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: 10159
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
#1. To: All (#0)
The 9/11 Commission Report pegged the crash at 9:37:46 on the basis of the NTSB report "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77."
Two fallen clocks at the Pentagon had the 'event' at 9:31.
Daryl Donley, [Downed lamp post], September 11 , 2001
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!
That is an interesting theory.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
To be clear,individuals making claims concerning the data from the flight data recorder need to start by stating if they believe the FDR data is fake or real. If the data is fake, you cannot make any conclusions based on fake data other than the data is fake. If the data is real, then the plane equipped with the FDR crashed into the Pentagon. It is absolute nonsense for any rational person to say the FDR data proves a plane did not crash into the Pentagon.You can attempt to make the case that data is fake, but you cannot use data that has been established as fake to prove what happened.
you'll enjoy your time here on 4um much more if you ignore our only bushbot government shill poster, BeAChooser aka ROTFLOL!. we have a bozo filter which you can access through the setup links top and bottom of the pages.
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.
well done. ;)
Well, that's your opinion, but it's not factually accurate. The flight data recorder can be accurate, and still be deceptive, if not properly understood. I suggest you watch the entire video, then you'll understand why the airplane did not hit the Pentagon. In summary, at zero altitude on the flight data recorder, the airplane was still at 300 feet. The process is explained in detail in the video by the 911 pilots for truth. It takes time, but if you're interested in being informed, it's the only way to go. It takes 6-7 minutes to get going, but once the animation begins, it's good.
I've found that those who criticize the 9-11 truth movement rely primarily upon childish taunts as their preferred method of debate. I'd just as soon argue with a dog about calculus. :)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 03/26/07 PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org Contact: Robert Balsamo e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways: The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall. The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon. As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Signed: Robert Balsamo 4000+ Total Flight Time Former: Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time Captain Jeff Latas USAF (ret) Captain - JetBlue Airways Ted Muga Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the ?Star Wars? programs under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions Alfons Olszewski Founder Veterans For Truth US Army (ret) Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief Robin Hordon Former Boston Center Controller Commercial Pilot John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11 11,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George Nelson Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic Dennis Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)
Do you believe the FDR data is fake or is it real?
Watch the video and you'll have your answer.
Do you believe the FDR data is fake or is it real? You are the only one on the planet that can answer my question.
Then get ready to be in suspense, because I don't play the silly games that your kind of debate entails. I've told you what I think. If you're too unmotivated to actually study the issue, if you need a world of absolutes, you're barking up the wrong tree. I talk about the events of 9-11 to promote inquiry. I'm not going to get sidetracked with a pointless banter over your pet method of arguing.
Are these Pentagon workers bunching up to hide the wing end from on-lookers? (Note - 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. -ed) The Blue tarp photo was first posted on a military server but NOW even it is gone as the link to it is dead. The Power Hour first brought this photo to light, one of many of their 9/11 Firsts: We contributed to their superb In Plane Site videos: "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Will someone(s) from both sides of the debate please explain to me what this secondary is supposed to mean. Was it attributed to munitions in the building for some previous purpose. Is the general opinion of the truth-seekers that is was a secondary explosion planted to insure adequate demolition to appear to be an airplane hit instead of a missle with a shaped charge...? BTW, "Paul Revere" did you know that the original Paul Revere was a York Rite Mason?
It is a question of character and integrity. Do you believe the FDR data is fake or is it real? Either a person can take a stand and answer a question or they can choose to wiggle under a rock. You should consider a screen name change. Paul Revere did not wiggle like a worm.
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?
#2. To: honway, Christine, Brian S, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#1)
#3. To: All (#1)
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: honway (#0)
#6. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#5)
It suggests that a winged missile was dropped by the large aircraft
#7. To: Paul Revere (#5)
#8. To: Paul Revere (#5)
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.
#9. To: Paul Revere (#5)
(Edited)
#10. To: BeAChooser (#6)
#11. To: Paul Revere (#10)
#12. To: honway (#8)
(Edited)
#13. To: christine (#11)
#14. To: honway (#8)
#15. To: Paul Revere (#12)
#16. To: honway (#15)
#17. To: Paul Revere (#16)
Watch the video and you'll have your answer
#18. To: honway (#17)
#19. To: Paul Revere, honway (#18)
Compare the people in this photo, especially the guy in suspenders, and the carriers of the tarp covered aircraft part in the next photo: 
#20. To: Paul Revere (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: Paul Revere (#18)
I'm not going to get sidetracked with a pointless banter over your pet method of arguing.
#22. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#19)
#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.
#63. To: RickyJ, ALL (#31)
Just like any moron can tell the WTC towers collapsed due to bombs. Right, Ricky?
Doesn't really matter, flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, any idiot can see that.
#64. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#43)
Yes he is. So why don't you believe him?
Partin is a critic of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing case.
#65. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#49)
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?
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)
Do you know that he also thinks assertions that the WTC towers were demolitions is nonsense too?
Gen. Partin was the "go to guy" with anything concerning military style demolitions.
#67. To: BTP Holdings, Ferret Mike, ALL (#55)
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-is-colonel-donn-de-grand-pre.html "Who Is Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre?"
The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
#68. To: BeAChooser (#42)
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.
#69. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#68)
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.
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)
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.
#71. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#70)
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.
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)
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.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#71)
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.
#74. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#72)
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.
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://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.
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
#76. To: BeAChooser (#69) (Edited)
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.
#77. To: BeAChooser (#42) (Edited)
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?
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?
#83. To: scrapper2 (#82) (Edited)
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.
#84. To: Paul Revere (#83)
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.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#65)
I think the organization's focus of interest is one primarily of interest to airline pilots, and if they are too timid to join out of job fears, you are not going to get other types of commercial pilots to join.
"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?"
#86. To: TommyTheMadArtist, BeAChooser (#84)
If BAC was anything more then a propagandist, he would agree with some things in the purview of what the truth movement covers and disagree on other things. The polarized and very black and white nature of his spectrum of views on this range of topics says he is either one of the informal or formal Internet spin doctors on the issue, or just a contrary fussbudget who derives a prurient and twisted pleasure at conducting pissing in everyone's lunch operations. One should never feed him by using anger or flaming as if this is a source of pleasure and sport for him to invoke such a response, one should never ever feed it.
"Well, you should talk to BeAChooser, because, that guy seems to have all of the answers."
#87. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#75)
Ok, let's take a look at the photos you linked: Number 1: ROTFLOL! Tommy, you just proved you don't know what you are talking about. That's the EXIT hole on the INTERIOR of the building, not the ENTRANCE hole on the EXTERIOR. Number 2: This one gave a hotlinking error. Number 3: ROTFLOL! Tommy, that circle is NOT where the fuselage of the plane hit. It's highlighting something to the RIGHT of where the fuselage hit. In the area hit by the wing. Look at these two images and you will see what I mean: Number 4: ROTFLOL! Tommy, if anything that image proves that the top of the fuselage was AT LEAST the height I claimed. In that image it is depicted as being about 3.5/10ths the height of the building ... i.e., .35*77 = 27 feet. Number 5: ROTFLOL! Tommy, that composite isn't nearly as good as the one I posted and it only proves you wrong. Here's my composite: Now if the top of the building is 77 feet, how high do you think the top of the central hole in that image is? Perhaps even more than 25 feet. Number 6: ROTFLOL! Tommy, you posted another picture of the EXIT hole in the inner ring, not the EXTERIOR hole. ROTFLOL! Tommy, you again only prove my point. You claim you built a model to scale? Let's see if you understand scale. The top of the building is about 77 feet high. The drawings I posted indicate that the height of the tail of the plane WITH THE LANDING GEAR DOWN is 44 feet. Now does that image really look to scale given that the landing gear aren't even down in it? I'm not so sure. But assume the perspective is just fooling me and that the rendition is to scale.What does your ruler tell you the height of the top of the fuselage is in that photo? A third the height of the building? Let's see ... that would be 26 feet. Right, Tommy. What ever you say.
You ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tomhoran_pentagonfromriverhouse.big2.JPG
http://911lies.org/images2/16_foot_hole_pentagon.jpg
central hole and right side damage
Right side damage. 
http://911lies.org/images2/calculating_757_size_pentagon.jpg 
http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/pentagon_composite.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/hole.jpg
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg
It has to suck to be you.
#88. To: BeAChooser (#87) (Edited)
Not convincing. Those engines so large and heavy should have a strong impact signature against the building, and/or have made considerable damage to the lawn and exterior impact effected area by their own right. But all we see is an undersized hole allegedly created by the aluminum bubble of a fuselage. We hear unreasonable crap about how much of the jet was disintegrated in the fire that had the odor of burning explosives early on as per comments of many of the survivors, not jet fuel. This small impact signature was from a missile or small jet rigged with explosives, not from a large jetliner which would have had tonnes of engine metal battering the building and left a huge volume of torn apart fuselage all over the lawn from the lighter structural material of the fuselage the was torn apart and spread as the elements of high material mass pierced the building. It is just unreasonable to pretend this lighter material would be spread so differently in this alleged jet impact when it has never happened in other aviation disasters.
#89. To: Ferret Mike, honway, ALL (#86)
How do you know I don't? I've only been saying that you will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation and lies. And have pointed out the sort of misinformation and lies that are being promoted by the *Truth* movement. You might be interested in knowing that honway once posted a long list of questions about 9/11 at LP. My response to it was to say they were "good questions that deserved answers" and then point out a couple of items in the list that were outright false and thus detracted from the list. My message to you is that if you want answers to the good questions, you need to eliminate the misinformation in what post. If you won't do that, you will never get answers to the good questions because you will be easily discredited in most eyes.
If BAC was anything more then a propagandist, he would agree with some things in the purview of what the truth movement covers and disagree on other things.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#87)
Throw a Christmas tree ornament against a solid wall BAC. It would more closely resemble the realities of a reinforced concrete wall being hit by the mostly air reality of the aluminum bubble of an aircraft. There should have been a huge field of debris from the preponderance of material unable to pierce and enter that reinforced and very strong structure. But all we see are easily hand seeded 'alibi' pieces of debris, all we have is a relatively clean scene of a crime where Bush and company tried vainly to simulate an impact to have their cake and eat it too: A situation where the messy and unreliable el Qaeda plotters were not allowed to hit the wrong area of the building or miss it entirely -- or go for a more attractive and easier to find target like the White House or Capitol. A situation where they got the public galvanizing effect a false flag operation attempts to invoke, without all the messy range of possible bad outcomes becoming a reality. The Washington part of the staged demolition is particularly troubling for people like you who shill for criminals because it is one where it is painfully obvious in a far more black and white manner that things are not as this Administration would claim them to be.
#91. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#88)
They did. There are HOLES in a blast hardened exterior wall where those engines hit. And recognizable portions of the engines were found well inside the structure. You obviously didn't spend more than a microsecond looking at the photos I've posted. You will only end up discrediting yourself by doing that. First of all, I believe I recall ONE survivor who claimed to smell the odor of explosives. Turned out she was a lawyer and probably didn't know what explosives actually smell like. Many witnesses said they smelled aviation fuel. Well I leave it up to the readers to decide if the images I posted (with plane shaped holes over 90 feet wide) and links to descriptions of the extensive damage to the Pentagon fit in with your theory of a missile or small jet with explosives. My bet is that you will only end up discrediting yourself by insisting it does. But you were warned.
Those engines so large and heavy should have a strong impact signature against the building,
But all we see is an undersized hole allegedly created by the aluminum bubble of a fuselage.
We hear unreasonable crap about how much of the jet was disintegrated in the fire that had the odor of burning explosives early on as per comments of many of the survivors, not jet fuel.
This small impact signature was from a missile or small jet rigged with explosives,
#92. To: BeAChooser (#89)
Because it is obvious you don't. You are dishing up Bull droppings as if they are food for thought, ignoring the troubling contradictions and lack of foundation to such evidential claims quite willfully. And you are enjoying the hunt to do a good baiting far too much to give credence to your claim as an impartial truth seeker. How's that thought for you?
"How do you know I don't?"
#93. To: Ferret Mike, TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#90)
All you demonstrate is that you don't know the first thing about impact. Ever seen a photo of a piece of STRAW driven into a telephone pole? What you forget is that mass is important and the mass of the entire fuselage sections was considerable. Likewise the mass of the wings, engines, and the fuel in the wings was considerable. Combine that mass with a high velocity and you do indeed get something that can penetrate reinforced concrete. And experts in impact problems around the world have looked at the Pentagon case and NOT ONE has voiced a view in line with yours. NOT ONE. Which leads me to suspect that you don't know what you are talking about. Just like Tommy.
Throw a Christmas tree ornament against a solid wall BAC. It would more closely resemble the realities of a reinforced concrete wall being hit by the mostly air reality of the aluminum bubble of an aircraft.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#93)
The straw in a tree invoked high interest in the 1950s when one was photographed because it demonstrably showed that a tornado has incredibly high velocities in a very focused manner to them. Whatever hit that building was not propelled there by a tornado. I am from an aviation family and my father -- who was a commercial pilot -- also worked for a time as an inspector at Pratt and Whitney aircraft. I have also seen first hand the aftermath of two light plane crashes. One was a Beech Baron that impacted the water tower at Hammonasset State park in Madison, Connecticut that had taken off from Griswold Field. The other was a Cessna that failed to make a go around to make an emergency landing at the airport in Florence, Oregon and hit guy wires slamming it into the ground. I have spent much time in my life talking about and learning about what happens to aircraft in crashes informally, and I don't care if you are not impressed by my reasoning abilities concerning them.
#95. To: BeAChooser (#93)
The bubble of a fuselage had a specific gravity considerably less then one -- which is the density of water -- and more resembles an aluminum bubble then an anvil of iron. The alleged aircraft hit obliquely and the resulting splash of flesh, aluminum and other material should have ricocheted against the wall and been all over that lawn. Cause and effect, another part of the physics of the crash as reported in the official story that does not add up.
"What you forget is that mass is important and the mass of the entire fuselage sections was considerable."
#96. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#94)
Actually, the velocity of tornados are LESS than the speed of Flight 77 at impact. An F5 (and that's a BIG tornado) has wind speeds up to 319 mph. Flight 77 was going over 500 mph. Again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.
The straw in a tree invoked high interest in the 1950s when one was photographed because it demonstrably showed that a tornado has incredibly high velocities in a very focused manner to them. Whatever hit that building was not propelled there by a tornado.
#97. To: BeAChooser (#87)
These helicopters there before and shortly after the impact were very likely the source of control and guidance for what hit the Pentagon. Some extrapolate that a 737 stand-in did the damage in Washington and at the WTC in NYC. Myself, I am more disposed to finding a missile a far more likely source of the damage in Washington. And as for what people inside the Pentagon smelled, immediately after the event quite a number of them spoke of smelling Cordite. That part of damage control would be to contact these folks and get them to shut up or change their story comes as no surprise to me.
#98. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#95)
Why do you keep talking about the "bubble"? When a plane hits a wall, the fuselage crushes adding the mass of the entire length (as well as its contents) to the "rod" that ends up driving through that wall. Material hitting a wall obliquely at over 500 mph will not ricochet back along the incoming trajectory. Instead, if it ricochetes at all, it will travel downrange of the impact site. You keep talking about the "lawn" because you've seen a photo of the lawn along the incoming trajectory and it has no debris on it. But that's not surprising given basic physics and you just demonstrate yet another instance where you don't know what you are talking about. Take a look at photos of the debris that was found scattered over the area downrange of the impact.
The bubble of a fuselage
The alleged aircraft hit obliquely and the resulting splash of flesh, aluminum and other material should have ricocheted against the wall and been all over that lawn.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#96)
Straw has a low mass and small surface area that keeps the low mass from preventing it to stick in things like spongy tree bark. Tornadoes have high wind velocities and they are focused into a small event. I still fail to see why you would find incidental damage caused by a tornado propelling straw has anything to do with anything unless you live in fear constantly of a girl from Kansas dropping her house on you.
"Actually, the velocity of tornado's are LESS than the speed of Flight 77 at impact."
#100. To: BeAChooser (#98) (Edited)
Link to photo in question: http://911truth.tripod.com/hole1.jpg (Anti hotlinking protocols leaving the cut and paste tecnique as only way to see this particular site's photos) Most of the velocity would have dissipated in the impact, some of it in fact becoming the energy ripping up the material that makes this aluminum bubble an aircraft. Historically a disaster like this has infamously strewn incredible amounts of debris in a large field in a manner the science of physics would have it do; but that didn't happen here. Look at the above photo, why did the 500 MPH impact put the impact hole if kilter to the final hole? Now, I have just got to hear this one. I am always found of fictional explications as bizarre as the 'magic bullet' explanation the Warren Commission claims is truth.
"Material hitting a wall obliquely at over 500 mph will not ricochet back along the incoming trajectory. Instead, if it ricochets at all, it will travel downrange of the impact site."
#101. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#97)
Ever seen a helicopter not arrive at a car chase in any major city? Helicopters are drawn to news like flies to garbage. I would have been surprised had a helicopter or two not been circling. All I can find are two. Is "quite a number" two? Don Perkal is quoted about smelling cordite after hearing someone say a bomb had gone off in the building. Power of suggestion? Perkal is a lawyer. What experience does he actually have in cordite? None of the reports say. And do you know that he's also quoted saying "An attorney I've known for fifteen years was killed instantly when the plane went into the building." Gilah Goldsmith is quoted saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke. Gilah is a lawyer too. What is it with lawyers and cordite? And since when is "cordite" used in missiles?
These helicopters there before and shortly after the impact were very likely the source of control and guidance for what hit the Pentagon.
And as for what people inside the Pentagon smelled, immediately after the event quite a number of them spoke of smelling Cordite.
#102. To: BeAChooser (#98)
By the way, this is one of the absolutely most bizarre distortion of the laws of physics I have ever seen anyone do outside the 'magic bullet' theory. Thanks for the display of desperation re-inventing physics to mitigate such panic.
"When a plane hits a wall, the fuselage crushes adding the mass of the entire length (as well as its contents) to the "rod" that ends up driving through that wall."
#103. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#99)
You only prove my point. Not higher than the impact velocity of Flight 77 No more focused than the mass of Flight 77 was on the Pentagon wall on 9/11.
Straw has a low mass
Tornadoes have high wind velocities
and they are focused into a small event.
#104. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#100)
And you are an expert on impacts? Funny that not one REAL expert anywhere in the world has stepped forward to agree with your version of things. Most of the plane penetrated the outer wall. Why would you expect it to be strewn in a large field? Not sure what you mean. The entrance hole and the exit hole line up perfectly with the damage to the generator and the downed light poles. If it didn't, one would think that at least ONE expert somewhere in the world would have noticed and said something by now. Do you have one to quote? No????
Most of the velocity would have dissipated in the impact
Historically a disaster like this has infamously strewn incredible amounts of debris in a large field
Look at the above photo, why did the 500 MPH impact put the impact hole if kilter to the final hole?
#105. To: BeAChooser (#101)
D.C. is a controlled airspace, and these utility helicopters were there before the impact and shortly afterward. They are also far to expensive to use for the function you extrapolate them as serving. I would expect a light observation two or four seat craft to appear, and in the face of photos like those I hot linked to I would expect proof that they were innocent bystanders to the event to be forthcoming. But it isn't. Much as the alleged remains of the alleged aircraft seem to have vanished like so much New York structural steel being shipped to China to be melted down as quickly as possible. If evidence the A/C in question's impact had ever indeed existed, the evidential chain of custody and undeniable proof of from what it came from would have long ago been forthcoming. But those conducting these false flag operations know they have a pig in the poke with no possibility of proving the lies the Bush Administration created in it's conduct are anything but falsehoods. So they are left with blur the truth ops with a myriad of naysayers like you to try to blunt the impact of the obviousness of the lies of 9-11. The truth is out there, and you just look foolish trying to add smoke and mirrors to the mix to attempt a debunking. The only thing you could show to prove your contentions is show proof that does not exist. You are denied clear and compelling evidence the official story is true because it flat does not exist.
"Ever seen a helicopter not arrive at a car chase in any major city? Helicopters are drawn to news like flies to garbage. I would have been surprised had a helicopter or two not been circling."
#106. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#105)
But you will never find it the way you are going about looking for it. You will only end up helping to discredit the entire *Truth* movement. Sad.
The truth is out there
#107. To: BeAChooser (#104)
You are fond of talking about "REAL" when speaking of experts and witnesses. You ignore the fact that such people are easily thwarted by criminals threatening to destroy their lives and credentials. For your logic to have credence, REAL experts would have to be impervious to the threats of thugs making offers they can't refuse. As for my credentials, I nearly died impacting the ground. Personally that is all the 'credentials' involving impacts I want for a long time. ;-D
"And you are an expert on impacts? Funny that not one REAL expert anywhere in the world has stepped forward to agree with your version of things."
#108. To: BeAChooser (#106)
You mean, I will never find it listening to coaches like you schooling the harnesses horse on the best way to acquire the carrot on a stick in front of them the official 9-11 story is. I started studying this situation convinced the official story was true to learn how to debunk those in the Truth Movement. I did discover something quite interesting: they were right. Nine Eleven was an inside job.
"But you will never find it the way you are going about looking for it."
#109. To: BeAChooser (#93) (Edited)
Bingo! There may be hope for you yet, although I highly doubt it. You can see how the aluminum frame would cut through the building given its momentum and mass, but yet fail to see how its engines and wings also would have done the same thing. There is a reporter on that was on the scene that says the wings folded back. LOL! Any idiot knows that an object moving forward at over 500 MPH is not going to start moving backwards because an object it is attached to hits a solid object, no, it will continue moving forward, and if it breaks off it it will break off forwards, not backwards. The wings and engines would have also cut through the concrete if the aluminum frame did, yet they didn't, more proof that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.
What you forget is that mass is important and the mass of the entire fuselage sections was considerable. Likewise the mass of the wings, engines, and the fuel in the wings was considerable. Combine that mass with a high velocity and you do indeed get something that can penetrate reinforced concrete.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#110. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#84)
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.
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.
#111. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#104)
More queer-speak from BAC! Most of the plane penetrated the outer wall. Why would you expect it to be strewn in a large field? A 757 entered through a 17' hole??? Or did it sub-morph into pieces, during the approach and enter the building in 30 separate pieces? Well .....?
#112. To: BeAChooser (#93) (Edited)
Yes, and I know your example here has been debunked since at least 1978. As you know, what happens in this case is that the tornado bends and twists the tree or telephone pole and large cracks open. Stuff swirling around the debris field enter the cracks just as they enter every other nook and cranny. When the toranado passes, the tree or telephone pole goes upright again, the cracks close and the straw, scarves, pillow cases and grass are left sticking out of the tree or telephone pole. Think about it. The energy is equal to mass times velocity squared. You yourself quoted the wind speed at 350 mph. How much does a straw weigh? There isn't enough energy to drive the thing into a piece of wood.
Ever seen a photo of a piece of STRAW driven into a telephone pole?
.
#113. To: BeAChooser (#87)
I actually posted the interior picture as a point of reference, however, the missing pictures you cite, show a different story than what you continue to adhere to. But that's okay. I realize you're on the clock, and are of course not going to bite the hand that feeds. Keep on laughing. Hopefully you'll have that sense of humor the day the truth is told, and people like you are brought to justice.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
#114. To: BeAChooser (#106)
Chooser if you cared about the truth of 9/11 you would question why your government didn't properly investigate 9/11, you would question why WTC7 came down as it did, you would question why 3 planes supposedly were able to hit their targets in the lone superpower of the world. But you don't, so it is fairly obvious you do not care about the truth of 9/11.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest