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: 10161
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
Comments (1-21) not displayed.
.
.
.
#22. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#19)
I have seen those photos before, and I agree that they are hiding something. The lack of debris suggests that something a lot smaller than a large commerical airliner hit the Pentagon. There are missiles that deploy from large aircraft, and upon deploying, have wings that pop out. They look very much like a small airplane, perhaps a private jet, and have a small engine of the type actually found at the Pentagon. No large engines were found anywhere in the Pentagon.
I don't know what that explosion is supposed to be, and have no explanation for it, and have not read any. As for Paul Revere, if I ever knew he was a Mason, I forgot it. They all were back then.
Either or ... There you go again. Either you're going to watch the video, or you're not going to know what I know. Either you're going to tire of nagging me to play your game, or you're not. I've raised kids, so your kind of pestering does not affect me. It's what kids do. "But why?! But you said ..."
Um... I don't remember seeing a plane shaped hole in the pentagon. I remember seeing a round hole, but not a plane shaped hole, because had there BEEN wings on the thing over 100 feet from tip to tip, There would have been much more lateral structural damage to the outer exterior of the building. Not to mention an absence of plane parts on the lawn at the time of the explosion, or how pristine the ground was all the way up to the Pentagon. A PLANE THAT SIZE, IN ORDER TO HIT THE PENTAGON AS LOW AS IT DID, WOULD HAVE DESTROYED A GOOD 300 yards of lawn on the way up. How do I know? A private firm asked me to make a scale model of the plane in question for their research, and with everything to scale, the engines would have drug the ground in order for the fuselage to hit as low as it did. Please, if you will, explain to me that little factoid.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
if i may, i believe you might be missing the point of honway's question. if i'm understanding correctly, he wants to know whether or not you believe that the FDR discussed in the video is the real one from Flight 77. for if it's not, then viewing the video would be a waste of time.
Please, if you will, explain to me that little factoid. I am just going from memory here, but one analysis, measureing from the center of the pentagon's hole put the bottom of the engines nacellles (sp) eight feet into the ground. And I welcome BAC's input here, but sometimes I cannot follow, from the pictures, what he is suggesting. I just want to know what happened, and why it took 444 freeking days, under intense pressure from the victem's families. to cobble together a investigation into the roots of one the most damaging attacks on the USA. That happened to be packed with party hacks and insiders. Man it don't smell good. And why not release the many video tapes of the event??? That alone spells "culpibility". If what the governments position is grounded in the truth of the matter than the videos would have been proffered immediately.
The reason I don't respond to that kind of question is because it's often a ploy to take the discussion a different direction. What I believe is not relevant to the issues presented. Its intention is to make my beliefs the area of question, rather than making the issues surrounding 9-11 paramount. The online amateur debunker follows a fairly standard and simple regimen of attack, like the rightwing pundits who favor that tactic. The video is important because the many pilots who have examined the FDR data say it was shut off when the airplane was passing over the Pentagon, and the FDR proves that. They meticulously recreate the last minutes of the purported flight, and prove that it ends at over 300 feet in the air over the Pentagon. In summary, it's the actual FDR that was in the airplane which flew over but did not crash into the Pentagon. In that sense, it's a real FDR, with real data, but the data are deceptive, because they imply the aircraft was 300 feet lower than it really was. When the airplane took off that morning, it was calibrated for zero altitude 300 feet lower than it was flying, creating a record that seems to show the airplane was hitting the Pentagon. Therefore, the FDR accurately records information, which information, when properly interpreted, places the aircraft over 300 feet above the Pentagon at the moment it is shown to be hitting the Pentagon.
The "tarp" is one of many small tents, seen in other photos. Notice that it's being carried without any effort. It's got no particular bearing on anything that I can discover. {Hey BAC, how did I do? Huh? Huh?}
Who knows? If it is real, then 77 did not hit the Pentagon. If it is fake, then why? What is it hiding? I tend to believe it is real. Why fake the FDR data to make it appear impossible for 77 to have hit the Pentagon? If you are going to alter the data, why not do so to make it probable that 77 hit the Pentagon? Have you ever watched Pandora's Black Box Chapter 2?
#23. To: Simmering Frog (#20)
#24. To: honway (#21)
#25. To: BeAChooser (#6)
#26. To: Paul Revere, honway (#24)
#27. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#25)
engines would have drug the ground in order for the fuselage to hit as low as it did.
