See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 Pentagon Explosion:9:45 AM
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Published: Apr 9, 2007
Author: youtube
Post Date: 2007-04-09 19:31:02 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 10331
Comments: 114
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
#5. To: honway (#0)
That video appears to show an explosion some time after the initial attack, whatever it was. There is a great video by pilots for truth which examines the flight data info, and suggests that the airplane did not hit the Pentagon. It suggests that a winged missile was dropped by the large aircraft, which never got below about 300-400 feet.
How big were those wings, Paul? A hundred feet from tip to tip? Because something knocked down lightpoles spaced that far apart at least. And something created a plane shaped hole in the Pentagon about 90 feet across. Those missile wings must have been made of unobtainium to do that. ROTFLOL!
I'm not one who troubles myself with the opinions of those who support the official story, so there's no point in your derisive remarks. They merely reveal your lack of confidence in the substance of that which you say. According to pilots who know a lot more than you about flight data recorders, the plane never hit the Pentagon, and most of the evidence suggests their conclusion is accurate. Each of us chooses what we will believe. You choose to believe the myth told by the Bush administration. I don't.
So in other words, you don't have an explanation for the downed lightpoles. Nor the rather sizable holes in the Pentagon. Like these: I don't think I'm the one lacking confidence here, Paul. And that would be the Pilots For Truth? All 36 of them? Even though some aren't even pilots? ROTFLOL!
You're wasting your time, sport. There isn't anything you can post I haven't already reviewed and considered. I didn't arrive at my conclusions lightly or quickly. I have one major advantage over you. I've actually worked at NORAD headquarters inside Cheyenne Mountain, so all your piffle as a loyal Bushie means absolutely nothing. It was an inside job, and only the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense could have seen to it that no aerial interference by NORAD occurred. So wake up, Little Snoozie.
It was an inside job, and only the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense could have seen to it that no aerial interference by NORAD occurred. FYI...
Why did you quote that portion of my post?
For a person like me who is not a 9/11 truth teller signee but yet I'm one who can't accept the gubment's official story, your assertion is one more bit of information that confirms my suspicions. BushBots can argue about physics and combustibility but they can't argue the fact that NORAD was ordered to stand down on 9/11. That has been confirmed even by the gubment. That you say as a former NORAD employee ( assuming you are the real deal) that this curious order represented an important departure from procedure and demonstrated criminal knowledge on high is persuasive to me. And I thought posters who have expressed varying degrees of cynicism about the 9/11 official story should be flagged to your assertion as well. Welcome to 4um, PR.
It's been many years since I was stationed at NORAD. I was there with the military, the Air Force. I held a Top Secret clearance and worked in a vault inside the mountain. I know that 9-11 could never have happened in earlier years of NORAD's existence, when our ability to track errant aircraft was not what it is today. NORAD has always prided itself on finding and scrambling on any threat in the air. In certain venues, the orders to get airplanes in the air occur as soon as certain listed events occur. If any of those events occur, such as near Washington, DC, it is mandatory that the fighters get into the air. I cannot imagine that protocol has changed. It was not until I read the materials that have gained currency the past two years that I learned of NORAD being under Cheney's control that day. The generals would never have let a second plane hit a target. There was a massive attempt on 9-11 to obscure the truth with layers of drills and war games, and that becomes more clear every month. I did not start questioning the events of 9-11 in earnest until I started investigating online and discovered the wealth of info that helps piece together this murky puzzle. The bogus calls from high flying aircraft, the bogus calls from low flying but fast flying aircraft, the lack of proper debris at the Pentagram, the unexplained collapse of WTC 7, the dearth of debris in Pennsylvania and the odd purported conversations from flt 93 passengers - the whole thing simply does not pass the smell test. I want to see this investigated thoroughly, by someone who isn't a CFR tool.
Well, you should talk to BeAChooser, because, that guy seems to have all of the answers. It's funny about the phone calls from the airplanes, because some people apparently were able to use their cell phones. In May of 2001, I bought a state of the art cell phone. This thing got phenomenal reception, and to this day kicks ass all across the board when it comes to connectivity, and reception. Problem is, when I flew to San Diego, and back, I couldn't get a signal to save my life. Because when you fly in the air, you don't connect to cell towers. Funny how that fraud has never actually been duly explained. I wonder if BAC has an answer for that one. Oh I'm sure he'll come up with the excuse that the phones in the seats of the plane are how they made the calls. Well, with that said, that would be a likely scenario, UNFORTUNATELY, the people who received those calls, had them on their caller ID I would wager. I would also wager that they could easily have the calls checked to see who called whom from where, as the federal government has the innate ability to know when and who you're talking to, going back as far as you own your phone.
Oh I'm sure he'll come up with the excuse that the phones in the seats of the plane are how they made the calls. Well, with that said, that would be a likely scenario, UNFORTUNATELY, the people who received those calls, had them on their caller ID I would wager. I would also wager that they could easily have the calls checked to see who called whom from where, as the federal government has the innate ability to know when and who you're talking to, going back as far as you own your phone. True. Many cell phones don't even have the capability to connect with ground based towers while the phone is in flight. They certainly couldn't do so from altitude. I have the necessary chip to make such calls, and you can only do so when you're flying very low and at a slow speed. If you imagine a tower on the ground, you can quickly see why that would be true. You lose your signal after a few minutes.
There are no replies to Comment # 110. End Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#5)
It suggests that a winged missile was dropped by the large aircraft
#10. To: BeAChooser (#6)
#42. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#10)
I'm not one who troubles myself with the opinions of those who support the official story, so there's no point in your derisive remarks. They merely reveal your lack of confidence in the substance of that which you say.
Left side and center hole damage 
central hole and right side damage 
Right side damage. 
Collage of what the damage looked like pre-collapse According to pilots who know a lot more than you about flight data recorders, the plane never hit the Pentagon, and most of the evidence suggests their conclusion is accurate.
#68. To: BeAChooser (#42)
#79. To: Paul Revere, robin, christine, AGAviator, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1 (#68)
Paul Revere's response to BAC: I have one major advantage over you. I've actually worked at NORAD headquarters inside Cheyenne Mountain, so all your piffle as a loyal Bushie means absolutely nothing.
#81. To: scrapper2 (#79)
#82. To: Paul Revere (#81)
Why did you quote that portion of my post?
#83. To: scrapper2 (#82)
(Edited)
#84. To: Paul Revere (#83)
#110. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#84)
In May of 2001, I bought a state of the art cell phone. This thing got phenomenal reception, and to this day kicks ass all across the board when it comes to connectivity, and reception. Problem is, when I flew to San Diego, and back, I couldn't get a signal to save my life. Because when you fly in the air, you don't connect to cell towers. Funny how that fraud has never actually been duly explained. I wonder if BAC has an answer for that one.
Replies to Comment # 110.