Hani and his ability to speak English, the FAA representative John Anthony also suggested they do something illage, and then he has ran away, and reporters are not able to talk to him....

The FAA's Brown said Anthony was taking some of his own training at JetTech in January 2001 and coincidentally sat in the same classroom with Hanjour for one course. But she said Anthony didn't note any major language problems.

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

"He offered a translator," Chevrette said. "Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license."

There was no answer this week at Anthony's home phone and FAA officials said he was out of town and unavailable to be interviewed. But Brown, the FAA spokeswoman, said Anthony did not observe any serious language problems and did not suggest a translator for Hanjour.

Chevrette said she contacted Anthony twice more when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html

As you can see Hani didn't even pretend to train on a 757 the type that flew into the pentagon. And Meigs--your answer is remote control, and not just on this flight, but all of them. The perps want you to ignore all this and make up your own scenarios for the pentagon. I am not going along with their plans, maybe you shouldn't either.













Logged
DAVIDE MTL
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,385


« Reply #412 on: May 06, 2008, 09:15:01 PM »

"No, I want you to find the truth instead of ignoring witnesses, while promoting false edited clips, and ignoring evidence in favor of a fairy tale backed by nothing. I would prefer you stop helping the perps, who always use this stupid theory against 911 truth as proof we are idiots, and can't face reality. I want you to realize that this is smoking gun proof, that these planes were not flown by the hijackers. And stop the DisInfo."

Jim boy it is you that should stop the disinfo, I never said it couldn't be a smaller remote plane,I said it wasn't a hijacked 757, the perps  use the no plane theory into the wtc 7 to discredit the truth movement , you're putting too much weight on Hoffman's theories and don't have the facts to back it up
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #413 on: May 07, 2008, 09:14:43 AM »

Jim boy it is you that should stop the disinfo, I never said it couldn't be a smaller remote plane,
Actually you did..the exact quote was..
Quote
I thought it was obvious for everyone here, no plane hit the pentagon
it's right here...
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg167009#msg167009

and also said...
Quote
well there could have been a plane in the area but it sure didn't hit the pentagon, I don't have any evidence of a missile, I said that would be a reasonable debate whether it was an explosive or missile
it's right here..
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg167066#msg167066


Quote
I said it wasn't a hijacked 757,

 Undecided

Quote
the perps  use the no plane theory into the wtc 7 to discredit the truth movement

That's not the only place they used the "no plane theory"  Wink

,
Quote
you're putting too much weight on Hoffman's theories and don't have the facts to back it up
I appreciate your advice that I should pay more attention to Wing TV rather than Jim Hoffman, but I can't help but be more impressed with scholars for 9/11 truth and justice...http://stj911.org/
I've looked at all of them. And frankly there is no comparrison, IMO between the two.

Cointelpro is real, try and understand how it can be used against a "911 truth" movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbMsOGWN_ts&eurl=http://www.visibility911.com/reports-cointelpro01.php

Logged
yanaar
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,066


Freedom


WWW
« Reply #414 on: May 07, 2008, 10:52:33 AM »

So, jimbo... any post that placed here by yanaar or craig ranke CIT will be deleted.  That's an abuse of your mod powers.  You've been reported. 

I suppose you'll delete anyone else who disagrees with the way you want it to be...
Logged

"The man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace." 
Chaucer
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #415 on: May 07, 2008, 11:01:43 AM »

shame on you Jim for deleting Craig's post, you give 9-11 truth a bad name by your smearing and abuse of your mod powers.

There is no problem that you disagree with Craig, myself or anyone else, however, your tactics are a disgrace. Which is why you have so far convinced about 2 people (at most) that you are right despite a hundred plus posts (many a page long) on this thread.
Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #416 on: May 07, 2008, 03:04:49 PM »

So, jimbo... any post that placed here by yanaar or craig ranke CIT will be deleted.  That's an abuse of your mod powers.  You've been reported.  
Um, you don't see the weirdness in a post by you, saying any post by you will be deleted? I deleted 1 post by you because you lied, pretty much like you're doing now..
Quote
I suppose you'll delete anyone else who disagrees with the way you want it to be...