#28. To: christine (#26)
(Edited)
#29. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#19)
#30. To: honway (#15)
Do you believe the FDR data is fake or is it real?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#31. To: honway (#15)
Doesn't really matter, flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, any idiot can see that. All of these side discussions about whether this or that is true has nothing to do with the evidence clearly seen that day which PROVES that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Arguing about details is a fools game. The chore now should be to wake people up, but not with the Pentagon evidence, as good as it is, it is not the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, WTC7 is.
Do you believe the FDR data is fake or is it real?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#32. To: RickyJ, WTC7 911Smoking Cannon (#31)
well said, Rick.
The chore now should be to wake people up, but not with the Pentagon evidence, as good as it is, it is not the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, WTC7 is.
#33. To: christine (#32)
Another great tagline.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#34. To: tom007 (#27)
the stand down of NORAD that day is all we need to know.....
#35. To: robin (#33)
thanks!
#36. To: Paul Revere (#28)
In summary, it's the actual FDR that was in the airplane which flew over but did not crash into the Pentagon. In that sense, it's a real FDR, with real data, but the data are deceptive, because they imply the aircraft was 300 feet lower than it really was. got it. unfortunately, the narrators have english accents which i'm finding difficult to hear.
The video is important because the many pilots who have examined the FDR data say it was shut off when the airplane was passing over the Pentagon, and the FDR proves that. They meticulously recreate the last minutes of the purported flight, and prove that it ends at over 300 feet in the air over the Pentagon.
#37. To: Critter (#30)
thanks, Critter, i've not seen this yet.
#38. To: honway (#0)
The local D.C. news radio reporting on what had happened at the Pentagon was very confused that morning. I wonder if it's recorded anywhere.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#39. To: christine (#37)
That video looks good, will finish later. It touches on the "lost" money at the Pentagon. 9/11 was also a heist (the gold in WTC) and a coverup of a heist (the trillions missing from the Pentagon budget), besides the subsequent billions stolen during the war in Iraq.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#40. To: Critter (#30)
Who knows? In my view,logic demands an individual must determine if the data is fake or real before the data is used to prove what happened. There is a fundamental truth that many seem to be ignoring: you cannot use fake flight recorder data to establish the altitude and flight path for a jet. If the data is not fake,the aircraft that produced the data crashed into the Pentagon because the data stopped at the reported time of impact and aircraft do not disappear into thin air. It is like being pregnant,in my view. Either the data is fake or it is not fake.
Do you believe the FDR data is fake or is it real?
#41. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#5)
Ah yes ... pilots for truth. There still about 25 of them? No, now it's membership is up to 36. But I see one is still a sail plane pilot. And another is a student pilot and 9/11 *Truth* candidate. And one's still "in training". And one's a helicopter pilot. And one has a degree in Commercial Aviation and Aviation Management. And one's a flight attendant. And one's a radar technician. And a couple know a lot about props and ultra lights. And one once claimed he joined the democRAT Party because the Republicans weren't conservative enough. Quite a group when you consider that there are hundreds of thousands of commercial pilots who might have joined. ROTFLOL! How about this pilot's opinion? General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses — including many people I know personally — who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down — which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record — that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
There is a great video by pilots for truth
#42. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#10)
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!
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.
#43. To: BeAChooser (#41)
Partin is a critic of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing case. Do you have a citation quoting him on the false flag operation which took place in Washington, D.C.? Thanks. http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2461/pg2/index.html "Brigadier General (ret.) Partin has been the most vocal of the critics of the government's one-bomb, one-man scenario. During his thirty-one year Air Force career, General Partin's expertise was explosives. During that time, he designed warheads, "had a lot of experience in combat damage evaluation", was trained in all the pertinent military laboratories, and was one of the government's foremost--if not the foremost--experts on explosives. "When I first looked at the reports coming out of Oklahoma I knew that the truth was not coming out. The media was pretty much confused, or passing out disinformation, and I think some of the officials down there were passing out disinformation, and what was going on down there was totally at odds with what I had twenty-five years experience of knowing," General Partin has said. To Partin, the contention that the ANFO truck bomb did the damage to the Murrah Building is "absurd". Within a month of April 19, 1995, the General had prepared a technical analysis of the bombing. In the report, Partin made it clear that by the time the blast wave from the ANFO truck bomb had hit the building it would not have had anywhere near enough psi (pounds of pressure per square inch) to collapse the steel-reinforced concrete columns. (By the time the ANFO blast wave hit the columns it would have been yielding 25-375 psi; the yield strength of concrete is 3,500-5,000 psi.) The report also made it clear that larger, thicker columns further away from the truck bomb came down, while smaller columns much closer to the truck were undamaged. "You don't have to go any further than that to know that you had demolition charges on those larger columns. There's no other explanation for it . . . Unless you believe in magic," Partin said. General Partin examined hundreds of photos of the destroyed building, and his in depth report listed the many other reasons why he can see “clearly, clearly…with a very high probability . . . with a high level of confidence" exactly where interior bombs were placed. Partin eventually delivered his analysis to all 535 senators and congressmen. In his cover letter to the politicians, he pleaded that the "Congress take steps to assure that evidence in Oklahoma City be evaluated by a collection of demolition experts from the private sector before the building is demolished." If experts had been able to examine the building closely, they could have reported definitively how the building was bombed. On 23 May 1995, though, just 34 days after the bombing, the Murrah Building was destroyed, and the rubble was buried in a landfill that is surrounded by a chain link fence and guarded by security personnel. "This is a classic cover-up of immense proportions," the General said.
#44. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, Paul Revere, ALL (#19)
ROTFLOL! *************** http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html The story... ----------- "A large piece of wreckage was found in the [Pentagon] entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757. A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck" ----------- Our take... Here's the photo accompanying this story. (BAC - you'll have to go to the URL of this article to see this image since I can't link it directly ... it's the same as the one IATL posted) It's to be found on many other sites, too, although without the extra details that are added here. So is this a plausible story? We don't think so, for the following reasons. #1, the idea that a large piece of wing will be found after hitting the reinforced Pentagon wall, at 500 mph, seems unlikely. Especially so large that you can readily identify it as something else. #2, even if that is possible, take a look at the photo again. If these men are "carrying" something then it doesn't look like it weighs anything at all: some are using one arm only, others just vaguely steering, no-one looks like they're breaking a sweat. #3, note that there are no references here for the important details. Who says it was a piece of wreckage? Who identified it as from a wing? Flocco doesn't say -- we're just supposed to believe it. #4, the photograph itself proves nothing. We don't know when it was take, or where. The conspiracy sites who use this image like to say it shows something being taken away, but never have any explanation of how they know that, either. Why can it not be something being brought to the Pentagon? #5, there are alternative candidates for lightweight objects being bought to the Pentagon, too. Take a look at this Pentagon cleanup photo, for instance -- the grounds are full of tents, and there's a few blue tarpaulins around, too. See http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-005.html for the original. And take a look at this closer image. Note the blue ribbed look, white innards, a close match with our original photo. (BAC - you'll have to go to the URL of this article to see this image since I can't link it directly) #6, we found a version of the original photo that contained the URL http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/sres.pl?Lbox_cap=347704&dir=Photo&vn=&ttl=010911-F-3050V-020&ref=defenselink in its Comments field (right-click in Windows, select Properties > Advanced). This site is restricted so we can't confirm it's correct, but if so it raises another question. If this image is depicting some key moment of evidence destruction, then would the conspirators take a photograph, then preserve it forever online? Doesn't make a lot of sense to us. None of this can prove there isn't something suspicious happening here, but then proving a negative is always tricky. What we can say is that the "carrying away a wing" claim seems unlikely for several reasons, and there’s a distinct lack of any evidence to support it. ************** http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search/label/Pickering%20R THE BLUE TARP SMUGGLING OP EXPOSED The Blue Tarp Smuggling Op Exposed Adam