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: 10127
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 (1-41) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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!
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 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 ...
Sorry, the sources at the bottom of the last post should be: Sources:
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.
And it reeks of ZioNazi collaboration with the Bush Crime Family.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
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
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.
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.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
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.
Quite true, which is why I would rather read what he says about the D.C. missile/small plane impact into the Pentagon myself. ;-)
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.
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.
The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
LOL
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Heh, you are correct. ;D It is near Augusta. Mut of left my 'Tiger Tough', Brim's Barracks PT shirt in storage too long.
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.
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.
lol
The worst decision you can make is if you feel you can do so little that you do nothing at all.~Frosty Wooldridge
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."
Your memory is wrong. See post # 61.
Just like any moron can tell the WTC towers collapsed due to bombs. Right, Ricky?
Yes he is. So why don't you believe him?
Well there are hundreds of thousands of pilots who are not commercial pilots. Is there reason for not joining the Pilots For *Truth* also fear of losing their jobs and license? And what about commercial pilots from foreign countries. Do you think the US government has a stranglehold on them too?
Do you know that he also thinks assertions that the WTC towers were demolitions is nonsense too?
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-is-colonel-donn-de-grand-pre.html "Who Is Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre?"
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.
What you don't seem to understand, Paul, is that I'm not really posting to you. You also know nothing about me. Would a loyal Bushie have accused Bush and his administration of helping coverup a mass murder by someone(s) in the Clinton administration? Would a loyal Bushie be as critical as I have been about Bush's immigration policies? Would a loyal Bushie say that Bush is wrong about CFR, education spending and the senior drug plan? You don't know me, Paul. Maybe, maybe not, but you will NOT find the truth if you keep spouting what is provably nothing but disinformation about the damage at the Pentagon and the nature of the debris they found there. All you will do is discredit the rest of your allegations.
I actually DO know what I'm talking about, because I saw what the model did to the pristine surface of the scaled landscape the client made. For the plane to physically be able to do what it did without breaking into a bazillion pieces, the engines would have dug big ruts into the ground. ESPECIALLY if you take a look at where those lightpoles were apparently struck that you so fondly point out. For a guy who endorses the official story, I'd think you'd get some better handlers.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
What do you think the dimensions of a 757 are? With and without landing gear down, how high is the top of the fuselage? What's the diameter of the fuselage? How far below the top of the fuselage is the top of the wings? How far below the bottom of the fuselage do the engines drop? And what do you think the dimensions of the hole in the pentagon seen in that photo I posted are, Tommy? How high above the ground is it? How high is the winged shaped hole to the left of the central hole? Because I say the answers to these questions show you don't know what you are talking about. Tommy, the plane did break into a bazillion pieces. No Tommy, the location where those lightpoles were struck doesn't say that at all. Did you even bother to look at these? http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html Apparently not.
The pictures of the hole that I have seen, are a LOT lower than the CG picture you have posted. In fact, the pictures I have seen, show the hole being right at ground level. The engines extend roughly 5 feet lower than the fuselage. For it to have flown that low, knocking down the various light poles, and remained at ground level, it would have dug ruts into the lawn, which it did not. For the official story to work, the plane would have had to have come in at roughly a 30 degree angle, and struck nose first at a downward trajectory, as opposed to the near belly landing that is shown in all of the pictures that endorse the government story. The funny thing about how it would have had to have hit the building, is that there would have been MUCH MORE damage done to not only the exterior, but the upper portions of the building prior to the collapse of the structure. But hey, don't let me confuse you with any kind of reality check, you just go ahead and keep on telling your stories.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/25136/jumbo_jet_crash/ I suggest you take a look at this video. In fact, I suggest everyone take a look at this video. Notice what happens when it reaches the approximate height of where it supposedly hit the Pentagon according to BAC. IT FALLS STRAIGHT DOWN. Also, take a look at what it does all over the tarmac. Wonder why it didn't happen that way at the Pentagon?
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
By all means ... post your pictures. I bet you don't. Because you are wrong. Wouldn't the light poles be knocked down if a wing or engine clipped one near the top? That's what eyewitnesses say happened. And how high are those lightpoles, Tommy. Certainly more than a few feet. Why? That's not what the damage to the lightpoles, generator, fence and structure say. That's not what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses say happened. You are just making up a number, Tommy. Why not say 90 degrees. It would be just as valid. So go on, Tommy ... post those pictures you have of the hole in the exterior of the structure. Prove to us the top of the hole was a LOT lower than what I posted. Dare you.