I've never deleted anyones' post but 1 by you where you lied like you are doing now, 
And Ranke... because his 9/11 truth destroying BS has his very own thread. Pretty nice huh?
Logged
yanaar
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,066


Freedom


WWW
« Reply #417 on: May 07, 2008, 03:11:04 PM »

Um, you don't see the weirdness in a post by you, saying any post by you will be deleted? I deleted 1 post by you because you lied, pretty much like you're doing now..
I've never deleted anyones' post but 1 by you where you lied like you are doing now, 
And Ranke... because his 9/11 truth destroying BS has his very own thread. Pretty nice huh?

You're the worst mod I've ever seen.  I have not lied.  I have not posted anything that was filled with hatred, foul language, nor animosity.  You've been horrid.  I've reported you, and others have as well.  Better cool your jets there jimbo... I'm after you!
Logged

"The man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace." 
Chaucer
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #418 on: May 07, 2008, 03:15:40 PM »

Quote
shame on you Jim for deleting Craig's post, you give 9-11 truth a bad name by your smearing and abuse of your mod powers.
So here you are accusing me of "smearing" and giving 9/11 truth a bad name becuase I refuse to allow the insane theory and smearing of regular working class americans who HELPED 9/11 truth. By having people invite "supposed" members of 9/11 truth into their home and if the "truther" doesn't like what they have to say they will publicly(not to their face but behind their back in a typically coward way)call them liars and accomplices to mass murder and you consider that beneficial to 9/11 truth?  

Quote
There is no problem that you disagree with Craig, myself or anyone else, however, your tactics are a disgrace. Which is why you have so far convinced about 2 people (at most) that you are right despite a hundred plus posts (many a page long) on this thread.
I find your logic to be a bit of a disgrace as well, but you're the one that has to live with it. Keep believing in your edited newsclips, and planted wreckage and cab drivers who "fit the profile" of an MK Ultra victim. Guess what? The "profile" of a mind control person is instability. A guy married to the same wife for decades having the same job for over 40 years in the same area, is the opposite of instability.
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #419 on: May 07, 2008, 03:18:19 PM »

You're the worst mod I've ever seen.  I have not lied.  I have not posted anything that was filled with hatred, foul language, nor animosity.  You've been horrid.  I've reported you, and others have as well.  Better cool your jets there jimbo... I'm after you!
Yea, you lied. And your posts of edited clips which are dishonest are not really much of a contribution. Along with "theories" of how the military saved us on 9/11.
Logged
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #420 on: May 07, 2008, 03:37:53 PM »

Quote
So here you are accusing me of "smearing" and giving 9/11 truth a bad name becuase I refuse to allow the insane theory and smearing of regular working class americans who HELPED 9/11 truth. By having people invite "supposed" members of 9/11 truth into their home and if the "truther" doesn't like what they have to say they will publicly(not to their face but behind their back in a typically coward way)call them liars and accomplices to mass murder and you consider that beneficial to 9/11 truth? 

that is the whole point Jim, nobody, neither craig nor anyone else, called any of the witnesses accomplices to mass murder, believing them to be duped/fooled and/or threatened or as a long shot yes sure a small percentage could indeed be mind control victims.
However, you keep making this allegation and it is not based in truth of inference, there are many reasons why eyewitnesses would give incorrect testimony and none of them involve said persons being traitors.
Quote
I find your logic to be a bit of a disgrace as well, but you're the one that has to live with it. Keep believing in your edited newsclips, and planted wreckage and cab drivers who "fit the profile" of an MK Ultra victim. Guess what? The "profile" of a mind control person is instability. A guy married to the same wife for decades having the same job for over 40 years in the same area, is the opposite of instability.

I am well aware of the profile of a typical Mk Ultra victim - generally those who are less able to resist - however, I raised the potential merely as a theory given the Icke book and flaws in his story (undamaged taxi bonnet etc), sure you disagree, no problem,  I was merely showing you how eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate without the person being a traitor, clearly he is not a traitor
- however, that does not make his testimony accurate, as I have said before there are many ways that testimony can be false.

What chance has a taxi driver got if he is told what to say - none. If he reads Icke he will know what happens to eyewitnesses that spill the beans on a fake official story - 68 witnesses to JFK assassination died as a result - many or most people know this.

ordinary folk have no real choice but to say what they are told to say with regard to such a momentous event as a false flag massacre. Perhaps that is what happened, perhaps it isn't, but nobody is accusing anybody of being a traitor.

except perhaps you accusing Craig Ranke - disagree sure, but your accusations are appalling when the guy is clearly trying to do his bit for 9-11 truth - at no small risk to himself, and all he gets is smears from you.

You post lots of evidence some of it good, some less so, yet your smears have so far convinced pretty much noone, hence please reserve smears for real trolls such as hetware and disagree with honest truthers in a civil manner - at the risk of repitition - by all means do disagree, sure no problem, your input is useful, debate is useful, just keep your replies to a less idiotic level.

Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #421 on: May 07, 2008, 03:59:38 PM »

Quote
that is the whole point Jim, nobody, neither craig nor anyone else, called any of the witnesses accomplices to mass murder, believing them to be duped/fooled and/or threatened or as a long shot yes sure a small percentage could indeed be mind control victims.

The exact quote from his pathetic website under accomplice is "This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder.....he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators.

Did he ask him who he was working for? If he was bribed? If he was coarced? No he didn't. Guess why? Because it's better to stab him in the back than to get it on record that he would say "WTF are you talking about?" It's a DisInfo Campaighn by self promoting BS artists, and if you can't see that I'm sorry. This is only one example there are more.

He has no choice..accuses these same people of actually being involved in the mass murder operation of 9/11. Every witness he talks to whos testimony shows how horribly flawed his theory(that he refuses to call a theory)he smears as a liar and part of the 9/11 operation. He does this in the most cowardly way possible, by internet message boards, his websites and movies. Not while he is in their home interviewing them.
 
This makes it impossible for independant 9/11 researchers to get to the bottom, of things and have members of the public agree to work with us. Not to mention putting these peoples lives at risk.


Quote
except perhaps you accusing Craig Ranke - disagree sure, but your accusations are appalling when the guy is clearly trying to do his bit for 9-11 truth - at no small risk to himself, and all he gets is smears from you.


His bit? Are you aware that there is a no plane theory going around? Are you aware of how it started? It started at the pentagon. The edited clip of Jami Mcintire at the pentagon that you folks are still falling for implying no plane at the pentagon...I traced it back,..I know who edited that clip. It was webfairy, the notorious no planner, who hangs with Nico and the rest of the weirdos. Are you aware that he was adament that Dylan not admit in LCFC that a plane could have hit, and was very upset, that they did anyway? Why? What's his motive? I don't care what the motive is because the result is the same. He is in no danger...what a joke. He is doing shill work, wake up. You don't see, that this has gone beyond no planers? That they are now saying that not only was there no plane the witnesses are wrong and actually "in on it". Wake up dude.

Quote
your input is useful, debate is useful, just keep your replies to a less idiotic level.
That's a smear against hard working idiots, life is tough for us.


Logged
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #422 on: May 07, 2008, 04:19:08 PM »

Quote
"This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder.....he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators.

clearly such a quote, if accurate, is unacceptable and is at best a bad error of judgement by Craig - that does not make him a disinfo shill - but it sure does show some bad judgement.


and of course I am aware of NPT and related problems,  NPT at WTC is disinfo which I have wasted many hours on watching vids and then going through debunking sites etc , however, no planes (or variations thereof) at Pentagon or Shanksville has been mainstream truther thought for 4 or more years. look at the poll above, it still is mainstream thought.

Sure it could be a mistaken theory (i disagree here) , but it is not shilling to suggest it.

I would by now likely agree with you but for the building damage profile, the eyewitnesses are compelling, however, you will only hinder your argument by smearing honest but in your view mistaken truthers.



Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
DAVIDE MTL
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,385


« Reply #423 on: May 09, 2008, 10:03:44 PM »

Jmd
from one of your websites:
It is likely, but UNPROVABLE, that some form of remote control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon.