Larson Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud December 18 2006 (title repair and slight update 1/21/07) I recall near the end of my days at LetsRoll 911 Made Simple running across the story of what I’ll call the “blue tarp smuggling op” – A member at LetsRoll 911 posted in December 2004 a thread titled “coffin with Blue Tarp Takin Away from Pentagon,” with a link that alerted me to the above picture. [1] After I left, others there looked to recent “news reports” to clarify that this was indeed a Pentagon team removing a large crate filled with some evidence – perhaps the chassis of the attack craft. I missed a later LetsRoll thread started by member “Sinister Dick Cheney” in September 2005: “What's Under the Blue Tarp in Crate?” SDC showed the picture and offered some guesses: “A cruise missile that turned out to be a dud? An engine from an F-16 or an A-3 Skyhawk?” [2] The “news reports” leading to this conclusion seem to have been from Karl Schwarz, Jon Carlson, and Tom Flocco, all of whom have their history with controversial and downright boneheaded theories. In April 2005, Karl Schwarz told radio listeners that "there's a lot you can tell about the shape of that wing even though it is underneath that blue tarp. That wing is a configuration of an A3, not a 757." The following month Flocco weighed in with an implausible narrowing of the case to: “a group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck. No reporters or independent aircraft experts have been permitted to examine any of the recovered aircraft parts and no subpoenas have been issued to hear public grand jury testimony from the ‘movers.’” [3] Jon Carlson had been running pieces on http://Rense.com arguing along with Schwarz for an A3 Sky Warrior as the Pentagon attack vehicle. On April 24 2006 he too mentioned the photo that “was first posted on a military server but NOW even it is gone as the link to it is dead.” Carlson wondered “can this small group of men, some middle-aged and paunchy, carry the entire wing end of an A-3 over their shoulders like this? Or, could they be carrying something else entirely...perhaps some debris with human remains or blood all over it? Or some piece of classified material? We may never know the truth.” [4] I didn’t look into the issue at all, although I passed it on in largely the LetsRoll context on my early blog in 2005. But the mystery was resolved to my standards at least by a certain Russell Pickering at the Pentagon Research website, whose work deserves a post of its own here soon. On a page created in late 2004 but that I just recently discovered, he summed up a refreshingly verifiable and amusingly simple explanation. “The first clue" Pickering cited that the photo would prove irrelevant to any conspiracy theory "is that the photo was taken by the military, reviewed and then "RELEASED" to the public.” Looking at it now, I see it's by Tech Sgt. Jim Varhegyi, USAF, taken at an unknown time on September 11. By the sun I'd say AM, probably about 11:00. How on earth could they have dug the plane/missile out of the wreckage within two hours, while fire was still raging inside, boxed it up, and hauled it across the lawn to the moving truck? Referring to the picture above, Pickering broke his analysis down into points: “1) Notice that there is no significant weight on their arms. Here I represent with full respects Pickering’s photo analysis: "1) See that the grass, tree, lamp pole, guardrail and the concrete divider are in the exact positions they would be in photo 1. He re-argued his case again in April 2006 at http://Rense.com - the day after Carlson’s piece was run - explaining the mysterious blue box was merely a service tent, this one used for decontamination of rescue and cleanup workers. [6] Also note that The two-layer blue-gray tarp is there, the white top, the right size, the right location. Only an idiot or a fool could not see - after looking at these two pictures - that the photo that started the ruckus is of the team ten feet and one second away from setting down that tent at lower left. Any other conclusion is laughable, and all this was known and available on the internet well before 2006 when Dylan Avery ignored the facts to note vaguely in Loose Change Second Edition “employees of the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box shrouded in blue tarp. Why the mystery?” This was also available before the September 2005 thread at LetsRoll started by Sinister Dick Cheney. One sharp poster “Hybrid EB” responded “unless everyone is walking backwards, the blue tarp is being carried TO the Pentagon, not away from it. […] the tarp could be a makeshift tent or covering of some sort that's completely hollow inside. So responding to your question, if all I'm given is this picture, my money goes on absolutely nothing.” SDC responded: “No sorry news reports clearly said they were taking wreckage away from the Pentagon. […] I was thinking it's something that would clearly be from a vehicle other than Flight 77. It'll remain a mystery forever we'll never know for sure.” member Vodalus weighed in “whatever it is, it is very lightweight, from the way they are carrying it, so I doubt it's an engine. […] I'd speculate on it being the remnants of the fuselage of some kind of UAV made out of a lightweight composite instead of metal. I'd also suppose that we're never going to know what it was.” [7] Hybrid responded with a brief, well-put post featuring photos like Pickering’s and summarizing his explanation to show his precisely correct case. SDC was totally convinced: “Well done HybridEB! You seem to have solved a mystery just one of many mind you. Now please find for us the actual surveillance video!” Vodalus changed course as well. “the tents in the overhead shot in Hybrid's post have got to be what the guys are carrying.” But luckily site administrator and grand poobah Phil Jayhan stepped in, unmoved and unconvinced. He'd been happy with the one photo and the news reports, but now that more pictures had been added, he wanted more yet. “Not enough photos to prove your point Hybrid! Good enough for Dickboy cheney, not good enough for me or us; More photo proof please!” [8] Sources: ************* Really, IATL ... your pod nonsense was more entertaining than this ...
