Home | Forums | Articles | Links Directory | Store | Donate Moderator Info
Democratic Underground
Support DU

Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here: Part 5!!!!

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
 
Previous Topic | Next Topic 
Lobby / Latest 9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism (Protected)
Original message

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Nov-30-02, 11:44 PM (ET)
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here: Part 5!!!!
Please post on this new thread as the others take a very long time to load.
The journey so far:

Post your Pentagon crash QUESTIONS here!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/4566.html

Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here Part 2!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5067&forum=DCForumID43

Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here Part 3!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5103.html

Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here Part 4!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5290&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

Carry on.

  Alert Edit | Reply | Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 absence of ground floor facade demodewd Dec-02-02 1
   The Renovation Was Almost Complete!!!!!!!! boloboffin 12/02/2002 2
       blinded! demodewd 12/02/2002 3
               Bolobuffin disinfo demodewd 12/02/2002 5
                   Timetable for replacing limestone. boloboffin 12/02/2002 6
                       2002!!!!! demodewd 12/02/2002 7
                           re: "crazy" demodewd 12/02/2002 8
                           Shows how long it takes to do this kind of work... boloboffin 12/02/2002 9
                               My scenario demodewd 12/02/2002 10
                                   Pictures after the plane has crashed into the building don't cut it. boloboffin 12/02/2002 11
                                   Re: My scenario anablep 12/03/2002 14
                                       Pentagon Security Cam pics show crash/ & links for evidence shatoga 12/08/2002 82
                                           About Those Service Station Videos... Canitbe 12/10/2002 111
                                   Just so's we all know what you are talking about... vincent_vega 12/03/2002 22
                   Absolute nonsense anablep 12/03/2002 13
 The Myth of the Small Hole anablep Dec-03-02 12
   Compare and contrast DulceDecorum 12/03/2002 15
       Let us remember certain differences... boloboffin 12/03/2002 16
           Wherdy go? DulceDecorum 12/03/2002 17
               Most inside, some outside anablep 12/03/2002 20
           Ok, I concede... but... demodewd 12/03/2002 18
               Re: Ok, I concede... but... anablep 12/03/2002 21
                   Tree RH 12/03/2002 24
               Re: the hijacker's flight path boloboffin 12/03/2002 23
                   "descending spiral "? RH 12/03/2002 25
                   non-disinformation answer demodewd 12/03/2002 26
                       Re: non-disinformation answer anablep 12/03/2002 28
                           And then.... demodewd 12/03/2002 29
                           "Re: non-disinformation answer" RH 12/03/2002 32
   More on the diesel generator anablep 12/03/2002 19
 Plane Wreckage on the Lawn and Heliport anablep Dec-03-02 27
   How do you explain that... Dejitaru_Shuurajou 12/03/2002 30
       Please explain your measurements... anablep 12/03/2002 31
           Thanks for heads up on that website. Dejitaru_Shuurajou 12/04/2002 35
 Photos of Plane Wreckage Inside the Pentagon anablep Dec-03-02 33
   You know, DulceDecorum 12/04/2002 34
       I gotta hand it to you LARED 12/04/2002 36
           Why thank you, DulceDecorum 12/04/2002 37
               If we assume... demodewd 12/04/2002 38
                   Navigating RH 12/04/2002 41
                       re: light poles demodewd 12/04/2002 42
                           Hollow RH 12/05/2002 47
                               re: flight path demodewd 12/05/2002 53
                                   Good Question. RH 12/07/2002 74
                                       What would have made sense DulceDecorum 12/08/2002 79
                                           Some comments anablep 12/08/2002 85
                                           9-11 Osamaites demodewd 12/08/2002 86
               truly correct RH 12/04/2002 40
                   Most certainly, DulceDecorum 12/05/2002 44
       treatment of evidence RH 12/04/2002 39
           Well, well DulceDecorum 12/08/2002 76
       So you are saying? vincent_vega 12/04/2002 43
           Tut Tut DulceDecorum 12/05/2002 45
               Poor DD, high in her tower, besieged by reality... boloboffin 12/05/2002 46
                   Boloboffin DulceDecorum 12/05/2002 51
                       Diehl's testimony was not about the day of the crash, DD. boloboffin 12/05/2002 54
                           The Director of Marketing DulceDecorum 12/09/2002 96
                               You know nothing of what I've seen. boloboffin 12/09/2002 98
                                   I believe DulceDecorum 12/10/2002 104
                                       "Truth suppression" the last refuge of the clueless boloboffin 12/10/2002 108
               No fire, no explosion, no debris, no facade, no hole, no plane... vincent_vega 12/05/2002 48
               paint burned off? RH 12/05/2002 52
                   All sorts of aircraft? DulceDecorum 12/06/2002 64
                       ? RH 12/07/2002 75
                           Boy DulceDecorum 12/08/2002 77
 Did y'all download all the photos I've posted? anablep Dec-05-02 49
   Thank you anablep vincent_vega 12/05/2002 50
       Thanks vincent_vega anablep 12/05/2002 56
           Kudos for your article at Rense... Dejitaru_Shuurajou 12/05/2002 57
               Think it through... anablep 12/06/2002 58
                   This is my latest kick! Doc Paulie 12/06/2002 59
                       First time that I agree with you Doc Bushknew 12/06/2002 61
                           Do some work and research anablep 12/06/2002 62
                               The fire spread demodewd 12/06/2002 63
                                   The explosion blew to the northwest anablep 12/08/2002 90
                               There is little demand for the Pentagon crash coverage!!!! Bushknew 12/07/2002 72
                                   In fact, there were two hour-long documentaries... anablep 12/08/2002 84
                               AHAHAHAHA, most ppl here are doing some research... Dejitaru_Shuurajou 12/08/2002 81
                                   Most are indeed engaged in "analysis" of existing evidence... anablep 12/08/2002 83
                                       Fuel splatter demodewd 12/08/2002 87
                                           What fuel splatter on the left side? anablep 12/08/2002 89
                                               cigar and free vacation demodewd 12/08/2002 91
                                                   I don't smoke anablep 12/09/2002 93
                                                       re: fire damage demodewd 12/09/2002 94
                                                           On fire damage anablep 12/09/2002 97
                   I have no idea WHAT happened DulceDecorum 12/06/2002 65
                       Exactly what illness LARED 12/06/2002 68
                           Frankly Lared, DulceDecorum 12/08/2002 78
                               Not to worry DD LARED 12/08/2002 80
                                   Sometimes DulceDecorum 12/08/2002 92
                                       Ok LARED 12/09/2002 101
                                           TKO DulceDecorum 12/10/2002 105
                                               Let me stagger back from the mat LARED 12/10/2002 107
                                                   Staggering: A retumbante ignorância DulceDecorum 12/11/2002 112
                                                       Please stop LARED 12/11/2002 113
                                                           Complete Knock Out DulceDecorum 12/11/2002 114
                                                               There is a diffenece between can't and won't waste my time LARED 12/11/2002 116
                                                                   And WHY DulceDecorum 12/12/2002 117
                                                                       Why? LARED 12/12/2002 118
                                                                       I'm a very patient student DD LARED 12/13/2002 126
                       Re: I have no idea WHAT happened anablep 12/08/2002 88
                           I still do not understand DulceDecorum 12/09/2002 95
                               You do not understand because you ignore the facts. boloboffin 12/09/2002 99
                                   Re: Ignoring the facts DulceDecorum 12/10/2002 106
                               I think I answered this several times already anablep 12/09/2002 100
                               Video of pieces of the plane anablep 12/09/2002 102
                                   "The Plane" Canitbe 12/09/2002 103
                                       Being precise anablep 12/10/2002 109
                                           Identifiable 757 pieces are 757 pieces. That's all. Canitbe 12/10/2002 110
           Heck these should be good enough... vincent_vega 12/12/2002 120
               but..... Dick Eastman claims differently... demodewd 12/12/2002 121
                   GREAT POST demodewd Bushknew 12/12/2002 122
                   These are the same tired arguments already refuted... boloboffin 12/12/2002 123
                       re: refutation demodewd 12/12/2002 124
                       Be advised Mr_SmokesTooMuch 12/14/2002 131
                   Re: but...Dick Eastman claims differently anablep 12/13/2002 125
                       Many things could be resolved... Canitbe 12/13/2002 127
                           Re: Many things can be resolved... anablep 12/14/2002 128
                               Anablep, you deserve a medal for your hard work. boloboffin 12/14/2002 129
                                   I second that. n/t LARED 12/14/2002 132
                               Pro-Gov. position photos were "Rensed." Canitbe 12/14/2002 130
                                   Something is very wrong with your logic... anablep 12/14/2002 133
                                       I don't accept any conclusions...yet. Canitbe 12/14/2002 134
                                           A 'paid' investigator who wasn't able to keep her website up? boloboffin 12/14/2002 135
                                               On the contrary. Canitbe 12/14/2002 137
                                                   Oh the War of the dueling Fuzzy Photos Doc Paulie 12/15/2002 138
                                                       Those Are Real Good Questions. Canitbe 12/15/2002 139
                                                       Look at all that has been done in this country since 911 Mr_SmokesTooMuch 12/15/2002 140
                                                           Does NOT answer the questions Doc Paulie 12/16/2002 142
                   extremely well done HarryLime 12/14/2002 136
 IF THE PLANE DOESN’T FIT, YOU MUST CONVICT. Bushknew Dec-05-02 55
   Yes but this is not a court of law... vincent_vega 12/06/2002 60
       Aah, DulceDecorum 12/06/2002 66
   George Mitchell stepped down yesterday from the 911 investigation. Bushknew 12/12/2002 119
 two questions after lots of reading HarryLime Dec-06-02 67
   Why pretend something that complicated? ramblin_dave 12/06/2002 69
   Saudis demodewd 12/06/2002 70
   Understanding the criminal mind Bushknew 12/07/2002 71
   Supply and Demand RH 12/07/2002 73
       Icarus DulceDecorum 12/11/2002 115
           NEW THREAD DulceDecorum 12/15/2002 141

Lobby | Latest | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 03:21 PM (ET)
1. absence of ground floor facade
Post crash pics clearly show that the ground floor facade was removed prior to the crash and had not been replaced. To paraphase Martin Doutrehttp://www.nzaif.com/pentagon/pentagon911.html..'A careful scrutiny of photographs on the day of the alleged crash and others in the 3-days following show that a large section of the Pentagon's ground floor façade had been removed, pending renovation, prior to the explosion. This work was progressing down the building. There is no outwardly apparent evidence of lattice-work reinforcing anywhere within the crash photo region, which was the alleged impact zone. In other words the new impact resistant lattice-work, claimed to be undergoing installation, seems conspicuous by its absence amidst the buckled pillars of crash area photos.There appears to be no evidence to suggest that this region of the building was reinforced, in the months previous, to take an aircraft impact, as no bent, buckled or mangled lattice reinforcing is immediately identifiable in the opened up and viewable ground floor section.'This VISUAL evidence plainly disputes those who contend that this unobstructed absoluetly opened up rectangular area was created by a 757.No blast by any plane or by any other source can account for this obvious visually proven fact.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 05:20 PM (ET)
Reply to post #1
2. The Renovation Was Almost Complete!!!!!!!!
How many times does Anablep have to post those pictures to show you this???? A careful analysis of the pictures does not reveal anything like you claim it reveals!

All of the pictures on the website you link to (which won't work until you remove the periods from behind the URL) identify a spot as the initial impact spot which is far to the right of the actual impact spot. You're focusing in on the point where the right wing hit the building, and of course the facade is intact above the wing's impact.

Just to the left of the drawn in 757, you can see a huge flame, right at the tip of the left wing. Right between that flame and the long vertical yellow line is the ACTUAL impact hole, which you can see in this picture. Move the airplane over in your mind, placing the fuselage just to the left of the yellow line. Then lose the drawing of the landing gear (which was not deployed when the airplane struck) and slide the airplane down until the engines are just above the ground. You will see that the airplane then fits right into that airplane-shaped hole in the Pentagon. Why is that, pray tell? Because a 757 made that hole a few moments before this picture was taken.

Also, this picture is not taken on a direct line with the approach of Flight 77. Flight 77 flew over the exit ramp which is to the right of the photographer. So drawing the plane dead on in this angle is already a spatial mistake here. To adjust for this, imagine the plane's tail sliding to the right while the cone stays centered to the left of the yellow line. The right wing will lengthen in this new scale, while the left wing shortens (due to the laws of perspective drawing. Just about the time the length of the right wing corresponds to the length of the hole from the center, the left wing will fit easily into the abbreviated length of the hole left of center. And inside the plane goes - just as LARED, vincentvega, anablep, and I have been saying in all the threads devoted to the Pentadense proposition that Flight 77 never flew into the Pentagon.

Once more, to be sure you read this: THERE WAS NO HOLE IN THE FACADE BEFORE FLIGHT 77 FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON. It was not there until after the plane flew into the Pentagon. The facade was complete on that day. There was no place where the wall was taken down before the plane flew into it. That section of the renovation had already happened. The wall was already built. There was NO HOLE in the FACADE.

To say otherwise is to deliberately spread disinformation.

One more time: as anablep's previously posted picture shows, the facade was already in place on September 11th. The best (and only rational) explanation for the 757-sized hole in the Pentagon in the above picture is that a 757 was flown into the Pentagon.

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 05:52 PM (ET)
Reply to post #2
3. blinded!
According to your "schema" ,how do you explain the open areas to the right of the right wing expanse on the groung floor. They most certainly and absolutely exist and CANNOT be explained by a wing section that avoids the spools by elevating itself on that side. The hole spans 5-6 window section areas and is totally open. No plane wing takes out a wall completely. There would definitely be residual building left be it just a small rise in the wall from the ground up. Refer to the photo to the left of the fuselage hole that is entirely exposed,no evidence of RUBBLE and neatly ends where a new wall section begins. Impossible that the far end of the wing tore out that section in the precise rectangularly way without residual debris and building structure.Flying a 757 into the Pentagon is no root canal job. The construction crew left a nice neat 128 foot rectangular hole for you to fit your wings in. And excuse me but I AM NOT DELIBERATELY SPREADING DISINFDORMATION,If you can't see the extended hole,on the ground floor, on the right side where your plane could not have hit you need to just look again.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 08:05 PM (ET)
Reply to post #4
5. Bolobuffin disinfo
Presumption on your part...no hole in the facade based on a picture taken 17 days before...Obviously the work wasn't done with the spool clutter and doing the rewiring before you replace the facade. So much easier you know....I didn't say the workers left the entire first floor facade for the tail end...just the area of the crash. Oh...my Mr Anti-Disinformation League can't follow another easy to read and understand post.The pertanent reality here Boloid is the area away from your parameters of the crash that is open. Look and see. And while you're at it can you please tell me why the back wall in the E-ring in the area of your left wing penetrtation doesn't even have soot stains on it? I guess that must have been some selective fuel explosion that the fuel tank on the left wing gave off! And no pronounced blackened areas on that far corner outside wall where the wing clipped off just at the break between two sections....imagine that.And all that recognizable rubble piles up in front of all those reconstructed facade areas. I guess thats why it was so easy to see much of that area from ceiling to floor. Well of course the exposion turned itself around and blew all that rubble into the building...kind of a bolo explosion inversion.Not to be confused with a displaced disinformation episode.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 09:30 PM (ET)
Reply to post #5
6. Timetable for replacing limestone.
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/Phoenix/Page.html

Look at these pictures of the current renovation work at the Pentagon. The first limestone in the new facade was placed on February 25, 2002. The facade is listed as 80% complete on May 14, THREE MONTHS LATER.

But we're supposed to believe that with a little more than a month left in the old renovation schedule for Wedge One, that the construction project finally got around to redoing work they had already done ONE YEAR EARLIER, expecting to finish it on time.

Demodewd, you are insane. There was no external work on the facade - the facade was complete on September 11th, 2001, until Flight 77 crashed into it. Sell crazy someplace else - we're all stocked up here.

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 10:26 PM (ET)
Reply to post #6
7. 2002!!!!!
You are showing me pics of 2002!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!. I maybe crazy but???????
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 10:31 PM (ET)
Reply to post #7
8. re: "crazy"
To quote Herr Bolobuffin..."Sell crazy someplace else - we're all stocked up here." Well!!! I guess YOU are! :>D
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 10:32 PM (ET)
Reply to post #7
9. Shows how long it takes to do this kind of work...
...no matter whether it's 2002, 2001, 2000, or any date. The facade work you are talking about takes time, time that the project workers didn't have between August 25 and the end of work on Wedge One, especially since THEY HAD ALREADY DONE THE WORK IN 2000.

Find me a picture that shows the Pentagon without a facade before September 11th but after the August 25th picture and I'll shut up. Really, that's all you need to do.

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 10:59 PM (ET)
Reply to post #9
10. My scenario
Look at crash pics before it collapses. Or do I have say it 18 million times more. Your trajected crash path don't make it. It doesn't cover all the bases,or in this case open facade areas. And thats just for starters. I can't be your eyes. You're just too prejudiced about your own point of view to see alternatives. I've run through your scenario. It has too many "walls". It's an AGM-86 equipped with a BROACH Warhead with the capability of approaching a target at a very low altitude and at a very high rate of speed, making an initial explosive penetration (causing minimal external damage) followed by a secondary blast deployed within the intended target (which could, for instance, cause a massive fire and a portion of the structure to thereafter collapse), and yet still maintain an intact nose-cone capable of making additional penetrations through multiple "hard targets" -- like, for example, a series of reinforced masonry walls.http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr7.html Along with an F-16(or something else) that caused an additional jet fuel rich fire. Thats clean and it works. The missile comes in at a 45 degree angle through the first floor and penetrates three rings blowing out numerous columns on the north side of the crash area. The F-16 comes in(crashing into the second floor) at a smaller angle loaded with explosives and a jet fuel fire splatters the Pentagon facade and roof . There. You see. I am crazy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-02-02, 11:18 PM (ET)
Reply to post #10
11. Pictures after the plane has crashed into the building don't cut it.
Let me get this straight. You believe:

1) The facade of the exact impact point was removed by workers in the days before 9/11, removed in exactly the places needed to create (coincidently or not) a 757-sized hole in the outer Pentagon wall.

2) Then on 9/11, the Pentagon was hit, not once, but twice.

a - First by a cruise missile to gain penetration...

b - Then, by a F-16, to provide the jet fuel explosion.

3) Then Flight 77 went on and landed somewhere where the passengers were offloaded for the plastic surgery necessary to remove the pieces of their bodies found in the Pentagon. Said pieces were burned in a seperate jet fuel fire, and the passengers (minus a few body parts) were then shuttled off to the same South Pacific island on which JFK and Elvis are scamming babes together to this day. No, wait, maybe they got caught in a holding pattern over O'Hare and were blackmailed into providing the body parts needed to make it look like Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

So your version of this nonsense involves the simulation of a Flight-77-sized hole, the strike of a missile AND a fighter jet into the same spot, and the nightmarish process of getting Flight 77 body parts into the Pentagon where Flight 77 most assuredly did not crash.

Why would any conspiracy go to such extrodinary lengths when all they had to do to get the same results was FLY FLIGHT 77 INTO THE PENTAGON!!!!!!!

I don't even believe you're crazy. Just spreading your disinformation for whatever reasons you have for doing so - whether you like playing with the silly liberals or whatever...

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 01:49 AM (ET)
Reply to post #10
14. Re: My scenario
> Look at crash pics before it collapses. Or do I have say it 18
> million times more.

I hope not! It's as ridiculous as it was the first time. How
you can look at a photo taken after a plane flew into a building
and interpret the impact holes (look at all the accompanying
impact damage -- shredded and uprooted columns, pounded in facade
at columns 18-20, stripped limestone facade at columns 6-10) as
mere pre-existing unfinished construction is TOTALLY BEYOND ME.

> It's an AGM-86 equipped with a BROACH Warhead with the
> capability of approaching a target at a very low altitude and
> at a very high rate of speed, making an initial explosive
> penetration (causing minimal external damage) followed by a
> secondary blast deployed within the intended target. The
> missile comes in at a 45 degree angle through the first floor
> and penetrates three rings blowing out numerous columns on the
> north side of the crash area. The F-16 comes in(crashing into
> the second floor) at a smaller angle loaded with explosives and
> a jet fuel fire splatters the Pentagon facade and roof.

And what is your evidence?

Why did no one report seeing a missile? Why did no one report
seeing an F-16? Why did so many people report seeing a mid-sized
commercial plane, specifically American Airlines? How did the
missile create a 96-foot wide one-story hole at ground level and
pound in the facade at columns 18-20? Why was there commercial
aircraft debris inside the Pentagon and on the lawn? How could a
missile or F-16 have possibly topped 5 light poles (spaced
100-110 feet apart) on Washington Boulevard, along the same
trajectory as internal building damage?

Your scenario is plausible only to those who are not familiar
with the evidence.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

shatoga Donating Member (382 posts) Click to EMail shatoga Click to send private message to shatoga Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-08-02, 01:47 PM (ET)
Reply to post #14
82. Pentagon Security Cam pics show crash/ & links for evidence
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-02 AT 02:02 PM (ET)

Pentagon Security Photos
On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html
The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner — possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670-2002Mar7.html
Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/plissken.htm


Hunt the Boeing:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
>As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!<
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html#pentagon

Comprehensive link with many, many pictures and many links:
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/index.html

"something that's really important and is so true...Democrats are just as patriotic about their country as Republicans" George W. Bush- January 22, 2001

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Canitbe (44 posts) Click to EMail Canitbe Click to send private message to Canitbe Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-10-02, 09:07 PM (ET)
Reply to post #82
111. About Those Service Station Videos...
So, the Pentagon won't release them. But have the employees of the service station ever been interviewed...to any DUers' knowledge? If so, what did they have to say.

Was the video camera fixed/attached to something at the station, or did someone actually hold the camera on that day? If someone held the camera, and has since said that the video tape would show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon, then that statement alone, cannot be taken as proof of the fact alleged. If the Government releases the video, and it validates the statement, that's another matter.

On the other hand, if the employee/videographer says (or has said): "NO, I didn't see nor videotape a 757 crashing into the Pentagon," then that statement should be taken very seriously.

There may also be many other variations that the videographer might make (or, has made)...such as uncertainty about "what" they saw, size of any alleged jet, etc.

Maybe the camera was attached, and no employee actually saw anything...including the images caught on the camera.

If YOU know anything that would illuminate the issues raised by the above, would you kindly let me, and other readers know.

Thank you.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

vincent_vega (408 posts) Click to EMail vincent_vega Click to send private message to vincent_vega Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 04:02 PM (ET)
Reply to post #10
22. Just so's we all know what you are talking about...
This is the AGM-86C you are talking about.


The Path of the righteous man is beset on all sides, by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 01:24 AM (ET)
Reply to post #5
13. Absolute nonsense
I am truly astonished by demodewd's denseness.

> Presumption on your part...no hole in the facade based on a
> picture taken 17 days before...Obviously the work wasn't done
> with the spool clutter and doing the rewiring before you
> replace the facade.

So in 1999 the outer facade wall was stripped down to the
structural columns, then in 2000 the wall was rebuilt so that by
August 25, 2001, "17 days before ... (there was) no hole in the
facade" as you acknowledge. Then suddenly in the 17 days before
9/11 the contractors realized, "Oops, we forgot to do the
rewiring" so they dismantled the entire first floor facade
(again!), and yet were only two weeks from finishing their
work??!!!

Utter nonsense.

There is not a shred of evidence that the wall was
dismantled for a second time. You lamely point to the Ingersoll
photos taken after A PLANE FLEW INTO THE BUILDING. Those photos
cannot show a pre-existing unfinished facade when the one-story
holes show obvious impact damage around them. You always forget
to notice this. You also fail to notice that the structural
columns behind the "unfinished facade" were also missing (see the
damage plan in my other post). Hardly just a case of an
unfinished facade -- most of the first floor interior columns
were gone, which goes a long way towards explaining why the
section collapsed.

The facade wall was photographed as intact just 17 days before
the attack. On the day of the attack the renovators were just
two weeks from completion. The significance of this is lost on
you.

Instead of acknowledging you were wrong about the first-floor
holes, you hang onto your mistaken view against all the evidence.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 00:02 AM (ET)
12. The Myth of the Small Hole
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-02 AT 00:34 AM (ET)


I decided to update and repost my essay on "The Myth of the Small
Hole" for the new thread. There are so many misconceptions about
the exterior building damage that I feel a new version of my post
is necessary.

I. The size of the impact hole and damaged area

Many people believe that the only impact hole in the Pentagon
facade was a small two-story hole about 18 feet across. There
are photos (such as those on the "Hunt the Boeing" website) that
suggest such a small hole but smoke and foam sprays obscure a
much wider one-story hole that measured about 96 feet across.

As we shall see, this one-story hole was as high as the second
floor support and extended from columns 8 to 18. Martin Doutré
and (most obstinantly in this forum) demodewd regard this hole as
merely the portion of the facade which was unfinished at the time
of the attack. This view is completely erroneous. First of all,
the Wedge 1 renovations were only a week or two from completion
and it is ridiculous to think that basic exterior walls were
still absent at the time. The exterior walls were stripped to
their "bare bones" of structural columns, but this was back in
1998 and 1999. That was the very first phase of the renovation.
Then came the core and shell construction, and the installation
of blast-resistent windows and outer walls which started in
spring 2000. Here is a photo showing the exterior walls and
windows in place by September 2000:

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/projects-W1.htm
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/image-W1blastwindows.htm

The following photo of the West face of the Pentagon was taken on
August 25, 2001 and the exterior walls were indeed fully intact:

http://www.maxho.com/BigTrip/pages/Pentagon.htm
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/Pentagon-HECTOP.pdf (cached)

Note the newly renovated heliport control tower (previously there
were two separate buildings). This wasn't finished until January
2001. Demodewd's attempt to explain away the hole is thus
without any substance. The facade wall was intact prior to the
attack. To further claim (without evidence) that it was intact
on August 25, 2001 and then dismantled before the attack is an
even loonier attempt to avoid the obvious.

The following image reconstructs the actual dimensions of the
hole and damage by assembling photos taken by Cpl. Jason
Ingersoll before the wall collapsed. In areas where smoke has
occluded detail, I have added features from a Will Morris photo
which shows a close up of the left wing impact area:

I have indicated the hole itself with red lines. The hole is
surrounded by more impact damage which I've marked with green
lines. The columns left of the center hole were swept away, while
three spiral columns on the right were still attached to the
ceiling though ripped from their foundations (marked in orange).
The two columns marked in purple were load-bearing but the
limestone-brick wall around them was blown away. The blue sag
line indicates where the facade later collapsed.

To accurately measure the dimensions of the impact hole and
damaged facade, I have utilized the damage plan published in the
Arlington Co. After Action Report.

http://www.co.arlington.va.us/fire/edu/about/pdf/after_report.pdf

The scale of the damage plan is 2 pixels per foot. Below I have
reproduced the damage plan with a scaled representation of Flight
77 at a 50-degree angle. Column 14 was in the middle of the
center impact hole and thus the nose of the plane is centered on
that column. By comparing the Will Morris and Ingersoll photos
with the damage plan, we find that the hole punched out by the
impact (marked in red) measured 96 feet across, while the area of
visible impact damage extended 141 feet. Although the wingspan
of a 757 is only 124 feet, because it struck at a 50-degree angle
(as determined by lining up the trajectory of interior damage
with the 5 light poles toppled by the aircraft) it actually
spanned 160 feet of building facade.

By these measurements, the impact hole accommodated about 60% of
the wingspan, from just past the right engine to two-thirds
of the way down the left wing. This hole fit almost all the
volume of the left wing fuel tank, the fuselage, the two
engines, and about half of the volume of the right wing fuel
tank. That is most of the mass of the plane. As we shall see,
more than half of the right wing extended above the first floor
and heavily damaged the second floor facade -- though not
creating a second hole on the second floor (more on this later).
When we examine the entire area showing obvious impact
damage, we find that it accounts for about 88% of a 757's
wingspan. This covers everything but one of the lightweight
wing tips. In other words, the plane that hit the Pentagon had
to have had a wingspan of at least 110 feet, and a wingspan of
124 feet is also perfectly reasonable -- considering that the
wing tips were very lightweight and did not have much mass.

Some people expect the hole to be identical to the dimensions of
the plane, ignoring the fact that the wing tips, rudder, and tail
fin are lightweight and would not have the same effect on the
facade as far heavier parts of the plane. As Mete Sozen and Sami
Kilic, and Christoph Hoffman found in their physical modeling of
the Pentagon crash, "the number of columns destroyed in the
facade of the building does not have to correspond to the wing
span. The tips of the wings, having less mass, are cut by the
columns rather than the wing cutting the columns."

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

The Morris photo does appear to show some impact damage from the
tailfin, as indicated in the above photo.

II. A closer look at the impact damage

The damage plan above shows that the plane would have struck the
building between columns 6 and 22. The Will Morris photo
above shows the ground level area between columns 6 and 13.
A narrow swath of limestone is missing between columns 6, 7,
and 8 and columns 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are missing. As the
Morris photo shows, the left wing impact hole conformed to the
structure of the building -- the hole stopped at the second floor
support structure and column 8. However we do find above the
hole on the second floor a slanted diagonal swath of missing
limestone shook loose by the impact -- which likely reproduces
the orientation of the left wing to the first floor facade (i.e.
a left wing-down attitude).

The Morris photo also shows a narrow line of missing limestone
above the center impact hole extending leftward along the third
floor support. Just as top of the left impact hole coincides
with the second floor support structure, so does the center
impact hole (and strip of missing limestone) correspond to the
third floor support structure. And when we look at the Ingersoll
composite above, we see that the right impact hole also
corresponds to the second floor support. This gives the entire
hole a somewhat rectangular appearance. The plane's impact did
not merely punch out the stone it directly touched. The energy
obviously also transferred to adjacent stone and blew away the
facade up to the second floor support for the wings and the third
floor support for the fuselage. The horizontal floor supports
absorbed most of the remaining energy of the impact, as did some
of the vertical columns. That is why the impact did not tear
away stone above these supports. The hole reflected the
structure of the building as much as it did the plane.

The Ingersoll composite shows that columns 15 and 16 were
uprooted and stripped while columns 17 and 18 were damaged but
still load-bearing. The right impact hole ends at column 18.
The rest of the first-floor facade south of column 18 was
essentially intact. But on the second floor, the area between
columns 18 and 20 was severely damaged. The following Ingersoll
closeup shows the damage in detail:

This impact damage was undoubtedly caused by the right wing.
The area between columns 18 and 20 accounted for about a third
of the wing. The height of the right wing damage compared to the
height of the left wing damage indicates that the wings were
slanted on a left-down attitude. The first third of the right
wing punched a hole to column 18 up to the second floor
support which withstood the impact -- and absorbed much of the
energy transferred by the second floor impact. The next third
of the wing thus heavily damaged the second floor facade but did
not punch through. The final third of the wing did not leave
much visible damage to the second floor facade. Corridor 4
spanned between columns 19 and 23 and thus the final third of
the wing struck a much more reinforced section than the rest of
the wing. The added structural reinforcement further limited the
amount of damage the lightweight wing tip caused.

The height of the center fuselage hole may be estimated with the
Ingersoll composite. The Pentagon wall is 71 feet in height (77
feet to the rooftop) and the top of the wall corresponds to p60
and the ground corresponds to p323. This means that each pixel
corresponds to .27 feet in height. The center hole spans 95
pixels or 26 feet in height. The height of the fuselage +
engines was 18.25 feet (51p; 1p=.3577 feet), as the following
scaled image demonstrates:

The top of the cabin may have thus been anywhere from 19 to 26
feet from the ground when it hit the building. Since the
fuselage was only 12.5 feet in height and fuselage + engines were
only 18 feet, that means the impact tore an extra 8 feet from
the facade. Note that the top of the center hole and the tear
line above corresponds to the ceiling of the second floor. Cracks
from the impact extended northward along the same line, as the
Will Morris photo shows. This suggests to me that the hole
terminated there because of the third floor structure and not
because this is where the top of the cabin struck the building.
If the fuselage struck the building just 6 feet off the ground
(with the engines just grazing the grass) and if the wings were
level, the entire wingspan would've entered the ground floor.
The wings of course were not level and about 60% of the right
wing struck at the second floor level. But for a third of the
wing to enter at the ground floor, the top of the cabin would
have had an altitude closer to 19 feet than 26 feet.

The following image by Ron Harvey tries to depict how Flight 77
flew into the building. The slight left-down slant to the wings
is indicated by building damage and numerous witness accounts.
This image uses an photo of the taxi struck by light pole debris
-- thus the view of the building is exactly along the plane's
flight path (unlike the Ingersoll photos).

Note that the cable spools were underneath the fuselage and not
the engines -- thus the 6, 7, or 8 feet altitude of the fuselage
was enough to clear the spools (assuming, of course, that this
was their original position). Also note the right engine tore
right into the contractor's compound, shearing away part of the
fence (grounded in concrete) and half of a diesel generator
trailer parked outside the building. This is the trailer seen
burning furiously after the explosion. Several witnesses, in
fact, saw the engine strike the trailer (I'll give the accounts
in a later message). The following Ingersoll photo gives an
excellent closeup view of the right-engine impact area:

Note the twisted metal poles, torn chain-link fence, and the
devastated trailer. The impact which destroyed the trailer also
likely destroyed the right engine, and renovation manager Lee
Evey described seeing "veins of the engine" nearby.

III. Conclusion

The hole punched into the building spanned 96 feet while 141 feet
of damage spanned across the facade. It is unreasonable to
expect the entire wingspan to have carved out a cartoon
silhouette hole since the hole is also going to reflect the
building structure. The extermities of the plane were also weaker
and less destructive than the center fuselage and fuel tanks, the
corridor section of the facade was more heavily reinforced than
main facade, and the wings were tipped in a way that sent half of
the right wing above the second story support which undoubtedly
absorbed much of the force of the impact. A theory that posits
a missile or small F-16 plane cannot explain the damage the
building fared at columns 6-10 and 18-22. Demodewd's insistance
that the ground floor walls were absent just prior to the attack
is not based on any empirical evidence and is refuted by an
aerial photograph taken on August 25, 2001.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 03:56 AM (ET)
Reply to post #12
15. Compare and contrast
A terrorist attack on the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11 left a 100-foot (30-meter) hole but relatively few casualties.....

The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have been much, much worse."
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_3-1.html

From inside to outside, the five rings of buildings are labeled A through E. The airliner entered the ground floor of the west face of the E ring and penetrated through the C ring. Where the airplane struck, the impact, explosion, and fire brought down all five stories and created a hole about 100 feet (30 meters) wide. In the surrounding area, the newly stiffened walls remained only partly damaged or not at all.
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_3-2.html

MEANWHILE, IN NEW YORK....

Astaneh-Asl has uncovered pieces of structural steel that bear gouge marks — material removed as the Boeing 767s tore through the buildings. One column shows the impact of what Astaneh-Asl believes to be AN AIRPLANE WING SLICING THROUGH THE STEEL; another, the curve of a plane's nose. THESE MARKS, Astaneh-Asl explains, COULD BE MADE ONLY BY A SHARP OBJECT MOVING VERY FAST. (One estimate clocked the impact speed of the jetliners at 300 miles (480 kilometers) per hour.)
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html

Asteneh-Asl’s examination of the debris found that steel flanges, once an inch thick, became paper-thin after the disaster. He reportedly found PIECES OF STRUCTURAL STEEL WITH GOUGE MARKS IDENTIFYING WHERE A BOEING 767 STRUCK, INCLUDING ONE SEGMENT THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SLICED BY AN AIRPLANE WING, and another by the plane's nose. Asteneh-Asl is also part of a team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the trade center site and reconstruct the failure of the buildings.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News1-0112.html

Amidst 40,000 tons of twisted steel, Professor Astaneh located and recovered an internal column apparently hit by one of the planes. This piece of steel reveals what may have happened to internal columns when the planes collided with the twin towers buildings that were "ALMOST PERFECTELY CONSTRUCTED," according to Astaneh. He has collected heat-deformed specimens resembling "something from a Salvador Dali painting." THE HEAT WAS SO INTENSE THAT FIRE PROOFING ON THE STEEL MELTED INTO A THIN, GLASSLIKE LAYER.
http://www.eng.nsf.gov/engnews/2001/Nov01LessonsFromGroundZero/nov01lessonsfromgroundzero.htm

For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. STEEL FLANGES HAD BEEN REDUCED FROM AN INCH TO PAPER THIN, Astaneh said.
<snip>
The World Trade Center was far better constructed than the Murrah building, down to a pedigree for each steel beam and a welder’s signature on each weld. Berkeley alum Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer on the project more than 30 years ago, and his design included many innovations only now working their way into other buildings, Astaneh said.
<snip>
“Although I did not think of planes crashing into buildings when I was developing the system,” he said, “after seeing how easily the 767 entered the World Trade Center towers and delivered almost all of its jet fuel inside the building, I thought, ‘What would have happened if the exterior of the building was this composite system that we’ve developed?’”
A plane hitting such a system would have a hard time penetrating the building intact, he said. Most likely it would “accordion,” keeping most of the plane and its fuel outside the building. He is eager to test it as a possible “plane stopper.”
As he pursues bomb-resistant, anti-terrorist building designs, however, he will forever be left with images of the destruction at ground zero, SUCH AS THE EYEGLASS LENS HE SAW IMBEDDED IN A SLAB OF CONCRETE.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

NOW, BACK TO THE PENTAGON.

The plane did not "accordion."
It entered the building.
The hole is 100 feet wide.
The wings are capable - at that speed - of slicing through steel.

OK, so that explains the lack of external debris, but where is the damn plane?

Oh, what was that, flexible planes you said?
Well, hot damn, lookee here:

The F/A-18A with warping wings began test flights this month. The experiments could lead to aircraft equipped with wings that bend and shape themselves to maneuver in flight, rather than using flaps, slats and ailerons that do the job on today's planes.
In nature, birds and bees morph their wings to maneuver, as did the plane flown by Orville and Wilbur Wright in their historic 1903 flights at Kitty Hawk, N.C.
In the new tests, the wings of the former Navy jet were modified to allow them to flex by up to 5 percent.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&ncid=519&e=68&u=/ap/20021122/ap_on_re_us/flexible_flier_1

The first flight of a revolutionary flexible-wing F/A-18A research jet was Friday, Nov. 15 <2002> at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB, Calif.
The Active Aeroelastic Wing program is researching the use of lighter-weight flexible wings for improved maneuverability of future high-performance military aircraft. The program intends to demonstrate improved aircraft roll control through aerodynamically induced wing twist on a full-scale manned supersonic aircraft - essentially a 21st century, high-tech update of the primitive wing-warping control system devised by the Wright brothers for their 1903 Wright Flyer. It is a joint program of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Boeing's Phantom Works and NASA Dryden.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/

That was some precocious Boeing 757 that whapped itself into the Pentagon, wouldn't you say?


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 10:05 AM (ET)
Reply to post #15
16. Let us remember certain differences...
...between the WTC attack and the Pentagon attack.

The most important one is speed. The WTC planes cruised into their targets at full throttle, at almost 500 miles per hour. The Pentagon plane was engaged in a descending spiral, which caused it to hit the Pentagon at a top speed of 250 mph.

The second one is the wall structure. The WTC didn't have the concrete and Kevlar reinforcements added to their wall - specific blast resistance that the Pentagon had just installed to that wedge.

The third is intervening structures. As Anablep has so clearly shown, the Pentagon plane hit a few things (the light posts and the trailer) before striking the Pentagon.

All of this adds up to one thing: the Pentagon plane had much less momentum entering its target than the WTC planes did. The WTC planes were much more likely to leave the "cartoon" holes than the Pentagon plane, which plunged into the E-ring rather crudely.

Now I do notice that anablep said that there was a hole 96 feet long in the Pentagon, and you quote a source that says the hole was "about 100 feet" wide. These statements are perfectly consistent with each other, and as anablep again so carefully pointed out, exterior damage extends beyond the hole to the length of 146 feet. Nothing you say, DD, refutes anything that anablep says.

But hey! At least you don't believe that it was a cruise missile AND an F-16 flying into a prefab hole. Or do you?

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 12:56 PM (ET)
Reply to post #16
17. Wherdy go?
****The most important one is speed. The WTC planes cruised into their targets at full throttle, at almost 500 miles per hour. The Pentagon plane was engaged in a descending spiral, which caused it to hit the Pentagon at a top speed of 250 mph.

The second one is the wall structure. The WTC didn't have the concrete and Kevlar reinforcements added to their wall - specific blast resistance that the Pentagon had just installed to that wedge.

The third is intervening structures. As Anablep has so clearly shown, the Pentagon plane hit a few things (the light posts and the trailer) before striking the Pentagon.****

So where is the plane?
If it is not INSIDE the building, due to its low speed, the reinforced concrete and the Kevlar which disintegrates at low temps, then why is there NOT a pile of debris just outside the wall? And don't try to tell me that hitting the light posts and the trailer slowed that Boeing down.

If the plane DID make it INSIDE the building then what damn use was that Kevlar, and reinforced concrete and where did the wings go?
They may have damaged the wall, but where is their final resting place? Inside or outside? Show me. Show me the actual wings.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 01:47 PM (ET)
Reply to post #17
20. Most inside, some outside
As I already said, most of the mass of the plane went inside the building. The kevlar and reinforced concrete limited the amount of damage. It's not going to stop the inertia of a 125-ton airliner going 300 mph, but it makes a difference.

You're never going to find intact wings. Most of the wings went inside the building, some sections were sliced by columns, and the explosion of the fuel tanks INSIDE the wings pretty much obliterated them. The explosion also distributed debris just outside the impact hole over a wide area to the northwest.

Photos show lots of small pieces of aircraft debris across this area. One piece, in fact, looks very much like a piece of wing assembly. Photos also show pieces of the plane inside the building -- remains of one of the engines, a landing gear, an airliner wheel hub and tire tread, and small pieces of yellow-green primed aircraft pieces. I will post these images in seperate messages.

Finally, let us also note that debris from the right wing likely fell in the space between the contractor's compound and the Pentagon wall (near columns 20-22). I have over 1,000 photos of the Pentagon on 9/11 and the days that followed (some unreleased) and in none of them is there a good closeup of this area on 9/11, 9/12, or even 9/13. Lee Evey indicated seeing pieces of the wing and engine in that area.

"The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building....And the few larger pieces there look like they are veins out of the aircraft engine. They're circular."

http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0915/DoD.html

anablep


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 01:14 PM (ET)
Reply to post #16
18. Ok, I concede... but...
Ok. I'll concede . No pre-fab hole. But...What happens to the fuselage/nose after it intersects the floor column between the two floors? Which floor is it actually on? Does it grind its way through the floor/ceiling? How does the nose sustain structural integrity through 3 buildings and a assortment of columns? How does the nose find its way through the back wall of the first floor of the C ring? Why is there no observable burned area at the far left corner of the E-Ring blast area and yet there is evident blast destruction?Why is there a blasted out hole in the recessed area where the right wing of a 757 supposedly hit and yet the wing could have hit only the projected columns? Why is there profound damage at the more extreme right wing end and none closer in above the second floor column? Why is the blast so obviously devastating in the left wing section as to being so apparently weaker in the right wing area? Wouldn't the observable buckled columns attain that status because of the increased weight put on them from those columns that have been eliminated? Why is the left wing of the plane graphic that displays its immediate approach to the building disproportionately high? Wouldn't the engine actually be scraping the ground? Where is the rubble? Is there facade rubble observable? Wouldn't I see rubble splattered on the cars in front of the far left side of the blasted out area? If this was a 757 was it remotely controlled? Is it humanly possible to navigate a 757 in this manner when you are a commercial jet flying novice? Why would the hijackers elect to fly in such a dangerous and unpredictable manner? Why would they choose to crash into the West Wing?...the most up to date fortified section of the entire building? Why wouldn't the pilot just nose dive into the center of the Pentagon...what a logistical nightmare that would have been!
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 03:48 PM (ET)
Reply to post #18
21. Re: Ok, I concede... but...
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-02 AT 03:57 PM (ET)

> What happens to the fuselage/nose after it intersects the floor
> column between the two floors? Which floor is it actually on?
> Does it grind its way through the floor/ceiling?

That is actually a good question for a change. The damage plan
provided in the Arlington report only covers the first floor.
The height of the fuselage 6, 7, or 8 feet from the ground would
place the top of the cabin somewhere past the second floor
support. We don't know how far into the building the fuselage
went on the second floor -- all we can tell from the Ingersoll
photos is that it breached the outer facade. Since this is the
portion of the building that sustained the longest duration of
impact (because of the length of the fuselage), this is where
damage to the floor/ceiling is most likely.

As for the condition of the nose, look at the simulation at the
Purdue site:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

This simulation is based on the physical properties of the
plane's structure against the reinforced columns. It shows
column 14 (use column 11 for reference, the double-set of columns
in the middle) first slicing through the starboard section of the
nose, then column 13A slices through behind it and column 13
slices through the port side. Then the double column 11C slices
straight down the middle. The fuselage was torn apart by the
columns until the fuel depot arrived which destroyed them.
According to Lee Evey, "the plane peeled back as it entered,
leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the
building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther
inside."

http://detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312016.htm

This suggests that it was ripped apart as it entered, and the
plane's roof collapsed into the cabin while sections of the plane
sheared off as they struck structural pillars inside the
building. This again suggests that the second floor was not
penetrated very far into the building.

> How does the nose sustain structural integrity through 3
> buildings and a assortment of columns? How does the nose find
> its way through the back wall of the first floor of the C ring?

Because it had momentum. There is no a priori reason to insist
that the nose had to be intact by the time it reached the east
wall of C-ring. It still had its inertia and the tons of plane
behind it that kept it going. The Purdue simulation shows that
the tip of the nose, despite hitting numerous pillars, still
maintained its "pointedness".

In fact, the witness accounts and wreckage photos show that the
C-ring punchout hole was surrounded by aircraft debris from the
nose -- and indeed, the debris was fragmented into pieces. We
find a chunk of fuselage here, a landing gear there, a wheel hub
here, a tire tread there. The existence of such debris shows
that parts of the nose DID made it that far, so asking HOW
the nose got there does not problematize the fact that it did.

Quite a few witnesses, in fact, mentioned seeing an intact nose
cone in A-E Drive. It is thus possible that the rest of the nose
disintergrated while the cone (or a large piece of it) punched
through the C-ring wall.

> Why is there no observable burned area at the far left corner
> of the E-Ring blast area and yet there is evident blast
> destruction?

Are you talking about the ground or on the facade? We do find
dark burn marks seared on both the facade and ground:

The red line marks the perimeter of the fireball. Note that it
bulges to the northwest. This is the same direction that debris
fell (marked with blue lines). Debris fell at an inverse angle
to the approach trajectory.

Most of the area in front of the Pentagon was blacktop pavement.
However we do find scorched grass in front of the building:

> Why is there a blasted out hole in the recessed area where the
> right wing of a 757 supposedly hit and yet the wing could have
> hit only the projected columns? Why is there profound damage at
> the more extreme right wing end and none closer in above the
> second floor column?

Please cite the column numbers so I know which ones you are
talking about. "The more extreme right wing end," around columns
20-22 in fact shows little visible damage. The heavier middle
section of the wing, which struck at columns 18-20, caused much
damage on the second floor. This is possibly the "profound"
damage you are talking about. Between this and the first floor
lay the second floor support which withstood the impact.

> Why is the blast so obviously devastating in the left wing
> section as to being so apparently weaker in the right wing
> area?

Look at my graphic again. Because of the inclination of the
wings and the 50-degree angle, the entire left wing was at ground
level and did not meet the resistence of the second floor support
that the right wing did. It also had a big turbofan engine
attached. The right wing met with the resistence of the second
floor support and the engine was probably already destroyed by
the impact with the generator trailer.

> Wouldn't the observable buckled columns attain that status
> because of the increased weight put on them from those columns
> that have been eliminated?

I don't understand what you're talking about. Please cite the
column numbers! Are you talking about uprooted and stripped
columns 15, 15A, and 16? Or are you talking about second floor
columns that support "increased weight" because of missing ground
floor columns?

> Why is the left wing of the plane graphic that displays its
> immediate approach to the building disproportionately high?
> Wouldn't the engine actually be scraping the ground?

Please explain why you think the left wing in G_Section1.jpg
is disproportionately high. I see nothing of the sort. It joins
the fuselage at the same level as the right wing. The wings are
tilted with a left-wing down attitude. The left engine could've
been 2 or 3 feet off the ground when the plane crashed, or it
could've in fact made landfall when it crashed. Don't forget
that the area fronting the building is paved.

> Where is the rubble? Is there facade rubble observable?
> Wouldn't I see rubble splattered on the cars in front of the
> far left side of the blasted out area?

Absolutely. Rubble from the building facade is easily observable on the helipad: --

Here is a window from the building twisted up with venetian
blinds lying on the lawn northwest of the impact site:

> If this was a 757 was it remotely controlled? Is it humanly
> possible to navigate a 757 in this manner when you are a
> commercial jet flying novice?

I regard remote control as a very different question. I am very
skeptical of it, and I don't see much evidence of it aside from
the presumed manuvering, but I do not dismiss it out of hand. It
is possible, but unlikely. Like anything else, I want to see the
evidence.

The approach trajectory was rather difficult, especially
navigating between I-395 and the Sheraton and Navy Annex
buildings. Why not fly over Arlington Cemetary, which would've
made a much easier approach? My opinion is that the target was
probably not the E-ring section of Wedge 1 but the A-ring section
near Corridor 9 and 10 (on the side fronting the Potomac). The
only way to hit that section was to fly over the Pentagon from
the west and make a run over the courtyard. I-395 would've then
been used to navigate one's way to the West side of the building
and the plane would've been lined up with the target (which would
not be the case if one flew over Arlington Cemetary). The
problem however was that the plane was difficult to manuveur and
the pilot lost altitude too quickly, hitting light poles along
the way, and hitting the building short. Instead of flying over
the West face of the Pentagon, the plane impacted the Wedge 1
wall. On this account, the impact occurred where it did in part
because of the pilot's inability to control the plane
effectively.

But that is just an opinion. It is based on a few witness
accounts (Noel Sepulveda and a man interviewed on CNN on 9/11),
but not much else -- just as the remote control thesis is not
based on much else either.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 06:18 PM (ET)
Reply to post #21
24. Tree
> Why is there profound damage at
> the more extreme right wing end and none closer in above the
> second floor column?

Behind the generator, in front of the inner section of the starboard wing, there was a tree in way. It would have absorbed some of the impact, hence a relative lack of damage to the wall in that vicinity.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 05:56 PM (ET)
Reply to post #18
23. Re: the hijacker's flight path
You are absolutely right when you say that crashing a passenger plane into the center of the Pentagon would have been a much more devastating event. There would have been no need to slow down, in fact, gravity could have provided added boost to the plane's momentum. The fires started by that attack (a 757 plunging full throttle into the maze of corridors below the Pentagon) might have burned the entire Pentagon down. Perhaps next time Al Qaeda will be a little more picky about a spot.

But they didn't, and I can't tell you why the hijackers chose the plan they did. The plane went into a descending spiral around the Pentagon, and I believe it was strictly chance that determined which wedge the plane hit when it reached the bottom of the spiral. Yes, I'm saying it was probably coincidence that the plane hit the only wedge that had just been reinforced against car and truck bombs.

I do know that tapes of the actual hit were confiscated by authorities, and a possible explanation of this is that the hijackers might have been filming the crash for their own propaganda purposes and authorities wanted to deny them any video record of these events. When the French "no plane" book came out, they released the most non-helpful tape they could that actually showed the crash (the five frame blurred record of the crash-explosion).

I say all that to say that perhaps the hijackers chose a side attack so as to film the crash better. Everything they did that day was intended for filming. A side attack opens up the Pentagon to possible land attacks as well, which would have been another crazy distraction on that day.

And the attack on the Pentagon wasn't the most important one in Washington anyway. If Flight 11 had made it to Washington, it would have crashed into the Rotunda of the Capitol Building. That was the one for the video cameras, and the attack on the Pentagon assured the hijackers that every single soul who owned a videocamera would have had it trained on the skies above Washington. The sight of the final plane cruising down the National Mall to blow the Capitol Building to bits was denied Al Qaeda, but they got an unexpected bonus: the collapse of the WTC towers.

This schedule of events is why Flight 77 wasted so much time before finally turning around and heading for Washington: Flight 11 was delayed on takeoff. The plan (as evidenced in New York) required an initial strike to get the cameras focused, and a second attack soon after.

As far as remote control: it's possible that if the pilots weren't up to the skills necessary to bank a plane into the pentagon, the autopilot could have been programmed to begin the spiral. This is total guesswork on my part, here. I have no actual knowledge of what an autopilot can be programmed to do. I'm simply guessing that it has more options than cruise control.

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 06:35 PM (ET)
Reply to post #23
25. "descending spiral "?
"The plane went into a descending spiral around the Pentagon"?

Excuse me, but where is the evidence to support this often repeated "fact"?

It began from a CBS report, Sept. 21, 2001.

"The Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

The same report, however, neglected to mention the C130 also known to be in the vicinity.

Curiously, the report also quoted this:

"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."

Furthermore, if the B757 did indeed perform a 270 degree turn, in which direction had it therfore been heading and why then so?

See for instance:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/c130_map.html

The CBS report is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 07:07 PM (ET)
Reply to post #23
26. non-disinformation answer
Well where do you draw the line with Bush et al or some cabalist complicity in this manner. No Washington air protection after the first WTC hit? The plane could have elevated itself into a more favorable position? You tell me I'm just asking.And why in hell did the Pentagon mislead the public in its briefings? You know the 65 foot wide wedge and all I heard was that the aircraft's wings broke off blah blah. No wonder we had the French version and a million Americans asking where are the wings? Or should we have known? I don't watch the TV news....did I miss something? As for the WTC ..how does jet fuel leave pools of molten steel at the tower bases?
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 07:32 PM (ET)
Reply to post #26
28. Re: non-disinformation answer
I don't deny the possibility of complicity. In fact, it is quite possible considering the lack of air protection and the alleged stand down. Bush's behavior in Florida is also fishy. The mysterious circumstances of Flight 93's crash (impossibly late arrival of F-16s, discrepencies in the time of crash, possibility of mid-air explosion, etc.) also raise many questions. The reported stand down is something that must be investigated, along with the truth of Flight 93, if any proof of complicity is ever going to see the light of day. But I don't think the Pentagon crash itself proves complicity -- except if it can be shown that the plane was remote piloted (and that hasn't yet been shown). Showing that the plane was a 757 does not deny complicity. Few doubt that the second WTC plane was indeed a commercial airliner, yet that doesn't stand in the way of any theorizing of complicity. I regard a LIHOP scenario as quite possible, especially if there was a stand down. But fanciful MIHOP scenarios involving missiles and crashbombing F-16s and planted explosives don't strike me as particularly convincing.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 07:52 PM (ET)
Reply to post #28
29. And then....
Well I can't quite buy into the we had to fly out to Kentucky so our Bros could get up in the air routine. I've heard that 757s and 767s can be skyjacked by breaking computer codes and flown from the ground. Is it true that they don't fly out of DC anymore? And then there's Mohammed Atta,the cocaine king from ciaville Venice Airport who takes a shuttle plane out of Portland the very day.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 09:06 PM (ET)
Reply to post #28
32. "Re: non-disinformation answer"

Bush's behaviour was fishy? So what else was new? When did he last do or say anything remotely believable?

I have never understood the fuss about the aircraft stand down.
If a hijacker says "we got a bomb; we blow the plane up if any planes come close" are you then going to send the planes in anyway? It also makes sense for security agencies not to give too much away with regard to any provisional plans for such an eventuality.

The fishiest thing about the event is the trajectory. An inexperienced pilot would at least have some sense of being so.
If you'd never attempted anything similar before, would you deliberately choose to fly so low and so close to buildings?
When playing for big stakes you'd at least want to be sure to get the stakes onto the table.

And doesn't anybody aiming for a target instinctively want to see it? From the west of the Navy Annex the Pentagon is out of sight. It is in the dip beyond the hill.

The more sensible route would have been to follow the usual flight path towards National Airport, along the Potomac from the north west, to then veer off across Arlington Cemetery.

An approach from the south west makes more sense if your'e headed for the White House, which was strangely enough exactly in line with the B757 trajectory when it hit the Pentagon instead. Was it therefore brought down by a trigger happy pilot in a C130 sent in at the last minute?

Anybody with any experience of defense, politics and sundry administrative affairs knows that cover ups most often arise after cock ups, not before them.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 01:18 PM (ET)
Reply to post #12
19. More on the diesel generator
Here are some accounts by witnesses and officials on the plane
hitting the power generator trailer:

"The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the
right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went
directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up,
it would have hit the trailer." (Jack Singleton, president of
Singleton Electric Co., referring to his office trailer located
just south of the electric generator)

http://www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp

"On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped
a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide
life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off
in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and
portions of it broke off." (Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager)

http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0915/DoD.html

"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground,
clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and
an emergency generator before slicing into the building." (Lee
Evey)

http://detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312016.htm

" ... the aircraft had hit the Pentagon's emergency power
generator, there were no emergency lights in stairwells or
corridors to help lead people to exits and safety" (Steve Carter,
assistant building manager in the Federal Facilities Division)

http://www.govexec.com/features/1001/1001spec1.htm
http://207.27.3.29/features/1001/1001spec1.htm

"Picture 8 is similar but again showing the intact guardrail and
undisturbed grass. You can see the diesel trailer is still on
fire. Witnesses believed it was clipped and damaged by the
right wing of the aircraft." (CMSgt. John Monaccio)

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

"According to officials, the jetliner came in low enough that it
trimmed the tops from light poles. Its wing clipped an emergency
Pentagon power generator."

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0916/Renovations_saved_lives_at_Pentagon+.shtml

"Even before the plane pierced the Pentagon's exterior, it hit
the Wedge 1 back-up generator, taking out emergency power."

http://www.boma.org/emergency/securedocs/Pentagon.doc

anablep


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 07:14 PM (ET)
27. Plane Wreckage on the Lawn and Heliport
Although it is often claimed that the Pentagon lawn lacked plane debris, photos taken on 9/11 and 9/12 show that it was in fact littered with small aircraft pieces. The area most densely covered with debris was the helipad and northwest section of the lawn. Photos which appear to show no debris either do not show this section of the lawn or are limited in image resolution. The following graphic shows why debris mostly fell to the northwest:

The plane approached at the 50-degree angle from the southwest and the explosion blew debris to the northwest at an inverse angle. The perimeter of the fireball is indicated with a red line and the ground and building within this boundary was seared with burn marks. Note that the fireball bulged to the northwest, the same direction took by most falling debris.

I. Lettered Pieces of Airliner Fuselage

According to many witnesses, several pieces of fuselage skin were visible on the lawn bearing the letters from the "American" Airlines logo.

1) Capt. William J. Totti stated that he "can make out, on one of the larger pieces of aluminum, a red 'A' from 'American Airlines.' "

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/totti.txt

2) According to the account of Staff Sgt. Chris Bauman, "The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum. He saw one chunk painted with the letter 'A,' another with a 'C.' It didn't occur to Braman what the letters signified until a man in the crowd stooped to pick up one of the smaller metal shards. He examined it for a moment, then announced: 'This was a jet.' "

http://www.pilotonline.com/special/911/pentagon3b.html

3) "I was amazed at the catastrophe that had just occurred. I could see a piece of the airplane with the whole letter 'C' from 'American' on it. The gravity of what had happened just smacked me in the face." (Victor Correa, Army lieutenant colonel, quoted in "September 11: An Oral History," by Dean E. Murphy, p. 235)

4) LaVern L Schueller, a USAF Colonel Chaplain, recalled: "It appeared that someone had taken a tin snip and cut the red "c" from American Airlines and leaned that piece of the fuselage on the wall about 200 feet from the impact area."

http://www.aapc.org/prayer.htm#chaplain

5) Journalist Arthur Santana recalled seeing "a great piece of the plane, which required two people to carry, on which was clearly visible the letter 'C' of American Airlines."

http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/semaine/020330-000004112LARU.html

Photographs show at least two such pieces on the northwest section of the lawn. There are three images taken on 9/11 showing the red letter "C" resting near the west face of the heliport control tower. The first was taken around noon by Eric Gundersen (NSNS) which clearly shows a fairly large piece of brightly-reflecting silver aluminum bearing red paint:

The debris so brightly reflects the sun that the marking is itself mostly washed out. In Photoshop, I increased the color saturation to bring out the washed-out color, and indeed, it is of a letter "c" turned on its back:

Another photo of the same piece of debris, taken later in the day by an aide of a Fort Myer 4-star general, shows the letter "c" more clearly:

A third image of the "C" piece, taken late in the day and sent to me by a member of the VATF-1 crew, again clearly reveals the lettering:

Another piece is, of course, the famous red-and-silver painted piece widely photographed on the lawn. It is either a top portion of the letter "n" or a lower portion of the letter "a". The first image below was taken by Cpl. Jason Ingersoll and the second was taken by Mark Faram. Both images were taken less than 15 minutes after the crash, before the Pentagon wall collapsed:

The colors match perfectly American Airlines lettering: red paint with white border on brightly-reflecting silver aluminum. The size of the fragment, like the "C" piece, also is appropriate.

If one looks at the Faram photo carefully, another piece of debris lay not far from it. Mark Faram has kindly provided me with the original full-resolution version of the photo, and it is clear that this fragment was riveted aircraft debris:

The same piece was also photographed by Sgt. Carmen Burgess, CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre, and broadcast live on CBS -- all before the E-ring section collapsed.

II. The Big Piece of Something Near the Impact Hole

Photos taken by Steve Riskus less than a minute after the explosion show a rather long metal assemblage smoldering near the impact hole. It appears to measure at least 20 feet in length. It appears to be a piece of debris.

III. Smaller Pieces of Plane Debris

Witnesses recall seeing countless pieces of disintegrated plane debris on the heliport, on the lawn fronting the building, and in the street. Here is a sampling of several of their reports:

1) Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovations Manager, stated: "There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building. None of those parts are very large, however. You don't see big pieces of the airplane sitting there extending up into the air. But there are many small pieces."

http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0915/DoD.html

2) "There was shrapnel all over the lawn." (Michael Anthony Konoza, firefighter-paramedic)

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/853/853_konoza.asp

3) "As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces - that is what these shards were covered with." (Mark Faram, photographer for Navy Times)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/1254

4) Clyde Ragland, a Naval officer works near the Pentagon, witnessed the explosion and described "what looked like white confetti raining down everywhere," it soon became apparent "that the 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091201main.story

5) "We didn't have a clue that it was a plane until we got outside and saw pieces of the airplane everywhere." (William Sinclair)

http://www.draftcenter.com/pages/articles/archivedarticles/dcart20010920.htm

6) Donald R. Bouchard described the explosion: "There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car."

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/leonard1.txt

7) Tony Terronez also described the explosion: "With the ball of flames getting higher, the sound getting louder, I saw in my rearview, debris going up into the air. Still stuck looking into my rearview mirror, I realized that the debris was heading my way! I quickly ducked into my passenger seat. Within a second or two, I started to hear little dinks and pings bouncing off my car. Like somebody throwing pebbles on my car. Then I heard a loud glass smashing sound. I looked up and luckily it wasn't my car, but it was the automobile of the person right next to me in the left lane."

http://www.counseling.org/ctonline/news/amazing1001.htm

8) "The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum." (Staff Sgt. Chris Bauman)

http://www.pilotonline.com/special/911/pentagon3b.html

9) "The dreamlike sequence of what I saw when I ran out of the
Pentagon and to the point of impact just minutes after the attack plays in my head several times a day. I encounter total devastation. Aircraft parts, most no larger than a sheet of paper, litter the field." (Capt. William J. Totti)

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/totti.txt

10) "I saw the plane wreckage. There were thousands of pieces of this plane all over the ground near the Pentagon as I went out there that day." (CNN's Jamie McIntyre)

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/mcintyre1.txt

Now lets look at some photos of these small pieces of debris. In the following pictures, we see many small shards with a few larger pieces, either aluminum silver in color, silver with red paint, or the characteristic yellow/green zinc chromate primer used to paint interior metal surfaces in aircraft. Some of the pieces are also clearly riveted

Taken by Sgt. Carmen Burgess around 9:50am on 9/11. Note the silver-and-red pieces and the piece with primer. Note the location as northwest of the impact site.

Similar view.

Also taken by Sgt. Carmen Burgess. Note that these pieces are riveted. In the background are silver-and-red pieces and a small section of fuselage.

Another view of the same section of fuselage. Note the two window ports.

A chunk of silver fuselage skin next to the burning SUV. Similar pieces were also nearby.

A piece of aircraft debris photographed by Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley. It is unclear whether this came from the wings, rudder, or other part of the airliner.

A scorched crumpled piece of fuselage lay near the northwest corner of the building. Notice that the man is blocking another sizeable piece of debris on the sidewalk.

A closeup of an aircraft piece on the lawn. Note the primer paint. The hole pattern is consistent with wing assembly, but the piece may come from another part of the aircraft.


ABC video at the entrance at the end of Wedge 1 (at column 1, near the heliport tower) shows many small shiny shredded pieces of metal.

There are many other similar photos, all showing that the lawn was indeed littered with small shards of metal -- many recognizably from an aircraft.

IV. Conclusion

The wreckage on the lawn and surrounding area account only for a portion of the airliner, as most of the mass of the plane entered the building. Further, not the whole lawn was photographed evenly -- no photos exist of the area between the heliport tower and the Pentagon wall and between the contractor's compound and the Pentagon wall. Photos of the northwest section of the Pentagon lawn, however, show much scattered debris -- some bearing the markings of an American Airlines jet. The existence of such debris is strong testimony that such a plane did indeed crash into the Pentagon the morning of September 11th.

More witness accounts of debris on Ron Harvey's fabulous website: http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Dejitaru_Shuurajou (29 posts) Click to EMail Dejitaru_Shuurajou Click to send private message to Dejitaru_Shuurajou Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 08:09 PM (ET)
Reply to post #27
30. How do you explain that...
The Infamous piece of debris that supposedly comes from the letter C or A from the AA logo is about 5 feet long, the painted part of which is less than half of that, yet the lettering of AA logos on their 757s are just over 4 feet wide. Care to explain how this can be possible? Did AA paint smaller lettering on this one plane or is it a case of, Honey, I shrunk the Airliner?
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 08:19 PM (ET)
Reply to post #30
31. Please explain your measurements...
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-02 AT 08:21 PM (ET)

...because there does not appear to be any discrepency. The
following composite shows that the rivet lines on a 757 and on
the "infamous" wreckage piece fit perfectly. Clearly, it is the
correct size.

As regards the red "C", it is approximately 2 1/2 to 3 feet in
height on a 757, while the "C" in the second photo I posted is
most likely a little under 3 feet in length. Photos of American
Airlines 757s from airliners.net show that the red "C" is about
36-44% the height of the nearby passenger door (estimates are
imprecise due to the curvature of the hull), and according to
Jane's Aircraft, the passenger door on a 757-200 is exactly 6
feet in height. The red "C" in the posted photo is about 45% the
height of the nearby heliport door (the door height is about 35
pixels, while the "C" is 15-16 pixels in height), and if we
assume the door is between 6-7 feet in height, the "C" would
roughly be 2.7-3.15 feet in length.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Dejitaru_Shuurajou (29 posts) Click to EMail Dejitaru_Shuurajou Click to send private message to Dejitaru_Shuurajou Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 01:14 AM (ET)
Reply to post #31
35. Thanks for heads up on that website.
For the record I can cut and paste that picture to fit on a model only 18' long, so that superimposing job means nada.
Now that I have several profile pictures to work from I will admit my first calculation was off, due to working from an angled shot. The pictures from airliner.net allow for a much better comparison of the relative sizes. Taking the door on the plane to be 6', it a screen rez of 1024*768, it measures approx. 36mm high by 18mm wide the letter n measures approx. 17mm by 17mm, which is approx. 50% of the height of the door. So if the lettering is approx. 3' wide the size still doesnt match up to the piece of wreckage.

This piece does not have 3 feet of logo painted on it.
Also note that the underside of the piece reflects the colour of the grass rather well, as unpainted aluminum tends to do, while the top does not reflect any colour, even where it is perpendicular to the ground (segment in shadow). Stand a piece of unpainted metal on your lawn and you will see it reflect the colours around it, now try again with a piece of painted metal, doesn't work so well does it. AA does NOT paint the entire fuselage, they only paint on the logos. Don't take my word for it, go to www.airliners.net and have a look at all the AA photos. So why is this "unpainted" surface NOT reflecting any of the colours around it? To sum it politely, while I will agree it is a piece of wreckage, I doubt it came from an AA 757, as the body of those planes are not painted, yet this piece of metal has been.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-03-02, 09:57 PM (ET)
33. Photos of Plane Wreckage Inside the Pentagon
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-02 AT 10:16 PM (ET)


Like last time, we shall first examine witness accounts of plane debris inside the Pentagon. These were given by rescue workers, firefighters, engineers, and Pentagon officials. Their statements help in interpreting the various photos taken inside the building.

I. Witness Accounts of Wreckage Inside the Building

Witnesses described small pieces of plane debris in the building. Because of the fire, much of the debris was burned beyond recognition. Some pieces bore lime or yellow primer paint characteristic of internal aircraft parts. Larger pieces included seats, cockpit circuitry, and a landing gear. These accounts were drawn from Ron Harvey's excellent compilation and from my own research.

1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html

2) "DC Matthew" wrote about his work inside the Pentagon: "After about 15 minutes shoveling up chunks of carpet and brick, I found a piece of circuit board, and a chunk of the plane. When I say a chunk of it, I mean a piece that was about 3 oz of twisted aluminum. The biggest piece I've seen so far is about the size of a refrigerator."
http://pub6.ezboard.com/foldmenonlinewhatdoyouthink.showPrevMessage?topicID=957.topic

3) While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp

4) CMSgt. John Monaccio wrote: "I was in room 1B461. The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices. We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area."
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html

5) ARFF Captain Michael Defina said: "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear."
http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp

The Navy operations area, where the cockpit was discovered, was in C-ring near the punchout hole. Many witnesses also recalled seeing plane wreckage in A-E Drive next to the punchout hole. The following three items were mentioned: a piece of the nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and a tire tread.

6) Navy Lt. Commander David Tarantino described the A-E Drive punchout hole: "They found an area where fire surrounded a hole in a wall that was blown out. They heard cries from people who were trapped and saw a plane tire."
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/tarantino.txt

7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
http://www.pilotonline.com/special/911/pentagon3.html

8) "The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html

9) "I thought it was a terrorist bomb. . . .But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general, quoted by Dean Murphy, "September 11: An Oral History," p. 216

10) Rep. Ted Tiahrt wrote: "In the C and B rings the plane had punched a hole you could a drive a truck around in, and I saw an airplane tire. It made it very real."
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/09/09/story1.html

11) When LTC Victor Correa went back inside the Pentagon, "he found out what caused the horrific attack he survived earlier that morning; he saw the nose cone and the landing gear of the airliner."
http://www.army.mil/usar/news/2002/09-11anniv/herotellsall.html

More witness accounts may be found on Ron Harvey's website: http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

We shall now see some interesting images taken inside the Pentagon on 9/12 and 9/13 -- photos of some of the objects mentioned by these witnesses.


II. Photos of Plane Wreckage Inside the Building

Because of the destructive fire that raged inside the building, most photos show only charred heaps of scrap. A good place to look for plane wreckage is around structural columns which tore the plane into pieces as it entered. Many columns show shredded or wrecked pieces of metal wrapped around them or stacked beside them. The following photo shows such a column in D-ring near column 3H:

Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly. Charles Burkhammer similarly noted small lime-green pieces of aircraft interior.

Resting next to another pillar is another section of lime-green material bearing clear rivet lines:

Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. Hanging from the ceiling is a sheet of aluminum:

Another photo of this hanging sheet of aluminum shows a round circular metal part which does not appear to be normal building debris:

A photo of a rescuer in E-ring shows a twisted piece of metal with two possible rivet holes:

The following photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring. The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor. Note the torn column nettings on the right. On the left is an obvious piece of yellow-primed aircraft fuselage bearing rivet holes and a twisted silver metal piece next to it.

Now we are moving to the C-ring punchout hole. The following photo taken on 9/13 gives a unique view of the hole from the inside, unfortunately after most of the debris was hauled away:

However the following photo shows a landing gear found inside C-ring near the punchout hole. Note how completely charred the rest of the debris was.

As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread. The following photo shows two pieces of fuselage debris (note the green primer) lying in front of the hole. Note a ring of 8 small holes on the larger piece. Just such a ring of 8 holes may be found on a 757 nose, just below the cockpit windows -- though I am not yet sure if the size and configuration matches exactly.

In the heap of debris next to the hole lies an airliner wheel hub from one of the landing gears:

Compare the following closeup of a 757 landing gear:

The following photo, which ironically enough graced the cover of T. Meyssan's "Pentagate" book, shows both the fuselage fragment and the wheel hub:

Finally, further down the debris heap, one can find the tire tread that belonged to the wheel hub. I've indicated it in the following video still recorded in A-E Drive:

Another image of the tire tread, published in Paris Match and put on the web by AmigaPhil, shows its groove markings more clearly. I've compared it with a landing gear recovered at the WTC, and the grooves appear to match:

III. Conclusion

Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 00:57 AM (ET)
Reply to post #33
34. You know,
I just have to hand it to you, anablep.

You do good work and you can certainly talk the talk.
Unfortunately, the truth does not change and the pictures tell a completely different story from you.

The lawn is gree and well watered. Therefore the ground underneath must be soft. There is no way it could be rock hard and still support that lush-looking grass.
The flying debris should have kicked up divots galore. There are none.
The debris should have been fairly warm, what with having been propelled all over with explosive force. The ground underneath the debris shows no sign of impact or heat damage.
The scraps repose nonchalantly on the Incredible Pentalawn, like props in a theatre warehouse.

I was very amused by the picture of the wall showing damage. Especially giggleworthy were the lines and arrows indicating tail damage. These lines were next to an intact window and the wall appeared to be barely dented. This one photo explained to me why it is that many, after having had a good look around, came up with the notion that the plane "evaporated."

Then you have a picture of a wall with a circular hole in it. There is smoke damage on the top of the hole. Yet and still there appears to be paper and other flamables carefully poured out of that orifice. They are not wet. The heat in that general area was supposedly so intense as to burn all the paint off the aircraft debris, leaving only the green primer. Does the Pentagon get it's paper products from the same mill that maufactured the stock used in those fireproof passports and business cards that were found in New York and Pennsylvania, respectively?
The "No Parking At Anytime" sign compounds the irony.
The cables within the cavity are pulled OUT of the hole. Yet the aircraft is supposed to have gone INTO that hole with considerable force.
It rather reminds me of the person whose wife died primarily because her car had a puncture formed by a nail poking OUT of the tire. He went to prison for life because the jury was of the opinion that the nail should have been pointing INTO the hole. I do not think those jurists would look kindly on much of the photographic evidence before us.

One thing that has continually amazed me is the fact that the Pentagon personnel went outside, during a terrorist bomb attack and walked around like patsies on the Incredible Pentalawn.
Over at the White House, everyone holed up in bunkers and made themselves scarce. Even Rumsfeld came tearing out of the building, but then again, he is, was, has always been and will always be, a civilian.
And then, they called Servicemaster Clean and gave them full access to the entire pentagon physical space and their entire data systems.

Coulter says that one of the vital players in the Pentagon cleanup process was Brad Key, director of ServiceMaster's recovery management division. "Brad was instrumental in organizing and leading the cleanup efforts at the first terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and also performed work at a Patriot Missile Guidance System Research and Development plant in 1991, during Desert Storm," explains Coulter. "Brad and his management team coordinate multi-franchise, large-loss projects for ServiceMaster Clean."
<snip>
One of the areas in which ServiceMaster Clean is proficient is media and electronic recovery. Coulter says that with some type of media found in over 90% of households and businesses today, claims for both residential and commercial losses are likely to include media and electronic restoration or replacement. "Media can be music, video, and computer equipment," says Coulter. "VHS and Beta tapes, film, audio tapes, CDs, vinyl records, cassettes, computer disks and tapes, CD-ROMs, video games, microfiche, x-rays, even paper can fall under the area of media and electronic exposures. People don't understand that even the programs that run on a computer, including the hard drive, are classified as a media exposure."
http://www.roughnotes.com/rnmagazine/2002/april02/04p46.htm

There is so much that is wrong with these pictures, the scenario and the published articles. Much of it is blatant error, lies or disinformation. Most of it indicates a complete failure of credibility both in the comission and in the omission and in the treatment of actual evidence.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

LARED (571 posts) Click to EMail LARED Click to send private message to LARED Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 05:58 AM (ET)
Reply to post #34
36. I gotta hand it to you
You're steadfastness is truly one of a kind. Your rejection of reality is so complete, so encompassing, it is truly one in a million.

BTW, your book recommendation was disappointing. I'm about 1/3 the way through and it reads like a cheesy Tom Clancy novel. I'll finish it though, as there's always hope it will get better.

Do right until the stars fall, and if they do, continue to do right.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 08:29 AM (ET)
Reply to post #36
37. Why thank you,
this serves to me as an indicator that I am truly correct about life, the universe and everything.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 11:45 AM (ET)
Reply to post #37
38. If we assume...
Following through with the Anablep model, let's assume that the pilot tilted the plane's right wing upward presumably to avoid hitting the generator(which it clipped anyway) and the spools. What does this action possibly infer? First I would say that this action suggests pre-knowledge of the existing obstacle(s). If the plane is flying at a speed of 250 mph that calculates to 122.22 yards per second.Just mentally/physically reacting to the need to tilt the wing certainly uses up that second and no doubt many more. Lets push the needed reaction/action time back to 3 seconds. That puts the plane at 367 yards from the generator. Don't we have a visability spacial problem at this distance of dealing with the impending situation? I suggest that the maneuver to tilt the plane,the height in which the plane was flying and the exact location of the hit were possibly pre-meditated. Contrary to those who maintain that the navigator was having difficulty controlling the plane,I suggest that the plane was possibly in full control by the navigator, flying it in a prescribed course and manner that would successfully finish the task at hand. The task? To crash it primarily into the first floor of a specific location of the West Wing of the Pentagon.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 01:20 PM (ET)
Reply to post #38
41. Navigating

You seem to forget that the plane hit five lamp poles.

According to previous experience a collision with one pole would be enough to rip off a wing tip.

How then would that fit with the pre planned scenario?

I'd think that it would be enough at least to alter the aerodynamic balance.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 04:17 PM (ET)
Reply to post #41
42. re: light poles
You might have a point there. I'm no aerodynamics expert in regards to large aircraft hitting light poles. I do know that the light poles were hollow. I would think that at the speed the aircraft was flying that they might snap off rather easily.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 11:59 AM (ET)
Reply to post #42
47. Hollow

Wings are also hollow, with a skin yet thinner than that of a light pole. I'd guess that the mass of a lamp pole would also exceed that of a wing tip. Ergo wing tip very unlikly to come out of it intact.

Whatever the extent of anybody's knowledge of the same, the point here is whether or not anybody (flying the plane hands on or by remote control) would deliberately choose a trajectory with the lamp poles in the way, and if so why?

The same applies to flying so close over the hill by the Navy Annex.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 03:28 PM (ET)
Reply to post #47
53. re: flight path
How long was the plane in that low lying flight path? Was there time for the pilot to elevate to a higher level?
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-07-02, 11:46 AM (ET)
Reply to post #53
74. Good Question.

I've spent a long time looking for information but the truth about the flight path is far from clear. It seems to have been already flying low when two or three miles away from the Pentagon, therefore strangely out of sight of that destination.

Possibly the plane had flown very low for a long way and that was why there was no eastbound radar track published afterwards.

I am not therefore convinced that the B757 performed the notorious 270 degree turn. It makes no sense in too many respects.

But if an airliner did fly dangerously low, wouldn't that be something that somebody communicating from it would especially have mentioned? Folk on the ground would also notice.

I have suspected for some time now that the
the "small plane" fantasy is a desperate attempt to distract from something sinister.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-08-02, 03:08 AM (ET)
Reply to post #74
79. What would have made sense
would have been to plonk that plane into the center courtyard of the Pentagon immediately after takeoff from Dulles.
That is what most strategists would have done if they wanted to get the most BANG for the buck.

That long route dilly-dallying was done to serve a purpose other than the infliction of maximum damage and heavy casualties at the Pentagon.
We know that Rumsfeld was in favour, indeed he HOPED AND PRAYED* for large numbers of casualties, so I do not yet see why the terror squad did not oblige.
They hit the "new" wedge, which incidentally, collapsed like cardboard and left the "old" one still standing. Observe the straight edge of the roofline at the infamous hole for yourself.

If they had gone for dead center, they could have destroyed the entire building and everyone the world over would then have had to say that Osama is their Daddy and that he rules. But the terror squad didn't do that, and Osama is still on the lam and "being persued" by the Pentagon.
What is even more interesting is that they claim to have used military DNA cards to ID the dead.
This begs the question: how did the Pentagon get the DNA of the hijackers BEFORE they hijacked the planes?
http://www.madcowprod.com/archive.htm

Then we have FOUR Pentagon people who remain unidentified.
But yet only ONE plane person remains unidentified.
Hmmmm
So that means they have a better handle as to who was on that plane than they do over who roams the corridors of their own supposedly-super-secure building.
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/armymed/news/releases/afip.htm
Please notice that they are NOT complaining about how the high temperatures and the force of impact messed up the DNA ID process and even then, they claim to still be able to account for everyone (minus one) on the plane that left no debris.
Hmmmm and Hmmm again.
Maybe the four bodies were pizza delivery guys. After all, we know for a fact that the Pentakids got to eat pizza that day.
Who else could it be?

As for the whole radar thing, switching off your transponder does not turn you into a stealth plane. All it does, is make you you conspiciously suspicious.

HOPED AND PRAYED*
But in Washington, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said estimates that as many as 800 people had died in a section of Pentagon which was also struck by a hijacked jet, could be wrong.
"From everything that we currently know, the estimate that has been widely reported is considerably high," he told a news conference. "I hope and pray that it is."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1539464.stm


First, we currently believe and are certainly hopeful that the number of casualties being reported in the press is high. As you know from your own observation out there, the work is still going forward, and we won't know for some time precise numbers. But from everything that we currently know, the estimate that's been widely reported is considerably high, and we certainly pray that that's the case.
<snip>
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: Yes, Bob?
Q: The causality figure you referred to I assume is the 800 number that was provided by the Arlington County Fire Department.
A: It is.
Q: And you say it's considerably high. We've heard from the military
--

A: I said I hope and pray that it is.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-08-02, 09:13 PM (ET)
Reply to post #79
85. Some comments
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-02 AT 09:14 PM (ET)

> They hit the "new" wedge, which incidentally, collapsed like
> cardboard and left the "old" one still standing. Observe the
> straight edge of the roofline at the infamous hole for
> yourself.

Not so. The "old" wedge E-ring was completely untouched by
the impact. The left edge of the collapsed section was at
column 11, the impact hole extended to column 8, while the left
edge of the "new" wedge was, of course, at column 1. In other
words, the "old" wedge was about 120 feet away from the collapsed
section. The plane did not reach the "old wedge" until it was in
D-ring.

> We know that Rumsfeld was in favour, indeed he HOPED AND
> PRAYED* for large numbers of casualties, so I do not yet see
> why the terror squad did not oblige.

If you misquote someone out of context, providing the original
source of the misquotes does not help make your case.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

demodewd (38 posts) Click to EMail demodewd Click to send private message to demodewd Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-08-02, 09:18 PM (ET)
Reply to post #79
86. 9-11 Osamaites
Yes the 9-11 Osamaites led by Mr Boloboffin can't get beyond the evil Arab myth.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 01:14 PM (ET)
Reply to post #37
40. truly correct

To be truly correct about life, the universe and everything the essential requirement is of course to be completely ignnorant of it and all other views. Others have more respect.

Does DulceDecorum, I wonder, pretend to any more pertinent qualification?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 01:28 AM (ET)
Reply to post #40
44. Most certainly,
I have 42 pertinent qualifactions.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 01:00 PM (ET)
Reply to post #34
39. treatment of evidence
"...Most of it indicates a complete failure of credibility both in the comission and in the omission and in the treatment of actual evidence."

Really?

And according to what sort of logic would those nowhere near to the scene of the crime know so much more about it than those who were present?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-08-02, 00:35 AM (ET)
Reply to post #39
76. Well, well
what kind of logic, you ask.
The Sherlock Holmes type of logic would be my answer but perhaps Chip Diehl, who did not see a a single peice of the jet, might have another answer.

If you are REALLY all that interested in knowing what those ommissions and commissions and treatments are, as opposed to simply silencing me, then please go through the previous threads on this topic.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

vincent_vega (408 posts) Click to EMail vincent_vega Click to send private message to vincent_vega Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-04-02, 04:27 PM (ET)
Reply to post #34
43. So you are saying?
LAST EDITED ON Dec-04-02 AT 04:30 PM (ET)

The lawn is gree and well watered. Therefore the ground underneath must be soft. There is no way it could be rock hard and still support that lush-looking grass.
The flying debris should have kicked up divots galore. There are none.
The debris should have been fairly warm, what with having been propelled all over with explosive force. The ground underneath the debris shows no sign of impact or heat damage.
The scraps repose nonchalantly on the Incredible Pentalawn, like props in a theatre warehouse.

....there was NO explosion??? it that the point of all this?

Then you have a picture of a wall with a circular hole in it. There is smoke damage on the top of the hole. Yet and still there appears to be paper and other flamables carefully poured out of that orifice. They are not wet. The heat in that general area was supposedly so intense as to burn all the paint off the aircraft debris, leaving only the green primer. Does the Pentagon get it's paper products from the same mill that maufactured the stock used in those fireproof passports and business cards that were found in New York and Pennsylvania, respectively?

.....and here we have "there was NO fire"?

Dude are you on drugs, just plain sick, or really just pointless?

There is so much that is wrong with these pictures, the scenario and the published articles. Much of it is blatant error, lies or disinformation. Most of it indicates a complete failure of credibility both in the comission and in the omission and in the treatment of actual evidence.

Oh I see. Its all just fake. We can't fool you, can we? Well then it is pointless posting any pictures, eyewitness testimony, or anything else for that matter, cause the whole process of analysis is already complete....in your head.

In the end you can express any opinion you like, the truth will remain none-the-less, and we all know what opinions are like...cuz everyone's got one.


The Path of the righteous man is beset on all sides, by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 02:37 AM (ET)
Reply to post #43
45. Tut Tut
they are ganging up on me....

I do hope I don't suddenly become depressed like Digna Ochoa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2100756,00.html
Oh well, you guys won't have far to look for the actor playing Renato Sales Heredia.

Anyhow.....
vincent_vega is quite right in the conclusions he draws after observing the state of the Incredible Pentalawn.

There are no gouges in the earth and the grass, just next to the bright green piece of debis with the yellow caution tape on it, is healthy and undamaged. It really does look as if someone carefully laid those pieces down artistically and photgraphed them in the best available light.

Please remember that that the green color on the metal is due to having had the paint burned off. Now if the paint was burned off and that piece was flung off from the fusilage, then it should have hit the ground quite hard. Furthermore, it should still have been hot enough to scorch the grass when it hit the ground -- if it got there on its own.

People, what you are witnessing is a battle between the inductive and deductive method of reasoning.
Vincent-vega and comrades represent the inductive method. Theirs is a foregone conclusion.
http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html
Me, I like Columbo. He looks at the details and reality and convicts on discrepancy.

Well, boys and girls, do you see any discrepancies in the evidence before you?
Or is everything just peachy keen?


You've heard of the New Math, now meet
THE INCREDIBLE (and we DO mean incredible)
NEW PENTA-PHYSICS!!!!

What do you mean,
YOU CAN'T SEE THE REST OF THE TRUCK???

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 11:28 AM (ET)
Reply to post #45
46. Poor DD, high in her tower, besieged by reality...
LAST EDITED ON Dec-05-02 AT 11:33 AM (ET)

...because that's what this really is a battle between, Dulce. Reality and your fantasies. I think you should consider your life safe, because the Bush Administration would never assassinate someone who discredits the entire 9/11 quest the way you do. You might be able to apply for backpay, though.

You are more inductive in your battle than we. We are more deductive than you.

My path of deductive reason listened to the eyewitnesses, looked at the photographs of airplane debris, and watched the families grieve their loved ones. All of this evidence led me to deduce that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

However, your utterly inductive commitment to the absolute commandments of conspiracy thinking have clouded your deductive reasoning when it comes to this event. You spy into evidence with a standard for "reasonable doubt" that would have acquitted Jeffrey Dahmer.

I would love for you once to share your actual conclusions as to what happened that day, Dulce. What do you actually think happened at the Pentagon? You're very good at questions, and leading statements - but as you have said before, we all know there was an explosion that day at the Pentagon. What caused that explosion? Step up to the hot seat and let's see how well your "deductive" conclusions stand the test of public scrutiny.

ON EDIT: Just corrected a typo and removed an extraneous adverb.

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 02:13 PM (ET)
Reply to post #46
51. Boloboffin
so why is the lawn not scorched?
Why are there no gouges or dents where the debris landed?

Terrorists hit the Pentagon with a 130,000 pound airplane traveling at 345 mph with 9,000 gallons of fuel on board.
The World's Largest Office Building suffered great physical damage at the point of impact. Water damage from sprinklers and fire hoses affected adjoining areas, and smoke and soot quickly filled the 6.5 million square foot structure.
http://www.servicemasterclean.com/pentagon/

Now, go look at that hole and those nice crisp papers blowing about and that spotless, grime-free lime-green metal scrap sunbathing on the TruGreen-ChemLawn.

WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?
Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was A JET FIGHTER directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver.
It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.

Two seconds later, perhaps three, as Chu looked out his office window, he saw a hijacked plane explode into the fortress-like walls of the Pentagon on the plain just below him. STC staffers remember a loud thud, then a terrible explosion, and then a fireball burgeoning from the core of America's military power.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt

Col. Diana Fleek, director of the Defense Department’s innovative readiness training, immediately sensed what had happened.
“We knew we had been hit. We didn’t know what it was — we just knew there was an explosion. We all felt it quite literally. The building shook, and the windows rattled. Thousands were evacuated. It was done very quickly and very orderly,” she said. “As we looked over our shoulders, all we could see was a huge black ball of smoke, moving eastward, coming at us. Then we heard the rumble of A JET above us and looked up to see an F-16 pass over the Pentagon.”
<snip>
Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III, (former 6th Air Refueling Wing commander) Air Force director of marketing, was able to get a look at the crash site.
“No one could believe the catastrophic damage — it was horrible. A whole “wedge” had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building. There wasn’t a single piece of THE JET to be seen anywhere.”
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1101/terror.html


WHAT IS IT WITH PIZZA?
Shortly into the crisis, the FBI called the STC to report that CHILDREN from the Pentagon daycare center WERE SITTING OUT ON THE PENTAGON LAWN and to ask if VDOT could offer them A SAFE PLACE TO GO. Harry "Junior" Woodard, Columbia Pike AHQ superintendent, invited authorities to bring the kids -- several dozen of them -- to THE MAINTENANCE HEADQUARTERS NEXT TO THE STC. They and their caregivers came -- with blankets, fold-up
beds, mattresses, diapers, etc. STC personnel helped them move in.
Parents, learning later where their children were, picked up the
youngsters throughout the day. VDOTers bought pizza for the children as well as for Navy personnel in the STC.
<snip>

"If I had been on top of our building, I would have been close enough to reach up and catch it," Madelyn Zakhem, an executive secretary in the Smart Traffic Center (STC) in Arlington, said two days after the terrorist plane rocketed directly over her.
In the final few seconds before the terrorist-commandeered plane exploded into the Pentagon, the plane roared down on Columbia Pike, almost skimming the roof of the STC after barely missing the Sheraton Hotel. The noise, VDOT team members said, was unbelievably loud, and most felt the hijacker was nosing down the plane at FULL THROTTLE. "It was so close the building
was shaking," recalls Jimmy Chu, STC manager.
<snip>

Just before impact, the plane clipped off two VDOT light poles on
Washington Boulevard, a football field or two away from the Pentagon. In the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways.
Days later, VDOTers still could feel the awesome closeness of the doomed plane to the STC. The tangled wreckage down the slope, slightly more than half a mile away, graphically portrayed the intent of the brutal and barbarous monsters at the controls.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt


OK, so we have a jet fighter, or airliner gunning the throttle crashing into the shaking building with a loud thud, followed by an explosion followed by a fireball. We even have debris. A traffic monitoring system picked up the event.
All that needs to be done to shut us all up, is to
SHOW THE EVIDENCE.

So far, all we have is dots that cannot be logically connected.
If the plane was actually shaking the building and rattling those Wonderwindows just with the noise of its engines, then why did it do what it did?
Previously you have dissed Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III and taken the word of a 23 year old delivery man over him. I am of the opinion that Chip Diehl knows a heck more about planes, plane crashes and their debris than you and your comrades do, and if Diehl, who WAS ACTUALLY THERE says that there was NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE, then that is good enough for me.


Boloboffin, please do not forget to account for the lack of scorchmarks and gouges in the Pentalawn please. I want to hear your take on that.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 05:55 PM (ET)
Reply to post #51
54. Diehl's testimony was not about the day of the crash, DD.
As the article you link to clearly states, Diehl was able to get a look at the crash site "in the days that followed."

The days that followed
A plume of black and gray smoke rose from the wreckage of the World Trade Center and extended to central New Jersey, easily visible in satellite photography.

Down below, Airman 1st Class Francis Perillo from the 106th Air Rescue Wing at Francis S. Gabreski Airport, N.Y., partnered with the New York City Emergency Response Team.

“I felt something inside me,” said Perillo, a native of Bayshore, N.Y. “I just had to do something. It’s horrifying. I’ve broken down in tears. I’ve learned just how precious life is.”

While Perillo hunted for survivors, hundreds of Air Force medical professionals from points across the United States assembled at McGuire Air Force Base. Many never got the call, like hundreds of their civilian counterparts who waited in hospitals in lower Manhattan for victims who would never arrive.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon reopened for business. Many more guards and the acrid smell of smoke filled the hallways as about 10,000 people showed up for work. But they were told to leave. Only those essential to operations returned. Many learned later that renovations, taking place on the scarred side of the world’s largest office building, minimized the number of people working in the area and may have saved thousands of lives.

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III, Air Force director of marketing, was able to get a look at the crash site.

“No one could believe the catastrophic damage — it was horrible. A whole “wedge” had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building. There wasn’t a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.”

Get it? You've been using the testimony of someone who wasn't commenting on the state of the lawn that day as evidence of what the lawn looked like that day. When did Diehl see the crash site? We don't know, we just know it was later. Later? While the cleanup was already in progress? How long did Diehl get to see the site? People were being sent home; only the essential personnel were being allowed in the building. Was Diehl's "look" at the crash site a cursory examination, and his characterization of the site that of a moment's impression? Sounds like it to me, since many others have been able to see the evidence. The plane debris is quite in evidence as anablep's many pictures inform us.

Your own witnesses rise up against you and call you a bonehead, DD.

Here's something we can glean from Diehl's statement. He certainly isn't denying that a jet flew into the Pentagon. His statement doesn't make sense unless you understand that a jet DID fly into the Pentagon. If there was no jet, why comment on the impression of no evident pieces of jet? It's precisely because a jet DID fly into the Pentagon that the power of his statement comes from: it flew in, but was mangled beyond recognition, as far as his eye could see. From wherever he was standing, and for however long he was able to scope out the damage until someone shooed a director of marketing away from someplace to which he wasn't contributing cleanup efforts.

I will give you my take on the Pentalawn when you commit yourself to an actual statement of what you believe happened that day. Who did it, how did they do it, what did they hope to gain. You start answering a few questions of mine, and I'll begin again to answer questions of yours.

PS: I don't know what reason you have for balking at children from the Pentagon day care center eating. Perhaps the children should have been left unfed that day, is that what you are saying? Or perhaps you are the donor whose genes for resistance to truth was grafted into the Pentagon's lawn grasses. Dulce Decorum, mother of PentaDensity!

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-09-02, 05:19 AM (ET)
Reply to post #54
96. The Director of Marketing
****Here's something we can glean from Diehl's statement. He certainly isn't denying that a jet flew into the Pentagon. His statement doesn't make sense unless you understand that a jet DID fly into the Pentagon. If there was no jet, why comment on the impression of no evident pieces of jet? It's precisely because a jet DID fly into the Pentagon that the power of his statement comes from: it flew in, but was mangled beyond recognition, as far as his eye could see. From wherever he was standing, and for however long he was able to scope out the damage until someone shooed a director of marketing away from someplace to which he wasn't contributing cleanup efforts.****

Someone shooed a director of marketing away...
Oh that is RICH coming from a keyboard jockey who has never seen corpses strewn across the road!!!
Take note people: if you disagree with Boloboffin, no matter who you are, no matter what you have acomplished, he will come after you with insult and invective and he will attempt to assasinate your character and sully your honour.

Take a closer look at the man you keep disrespecting.
http://www.af.mil/news/biographies/diehl_af.html

Now, from June 1999 - January 2001, Chip Diehl was Commander of the 6th Air Refueling Wing, MacDill AFB, Fla.
I say that he absolutely MUST know one plane from another. Plus he MUST have some idea of how far a jet can go with a full tank and how fast it can fly. In short, I feel quite comfortable, even though I have yet to meet the man, in saying point blank that he knows a heck of a lot more about aircraft than does one character by the handle "Boloboffin."

Now you also state that he saw the site later as in NOT on September 11, 2001. I will let that slide for now.
But even if he saw the site later, are you trying to say that the whole damn plane was cleaned up before he got there?
Or are you (belatedly) reaching the conclusion that perhaps a plane did NOT fly into the Pentagon?
Obviously Chip Diehl EXPECTED to see debris. Obviously he was surprised when he did not see a single piece of the jet anywhere.
I would assume that Chip Diehl has seen aircraft crashes before and just like the rest of us he was expecting to see where the jet -- how was it YOU put it -- "it flew in, but was mangled beyond recognition, as far as his eye could see."
But Chip Diehl did NOT see a single peice of the jet anywhere and so he is counted among those who ask
WHERDY GO?

Have a look at this:
Witnesses at the Pentagon heard the first explosion, presumably when the commercial airliner struck, and then a second explosion about 15 minutes later. The airliner was believed to be one of the American Airlines jets.
The second explosion was believed to have come from a propane tank that blew up after the first explosion.
Witnesses saw the airplane clip either a road sign, wiring or lighting off the highway near the Pentagon, speculating that it may have prevented the aircraft from hitting the Pentagon dead on.
The aircraft hit the building at a high speed, at full power, witnesses said, with won adding, "whoever was flying the plane new exactly what they were doing." The aircraft was clearly on course toward the Pentagon, they said and banked right before impact.
The aircraft shattered to pieces upon collision, with no immediate identifiable pieces of wreckage.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=news/mpen0911.xml

So much for the descending spiral and the low speed.
Now if that plane shattered into pieces upon collision, then it should be mostly outside the Pentagon but
Wherdy go?

From inside to outside, the five rings of buildings are labeled A through E. The airliner entered the ground floor of the west face of the E ring and penetrated through the C ring. Where the airplane struck, the impact, explosion, and fire brought down all five stories and created a hole about 100 feet (30 meters) wide. In the surrounding area, the newly stiffened walls remained only partly damaged or not at all.
The primary structure of the Pentagon is 42,420 steel-reinforced concrete columns. Of these, only 32 were destroyed and 15 seriously damaged. As recovery efforts continue, the structure is being shored up with pressure-treated wood posts to protect against further collapses.
Thus, in relative safety, workers have been able to recover the remains of victims and to examine and clear away debris. Within a week the airplane's voice and data recorders had been found.
<snip>
The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters) thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.
Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovation crew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used for bullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together building materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion.
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html

WOW!!
The plane entered through the ground floor. It brought down all five stories.
Funny, the photos do not show that all five stories collapsed on impact. Maybe it happened in really slow motion. Else how come there is only a small hole for quite some time before the collapse?
If it is the kevlar and columns that are holding up the building, should they not have strained out the offending plane?
Why did those blast resistant windows NOT melt if they were popped out by a blast and fire raged around them for hours? We hear that steel melted and the Smithsonian even has a tin of melted coins.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=11
Incidentally, is it only the outer wall that has blast resistant windows or do the inner coutryards have them too? Either way I would like an explanation as to how it came about that glass remained remarkably intact and in place near the point of impact whereas metal melted into clumps.
(I am going to be nice today and refrain from commenting on those several flags they found intact and "in pristine condition" around bodies which were very badly burned and charred.)

Now that the recorders and data recorders have been found, can we hear what is on them?
Is anything on them at all?
Do they even exist?
Hey we all know that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. It is no big secret. So what is on those tapes that we cannot hear? The missing 18 minutes fron Richard Nixon?

Incidentally Boloboffin, I do not give any piece of a rat's anatomy if you never answer any question of mine. Frankly I do not believe you can. All you are capable of is demonstrating the fact that your manners are not as proper as mine and that you are not, by any means, a gentleman.
You sir, are a cad.

And now, here is another person for you to savage, Ed Plaugher, fire chief of Arlington County.

Q: Can you give us any sense of the area that was destroyed, how wide it is? How many feet? And did it break through to all five rings of the Pentagon?
Plaugher: It did not break through to all five rings, and I do not know the measurements.
Q: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?
Plaugher: First all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.
<snip>
Q: Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel or --
Plaugher: You know, I'd rather not comment on that.
We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912asd.html

And here is another soon-to-be-victim.
That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific.
http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp

Chip Diehl does not need a pair of glasses. Nor does he need to get his head checked. Three firefighters, who responded to the scene on September 11, 2001 and put out the damn fire there, are also sitting right alongside those of us who keep asking
Wherdy go?

So now, cuss us all out Boloboffin, go on, heap on the insults.
You too Lared, get a couple good ones in.
Yo, vincent_vega, don't miss a wonderful opportunity to sneer at men in uniform.
Better back away folks, the hyenas are about to feast.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-09-02, 02:14 PM (ET)
Reply to post #96
98. You know nothing of what I've seen.
So don't presume that you do.

Here is something I've seen -- Dulce Decorum's reasoning abilities on display:

This is what her quoted story said:

Where the airplane struck, the impact, explosion, and fire brought down all five stories and created a hole about 100 feet (30 meters) wide.

This is how she twists it to turn it into disinformation:

WOW!!
The plane entered through the ground floor. It brought down all five stories.
Funny, the photos do not show that all five stories collapsed on impact. Maybe it happened in really slow motion. Else how come there is only a small hole for quite some time before the collapse?

The story clearly says that the impact, explosion, AND fire brought down the five stories. But Dulce in her infinite wisdom condenses this to the impact alone and riffs on slow motion.

In her infinite wisdom Dulce informs us that Chip Diehl, Ed Plaughter, and Walter Hood are one and all believers in the "no plane" hypothesis. They would be surprised to hear this. The quote of Chip Diehl very clearly states that his observation of the site is of the days that followed the crash, not the crash itself. Ed Plaughter looked inside while he was fighting the fire and saw pieces of the plane. Walter Hood saw the nose gear. The reporter questioning Mr. Plaughter refers to the tiny pieces of airplane debris that extend even to litter the highway. This is not the kind of testimony that Dulce should quote in order to support the "no plane" hypothesis. Yet she does, in her infinite wisdom.

Dulce is able to quote people seeing the nose gear and make them proponents of the "no plane" hypothesis. Dulce is able to use the news of the voice recorder's discovery even though there could be no voice recorder if there were no plane. Dulce is able to ignore picture after picture of airplane debris and continue her questions of Wherdy go?

Dulce is quite content to insult and sneer at me, yet dares not publish her own beliefs about what happened that day, because she lacks the courage of her convictions. She will never state plainly what she believes happened that day, because her only purpose is to twist, distort, and sully the true investigation into what happened on 9/11. Dulce, you're a laughingstock.

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-10-02, 00:55 AM (ET)
Reply to post #98
104. I believe
you owe Chip Diehl an apology.
(Chip, don't hold your breath...)

What does it matter what I, DulceDecorum, believe or disbelieve?
What counts is WHAT REALLY HAPPENED and that is why some of us come here to pool our collective brainpower.
Those of us that have it in the first place.....

Furthermore, a cursory glance at the plethora of websites on the net will clearly demonstrate that most people around the world are not buying the official story.
It is absolutely true, Boloboffin, that the people are revolting.

People, revolting and otherwise, note how this discussion is being twisted into a personal attack against the poster whose sources and line of argument cannot be refuted.
What you are witnessing is known as truth supression.
http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave/article3/991228.html

The above is Standard Operating Procedure.
Note how the poster is now supposedly the one who is "quite content to insult and sneer." The Operative assumes the stance of the innocent bystander in order to gain the audience of a sympathetic ear.
At no time are the key issues to be addressed.
The objective is to draw attention away from the facts and concentrate on the personality of the poster. The next step is to find something in the posters speech, inflection or mannerism and then "expose" them as "unpatriotic" or otherwise of unsavory character. Then, once the audience has turned against the poster, they are encouraged to abandon the ideas of the poster. In the melee, the damning facts uncovered are forgotten.

C. "Troublemaker" provocateur. This type tries to get people within a group pissed off at each other, or tries to manipulate an editor, forum participant, etc. into a compromising position. The theme here is discredit, divide and conquer, and/or annoy the hell out of progressive folks. In one instance at a forum I know of, a provocateur kept engaging another forum participant in a dialogue, seeking to draw out incriminating comments that could possibly be construed as "unpatriotic."
http://www.unknownnews.net/cs020602.html

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. IF YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you AVOID DISCUSSING THE ISSUES in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..."
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

Sound familiar?
Please remember, this latest attack comes as a direct result of stating clearly that a certain Brigadeer General in the US Air Force is competent, and of sound mind and clear vision.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

boloboffin (183 posts) Click to EMail boloboffin Click to send private message to boloboffin Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-10-02, 10:14 AM (ET)
Reply to post #104
108. "Truth suppression" the last refuge of the clueless
Oh, poor Dulce Decorum. So zealously concerned about the reputation of Chip Diehl. I'll tell you what, you get in contact with Chip and let him know the reasons he needs an apology from me, and if he then contacts me and asks for one, I'll give it to him.

What does it matter what I, DulceDecorum, believe or disbelieve?

Sweet Dulce Decorum, so ready to dish out the abuse and mangle the statements of others, yet so disinclined to make your own conclusions be known and thus subject them to the beneficial light of criticism. I understand your reluctance to commit to a position: when you do, it's so easily proven wrong (such as your late concern for Chip Diehl - as I mentioned, Brigadeer General Diehl will be much more concerned about your soliciting his comments for support of the "no plane" hypothesis than he ever will be about my "director of marketing" line).

People, revolting and otherwise, note how this discussion is being twisted into a personal attack against the poster whose sources and line of argument cannot be refuted.
What you are witnessing is known as truth supression.

Incredibly, after refuting your sources and line of argument, I'm accused of not being able to do so. Dulce will not respond to either my sources or my line of argument, but quite happily resorts to personal attacks. DUers, take note. We do have a case of truth supression here, but the perp is the one crying foul.

I can't wait to see what you'll twist this post into!

Common sense will tell us, that the
power which hath endeavored to subdue
us, is of all others, the most improper to
defend us. -- Thomas Paine

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two
plus two make four. If that is granted, all
else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

vincent_vega (408 posts) Click to EMail vincent_vega Click to send private message to vincent_vega Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 12:00 PM (ET)
Reply to post #45
48. No fire, no explosion, no debris, no facade, no hole, no plane...
no brain.

The Path of the righteous man is beset on all sides, by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 02:44 PM (ET)
Reply to post #45
52. paint burned off?
"green color on the metal is due to having had the paint burned off"?

Where do you get that idea from?

An anti corrosive coating of zinc chromate on the internal parts is a common feature of all sorts of aircraft.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-06-02, 05:12 PM (ET)
Reply to post #52
64. All sorts of aircraft?
which proves that it need NOT be a Boeing.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

RH (13 posts) Click to EMail RH Click to send private message to RH Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-07-02, 11:57 AM (ET)
Reply to post #64
75. ?

Which proves that it could have been a Boeing.

You have no point, except to demonstrate your idiocy.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

DulceDecorum (500 posts) Click to EMail DulceDecorum Click to send private message to DulceDecorum Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-08-02, 00:41 AM (ET)
Reply to post #75
77. Boy
you are really pissed off at me.
Why?

Pity that my idiocy does not alter anything that occured on September 11, 2001 at the Pentagon.

That piece of "evidence" proves NOTHING either way.

Hey guys, I think it might just be time for some of us to begin hiding out.
These people are desperate, terribly afraid and trigger happy.
I can feel a major bout of depression coming on.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 01:01 PM (ET)
49. Did y'all download all the photos I've posted?

Because if you didn't, they're gone. And they may not be on the web for some time. My web account was closed yesterday and I have to find a new website for all my graphics.

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

vincent_vega (408 posts) Click to EMail vincent_vega Click to send private message to vincent_vega Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 01:19 PM (ET)
Reply to post #49
50. Thank you anablep

Your work and obvious effort on the subject has been commendable.

Puts us all so called experts to shame, we just sit around and blow hot air. Inductive and deductive reasoning not withstanding.

The Path of the righteous man is beset on all sides, by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

anablep (125 posts) Click to EMail anablep Click to send private message to anablep Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 11:12 PM (ET)
Reply to post #50
56. Thanks vincent_vega

I appreciate your compliment -- especially since my recent work has elicited scant comment from posters.

The depressing thing is that my posts are now virtually meaningless without the photos.

One good thing -- my unique photos of plane wreckage inside the Pentagon are now online at Rense.com.

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

anablep

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Top

Dejitaru_Shuurajou (29 posts) Click to EMail Dejitaru_Shuurajou Click to send private message to Dejitaru_Shuurajou Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster Click to add this poster to your Friend List
Dec-05-02, 11:52 PM (ET)
Reply to post #56
57. Kudos for your article at Rense...
After reading the article and scrutinizing the pics I will still only concede that an aircraft hit the pentagon. Proof of it being F77 is just not there. Got a theory on why they only found one wheel hub? There are 8 of these heavy hubs in the rear landing assemblies, 4 on each side. Keep in mind that the landing gear has to support the entire weight of the aircraft + passengers + cargo and absorb the kinetic energy of the plane touching down on the ground, so they are built to take a very high stress load. If they found one hub reasonably intact, where are the others? Did the other 7 rear hubs just 'Evaporate' on impact? Where are the heavy hydraulic rods that lift the landing gear into its housing? Did they just melt from the heat of a kerosene fire? This tragedy has all the same markings that the OKC bombing had, impossible physics, siezed videos that will never be seen by the public and mis/disinfo agents(Mass Media) trying to make sure that the public only gets the Gov't's explanation and not the real story.

P.S. Do really think that an ANFO bomb destroyed the OKC federal building? If so contact Retired Air Force Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, he will disagree with you and has the proof to back up what he says. Now those same people that were part of that 'whitewash' are investigating this event.
I guess it works if you don't mind your 'evidence' manufactured by the employees of the State.

Truth, like art is interpreted differently by all that gaze upon it.