You can't prove a plane or a misile, hit the pentagon, it's inconclusive. You can't compare people who don't think a plane hit the pentagon to no planers who don't think a plane hit the towers.  The latter is used to discredit the truth movement because we've all seen the video evidence, no video evidence for the pentagon
The truth movement should stick to what can be proven.   
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #424 on: May 11, 2008, 01:14:36 AM »

shame on you Jim for deleting Craig's post, you give 9-11 truth a bad name by your smearing and abuse of your mod powers.

Actually, I'm more of a trend setter. Looks like 911blogger has thrown out the mental case as well. Good for them. Anyone that wants to continue to believe in edited clips and the DisInfo BS of No Planes and missiles can go right ahead and be fooled. But the advanced researchers of 911 are no longer going to go along with Rumsfelds BS. We are done "tolerating" it. Planes flew into buildings on 9/11.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15531

People seeking future releases from CIT, the "Citizen Investigation Team", should go directly to the Pentacon website.

They won't be promoted here.

Logged
markshark4
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118



« Reply #425 on: May 11, 2008, 11:27:10 PM »


Well, that's because I deleted it. You're welcome.


What happened to your thread on Mohamed Atta?

And what was your final conclusion about Atta?

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2055
Logged
GiveMeLiberty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #426 on: May 12, 2008, 12:54:48 AM »

Quote
People seeking future releases from CIT, the "Citizen Investigation Team", should go directly to the Pentacon website.

They won't be promoted here.



Ahhh... It gives me a nice feeling to quote that.
Logged
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #427 on: May 12, 2008, 05:40:25 AM »


What happened to your thread on Mohamed Atta
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2055
It's still here, just not a sticky.....
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=35453.0

Quote
And what was your final conclusion about Atta?
I see evidence that he never got on the plane. I don't see evidence he did get on the plane.
It is so easy to debunk, like I said. Just show me the ticket agent in Boston.
Logged
markshark4
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118



« Reply #428 on: May 12, 2008, 06:38:40 AM »

Operation Northwoods - 1962

In March of 1962 the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer, wrote to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara about 'pretexts which would provide justification for US Military intervention in Cuba.'

One pretext would have substituted a drone aircraft under remote control as 'an exact duplicate' for a civil aircraft.


Taken from 9/11 Revealed by Ian Henshall:

This is a cropped, enlarged, brightened, gamma enhanced view of Frame 1's mystery object.  It is the clearest rendering to date of this object.




The mystery object claimed by the government to be a Boeing 757 passenger jet is a complete fabrication.  The object is much clearer and indeed is an aircraft.

But it is clearly NOT a Boeing 757.  This craft is small and unmanned.  It is producing a vapor trail.  It is a black or dark colored craft.  It is not visibly marked.

It is clearly a military craft, and NOT a 150 ft long commercial passenger jet.  Had it been a Boeing filled with passengers, it would be much larger, brighter, and more identifiable in even this frame.  The mystery craft is so small in size that its nose does not extend beyond the left of the cabinet.

The lie of the Boeing attack on the Pentagon is clearly exposed in this photo. As Donald Rumsfeld said in his Parade Magazine interview on October 12, 2001: "and the missile to damage this building", it's clear there was no Boeing.


 
9-11 Pentagon Plane Identified? A3 SkyWarrior with missiles

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307126.shtml






In that pic I posted, I think the red outline is off.

The craft is a lot smaller than the red outline, they are counting part of the horizon as the aircraft. (the front of the red outline)

OR

If that is the entire craft, it has a strange dip/curve in between the front of the aircrat and the middle which can't be a 757 IMO.


I found some pretty interesting info about the pentagon at physics911.com & pilotsfor911truth.org too. Smiley
Logged
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #429 on: May 12, 2008, 08:00:10 AM »

certainly looks plausible, the fact that such an outline can be traced right in front of the white smudge, assumed to either be a vapour trail or an actual missile, well if we take the first option then to be able to outline a possible military fighter jet immediately in front of this 'smudge' is certainly a possibility worthy of consideration and does match far better the physical damage than a passenger plane impact.
Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
smokecheck
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 351



« Reply #430 on: May 12, 2008, 10:21:39 AM »

Operation Northwoods - 1962

In March of 1962 the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer, wrote to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara about 'pretexts which would provide justification for US Military intervention in Cuba.'

One pretext would have substituted a drone aircraft under remote control as 'an exact duplicate' for a civil aircraft.


Taken from 9/11 Revealed by Ian Henshall:

This is a cropped, enlarged, brightened, gamma enhanced view of Frame 1's mystery object.  It is the clearest rendering to date of this object.




The mystery object claimed by the government to be a Boeing 757 passenger jet is a complete fabrication.  The object is much clearer and indeed is an aircraft.

But it is clearly NOT a Boeing 757.  This craft is small and unmanned.  It is producing a vapor trail.   It is a black or dark colored craft.  It is not visibly marked.

It is clearly a military craft, and NOT a 150 ft long commercial passenger jet.  Had it been a Boeing filled with passengers, it would be much larger, brighter, and more identifiable in even this frame.  The mystery craft is so small in size that its nose does not extend beyond the left of the cabinet.

The lie of the Boeing attack on the Pentagon is clearly exposed in this photo. As Donald Rumsfeld said in his Parade Magazine interview on October 12, 2001: "and the missile to damage this building", it's clear there was no Boeing.


 
9-11 Pentagon Plane Identified? A3 SkyWarrior with missiles

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307126.shtml






In that pic I posted, I think the red outline is off.

The craft is a lot smaller than the red outline, they are counting part of the horizon as the aircraft. (the front of the red outline)

OR

If that is the entire craft, it has a strange dip/curve in between the front of the aircrat and the middle which can't be a 757 IMO.


I found some pretty interesting info about the pentagon at physics911.com & pilotsfor911truth.org too. Smiley


  I'm no aircraft expert, but the a-3 was retired in 1991. Although my guess would be it's a mirage fighter.

 
Logged

"The beauty of the 2nd amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it."-T.J.

Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #431 on: May 12, 2008, 05:37:18 PM »

The outline is not complete or distinct enough from the background to reasonably assess the exact type of fighter jet, however, it does indeed look like a fighter jet, and the fact that it can be observed right in front of the white smudge makes for a very big coincidence if it is not a fighter jet.
Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #432 on: May 12, 2008, 05:57:50 PM »

You No Planers still trying to figure out what happened at the pentagon? How sad. I call you No Planers because that is what you are. You are the original No Planers. You think 9/11 is an inside job, and then a 9/11 truth movement would spring up shortly after claiming it was an inside job---you don't think it will be infiltrated? Well? Has it? It's right there in front of your face. No Planes. And you still haven't figured out that it started at the Pentagon? Are you proud of yourself that you didn't fall for the ridiculous No Plane at the WTC BS? Why? You're the Original No Planers and here we are in 2008 and you still push that BS.  


I'll show you plane parts found at the pentagon and you scream PLANTED!
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
 I show you Lamp Poles downed..and you say PLANTED..and now here you are claiming that the Government is showing you a video with a military Jet hitting the building? LOL! I thought they planted evidence? Um...guess what? The video means nothing because we allready know it has been manipulated. How do we know that? Because earlier they released 5 frames remember? That just showed the fireball? Do you folks actually like being manipulated? BTW anyone can put whatever they want as an outline....as seen in this earlier post on this very thread...
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg132952#msg132952
The white trail is supposed to be smoke coming from the engine that supposedly hit a generator, but I don't care what the Government is putting out as much as I care about what the witnesses say and the rescue workers who went in. They have already told us, and they are not "in on it"
When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm


It's 2008 now. How about you stop falling for lies and DisInfo? Let's look at the facts, and see how you became the original no planers....
1. First of all you fell for edited clips that heavily influenced your beliefs on the pentagon..such as this one that was recently posted by yanaar...
http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html
Notice where this clip came from-webfairy-the No Plane princess who has been doing this for years along with her friend and fellow mental patient Nico.

This clip proves it was a lie..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
And the reporter has used this DisInfo BS as proof the 9/11 conspiracy crowd is crazy. Stop falling for lies and DisINfo.

Then you fell for the edited clips put out by the same no planers showing Mike Walter and his "cruise missile with wings" comment. And you fell for it and it influenced you. Another lie.

Go ahead and get mad at me, I don't care, it's typical when "belief systems" are being challenged, but I have not and am not lieing to you. Start being honest with yourselves and wake up to the manipulation that has influenced you. Moving on....

The lack of physical evidence. There is no lack of physical evidence. We have Lamp poles that could only be knocked over by a large plane, a large plane that the witnesses at the scene watched knock over the lamp poles. We have the plane parts. The damaged generator. Every part found comes from a passenger plane.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
http://debris.0catch.com/

Then we have the small hole that the plane couldn't fit through. Guess what? A whole bunch of people saw that plane go in, and it wasn't a small hole it was the first and second floor.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

Then you fell for the ..."plane going through 6 walls and 3 rings at the pentagon". Guess what? You were lied to again. Every reason for your "belief" is based on a lie. Since you don't want to believe me I'll let Ranke himself and one of his biggest detractors(and a solid researcher)Arabesque show you this since they both agree(since there is no choice as it's a fact)and have posted already in this thread.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg11945#msg11945
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg56764#msg56764

And then there are the witnesses, who all agree a plane hit the building most say a big passenger plane. You know why? Because on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. Get used to it. Stop falling for the DisInfo BS. Realize how the movement has been infiltrated and where it started. There is no reason to think a passenger Jet didn't hit the pentagon. If you believe the WTC towers were packed with explosives, do you really think the perps would hold their breath and hope the idiot hijackers would be good pilots and go straight to their targets? No, they would make sure the targets were hit. And the pentagon proves it. Hani Hanjour was not a great pilot. He couldn't fly a plane let alone a passenger Jet as an expert. Hence all this BS.

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.  

at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.

at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.

at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.  
  
at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html#ref1





Logged
yanaar
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,066


Freedom


WWW
« Reply #433 on: May 12, 2008, 06:04:21 PM »

You No Planers still trying to figure out what happened at the pentagon? How sad. I call you No Planers because that is what you are. You are the original No Planers. You think 9/11 is an inside job, and then a 9/11 truth movement would spring up shortly after claiming it was an inside job---you don't think it will be infiltrated? Well? Has it? It's right there in front of your face. No Planes. And you still haven't figured out that it started at the Pentagon? Are you proud of yourself that you didn't fall for the ridiculous No Plane at the WTC BS? Why? You're the Original No Planers and here we are in 2008 and you still push that BS.  

I'll show you plane parts found at the pentagon and you scream PLANTED! I show you Lamp Poles downed..and you say PLANTED..and now here you are claiming that the Government is showing you a video with a military Jet hitting the building? LOL! I thought they planted evidence? Um...guess what? The video means nothing because we allready know it has been manipulated. How do we know that? Because earlier they released 5 frames remember? That just showed the fireball? Do you folks actually like being manipulated? BTW anyone can put whatever they want as an outline....as seen in this earlier post on this very thread...
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg132952#msg132952

It's 2008 now. How about you stop falling for lies and DisInfo? Let's look at the facts, and see how you became the original no planers....
1. First of all you fell for edited clips that heavily influenced your beliefs on the pentagon..such as this one that was recently posted by yanaar...
http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html
Notice where this clip came from-webfairy-the No Plane princess who has been doing this for years along with her friend and fellow mental patient Nico.

This clip proves it was a lie..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8
And the reporter has used this DisInfo BS as proof the 9/11 conspiracy crowd is crazy. Stop falling for lies and DisINfo.

Then you fell for the edited clips put out by the same no planers showing Mike Walter and his "cruise missile with wings" comment. And you fell for it and it influenced you. Another lie.

Go ahead and get mad at me, I don't care, it's typical when "belief systems" are being challenged, but I have not and am not lieing to you. Start being honest with yourselves and wake up to the manipulation that has influenced you. Moving on....

The lack of physical evidence. There is no lack of physical evidence. We have Lamp poles that could only be knocked over by a large plane, a large plane that the witnesses at the scene watched knock over the lamp poles. We have the plane parts. The damaged generator. Every part found comes from a passenger plane.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Then we have the small hole that the plane couldn't fit through. Guess what? A whole bunch of people saw that plane go in, and it wasn't a small hole it was the first and second floor.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

Then you fell for the ..."plane going through 6 walls and 3 rings at the pentagon". Guess what? You were lied to again. Every reason for your "belief" is based on a lie. Since you don't want to believe me I'll let Ranke himself and one of his biggest detractors(and a solid researcher)Arabesque show you this since they both agree(since there is no choice as it's a fact)and have posted already in this thread.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg11945#msg11945
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg56764#msg56764

And then there are the witnesses, who all agree a plane hit the building most say a big passenger plane. You know why? Because on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. Get used to it. Stop falling for the DisInfo BS. Realize how the movement has been infiltrated and where it started. There is no reason to think a passenger Jet didn't hit the pentagon. If you believe the WTC towers were packed with explosives, do you really think the perps would hold their breath and hope the idiot hijackers would be good pilots and go straight to their targets? No, they would make sure the targets were hit. And the pentagon proves it. Hani Hanjour was not a great pilot. He couldn't fly a plane let alone a passenger Jet as an expert. Hence all this BS.

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.  

at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.

at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.

at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.  
  
at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html#ref1







F**k YOU!!!

Logged

"The man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace." 
Chaucer
Biggs
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,443


« Reply #434 on: May 12, 2008, 06:47:54 PM »

Jimd you have convinced noone with your arguments and your cheap jibes and smears.

Quote

I'll show you plane parts found at the pentagon and you scream PLANTED!

with regard to plane parts, those pictures you claim as proof do not even match the diagrams you provide with them, cast iron proof you claim yet it does nto even match.

the cylinder with perforations in it - the perforations are TWICE the size in the piece 'found' at the pentagon than they are in the diagram, further, they are not even in the same position along the length of the cylinde, they are in a different position, too near the front of the object and nto in the middle as in the diagram.

and you call this proof.

as I said, some of the stuff you post is worthwhile, and some is not.
Logged

STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #435 on: May 12, 2008, 08:04:01 PM »

Jimd you have convinced noone with your arguments and your cheap jibes and smears.

with regard to plane parts, those pictures you claim as proof do not even match the diagrams you provide with them, cast iron proof you claim yet it does nto even match.

the cylinder with perforations in it - the perforations are TWICE the size in the piece 'found' at the pentagon than they are in the diagram, further, they are not even in the same position along the length of the cylinde, they are in a different position, too near the front of the object and nto in the middle as in the diagram.

and you call this proof.

as I said, some of the stuff you post is worthwhile, and some is not.
So, you're saying no passenger planes parts were found, and if they were they were planted, that pretty much sums up your arguement from what I've read over and over and over
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://debris.0catch.com/

Now show me the parts of the whatever it is now that you say hit the pentagon.
Logged
yanaar
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,066


Freedom


WWW
« Reply #436 on: May 12, 2008, 08:11:42 PM »

So, you're saying no passenger planes parts were found, and if they were they were planted, that pretty much sums up your arguement from what I've read over and over and over
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Now show me the parts of the whatever it is now that you say hit the pentagon.

You've seen the pictures.  This question is loaded.  f**k you again.
Logged

"The man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace." 
Chaucer
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #437 on: May 12, 2008, 08:16:30 PM »

You've seen the pictures.  This question is loaded.  f**k you again.
Why don't you post an old clip of Mike walter describing your missisle. You're pretty good at being gullible and sharing your edited clips as proof of your latest fantasy.
Logged
yanaar
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,066


Freedom


WWW
« Reply #438 on: May 12, 2008, 08:17:24 PM »

Why don't you post an old clip of Mike walter describing your missisle. You're pretty good at being gullible and sharing your edited clips as proof of your latest fantasy.

And you're pretty good at trolling...
Logged

"The man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace." 
Chaucer
jimd3100
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,292



« Reply #439 on: May 12, 2008, 08:19:21 PM »

And you're pretty good at trolling...
LOL...well, if you don't have common sense and logic, and have run out of edited phoney news clips, I guess you have no resort but curse and accuse me of being a troll.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!