NEW VIDEO: plane over the pentagon

[mattmiller]

this new video shows a plane flying over the pentagon at about 10 minutes before the actual impact: http://www.flight77.info/flyingthing.wmv

it's too fast to be a helicopter. the flash you see in the beginning (at 9:23:44 at the right of the screen) is likely from the sun as the plane banks to the right. what this video proves is that the government had a plane in the air over the pentagon well before the impact of the attack - likely a fighter jet, as it appears. it travels from screen right to left beginning at 9:23:44.

this plane could have been used to help intercept flight 77. that's a story in itself - where is this government plane going and why didn't it try to stop flight 77? why does no one know about this?

what is the story with this plane?

M!

[wildbilln864]

1. Welcome ....

to the dungeon Matt.
:hi:

[mattmiller]

2. don't worry about me

the video is what is significant. please feel free to be as smug as you like.

M

[rman]

40. not smug

"welcome to the dungeon" is the standard welcome here for truth seekers, by truth seekers. Fact is this is the dungeon.

Though you can be sure than plenty of smugness will come your way if you hang around for a bit.

[hack89]

3. Some basic questions

what direction is the camera facing?

where is the flight path of Washington National Airport relative to the camera field of view?

Why do you think it is a fighter jet?

Are you saying that the air force had a fighter jet orbiting at a very low altitude in the vicinity of a major airport and no one saw it?

[mattmiller]

4. towards the mall

where the image first appears is in the direction towards downtown DC and the mall.

by 9:23 all commercial air traffic had been grounded.

it's only my opinion that it's a fighter looking at how sharp it banks right and the speed.

there were reports of a sonic boom before the impact. dunno, though. the proof looks to be the thing itself.

M

[hack89]

5. Check your facts

Takeoffs were banned at 7:26

Complete ground stop was ordered at 7:45

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/aviation/civil.html

on edit: small corporate jets are fast and maneuverable.

[mattmiller]

6. facts checked... dude.

by 9:23, when we first see the flight, any air traffic could only have been non-commercial/govt. no corporate jets either.

[hack89]

7. I meant 9:26 and 9:45 - read the link. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. I was wondering?

Thanks for being honest about your typo.

[mattmiller]

9. by 9:23 national was at a standstill

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_timeline

9:06: The FAA bans takeoffs of all flights bound to or through the airspace of New York Center from airports in that Center and the three adjacent Centers — Boston, Cleveland, and Washington. This is referred to as a First Tier groundstop and covers the Northeast from North Carolina north and as far west as eastern Michigan.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Also, the military was getting ready to go to Defcon Delta

which they did at 9:26 AM.

[hack89]

29. No - If the flight was not going through New York airspace ...

say perhaps to Chicago or Atlanta, it was still able to take off from National. National is west of New York. Read your own post.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. Don't they use the same runways

for take offs and landings?

I would be very surprised if they were allowing anything to take off from Reagan after the 2nd Tower got hit, because even if Reagan wasn't ordered to stop allowing take offs at that point, they would still be trying to accommodate all of the 100's of planes that were coming into NYC, that suddenly needed to find a new place to land.

However, we do know that down at Andrews AFB, they were still allowing 'cargo' planes to take off as late as 9:30 AM.

[hack89]

45. Let me know when you have more than speculation. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. Let me know

when you have something to post other then rude comments.

I asked a question, is that not allowed anymore?

Isn't the 9-11 mostly speculation anyway?

[hack89]

56. I forgot - it is all about the questions, isn't it?

have you attempted to answer your own question with a little research or is another unexplained, suspicious 911 "anomaly" all you were really looking for?

[mattmiller]

65. find another thread

to hack at.

[hack89]

71. No - this one is fine.

feeling a little possessive? Don't worry - you'll get over it.

[mattmiller]

88. have you tried the loose change forum? n/t

[mattmiller]

66. let me know when you learn reading comprehension n/t

[hack89]

73. Ok - I'm ready.

what have you got?

[sofa king]

95. Yes

There are only three main runways, all of which intersect. Oftentimes, coming in to National, my plane has landed while other planes are cued up to take off on the same strip. I lived in Rosslyn for many years, including in 2001 (but I was on vacation that particular day).

There are really only two takeoff and landing patterns. One is along the river between Georgetown and Rosslyn (sometimes straight over Rosslyn and the Pentagon) and then in between the Pentagon and the Mall. If the plane (which I couldn't even see in that video) were legit, it would have to be taking that route.

The other route heads downriver (taking off, upriver landing) toward Alexandria and probably wouldn't be seen by that camera.

Helicopters, including the President's entourage but also news and police, also fly primarily up and down the river, but a little lower and more on the DC side. A helicopter might show up in that shot.

When military planes are flying by (I've never seen a fighter land or approach National), they rarely get into the traffic lanes over the Potomac River. They never come any closer to the River than the Arlington Courthouse, about a mile away, and almost always clockwise around DC.

When the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon first overflew the city before making its 270 degree turn, lots of people, especially along K Street, noticed it because planes never overfly the city, ever. Lots more heard it and knew something strange was up.

[DoYouEverWonder]

101. Interesting point about the military traffic

because at 9:30 AM a C-130 Cargo plane took off out of Andrews AFB, flew toward the Pentagon and saw Flight 77 coming in. He then followed the plane and came in right behind it over the Pentagon.

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.

"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.

"The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon."


http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/minneapolisstartribune091102.html

[mattmiller]

64. you're talking out of your A

plus, you're being rude.

here is what you need to read and comprehend (this time):

(9:03-9:08 a.m.): Flight Control Managers Ban Aircraft Around New York and Washington In a series of stages, flight control managers ban aircraft from flying near the cities targeted by the hijackers. All takeoffs and landings in New York City are halted within a minute of the Flight 175 crash, without asking for permission from Washington. Boston and Newark flight control centers follow suit in the next few minutes. Around 9:08 a.m., departures nationwide heading to or through New York and Boston airspace are canceled. Mike McCormick, head of a Long Island, New York, air traffic control center, makes the decision without consulting any superiors. In addition, “a few minutes” after 9:03 a.m., all takeoffs from Washington are stopped.

[hack89]

80. Excuse my manners ..

however, your first post did not say what you thought it said. Your subsequent post does and I concede the issue to you.

You still have to prove it was a fighter - one that no on saw and has not been mentioned once in the five years since 9/11. I look forward to your posts on the matter.

[mattmiller]

91. pick your own arguments.

you assume i've picked an argument with you; that concession is something i seek from you. i don't care what you think about what i think.

m

[hack89]

92. If you don't care, then why did you get so upset?

Do you still believe it is a fighter?

[Generarth]

31. Which takeoffs were banned at 7:26, hack89?

Just asking.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Hack already said that was a typo, Gen.

Just saying.

[hack89]

54. I read 9 and wrote 7.

I corrected myself later. Read the link.

[mattmiller]

67. hack hack hack n/t

[mirandapriestly]

33. psst

some people like to take on an authoritarian posture in an attempt to give the delusion that they have some sort of power on this forum and to intimidate you out of posting (i.e: "check your facts" :eyes: I can tell you know how to handle yourself , but I just wanted to let you know that those people are in the minority (DU is overwhelmingly skeptical of 9-11) and most of us welcome you.

[William Seger]

11. "it's too fast to be a helicopter. "

Hmmm, those things moving on the road seem to be too fast to be cars and trucks, too. What do you suppose those really are?

According to the timestamp, whatever it is took about 20 seconds to fly over. That would seem pretty slow for a fighter jet -- well, any kind of plane -- wouldn't it?

[mattmiller]

12. hmmm....

all that fast-forward seemings stuff is downright confusings. maybe it was the lightning. hmmm... or maybe it was a pony or a kitty cat. i like kitty cats.

or maybe this: http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=494

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. a Republican blog?

It doesn't go down too well on this website if you use a right-wing blog as evidence to back up your opinion.

[mattmiller]

14. can't we all just get along...

do you think i care what goes down well on this web site?

do your own research if you give a S, otherwise don't judge people by the cards they carry... dude.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. "do you think i care..."

You should because there are messageboard rules. I don't mind making a judgement about Republicans, there is nothing wrong with that. I find palaeo-conservative, neo-conservative, Randian and Straussian philosophy to be without redeeming qualities. I also find what the Republican Party turned into to be a blot on this world.

[mattmiller]

18. i understand

you're an anarchist who is concerned with the messageboard rules. i wonder how far you'd bend over do to follow the messageboard LAWS. so much for being an anarchist, eh? but you always have socialism to fall back on ;-)

M

[Anarcho-Socialist]

43. I do not need to justify my philosophy to you

[mattmiller]

50. yes you do! (just kidding) n/t

[Generarth]

32. What would it matter to you, Mr Anarchist/Socialist

They're all the enemy arn't they?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

44. Republicans are the main opponents of the Democratic Party

dear Generath.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Have a looksee at the name of this community, MM.

That word "Democratic" up there? It's not just window dressing.

Bye-bye.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phil1999]

103. Caution

BBandme,

I want to caution you about writing about not writing anything negative about democrats. To write that suggests that there is something negative to write about, and there is nothing negative to write about the democrats.

I think the sooner you adopt this mentality, the easier it will be for you to write about what we really want you to write about.

Phil

[wildbilln864]

106. haha!

good one Phil!
:hi:

[William Seger]

19. That analysis doesn't look very credible

If we "conservatively" estimate the field of view of that camera is somewhere around 60^o, then the length of the path would be just a bit more than the distance to whatever it is. It's about a half-mile from the Doubletree to the center of the Pentagon, so if that "thing" flew right over the center of the Pentagon, the path would also be about a half-mile. There really isn't any way to tell how far away it is -- it could be closer -- but I seriously doubt that it's far enough away to be a three mile path, which that guy seems to have pulled out of thin air. I think you'd have trouble making out a fighter jet on that low-resolution video if it was even a mile away.

One could probably pin down the camera angle and maybe come up with a distance estimate based on the size of the thing, but frankly this doesn't really seem to be interesting enough to go to that much trouble. I just don't see any good reason for thinking it's a fighter jet.

[mattmiller]

21. you're right

it's pretty boring stuff, being the only pentagon video to actually show something in the air. it's probably a helicopter farting around. not much to see because after all a republican offered his analysis and we all know about republicans... doesn't matter if that republican is on the side of 9/11 truth or not - i mean he's not a democrat! and that's the important thing.

i think i'm going to spend the rest of the night looking at pictures of WTC squibs or perhaps register my discontent online about something or another.

M.

[William Seger]

23. Got nothing to do with being a Republican

Look at that video again and tell me if you really think the resolution is good enough to see a fighter jet three miles away.

[mattmiller]

25. then it's a helicopter.

fine. you win. it's a helicopter. it's a blimp. it's whatever you want.

[William Seger]

26. Little defensive, ain't ya?

Okay, I've made a better estimate. Looking at Google earth, I'd guess that the camera angle is about 50^o. The side opposite a 50^o angle, relative to the bisector, would be 2 * tan(25), or about 93% of the length of the bisector. So, if the path was straight and it went over the center of the Pentagon a half-mile away, then the length of the path was about 0.466 miles. If the time was 22 seconds, then the speed was about 76 mph. But if it was something flying over the parking lot a quarter-mile away (which would be about twice as far as those highway signs you can see just to the left of the tree in the center), then it was only flying half that fast, 38 mph. If it was something twice that far away, a mile (which I seriously doubt, given both the resolution and the "fisheye" effect of that wide angle lens), then it was flying 152 mph.

So, I don't see any reason for assuming that it's anything other than a helicopter, probably somewhere on the close side of the Pentagon.

[mattmiller]

90. or maybe

it was express pizza delivery for your mom.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. It's not hard

to speed up a video. If the cars are moving too fast, then other stuff will move too fast also.

[mattmiller]

17. it's all so confusing

it's like life. sometimes things move fast and sometimes things move slowly. sometimes it's both. then things go zoom wash pause plog bling zing woosh!

i picked the wrong week to quit smoking hash.

m

[William Seger]

20. Um. that was exactly my point

That surveillance video is not 30 frames per second, and the play speed is not anywhere near realistic. Judging that it looks "too fast to be a helicopter" would be a hasty conclusion, right?

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. I agree

there's not enough data in the images to tell what the heck it is or if the film has been manipulated at some point.

[mattmiller]

24. it's not this or that

it is what it is. the video is an artifact. like the framerate or speed or not, it is exactly as released and stamped by the US government as 'this is what we got from the doubletree hotel'.

it's up to us to look at the video and go... well these seconds tick by a little too fast. but we're smart, so we can slow it down and also figure out angles and stuff and use math to draw reasonable conclusions and also to make exclusions.

i'm saying to you that it is reasonable at this point to exclude a helicopter and other non-government related aircraft. if that's true, then this video is significant and important and deserves further explanation.

or we can just forget about it.
M

[Old and In the Way]

27. Very interesting post mattmiller

Welcome aboard!

I agree that the clock is not in sync with the frame rate.

I took the 1st car coming from right to left on the street closest to the camera. The car enters the camera field of vision at 9:23:38 and exits to the right at 9:23:42...about 4 seconds. I think the length of the road in the field is at least 500 feet....which means that the car would be traveling close to 85 mph.

The aircraft/artifact is more problematic to nail down....it is definitely in the field of vision of the camera for 14 seconds, but the speed is not easy to derive as it's difficult to pin the distance away from the camera and the angular direction it's traveling relative to the face of the lens. If we posit that the actual distance the A/A travels in the frames is 1 mile in 14 seconds (adjust to 20 seconds for the sync rate), that works out to 180MPH. Could it be the C-130 that was in the neighborhood? A helicopter?

Not sure what to conclude from the video, but obviously something was flying close to the Pentagon's restricted airspace and 20 minutes before 77 hits the Pentagon. If it was a military aircraft, why wasn't it vectored to intercept 77? Perhaps all the fighters were on exercises that morning, but why weren't helicopters with air-to-arm missiles available to defend Washington?

[hack89]

28. How about a more fundemental question?

Why didn't anyone see it?

[Old and In the Way]

30. Wild guess.

Everyone was glued to their TV sets or radio's?

[hack89]

61. So all those people on the jam pack highways

that saw flight 77 would not have seen a fighter orbit at low altitude over the Pentagon? All the pilots landing at National who would have dodged this fighter never saw it?

OK - I'm convinced!

[mattmiller]

68. if you're convinced

you can stop hacking at this thread.

[hack89]

70. Why?

if you write nonsense, why can't I comment? This is a discussion forum isn't ?

[Generarth]

75. Actually the nonsense seems to be mostly yours, Hack89

Matt has already corrected you at least twice by your own acknowledgement.

I'm a little intrigued about that first mistake though. Are you sure it was a mistake?

Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 06:24 PM by hack89
Takeoffs were banned at 7:26

[hack89]

76. Not one of my better threads, I must admit ...

that being said, I don't understand your comment about the first error - do you think I have let slip some deep secret?

[Generarth]

77. Who knows

quite a slip though.

[hack89]

78. Now you are really being obtuse...

you know as well as I that takeoffs were not banned at 7:26 - and it is hard to see why it would be significant.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

37. "If we posit..."

> If we posit that the actual distance the A/A travels in the frames is 1 mile in 14 seconds (adjust to 20 seconds for the sync rate), that works out to 180MPH.

On what basis would you assume that it travels 1 mile?

[Old and In the Way]

38. On the basis of discussion.

On what basis do you assume it doesn't? Or is it your job to shut down discussion here?

[William Seger]

39. On the basis of the camera

In addition to the low resolution, look at the "fisheye" effect of the wide-angle lens. For example, look at the difference in the apparent size of the parked cars as look down the row, or compare the parked cars to the moving cars in the road just beyond the parking lot. Notice how there's an "unnatural" difference? Compare those cars to the size of the largest trucks that you can see on the top roadway: The ones going from right to left are in the far lane of I-395 which is only about 1/8 mile away from the camera according to Google Earth.

On the basis of the rapidly diminishing perspective caused by the wide-angle lens, I don't believe that the low resolution of the camera would allow you to see a plane a mile away, which is about how far away it would need to be for the path to be a mile long.

Does your idea of "discussion" only include people who agree with you? Well, sorry about that; I have at least some logical basis for doubting your guess, and I'm asking if you have some reason behind it. If you just pulled it out of thin air, fine, then I definitely will continue to doubt it.

Oh, and thanks for the discussion.

[Old and In the Way]

51. Does your idea of "discussion" only include people who agree with you?

I make a comment to the original poster and you make that conclusion? I haven't read enough of the OP's thoughts to know whether I agree with him on or not on any aspect of what happened on 9/11...but you obviously have made that determination that I do.

And it is obvious to me that you aren't interested in discussion so much as you are making it your personal crusade to stop discussion about 9/11. The 9/11 Commission has spoken, that is the truth and there's no reason for anymore to doubt the conclusions of their findings.

[greyl]

52. That's a ridiculous thing to say.

He asked an honest question, and you say "Is it your job to prevent discussion?"
C'mon, man. Stick to the discussion about facts in evidence and the reasonable conclusions we can draw from them.

[Old and In the Way]

57. What a ridiculous response.

[greyl]

60. Is that the kind of "discussing" you're so concerned about? nt

[Old and In the Way]

72. yes it is.

[greyl]

81. lol, that hardly seems worth anyones concern. nt

[William Seger]

53. Oh, bullshit

If challenging the supposed facts and reasoning offered in support of conspiracy theories with different facts and reasoning serves to "stop discussion," then guess what: there must be something wrong with the CT argument. The reason that I asked you what "discussion" means to you is that this is the second time you've accused me trying to "shut down discussion" by challenging a CT argument -- the second time in the two "discussions" we've had, in fact. And in this case, all I did was ask you what you were basing your one-mile guess on. I can see why you reacted so defensively, since you apparently didn't base it on anything at all. I couldn't care less what's "obvious" to you about why I challenge CT bullshit -- not when it's obvious to me that you seem to have about as little interest in any real "discussion" as you do in the "truth." So take your accusations and ...

[Old and In the Way]

58. Save your posting bandwidth, William Seger...I have you on ignore.

How do I know it's you? Because you are the only one on my list...congrats!

[William Seger]

59. Awww,,, then I guess you won't see this...

Neener, neener.

[Kingshakabobo]

62. LOL.....Too funny!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Generarth]

74. Kingshakabobo are you ok?

I'm a little concerned.

[Kingshakabobo]

79. Blow your concern out your ass. How's that? nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

112. Whaaat?

Why is he the only one!?! I feel slighted... :cry:

[mirandapriestly]

35. Thank you mm

It is interesting that something was flying over the Pentagon after flights were suspended. It shows that there could have been someone to intercept the alleged flight 77. I agree it doesn't look like a helicopter, just from looking at the helicopters over the wtc's, I've gotten sort of a feel for them.

[William Seger]

36. How far away is that non-helicopter, miranda?

And, how fast is it flying?

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. Reagan National Airport is right behind the Pentagon

Even though flights were suspended, there were a lot of planes in the air that were all suddenly trying to find a place to land.

That image in the video could be anything and if the time stamp is correct, it seems to be a bit too early to be something connected to the Pentagon attack.

[William Seger]

47. Actually, it's behind that camera

The Doubletree is between the Pentagon and Reagan and the camera is pointing NNW, so the "thing" is flying west. There shouldn't be any planes flying that low east-west in that area, since the flight paths in and out of Reagan are north-south over the Potomac. The "thing" is most likely just a helicopter.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. The thing is mostly likely

'we don't know at all'.

I guess technically it's a UFO. LOL.

[William Seger]

49. Obviously

But is it just as likely to be a helicoptor as it is a fighter jet three miles away or a mother ship from Alpha Centauri? According to the OP, "what this video proves is that the government had a plane in the air over the pentagon well before the impact of the attack - likely a fighter jet" and then asks, "why didn't it try to stop flight 77?"

Doesn't it matter whether or not that's really the "most likely" interpretation, or even a reasonably plausible one?

Never mind; silly question. Forgot where I was for a minute.

[mattmiller]

85. why don't you...

suggest anything? anything at all... you point to the limb that that other people venture out onto. you say, look at that limb! and then you say, look at that limb. and then you say, look at that limb. and then you say, look at that limb. and then you say, look at that limb.

that's all good. just keep on staying down there on the grass where it's safe for slugs to cling.

M

[William Seger]

98. WTF?

(Sorry, just noticed this one.)

I did suggest something: I suggested that "thing" is most likely just a helicopter, maybe a 1/4 or more away, which would mean that it's moving at a reasonable speed for a helicopter. There would be nothing whatever unusual about a helicopter at the Pentagon, but it would be very unusual for any other type of plane to be flying in that direction, that low, for any reason (including responding to AA77 incoming). I also suggested that I very seriously doubt that that particular camera could make out a fighter jet three miles away, and in fact that I think it's dubious that it could make out a 757 a mile away. (Perhaps if BlueCollarRepublican drops by after Christmas, we can discuss that new theory some more.) On the other hand, the size of the blob looks "about right" for a helicopter a 1/4 to 1/2 mile away.

So, yes, I'm suggesting that there isn't any mystery here. If you've got reason to doubt my reasoning, stop whining and bring it on. But if the fighter jet and AA77 theories are bunk, then they deserve to be debunked. I'm not suggesting that BlueCollarRepublican wasn't making an honest effort to interprete that video; I'm simply suggesting that he's wrong. If BlueCollarRepublican's evidence and reasoning stands up to scrutiny better than mine, then so be it. Bring it on.

You seem to have a low opinion of anyone who endeavors to do that, but I happen to think that investigating and challenging "incorrect" theories is a worthwhile and useful thing to do, thank you very much. In fact, I've been successfully doing that -- mainly with pseudo-science, not conspiracy theories -- a lot longer than there's been an Internet, so your accusation that all I do is piss in people's corn flakes on the net is quite wrong.

Sorry if that spoils your fun, but your natural enemy will always be those of us who think that bullshit, intentional or otherwise, doesn't do anybody any good.

[hack89]

100. Too late - he's tombstoned nt

[hack89]

55. They weren't suspended at 9:23 ...

take offs for flights through the New York air space were suspended but a general ground stop was not ordered until 9:26.

9:06: The FAA bans takeoffs of all flights bound to or through the airspace of New York Center from airports in that Center and the three adjacent Centers — Boston, Cleveland, and Washington. This is referred to as a First Tier groundstop and covers the Northeast from North Carolina north and as far west as eastern Michigan.

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/aviation/civil.html

[mattmiller]

63. check your facts

or to put it another way:

(9:03-9:08 a.m.): Flight Control Managers Ban Aircraft Around New York and Washington In a series of stages, flight control managers ban aircraft from flying near the cities targeted by the hijackers. All takeoffs and landings in New York City are halted within a minute of the Flight 175 crash, without asking for permission from Washington. Boston and Newark flight control centers follow suit in the next few minutes. Around 9:08 a.m., departures nationwide heading to or through New York and Boston airspace are canceled. Mike McCormick, head of a Long Island, New York, air traffic control center, makes the decision without consulting any superiors. In addition, “a few minutes” after 9:03 a.m., all takeoffs from Washington are stopped.

[hack89]

69. You are right - I was wrong.

when you read the entire article, interesting eye witness account of flight 77 hitting:

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-11-voices_x.htm

I concede that the runways were closed - I still don't believe that there is any evidence that it was a fighter. There are many eye witness accounts like this one of Flt 77 - not a single one mentions a fighter.

[seatnineb]

82. Don't be so sure............

To Anonymous Coward (Score:1)

by SheepDogg (458825) on Tuesday September 11, @11:47PM (#2284472)

(http://w3.cablespeed.com/~sheepdogg)

When reading an article on Cnet today I read that the plane headed to the pentagon was being followed and watched by 2 jets. I went back to find the link and Cnet has taken it off the page, or moved it entirely. I don't understand why, if we were following the plane and watching it, did we do nothing about it before it hit killing 800 so far. I assume that is what passer-by's saw when they said they saw a second aircraft swirve off.

[mattmiller]

87. blah blah blah n/t

[hack89]

97. Another intellect added to the truth movement!

I see you are going to fit in just fine with your CT brethren.

[DoYouEverWonder]

99. There were a few that mentioned the C-130

which though not a fighter jet is a military plane.

Funny, the Pentagon denied the existance of this plane following Flight 77, until the 9-11 Commission.

I would say the most credible witnesses are the ones who saw both.

[Make7]

108. The Pentagon confirmed the C-130 flight on Oct. 16, 2001.

 

DoYouEverWonder wrote:

The Pentagon denied the existance of this plane [the C-130] following Flight 77, until the 9-11 Commission.

According to the article quoted below the Pentagon confirmed that the C-130 was near the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

The crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed Tuesday. [October 16, 2001]

The report confirms the eyewitness account of two Hampton Roads residents who were near the Pentagon that day and said they saw a second plane flying near the doomed passenger jet.

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington "at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman.

Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane "to let us know where it's going," McClellan said.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/C130sawF772P.html

The article is still available from the original source for a fee - here is an abstract.

And here is an archived version of the http://dailypress.com/">Daily Press home page with a link to that story. Unfortunately the article itself does not appear to be archived.

- Make7

[William Seger]

83. Update: BlueCollarRepublican now says it was AA 77 !

http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=505

There's also a pretty funny section which begins with:

Responses to Democratic Underground
There seems to be a lively discussion going on over at the Democratic Underground regarding the “thing” and as usual, a lot of misinformation is circulating. So, I thought I would address some of the statements being made by some very, well how do say this nicely, non-engineering oriented individuals. So, I thought I would take the time to clear up some of the misinformation.

A pretty snarky comment from someone who, well how do we say this nicely, doesn't know what he's talking about. Hopefully, after Christmas I can get BlueCollarRepublican to drop by and discuss it.

[mattmiller]

84. and you

are content to do nothing except to register your discontent and lackluster opinions on forums (or perhaps only this forum)...

until you offer any significant thought about anything, who are you to criticize anyone?

m

[William Seger]

96. Beg your pardon?

You seem to have a bad attitude about criticism, matt. Are you a "conservative" by any chance? Why is my analysis of that video any less "significant" than BlueCollarRepublican's? Obviously, you don't like my "helicopter" conclusion, even though you apparently can't refute it or offer any credible reason for thinking it's more likely a fighter jet or AA77. If that pisses you off, then good -- I think I'll claim a little credit for having offered at least that tiny bit of "significant thought" into your world.

Who am I to criticize that analysis by offering a reasonable alternative explanation? Who do I need to be, matt?

But hey, thanks for registering your discontent and lackluster opinions about it.

[Make7]

94. 38 posts. Mighty impressive. ( n/t )

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. And 2 may be a record.

Happy Holidays!

On edit: No, sorry, 1 post is now the record.

:hi:

[spooked911]

107. it's a bird

or planted disinfo

[William Seger]

110. Probably not

If it had flown completely across the frame, then "bird" would have been a good guess. As it is, it first appears (at least in the low resolution video) as a flash. That flash could easily be explained as a reflection from a helicoptor that had been hovering or flying slowly toward the camera, and then turned west.

[William Seger]

109. Latest update from flight77.info: Helicopter

http://flight77.info is now saying they believe it's a helicoptor, based on two eyewitnesses who reported helicopters around the Pentagon before the attack.

(Edit: Looks like they keep changing the wording on flight77.info. Earlier they had said they now thought it was a helicopter; now the wording is more equivocal. But they still have the eyewitness reports of helicopters.)

[William Seger]

111. This should put this to rest

BlueCollarRepubican used an image of (presumably) the same object from a second camera to triangulate a point about a mile away, which would make the apparent speed too fast to be a helicopter. Since the distance is the critical unknown -- and since BlueCollarRepublican's analysis is based almost entirely on assumptions about that distance -- I have attempted the same triangulation using Google Earth instead of the arial photo he used, and also I have tried to locate the cameras more precisely. I get a very different result, as shown below: I believe the object is about 2/10 mile away from the first camera, and very possibly a little less. (I actually worked with larger images for greater accuracy, but have I summarized the results in this smaller scale screen capture.)



If that is the correct location of the object at the time it was seen by both cameras (which itself is only an approximation, since the two frames were probably not taken at the exact same time) and the object moved due west (which is also an approximation), then the total flight path in the first video is very roughly 1/4 mile. If the time was about 20 seconds, then the object was moving about 45 mph.

Those are rough numbers due to all the approximations involved, but I think they demonstrate that the object is far more likely to be a nearby helicopter than AA 77 a mile away.

[purduejake]

113. Looks too fast for a helicopter.

The object is coming in FAST. Helicopters and commercial airliners don't move like that.