Are these Pentagon workers bunching up to hide the wing end from on-lookers?
The Blue tarp photo was first posted on a military server but NOW even it is gone as the link to it is dead.
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm 
The 'movers' with their box shrouded in blue mystery
2) Look carefully inside to see that it is hollow.
3) They are inside the guardrail carrying towards the grass.
4) There are only two trees on the Pentagon grounds. You can see one of them in the background which helps locate this shot.
5) The grass, lamp pole, guardrail and the concrete divider also provide clues to locating this shot." 
2) See that other tents are being used on the grounds.
3) The tent right next to the guardrail may be the one they are placing in photo 1.” [5]
[1] "Coffin with Blue Tarp Takin Away from Pentagon." Posted by Snidley Whiplash, December 19 2004. LetsRoll Forum. Pentagon. >http://letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4399
[2] "What's Under the Blue Tarp in Crate?" Posted by "Sinister Dick Cheney," September 4 2005. LetsRoll Forum. Pentagon. >http://letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10112
[3] Flocco, Tom. "Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon." May 26, 2005 >http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm
[4] Carlson, Jon. "Pentagon 911 Blue Tarp Photo Uncovered." http://Rense.com. April 24 2006. >http://www.rense.com/general70/tarp.htm
[5] >http://www.pentagonresearch.com/090.html
[6] Pickering, Russell. "The Blue "Tarp" Is A Service Tent." April 27 2006 >http://www.rense.com/general70/bluett.htm
[7], [8] See [2]. Various responses.
#45. To: Itsa1mosttoolate, Paul Revere, All (#44)
Sorry, the sources at the bottom of the last post should be: Sources:
[1] "Coffin with Blue Tarp Takin Away from Pentagon." Posted by Snidley Whiplash, December 19 2004. LetsRoll Forum. Pentagon. http://letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4399
[2] "What's Under the Blue Tarp in Crate?" Posted by "Sinister Dick Cheney," September 4 2005. LetsRoll Forum. Pentagon. http://letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10112
[3] Flocco, Tom. "Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon." May 26, 2005 http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm
[4] Carlson, Jon. "Pentagon 911 Blue Tarp Photo Uncovered." http://Rense.com. April 24 2006. http://www.rense.com/general70/tarp.htm
[5] http://www.pentagonresearch.com/090.html
[6] Pickering, Russell. "The Blue "Tarp" Is A Service Tent." April 27 2006 http://www.rense.com/general70/bluett.htm
[7], [8] See [2]. Various responses.
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#43) (Edited)
I don't know if you are interested, but as an FYI, there's a guy called "GarySpFc" on LP who claims to be a former senior SF demolitions sergent who has taken this General to task. As a matter of fact, he's been heavily involved in attempting to debunk everything OKCSubmariner has written on the OKC bombing, as well as the Two towers controversy. Whether he's for real or not I don't know, but he seemed to know what he was speaking about. But then, I was a signal corps puke, so WTF do I know about explosives LOL! Sneakypete seems to believe he's for real, although they don't appear to get along because GarySpFc" is a real Bushbot, and well, you know sneaky, a bushbot he is not.
Partin is a critic of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing case.
#47. To: robin, *Israeli Espionage* (#39)
And it reeks of ZioNazi collaboration with the Bush Crime Family.
9/11 was also a heist (the gold in WTC) and a coverup of a heist (the trillions missing from the Pentagon budget), besides the subsequent billions stolen during the war in Iraq.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#48. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#22)
There was debris all over the site, Paul. Some of it identifiable as coming from a plane of the same type as Flight 77. But most of the plane penetrated the building and was exposed to the intense fires within. Do you know how hot ASCE engineers say the damage to reinforced concrete columns indicate the fires got? 100 foot wings? ROTFLOL! FALSE. Completely false. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Even the conspiracy sites admit this: http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm "The plane debris observed in the various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry, nor is it from a General Electric CF6-80C2. Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts." It really would do you good to look at this, Paul: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only
The lack of debris suggests that something a lot smaller than a large commerical airliner hit the Pentagon.