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tomhoran_pentagonfromriverhouse.big2.JPG http://911lies.org/images2/16_foot_hole_pentagon.jpg http://911lies.org/images2/calculating_757_size_pentagon.jpg http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/pentagon_composite.jpg You ask, and you shall receive. It has to suck to be you. I mean, you must think the entire planet is dumber than you. Do your friends think you're smart? If so, are they as dumb as fence posts? They'd have to be, in order to tolerate your incessant bullying, and your outright superiority complex you seem to have. Maybe if you weren't so strident, people would actually enjoy debating you. I learn a lot from your posts. It's unfortunate that you feel compelled to act like an asshole. Again, I await your input, as erroneous as it will inevitably be.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
NORAD stood down. There were no 9 feet across engines. The only airliner that hit the Pentagram is the one that exists in your mind and the minds of those who buy this fairy tale.
How do you reconcile the differences between the FDR data as released by the NTSB and the downed light poles which were not in the flight path according to FDR data?
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)
"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)
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)
[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)
Partin is a critic of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing case.
#47. To: robin, *Israeli Espionage* (#39)
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.
#48. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#22)
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)
#50. To: Ferret Mike (#43)
(Edited)
Brigadier General (ret.) Partin
#51. To: Hayek Fan (#46)
#52. To: BTP Holdings (#50)
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#51)
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)
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
Quite true, which is why I would rather read what he says about the D.C. missile/small plane impact into the Pentagon myself. ;-)
#56. To: Red Jones (#54)
because you are a TREASONOUS QUEER!
#57. To: Hayek Fan (#53)
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#43)
#59. To: BTP Holdings (#55)
(Edited)
"The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon."
#60. To: Red Jones (#58)
#61. To: TommyTheMadArtist, Paul Revere, ALL (#25)
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)
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.
#63. To: RickyJ, ALL (#31)
Doesn't really matter, flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, any idiot can see that.
#64. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#43)
Partin is a critic of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing case.
#65. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#49)
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
#66. To: BTP Holdings, ALL (#50)
Gen. Partin was the "go to guy" with anything concerning military style demolitions.
#67. To: BTP Holdings, Ferret Mike, ALL (#55)
The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
#68. To: BeAChooser (#42)
#69. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#68)
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.
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.
#70. To: BeAChooser (#61)
#71. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#70)
I actually DO know what I'm talking about, because I saw what the model did to the pristine surface of the scaled landscape the client made.
For the plane to physically be able to do what it did without breaking into a bazillion pieces
the engines would have dug big ruts into the ground. ESPECIALLY if you take a look at where those lightpoles were apparently struck that you so fondly point out.
#72. To: BeAChooser (#61)
#73. To: BeAChooser (#71)
#74. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#72)
The pictures of the hole that I have seen, are a LOT lower than the CG picture you have posted. In fact, the pictures I have seen, show the hole being right at ground level.
The engines extend roughly 5 feet lower than the fuselage. For it to have flown that low, knocking down the various light poles, and remained at ground level, it would have dug ruts into the lawn, which it did not.
For the official story to work, the plane would have had to have come in at roughly a 30 degree angle
#75. To: BeAChooser (#74)
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
#76. To: BeAChooser (#69)
(Edited)
#77. To: BeAChooser (#42)
(Edited)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#78. To: honway (#40)
What was released by the NTSB in the FOIA request ends one second before impact, so in that regard, it has to be considered incomplete. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is fake. I don't know if it is real or fake, but it does not jive with the official fairy tale. I think that either way it hurts the official fairy tale. If it is real, and the part where the plane flies past the Pentagon on to another end was left out, then the fairly tale is damned. If it is fake, then the only reason to fake it is to hide another end. Either way, the fairy tale loses.
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.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#79. To: Paul Revere, robin, christine, AGAviator, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1 (#68)
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...
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.
#80. To: beachooser, TommyTheMadArtist, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#71)
Oh, my God! More queerspeak from BAC. There's no suggestion of forward-moving airliner damage to the 9-11 Pentagon, BAC. I don't care how you try to present your lies. The biggest hole in the 9-11 Pentagon is approximately 17 feet. Deal with it, BAC, you limp-wristed liar, you.
#81. To: scrapper2 (#79)
Why did you quote that portion of my post?
#82. To: Paul Revere (#81)
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.
Why did you quote that portion of my post?
.
.
.
Comments (83 - 114) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest