Jump to content
The Education Forum

Film of Missile Going into Pentagon


Recommended Posts

Also IIRC the pilot as named by Popular Mechanics and other sources.

The Popular Mechanics story is false, though I realize that the PM piece is a sacred 9/11 text. Every flogger of "truthers" likes to quote or reference it like the Bible.

There may have been such a plane in the area as PM describes, but it was not the "military-looking" jet that witnesses saw tracking Flight 93. That was a NetJet, as a spokesman for NetJet acknowledged to the Associated Press. But he said he could not give details because the recording from the NetJet flight was to be played at the trial of Moussioui or whatever his name was. But someone apparently straightened out the prosecutors and the tape was not played. Consequently the NetJet and its recording were consigned again to the bottomless pit of secrecy. We cannot be told what the NetJet was doing and why it was doing it, even though the prosecutors seemed to believe it was okay to play the NetJet recording in a courtroom. What idiots. I'm sure the secrecy has to do with "national security"! Doesn't everything the government hides involve "national security," just like the Joannides file about Oswald and some Cubans 48 years after the fact? (I'm not even sure the CIA has invoked national security re the Joannides file. I think it has simply told the judge who issued some order for its release to go to hell.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We've been over this a few times Ron. Some witnesses described the white plane as looking military others described it as looking like an executive jet. lets not forget that the Dessault Falcon is used by some countries' air forces and that a military transport also checked out the crash site. What parts of the PM story about the Netjet have been demonstrated to be false?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been over this a few times Ron. Some witnesses described the white plane as looking military others described it as looking like an executive jet. lets not forget that the Dessault Falcon is used by some countries' air forces and that a military transport also checked out the crash site. What parts of the PM story about the Netjet have been demonstrated to be false?

In the PM story, it is not a NetJet! PM repeats the story about it being a Falcon or whatever (from somewhere in North Carolina as I recall). I forget if it was some FBI agent or who it was who first put out that story.

A NetJet company spokesman confirmed to the AP that the plane tracking Flight 93 was a NetJet, with its flight recording to be played at a terrorist trial, so the spokesman could not comment further. IOW the NetJet company and government prosecutors confirmed that it was a NetJet. The story about the Falcon or whatever was a lie, disinformation, or whatever you want to call it, debunked in effect by the government itself. But of course the government clammed up again, after not playing the NetJet recording at trial. The government will be perfectly happy if everyone goes on believing (as apparently almost everyone does) the PM concoction. In any case the government is not going to tell us anything, and the AP seems to have totally lost interest in the NetJet. Imagine that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Falcon was the type of plane, NetJet was the name of the charter company. Apparently said the plane belonged to VF Corp. My guess is that VF leased the plane from NetJet. There is nothing particularly odd, ATCs asked two planes in the area, one civilian the other military, to examine the crash site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more try at this and I'm done, since I know you will never admit there was any kind of cover-up about the NetJet tracking Flight 93, or any other kind of cover-up on 9/11.

According to the official story, the Falcon was diverted to look for the crash site. It was not tracking Flight 93. But NetJets told the AP that one of its planes was indeed tracking Flight 93 and the recording would be played at the terrorist's trial (though it in fact was not played).

First, if you want to contend that the Falcon and the NetJet were the same, why did the Falcon folks deny they were tracking Flight 93? Why did they claim they were simply diverted to look for the crash site? Second, why did witnesses see the "small white jet" following Flight 93, if the Falcon was not contacted until after the crash? Third, since the Falcon owner and pilot were both known and their story published (in PM and elsewhere), why did the AP have to go to NetJets to try to get information (stumbling on the real story)? I assume that the AP contacted NetJets because the trial prosecutors had spilled the beans about a NetJet tracking Flight 93. The Falcon had nothing to do with it.

Here is a link to the AP story. I imagine that it is all we will ever know, thanks to the government and its lapdog media. (The AP showed no further interest.) I'm done with the subject.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20020808-1446-moussaoui-pictures.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re a bit confused Ron, Dassault Falcon 20 is the make and model the plane, why would you expect the manufacturer (based in France) to know about how it was being operated by a totally separate company in another continent?

The AP article did NOT establish that the plane was tracking 93 before it crashed, all such comments came from the author.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re a bit confused Ron, Dassault Falcon 20 is the make and model the plane, why would you expect the manufacturer (based in France) to know about how it was being operated by a totally separate company in another continent?

No, you are confused. I asked why the AP would contact NetJets about a Falcon supposedly owned and flown by a company out of North Carolina. The same thing you are now asking. The logical answer: the prosecutors who were going to play the tape were not talking about a Falcon being flown out of North Carolina. They were talking about a NetJet flown out of somewhere else. When the AP found out about this NetJet, it contacted NetJets. The AP had no reason to contact the company in North Carolina, if it wasn't their plane. Get it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re a bit confused Ron, Dassault Falcon 20 is the make and model the plane, why would you expect the manufacturer (based in France) to know about how it was being operated by a totally separate company in another continent?

No, you are confused. I asked why the AP would contact NetJets about a Falcon supposedly owned and flown by a company out of North Carolina. The same thing you are now asking. The logical answer: the prosecutors who were going to play the tape were not talking about a Falcon being flown out of North Carolina. They were talking about a NetJet flown out of somewhere else. When the AP found out about this NetJet, it contacted NetJets. The AP had no reason to contact the company in North Carolina, if it wasn't their plane. Get it?

Your own source described NetJets as "a company that sells shares in private business aircraft" thus it makes sense to assume that VF Corp was one of the companies that bought shares from them. The NetJets exec only confirmed that they owned the plane. The VF pilot spoke to other media outlets within 5 days of 9/11.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5

This FAA document also identifies plane as a Falcon tail number N20VF though it now belongs to another company it seems to have belonged to VF Corp

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

http://www.aviongoo.com/aircraft_owners/registrations/faa_register_index.php?substart=N20TE&inc=50

An ATC corfirmed that:

I had another airplane that I was working. And I told him, I said, “Sir,” I said, “I think we have an aircraft down.” I said, “This is entirely up to you, but if you’d be willing to fly over the last place that we spotted this airplane—and see if you can see anything. Any smoke, anything.” And he’s like, “Yeah, we’ll do that.” So he flew over and at first he didn’t see anything and then he said, “We see a great big plume or a cloud of smoke.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/page/0/

A VF exec confirmed the plane was there to PM. The pilot reafirmed his story to them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-flight-93#whitejet

RE: your previous post "he Falcon folks" didn't deny anything they were the plane's manufacturer.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up. It is your opinion that the AP author who wrote, after talking with a NetJet exec, that a NetJet was "tracking" Flight 93 made it up or was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about. You will go to any length to establish that the official 9/11 story is hunky-dory and that no plane was "tracking" 9/11. What idiots at AP write after tracking down a story (excuse the pun) doesn't count. So be it.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how you keep saying you're done but you keep replying. It is not clear what question the reporter asked the NetJets exec. There are numerous sources saying the plane was from VF, do you think there were 2 planes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous sources saying the plane was from VF, do you think there were 2 planes?

Possibly. According to the official story, there was a plane from VF that was requested to find the crash. And there was a NetJet, according to NetJets as reported by the AP, that was tracking Flight 93 when it crashed.

Now if a NetJet was tracking the flight when it crashed, the NetJet knew where it crashed. Why was it necessary to ask some other plane to find the crash site? Two possible answers: simply as a ruse, to hide the fact that a NetJet had been tracking the flight (for whatever reason this needed to be secret), or those who requested that the plane from VF search for the site were not even aware of the tracking NetJet.

Bottom line is, I believe the AP story as reported and you don't. You believe the government story, at all costs. I believe that the government has reasons to make things up or hide them that the AP doesn't have. (Though the AP, like all mainstream media, knows when not to pursue things further.) Can we now cease and desist? It's become a dead horse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...