Helicopter at the Pentagon before the Hit

[spooked911]

Interesting story--
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-11/mystery-helicopter-flying-around-pentagon-attack-there-911

Apparently there was a helicopter flying near the helipad at the Pent before the hit; some sources say the helicopter was supposed to intercept the plane that was headed for the Pent. Interesting that they had such forewarning, and raises all sorts of questions.

Also, to me it is quite interesting that early reports said rather than a plane crashing at the pent, they said there was a helicopter crash.

[zappaman]

1. see, here's the problem

"some sources say the helicopter was supposed to intercept the plane that was headed for the Pent."

Now, instead of investigating who those sources were or even if those sources are remotely correct, you jump right to...

"Interesting that they had such forewarning, and raises all sorts of questions."

do you not see the incredible leap of faith there?
you just automatically assume "some sources" are correct.

once you can see how easily manipulated you are, many-if not all-of your persistently silly questions will be answered.

BTW, some sources say they saw a giant terrorist-killing goat near the WTC. Interesting that they had such forewarning, and raises all sorts of questions.

[spooked911]

2. please read the article, it describes the sources very well and they are legit

I was posting a very abbreviated version of the story.

Thank you for your concern, though.

[SDuderstadt]

3. More of your...

nonsense, dude.

[spooked911]

7. what specifically is nonsense here?

dude

[zappaman]

12. and?

So what?
If I tell you it was 72 degrees that day and sunny, will you somehow say "hmmmm...interesting" and tie it into your grand conspiracy?
"Obviously TPTB wanted a clear day and not a rainy one."

A helicopter by the pentagon? Unheard of!

ETA:
BTW, you have already established that you think mini-nukes took down the WTC.
Why didn't they use a mini-nuke at the pentagon?

[William Seger]

4. A helicopter?!? At the Pentagon?!?!!!

Unbelievable!!!
:rofl:

This is why it's impossible to satirize the "truth movement."

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. well, there's a bit more to it than that

I guess the idea is that at least one particular Park Police helicopter was in the air before the Pentagon was hit, yet the official story (tm) indicates that it only took off after the Pentagon was hit. I guess that conceivably could matter. But the evidence is pretty sketchy, as are the implications.

[William Seger]

6. A couple years ago...

... someone posted a link to a site that looked at released surveillance videos from the Sheraton Hotel and found "something" flying near the Pentagon shortly before the attack. That site speculated that it was either a jet fighter or AA77, but that was based primarily on a miscalculated triangulation from two videos that put the object off in the distance (and therefore flying pretty fast). A correct triangulation put the object over the south parking lot between the camera and the Pentagon, so the much slower calculated speed indicated that it was just a helicopter.

So, if the "official story" says there weren't ANY helicopters in the air before the attack, then I don't believe the "official story," either.

[spooked911]

8. well, there you go

In any case, it's nice to look at the linked article before poo-pooing it.

[William Seger]

10. Say what? What makes you think I didn't look at the linked article?

How else would I know that it reads like the Onion's version of a conspiracy theory?

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. FWIW, I don't think the "official story" opines on that ;)

Based on limited information, it does seem logically possible -- although far from obvious -- that one particular chopper was in the air when it supposedly wasn't. I'm just trying to be fair to spooked here. I agree that there is nothing suspicious in general about a chopper near the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

13. it's certainly not a big deal in the grand scheme of 9/11, but it is a new wrinkle

they most interesting point being that the chopper was supposed to intercept the incoming plane and that there is a cover-up of that

[zappaman]

15. yes

according to this one CTer who was told it by some guy.
you do not know "the chopper was supposed to intercept the incoming plane and that there is a cover-up of that", since there is no real evidence for either assertion.
well, except for the guy who heard it from another guy.
doesn't take much to convince you, does it?

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. apparently someone interviewing for the Naval Historic Center

It's odd. Apparently this fellow interviewed a helicopter pilot, was told this story about being scrambled to intercept an airliner (how exactly would that work?), and repeated most of it to a border patrol agent who happened to be a witness, with the admonition not to tell the media.

[hack89]

9. Don't see the significance of this.

how was it involved in the attack?

[spooked911]

14. read the piece and it will be clear

OK?

[LARED]

16. I read the piece

and can hardly muster even a trvial reason why this is significnt if true.

[hack89]

18. I did - that's why I asked

as far as I can see, it is not linked to any CT. Certainly sheds no light on what hit the Pentagon. So I was wondering why you think it is important.

[PufPuf23]

19. I thought initial Pentagon report was of a truck bomb.

I don't believe the 9-11 Commission novel that had less resources and time than the Clinton BJ.

One has to believe there should be far more by happenstance security videos of flight path along the DC 9-11 route than what has been released (and what has been released is confusing).

I do not understand the folks that think that the official 911 narrative is sound.

This does not make me as an individual a nutter. I just want an explanation that makes common sense.

[KDLarsen]

20. Common sense..

For starters, the 9/11 Commission returned funds they didn't need, so they weren't exactly starved for resources. Could they have had more time? Sure, but then they'd still be running, since there's always something new coming up.

Second, common sense would suggest that securite cameras focus on what their owners want protected. There is no need for security cameras to be poiting into the sky. Which is what would be required if security cameras were to have caught AA77 in the final few seconds of flight.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. no idea what your point is about a truck bomb

This is the sort of basic disconnect that we see over and over again on this forum. I'm guessing that even people who don't think a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon can agree that the damage wasn't caused by a truck bomb. So, what's the point? Is it Highly Suspicious that someone was wrong about something? If so, why?

[democraticinsurgent]

22. Twin Tower Helicopters

Interesting find. Did you notice the article comment down the page about the helicopters being seen around the twin towers in the 9/11 Eyewitness video? The cameraman shot for about 60 minutes from Hoboken with the camera locked down. During the video you can see helicopters flying around the towers. You can see what looks like an electrical charge go from the helicopter towards the building. Not much later, the tower implodes. It's been a long while since I viewed this, but I think it happens with both towers.

http://www.911eyewitness.com/

[zappaman]

23. verrrry interesting

I think the helicopters must have been using some sort of death ray.
possibly reversed engineered from the alien spaceship recovered in Roswell?
scary stuff!

[defendandprotect]

24. Remember this story -- back to read the link soon -- !!