There are missiles that deploy from large aircraft, and upon deploying, have wings that pop out.
have a small engine of the type actually found at the Pentagon. No large engines were found anywhere in the Pentagon.
#49. To: BeAChooser (#42)
One thing I know about commercial pilots having had a step-father who was a captain for Pan Am; they are chronically worried about their job and maintaining flight status. Strong political forces have uprooted people from their jobs in usually safe venues such as academia for speaking out against the lies of the official story, so you know that any airline pilot that violates official canon would be targeted for dismissal and blacklisting ruthlessly. Thus I find your taunting airs disingenuous and insincere. No sale on your taunting of people because they are successfully made fearful of their jobs by the powers that be.
#50. To: Ferret Mike (#43) (Edited)
Gen. Partin was the "go to guy" with anything concerning military style demolitions. The Murrah building showed clear evidence of cutting charges on the concrete columns as shown by telephoto pics taken by news and other photographers. Partin used these pics to make his determination since the Feds refused to allow any inspection of the building by outside experts. The evidence in these pics was unmistakable, and was confirmed to me by Col. Donn de Grand Pre in a conversation we had about this.
Brigadier General (ret.) Partin
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#51. To: Hayek Fan (#46)
Thanks for the info, I will go lurk and see (I am perma-banned by Moldi- Locks). I was an 18E2P in the U.S. Army too by the way. I had to go to Ft. Gordon, Al to get the 31C single channel radio PMOS before going to the SPQC to get the 18 series commo MOS.
#52. To: BTP Holdings (#50)
Quite true, which is why I would rather read what he says about the D.C. missile/small plane impact into the Pentagon myself. ;-)
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#51)
You mean Ft. Gordon, GA, not Alabama. I know it well. My last duty station was there. I taught basic and advanced electronics at Cobb Hall. I absolutely hated the place LOL. The only place I was ever stationed where an E-7 was treated like a private. You're much more gung-ho than I ever was. I spent my entire 15 years as a mere 29J (Telecommunications Terminal Device Repairer). Well, of course, I became a 29W once I made E-7. Right before I took early retirement, my old MOS was changed to 35J/35W and was transferred to the Ordance Corps. Whoever thought of that idea was a REAL brainchild LOL.
Thanks for the info, I will go lurk and see (I am perma-banned by Moldi- Locks). I was an 18E2P in the U.S. Army too by the way. I had to go to Ft. Gordon, Al to get the 31C single channel radio PMOS before going to the SPQC to get the 18 series commo MOS.
#54. To: BeAChooser (#48)
everything you write here is suspect - because you are a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
Quite true, which is why I would rather read what he says about the D.C. missile/small plane impact into the Pentagon myself. ;-)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#56. To: Red Jones (#54)
LOL
because you are a TREASONOUS QUEER!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#57. To: Hayek Fan (#53)
Heh, you are correct. ;D It is near Augusta. Mut of left my 'Tiger Tough', Brim's Barracks PT shirt in storage too long.
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#43)
thanks Ferret Mike for showing us that quote from General Partin. General Partin is not a TREASONOUS QUEER! unlike someone I know on this board. It makes me feel sad that Partin wrote that letter with his analysis to all 535 congressmen & senators as I know that virtually none of them do anything but support the official story. They're traitors. and no doubt some of them are TREASONOUS QUEERS! as well.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#59. To: BTP Holdings (#55) (Edited)
Thought as much. There is no damn way a semi-pilot defeated ground effect that would have bounced that plane like a flat stone skipping across water and put it into that building at it's most impact resistant point so far away from it's nerve center. There were too many important people in that building for the plotters to trust the el Qaeda plotters to be allowed to plow that plane into it. They used a missile, and shot the aircraft in question down long before it would have gotten there. A decoy plane was flow over the Pentagon shortly before impact which has fooled many folks who were there that day which would account for much off the eyewitness testimony a large planer was seen. But 9-11 was undeniably an inside job, and no large commercial A/C hit anything in D.C. that day.
"The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon."
#60. To: Red Jones (#58)
lol
The worst decision you can make is if you feel you can do so little that you do nothing at all.~Frosty Wooldridge
#61. To: TommyTheMadArtist, Paul Revere, ALL (#25)
Then you'd better take a look at post #42, Tommy. And there are plenty of more pictures where those came from. They show what is clearly a plane shaped hole in what was a reinforced outer wall. The hole is clearly on the order of 80 to 90 feet wide. And there is damage on both sides of the outer face beyond that ... out to where one would expect given the size of Flight 77. Now mind you, experts do not suggest that those portions of the wings and tail that contained no fuel penetrated the building. It is the mass of that fuel that allowed that to happen. Here's a few links you might want to visit if you really want to know the facts about the damage: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html You've only looked at a photo taken from the direction that the plane came. Why, with a basic understanding of physics, would you expect debris to bounce back along a roughly 45 degree trajectory relative to the face of the structure in the direction the plane came from at hundreds of miles an hour? Basic physics tells you that any debris should continue in the direction the plane was moving after bouncing off the wall (like a pool ball striking a pool table wall at an angle that's not 90 degrees). And if you look down range of the impact site, you find plenty of debris in the photos. Here are a couple: and A PLANE THAT SIZE, IN ORDER TO HIT THE PENTAGON AS LOW AS IT DID, WOULD HAVE DESTROYED A GOOD 300 yards of lawn on the way up. No, if you compare the dimensions of the plane (and remember, the landing gear were up) to the size of the hole, you will see that the plane easily fits in that hole without the engine touching the ground. Now the engine did apparently hit the construction generator that was some distance in front of the building. You don't know what you are talking about, Tommy. Here is a drawing of a 757 with dimensions. The diameter of the fuselage is about 13 feet. The engines appear to extend 4 to 5 feet below the bottom edge of the fuselage. So the distance from the center of the fuselage (which is actually above the nose of the aircraft) to the bottom of the engines would be at most 12 feet. Just as a check on the above, here's a site that looks at the dimensions of the Pentagon hole and 757 in detail. http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm It states that the distance from the "Top of the fuselage to bottom engines. (landing gear was up)" is 17.7 feet According to that site, the width of the fuselage is 12.5 feet. Take 6.25 feet from 17.7 feet and you get about 11.5 feet from the center of the fuselage to the bottom of the engines. Now let's look at the hole in the structure. Turns out it is 20-25 feet from the top of the central hole to the ground. Notice that the top of the holes on each side of the main hole are about midway down ... say 10-13 feet. What does that tell you? Here's another drawing of a 757 from what I would assume a good source. Now if those drawings are to scale, then the tail sticks up about as much above the top of the fuselage as the top fuselage is above the ground. This photo of a 757 would seem to confirm that: So if the top of the tail is 44 feet above the ground, then the top of the fuselage, with the wheels on the ground can only be about 22 feet. Now, look at the drawing again. The top of the wing is about 40% of the way down from the top of the fuselage (again confirmed by the photo). Thus, the top of the wing must be about 12 to 13 above the ground, with the wheels extended. In other words, even with the wheels extended below the engines, the top of the wing would still be at about the top of the damage that REAL experts say is caused by the wings. And the wheels weren't down that day according to eyewitnesses. And from a link I provide earlier (http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html ) is this, Tommy. ******** "The following graphic from the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report (2003: 20), shows schematically what the orientation of the plane to the building would have been like when the nose made impact (before the wings reached the facade)." ******** So you don't know what you are talking about. You really need to take a look at this: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html "In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757."
Um... I don't remember seeing a plane shaped hole in the pentagon. I remember seeing a round hole, but not a plane shaped hole, because had there BEEN wings on the thing over 100 feet from tip to tip, There would have been much more lateral structural damage to the outer exterior of the building.
Not to mention an absence of plane parts on the lawn at the time of the explosion, or how pristine the ground was all the way up to the Pentagon.
How do I know? A private firm asked me to make a scale model of the plane in question for their research, and with everything to scale, the engines would have drug the ground in order for the fuselage to hit as low as it did.
#62. To: tom007, ALL (#27)
Your memory is wrong. See post # 61.
I am just going from memory here, but one analysis, measureing from the center of the pentagon's hole put the bottom of the engines nacellles (sp) eight feet into the ground.
.
.
.
Comments (63 - 114) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest