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: 10493
Comments: 114
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-6) not displayed.
.
.
.
#7. To: Paul Revere (#5)
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?
#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.
.
.
.
Comments (47 - 114) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest