Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

crthiel · 09-08-2004, 09:59 PM

In regards to the numerous eyewitness accounts, this was all taken from this website:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

Its a long but yet interesting article, whether it be true or not but the author certainly makes a compelling argument. Here is what the article had to say about eyewitness accounts:

The reader may be easily able to see that the conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for both sensitization and habituation as well as creating specific impressions and memories - manipulation of the minds of the masses by events and media spin.

Again, since we have them on film, we must accept the evidence that actual jet airliners flew into the towers of the World Trade Center. The government has given us their evidence, which we are temporarily holding suspect for the duration of these speculations. We now turn to the strike against the Pentagon. This one is a bit more problematical. I am of the opinion, at the present time, that the object that hit the Pentagon WAS different and I will try to outline why I think so.

I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that this was only a slight exaggeration and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems.

Now, that's amazing.

But I don't think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. The point of mentioning the above is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. The question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners?

Why did I ask this question?

Well, it's pretty clear, from assembling the information, that it WAS some sort of plane that was used to strike the Pentagon, and here we come to most interesting facts.

The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action as described above - repeated that something "like a missile" or a craft much smaller than a 757 was witnessed. This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television. It is altogether possible that such exposure by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:

Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.

One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.

Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.

The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that whatever this craft was, it was able to allow people to see what they wanted to... to give impressions. As long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound.

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh, just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way. The exhaust of those huge engines is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.

You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane...there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.

Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.

According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the above described "smart missile guidance system."

"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."

Well, if that doesn't sent up red flags, I don't know what will.

Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about!

"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Again, it's interesting to see what different "impressions" people had. Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers. Can anyone explain why some of these men have on protective cover and breathing masks? I don't remember the firemen at the WTC wearing them...and if they did, there was a lot of dust, ash and asbestos. I don't see the same thing at the Pentagon.

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft.

Well, if that's the official story, then why is it that metal reinforcing inside the Pentagon didn't melt? You can see from the pictures of the inside, there's all kinds of metal hanging from the ceiling and on the floor. And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]

All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.

He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?"

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.

A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.

A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line.

For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building. The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination. Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of a much smaller plane.

What we find here is that, among the many descriptions of the eyewitnesses, the early ones said "small jet," "like a missile." The later witnesses - AFTER the awareness of the strike against the World Trade Center was broadcast with film of a commercial jet liner striking the building being shown over and over again - said that it was ALSO a commercial airliner exactly like the ones that hit the World Trade Center that hit the Pentagon.

Can we hypothesize that the timing was set up the way it was for a reason: That the film of the strike on the World Trade Center was shown over and over again for a reason? Was it done to convince the public that the exact same "strike" was made against the Pentagon? If so, why?

09-08-2004, 09:59 PM	#16 (permalink)
crthiel Upright	In regards to the numerous eyewitness accounts, this was all taken from this website: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm Its a long but yet interesting article, whether it be true or not but the author certainly makes a compelling argument. Here is what the article had to say about eyewitness accounts: The reader may be easily able to see that the conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for both sensitization and habituation as well as creating specific impressions and memories - manipulation of the minds of the masses by events and media spin. Again, since we have them on film, we must accept the evidence that actual jet airliners flew into the towers of the World Trade Center. The government has given us their evidence, which we are temporarily holding suspect for the duration of these speculations. We now turn to the strike against the Pentagon. This one is a bit more problematical. I am of the opinion, at the present time, that the object that hit the Pentagon WAS different and I will try to outline why I think so. I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that this was only a slight exaggeration and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems. Now, that's amazing. But I don't think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. The point of mentioning the above is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. The question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners? Why did I ask this question? Well, it's pretty clear, from assembling the information, that it WAS some sort of plane that was used to strike the Pentagon, and here we come to most interesting facts. The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action as described above - repeated that something "like a missile" or a craft much smaller than a 757 was witnessed. This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television. It is altogether possible that such exposure by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote: Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw. One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture. Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows. The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that whatever this craft was, it was able to allow people to see what they wanted to... to give impressions. As long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound. "At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball." "I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying." Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying." What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh, just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head. A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"! If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way. The exhaust of those huge engines is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget. You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane...there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth. Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile. According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the above described "smart missile guidance system." "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." Well, if that doesn't sent up red flags, I don't know what will. Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about! "The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph." "Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives." Again, it's interesting to see what different "impressions" people had. Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers. Can anyone explain why some of these men have on protective cover and breathing masks? I don't remember the firemen at the WTC wearing them...and if they did, there was a lot of dust, ash and asbestos. I don't see the same thing at the Pentagon. The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. Well, if that's the official story, then why is it that metal reinforcing inside the Pentagon didn't melt? You can see from the pictures of the inside, there's all kinds of metal hanging from the ceiling and on the floor. And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down? It just doesn't add up. [LAM] All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report: Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional." In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet. A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material. A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line. For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building. The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination. Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening. The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of a much smaller plane. What we find here is that, among the many descriptions of the eyewitnesses, the early ones said "small jet," "like a missile." The later witnesses - AFTER the awareness of the strike against the World Trade Center was broadcast with film of a commercial jet liner striking the building being shown over and over again - said that it was ALSO a commercial airliner exactly like the ones that hit the World Trade Center that hit the Pentagon. Can we hypothesize that the timing was set up the way it was for a reason: That the film of the strike on the World Trade Center was shown over and over again for a reason? Was it done to convince the public that the exact same "strike" was made against the Pentagon? If so, why?