The Pentagon Thread: Part 3

[DulceDecorum]

The original thread on the original DU 9:11 Forum was called
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here.
It continued for nine threads each one containing a list of all the preceeding threads. This is the most recent:
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here.
Part 9!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5620&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

Then DU upgraded to a new server.
Hence,
The Pentagon Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=405&mesg_id=405

The Pentagon Thread: Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=708&mesg_id=708

[DulceDecorum]

1. The Pentagon at 9:43 AM

At the time of the attacks, many senior Federal and State emergency managers were in Big Sky, Montana at a national emergency management conference, and some specialized response personnel were on deployment for potential hurricane response. To move the management and responder resources and supplies, traditional air transport had to be re-thought and new arrangements implemented.
<snip>
Within minutes of the crash on Pentagon at 9:43 AM, Battalion Chief Robert Cornwall of the Arlington County Fire Department (ACFD), diverted from a call to a fire in nearby Rosslyn, VA, and rushed to the scene. Upon arrival, he assumed command of the Pentagon crash site. Assistant ACFD Chief James Schwartz arrived 5 to 10 minutes after the crash. Chief Schwartz assumed Incident Command (IC) from Chief Cornwall and assigned him to operational supervision of rescue and evacuation.
<snip>
Security was a major issue from the start, since this had been an attack on the headquarters and symbol of the U.S. Armed Forces. Within one hour, snipers were placed on the rooftops of nearby buildings to protect the response staff. However, failure to immediately and tightly control access to the site remained a significant problem.
<snip>
For the first several days the system was marginally effective, since all that was initially required to obtain a badge was to show identification. At one point, according to Incident Command, there were approximately 8,000 people with access badges.
http://www.sfcav.org/2002_pentagonreport07.htm

Hmmmm.
Many of the big CEOs were at Offutt and now it turns out that all the big emergency managers were having a national emergency conference and were unable to fly back to their respective states.

The CIA was running a simulation of a jet hitting a building and NORAD was doing some terrorist senario called Vigilant Guardian.

And it's Ben Sliney’s first day on the job as national operations manager for the National Airspace System. Ben Sliney is A New York lawyer who once sued the FAA on behalf of air traffic controllers and on September 11, he got to tell every last one of the nation's air traffic controllers what to do and how to do it.
Except for the Herndon, VA crew that FAA chief spokesman Scott Brenner literally kicked to the curb.

And then they let 8,000 people trample all over the place while snipers make sure of WHAT????

[Abe Linkman]

6. Timing is everything

"The CIA was running a simulation of a jet hitting a building and NORAD was doing some terrorist senario called Vigilant Guardian."

A cynic could be forgiven for wondering if "Vigilant Guardian" was part of the plot. Maybe some of the PR choirmembers will comment. bolo, sarah, Ron Harvey, Lizard...wassup with "Vigilant Guardian"? Minor coincidence, or something that might require a little help from the choir, if the public gets all worked-up?

[QuietStorm]

12. Vigilant Guardian?

I was aware of training exercises in the DC area that DID simulate recovery IF for practice if the Penatagon was attacked. this is the first I have heard of Vigilant Guardian. Here are some links: I do not have time to read through them right now. How are you hypothesizing. I mean could you expound a bit more.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vigilant-guardian.htm

Actually the above link seems to be the only one. I can find know news commentary on it. And haven't gone through the link.

this came up on a googles search with key words vigilant guardian AND pentagon DoD briefing session. I skimmed it very fast, I am not sure it is related, but it is interesting none the less.

http://www.usembassy.it/file9906/alia/99062115.htm

and HAH guess what Vigilant Guardian is also a product line of cigar humidors. Gee. I wonder if the buzzards have started circling yet. Not much help they are BUT OH what a nuisance they can be. I will keep looking...

Can't say NORAD was successful at vigilantly guarding much of anything on 9/11.

[RH]

34. Comment

"The CIA was running a simulation of a jet hitting a building and NORAD was doing some terrorist senario called Vigilant Guardian."

It is surprising how little attention is paid to that, is it not, with the 'No Boeing' red herring pressed persistently (and otherwise pointlessly) as if to soak up any spare suspicion?

[QuietStorm]

35. what is your point?

I mean what do you mean THERE WERE SIMILATED TRAINING EXERCISE. Many sources describe those pertinant to an attack on the pentagon. Perhaps the whole day was just that a big DoD test with human subjects and all.

If this is so pointly Harvey, why participate?

[RH]

38. ...a big DoD test with human subjects and all.

I'd have thought that would be the easiest and surest way for an 'inside job' to be set up for 9/11. Rope in a bunch of arab oppotunists to stage a mock hijacking as if to test the security. Then spring a remote control surprise at the last minute.

[Abe Linkman]

44. You might well ask.

Sounds just as plausible as claiming a B757 crashed into the Pentagram and that Mrs. Olson called her husband just prior to her going to Jesus.

[QuietStorm]

2. RH - fringes and pixelated frays NOT obvious STROKE LINES

YOUR POST FROM PENT 2.

The 'dark stroke lines' that I see are reminiscent of the usual effects of heavy .jpg file compression. Fringing is the term usually used to describe the white border thus likely to appear along the edges of objects. It may also apply to the corresdonding darker lines along the other side of such an edge. This is not because of the numbers of colors used, but rather because of the way the .jpg algorithms work. Jpg images render colors with less definition than the grey scale information.
Similar fringes and similar color wash effects are to be seen in the demonstrated images for instance on this page:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/leopold/mark/compression/html_graphics.html
To my mind, from what I have yet seen, it is impossible to identify a craft, never mind what it actually is. The tree to be seen in the distance next to Interstate 395 seems to me to stand in front of the alleged tail fin, not behind it!
The frame numbers (with two shots both in second 19 but none in second 20) if they do indicate the timing of the shots, would seem to betray an irregular sequence, not an automatically timed constant frequency,
i.e.
frame "plane": 17:37:19
frame "#1 impact": 17:37:19
frame "#2 impact": 17:37:21
frame "#3 impact": 17:37:22
frame "#4 impact": 17:37:23
I supsect that better quality version did exist but without actually knowing the original format, nor anything as a matter of fact about the the calibre of the camera, how would anybody know that it did or did not produce very good quality images?
:shrug:
What is this about "DoD would have given the PR guy"?


MY RESPONSE:

fringes and pixelated frays yes NOT obvious STROKE LINES... they would displace color which would be seen inconsistently from one pixel to the next with fades of the dark color the shadow would fade further. A DARK STROKE LINE THAT ISN'T THERE WOULD NOT JUST APPEAR, Is what I mean.

The repixelation only repixelates the hue or shade of color that is ALREADY in that area it doesn't bring added color to that area NOT in a consistent pattern that would draw what is an ILLUSTRATED stroke line. that is unnatural what you see there in the frames. Not caused from compression or web preparation. END OF DISCUSSION HERE.

snip from you link:
""Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras."
end snip

SOUNDS LIKE DOUBLE SPEAKS TO ME They had their cake and ate it too.

snip
"A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
end snip

that is not an outright denial BTW. How funny they really do feel americans are fools. A sequences of photos depicting from the same proximity of the pentagon. They say they did not "release" the series of photos. They say the FBI did not "disseminate" the media. A "spokesperson" says she "could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras."

All that says is that she could not verify. Not in a position to verify. So we are left to judge by virtue of omission. What omission? The omission of any comments made from the horses mouth. Which horse? Rumsfeld. Hell what could he have possibily verified. He was the one quoted to have said a missile it the building. What a joke!

One question I asked before. It is a simple one which could be verified by the illustrious investigators here no doubt. What model IS the pentagon security video? Also...

No comments RH on the inconsistency of the Alan Wallace statement a year later in an article in September 2002? Wherein he claims HE called in the pentagon incident WHERE AS the AAAR states it was Captain Gilroy that called in the pentagon incident. Can you explain that inconsistency to us?

Also in your investigative bliss. As it does seem you are doing what you love the most. Ever find out anything more about WHO WAS that anonymous relay team that drove 30 hours straight from texas with medical skin replacement? Like when did they actually get on the road or WHY they did not have the team just drive to burn center in Standford Connecticut?

[QuietStorm]

3. RH-My response to post #159 which reads.

YOU WROTE:

would than ask WHAT EVIDENCE?

This HAS been covered ..... :eyes:
:boring;

RESPONSE:

Yes it has been COVERED as in UP! My god it seems as if we might just be in agreement here.

rather than :boring;, did you mean :boring:? I can dig it! As :boring: as having to revisit those DARK STROKES and for you perhaps that SAME piece of scrap metal-eh?

[QuietStorm]

4. Crispy: Cordite is a propellant from what I can gather

Re: "never mind crispy I see here you disagree."
> You are aware that there were accounts of the smell of cordite, right?
I am aware, but I'm not really sure what cordite is (I think it's used in bombs, correct me if I'm wrong) or if it is used in missiles.

I just found this. There are other links found months ago. However, I have read cordite can be placed in heads of various weapon projectiles as well as boosters to rockets and while I am not all up on the names of weaponry and such. I believe it is a compound used for the same purpose in missile propulsion? You can correct me if I am wrong.

Bare in mind there were witnesses who DID immediately account having smelt cordite. Some did amend their statement at a later time expressing that in the mayhem they thought they had but after time passed one that I know of said he couldn't be sure. I do not remember his name, but you know how far goes a bit of coercion in instances as contravercial as this.

snip
After World War II, Hercules Powder and Allegheny Ballistics Laboratory began the development of a more powerful double-base rocket. On August 20, 1947, the JATO X-201, the first 16 inch. solid-propellant booster, was flight-tested at the Naval Ordnance Test Station, Inyokern, California. The X-201 was used as well in the Naval Ordnance Bureau's Bumblebee program. The cast-double-base propellant booster, later designated the 3DS47000, was developed by Hercules Powder Company. It contained 740 lb. of propellant and delivered a thrust of about 50,000 lb. for 3 sec. It was the forerunner of an entire family of related propulsion units that served as boosters for the Nike, Terrier, Talos, and Honest John missiles.

The Bumblebee program lead directly to the Navy's Terrier and Talos missiles as follow-ons of the Lark anti-aircraft research missile. The Army's Nike-Ajax was a kind of large, guided Wac Corporal, using the same propulsion formula, but with a Bell liquid pressure feed rocket main engine. Bell later developed the pump feed rocket engine XLR65-BA-1 for the X-9 Shrike, predecessor of the Rascal air-to-ground missile. Yet another derivative was a simpler engine for a rocket-propelled pod for the B-58 Hustler bomber. The rocket pod was cancelled, but the Hustler became the basic Agena engine used on upper stages of the Thor, Atlas and Titan boosters. Bell was later involved in the ascent engine development for the Apollo lunar module.

===========================================================
Composition of Various Double-Base Propellants (Percent)
---------------------------------------------------------

Ingredients Extruded Russian Composite Cast
Ballistite Cordite Double-
Base
---------------------------------------------------------
nitro-cellulose 51.50 56.5 21.0 47.0
nitro-glycerine 43.00 28.0 13.0 37.7
ethyl centralite 1.00 4.5 1.0 1.0
diethyl phthalate 3.25 ---- ---- ----
dimethyl phthalate ---- ---- ---- 14.0
dinitrotoluene ---- 11.0 ---- ----
carbon black 0.20 ---- 9.0 0.3
potassium sulphate 1.25 ---- ---- ----
potassium perchlorate ---- ---- 56.0 ----
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/doulants.htm (the recipe table can be best viewed on site.)

Crispy what do you think?

[crispy]

5. Re: "Crispy: Cordite is a propellant from what I can gather"

Well I'm not much of a scientist so I don't know if cordite would be used in Boeings. Though if we could definitely rule that out, I think it would be pretty significant that people smelled cordite.

[demodewd]

7. fuel odor

From what I understand there was a pervasive fuel odor in the air.

[crispy]

9. Re: "fuel odor"

There probably was jet fuel. But would 2-3 people confuse that odor with cordite is the question.

[QuietStorm]

11. see my thoughts on that post 10 and

let me know what other considerations you have regarding cordite. I BELIEVE the smell was incriminating as I expound upon in post 10. After you read post 10 what I would like to know if you believe dissociating cordite with a boeing is really necessary. As I state I would think that cordite HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH a boeing would be a given.

The question is do propel planes IS cordite involved. I believe cordite is also an incendiary device, but my memory is vague on that. If it were you know like TNT well than I would assume it might be dangerous to include for propellsion in commerical liner.

I am not familiar with all the terminology but I assumed it's use was relegated to weaponry, warhead, rocket projectiles, missiles, guns, NOT JET ENGINES.

I could be wrong. What do you think?

[crispy]

14. Re: "see my thoughts on that post 10 and"

Well in order for the smell of cordite to weigh in heavily on the "no 757" camp's side we'd need to get a bit more proof, or at least facts about cordite. I'll do some looking into it.

[QuietStorm]

20. there are articles already pulled on that.

this has all been covered. THAT is what I am trying to tell you. I will pull the cordite articles I got and put them here as well.

[QuietStorm]

22. CORDITE LINKS THAT I AN ANOTHER FOUND

cordite is a smokeless powder

I can not answer your question regarding why cordite. Actually, though I thought the smell indicated an explosive of some sort, I have now become wary of being tricked with all this screaming about disinformation specialists. So I decided to make sure that cordite was related to explosives and right off the bat found this.

It is a long article about cyberspace exercises aimed at combating hackers. It is a very interesting article. I have just excerpted here the part about cordite. Maybe it will help answer why cordite for those that know more about it? Below the excerpt is the link to the whole article or study.

T. I. B.Vol. 4 No. 6
Nov - Dec 1999
Page 9
Military explosives
Two questIons were recently asked: . What exactly is cordite? Also, we hear about a number of explosives (torpex is one that seems to pop to mind)-are all of these TNT based? are there differences between the explosives in a depth charge as compared to say a torpedo warhead?

I'll address only the naval aspects of this; I don't know the specifics of the explosives used in land-based artillery, although I'm sure they are largely the same.

Military explosives include propellants and high-explosive bursting charges, i.e. the filler of the projectile (as well as smaller quantities of explosives like black powder and tetryl, used for fuzes, primers, boosters, etc.). Since the late nineteenth century the dominant propellant has been a
class of explosives called smokeless powders, in which nitrocellulose is a primary ingredient. There are two broad types of smokeless powders: single-base powders, consisting only of nitrocellulose and stabilizers; and double-base powders, in which a substantial quantity of nitroglycerine is added. Cordite, invented by the British, is a double-base powder, although
the term is sometimes loosely used for any type of smokeless powder. Of the major navies of this period, the British, Germans, Japanese, and Italians used cordite or similar double-base powders; the U.S., French, and, I think, Russian navies used single-base powders. Double-base powders were more powerful but also more sensitive than the single-base type.

Bursting charges are a fairly complicated subject. In shells, particularly armor-piercing shells, it is important to use an explosive that is relatively insensitive, to avoid premature detonation; use of an insensitive explosive often entails some loss of explosive power. Many fillings for AP shells, like the British lyddite (also used extensively in army artillery), were based on picric acid. There were problems with excessive sensitivity in these shells in the First World War, and the British and other powers made considerable improvements before 1939. The U.S. "Explosive D," which was less sensitive, was based on ammoniumpicrate. The Germans by World War II used TNT as the base of the filler in their naval armor-piercing shells.

Aerial and underwater ordnance more likely to be TNT-based, because, particularly in the latter case, there was less concern about excessive sensitivity. In the U.S. Navy most bomb fillings during World War II were of TNT. Initially underwater ordnance--mines and torpedoes--had TNT bursters. During the war submariners, in particular, came to demand a more powerful explosive. A series of explosives were developed based on a substance called RDX, which is "produced by the nitration of hexamethlylenetetramine," according to a USN manual. In most of these explosives RDX was combined with TNT. Torpex was a mixture, of RDX, TNT, and aluminum powder. It became the standard torpedo warhead, and was also used in mines and aerial depth charges. It was more powerful than straight TNT, but had the drawback of higher sensitivity. Eventually a desensitizer was added and the new explosive, called HBX, entered U.S. naval service in early 1945. This is from USN texts, but if desired I can easily provide details on other fleets from John Campbell's "Naval Weapons of World War Two." Regards, Keith Allen Haymarket, Virginia

http://www.wlhoward.com/bulletins/tib699.htm

ANOTHER ONE

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.myring/beau/general/rocket-projectiles.html

"The Rocket Projectile (or RP, or rocket) was developed in the early '40s as a new weapon for attacking ground and sea targets. It was essentially a very simple device: a length of two or three inch (50 - 75 mm) diameter steel tube, about six feet (2 metres) long, filled with cordite.

At the rear end, the inside of the tubing was reduced in diameter with a constriction to form a venturi, with fins to ensure a straight flight. At the inside front of the tubing a firing cap was fitted with a lead going right through the cordite to the rear where it was fitted with a plug which hung down, known as the pigtail.

This plug was fitted into a socket under the wing of the aircraft, and when the firing button was pressed by the pilot, the electric charge ignited the firing cap causing the cordite to burn, and the force of the pressure through the venturi gave the rocket its forward thrust which broke the rocket free from its rail.

At the 'business end' of the rocket the head was fitted. Apart from the 25 lb (11 kg) practice head, there were three types of head, a 25 lb armour piercing head, a 25 lb semi-armour piercing head, and a 60 lb (27 kg) high explosive head. Later, 90 lb (41 kg) heads were developed."

End

HOPEFULLY THE LINKS STILL WORK I HAVE NOT TRIED THEM BUT IF YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES YOU CAN SEARCH FROM KEY WORDS FROM THESE PERHAPS.

[QuietStorm]

10. cordite would be used in Boeings?

WELL I am not much of scientist either. A lap dancer maybe (HAH).

BUT - from the reactions I have read on line to the smell of cordite. Me thinks that it would NOT be something associated with a boeing in the least. That is why I assume the mention of cordite raised eyebrows in the first place.

so it WAS significant that people smelt cordite. Must we really prove there would not be a smell of cordite associated with a Boeing. I would assume THAT is a given.

Would jet feul be confused with cordite via smell? Again. I referre you to the above paragraphs. If that was the case it would not have raised so much attention. Also IF that were the case why would a witness on the scene state he smelt cordite only to amend his statement later stating he wasn't sure.

One would think that IF cordite WERE associated with a crashed boeing that this witness on the scenes statement of having smelt cordite would not have to be amended. AS by admitting he smelt cordite would not be indicative of anything incriminating the the government.

Judging from the amendment and all the resistance to the smell of cordite on the scene. As I laymen utlilizing common sense I would say the smell of cordite at crash site is incriminating to the offical story BECAUSE smell of cordite and boeings DO NOT go together.

[acerbic]

15. I know, I know... possible earthly explanations are strictly prohibited,

but anyway: is it totally implausible that at a crash site where a helluva lot of different materials are burning and their smokes mixing, something smells to somebody like cordite without actually being cordite...?

[QuietStorm]

16. what a brilliant mind you have.

the Pentagon is a military building it houses military personnel. One would think they would know the smell of cordite when they encountered it. Not some imaginary smell but an actual smell of cordite, but we are certainly all free to persue whichever lines of investigation appeal to each of us the most.

One of the eyewits stated they smelt cordite before they had established even what had happened. It is a smell that would led someone with experience enough to designate cordite to wonder what had hit the pentagon. An explosive device perhaps. As it does seem the two go together.

And besides in what plane crash investigation have you ever read through were somebody stated on site. Gee I smelt cordite ?

I asked for a link with comment not just some wayward simplictic wiping of the concern away.

[acerbic]

17. Thank you. What about yours?

the Pentagon is a military building it houses military personnel. One would think they would know the smell of cordite when they encountered it.

Have you found out if the statement about the cordite like smell was made by military personnel familiar with cordite or not? It is possible to find out if you're really interested in knowing instead of believing...

Have you found out if the statement was in fact "I smelt cordite" or e.g. "It smelled like cordite, or gun smoke"? It is possible to find out if you're really interested in knowing instead of believing...

[crispy]

18. Re: "Thank you. What about yours?"

"'We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,' she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke." - Gilah Goldsmith, http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010921/usp14a.shtml

"I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite." - Don Perkal, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2001/09/19perkal.html

Email address of Perkal is [email protected] if you wanted to ask him about it.

[QuietStorm]

19. bingo DON PERKAL yes that was the account I was talking about

He was contacted by an investigator named RON HARVEY. I can find the response. I know where it is. Don Perkal was the one that amended his statement after the fact stating he thought he had smelt cordite but when pressed at a later time his response was he couldn't be sure.

I can find his response to harvey if you want. Let me know there is so much to do. If you believe me my statement should be enough. But if you would like I get the Perkal's response to Harvey's question I will. Let me know.

[QuietStorm]

21. Perkal amendment to original account.

there is no link it was a email response back to Ron Harvey.

'Cordite' clarification from Don Perkal:

I have today recieved the version below, solicited from Don Perkal himself by email:

"Mr. Harvey:

I was merely guessing as to the nature of the smell I encountered as I was vacating the building on 9/11/01. My expertise is totally lacking when it comes to discerning such odors. Since 9/11/01, I have encountered no information which would confirm my speculation/guess. Nor have I read or heard anything that explosive materials on the airplane or the premises were ignited before or after the plane crash. It is possible that the ensuing fire ignited small arms ammunition (bullets) carried by military personnel or police officers but I have no independent or derived information of same."

------------------

REBUTTAL TO HARVEY'S EMAIL

relationship with Don Perkal

so in other words Mr. Harvey: you are not one that Don Perkal would necessarily take into his confidence regarding what could be his more intimate thoughts on the matter.

One can assume that thoughts or speculations contrary to the Official story might well be kept private, with real concerns only exchanged privately between those held in high regard of one another, and in confidence.

It would not be a real stretch of the imagination to assume that those nearest to the Pentagon and the powers that be, might have good reason for holding their tongue for reasons including the strong possibility of coercion, selective anthrax warnings set in place to encourage complicity and discourage dissent, etc.

Therefore the worth of Don Perkal's response to your query can be considered proof of nothing. Actually, considering his speculation that the explosion might have detonated police ammunition and such; it is testament that he did smell cordite.

As he was trying to get out of the building in fear for his life. I can not imagine that he hung around long enough to ascertain from where exactly the smell was coming from.

POINT BEING: this communication from him to you is not convincing enough to discredit the speculation that a rocket filled with cordite was not thrust into the pentagon.

[RH]

23. Perkal

I have already mailed to him.

On Sun 9th March this year he responded as follows


Mr. Harvey:

I was merely guessing as to the nature of the smell I encountered
as I was vacating the building on 9/11/01. My expertise is totally
lacking when it comes to discerning such odors. Since 9/11/01, I have
encountered no information which would confirm my speculation/guess.
Nor have I read or heard anything that explosive materials on the
airplane or the premises were ignited before or after the plane crash.
It is possible that the ensuing fire ignited small arms ammunition
(bullets) carried by military personnel or police officers but I have
no independent or derived information of same.

[QuietStorm]

25. Yes RH I placed it in my so named Perkal amended post #21

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1208&page=

what about your c-130 lists. Notice I placed all thoses below but not yours I can find yours though I know where they are.

[RH]

30. know where they are?

What is this?

Hide and seek?

[QuietStorm]

32. Have you hit the snooze button on your alarm AGAIN?

:boring:

[RH]

37. hit the snooze button?

I will now.

:eyes:

For what should I need any of this anyway?

[QuietStorm]

39. from your perspective I can not answer that for you.

This is rehash for me, however if you follow the sequence crispy had concerns regarding cordite. Don perkal came up I knew of the email, I placed cordite links in an effort to help crispy clarify some of his thoughts. You know a team RH. How this fits into your scheme of things I can not say.

It is my hope it will work itself into a thoughtful mindful discussion which might help tighten up the Two Plane theory. As I said, when I first peeped in on the investigation here. It seemed all were still discussing things that had already been discussed at the beginning of the year.

From my perspective, it appeared to me the investigation had been stalled by investigators hellbent on reiterating ad nauseum the same counter arguements that didn't work for myself and others the first time we heard them.

Read thru the posts RH. If you find you don't need any of this, it is your freedom to bow out of the discussion unless you can be of help, rather than hindrance. I really can not answer your question. I have no idea for what you should need any of this.

I may be wrong, but you seemed convinced of the government's story months ago. At least that is the way it seemed, the way you were arguing it back than. So I really don't even understand your question to tell you the truth.

[crispy]

40. Re: "from your perspective I can not answer that for you."

> It is my hope it will work itself into a thoughtful mindful discussion which might help tighten up the Two Plane theory.

For the record I have serious doubts about the two plane theory. I really do not think F77 was anywhere in the vicinity.

We can talk about the two plane theory somewhere else if you like. For that it would be best if Mr. Eastman joined us.

[QuietStorm]

42. again A BOEING was in the vicinity ( a decoy perhaps if not F77)

there were those on the highway that saw a boeing. it does not necessarily have to be flight 77. Although it would tie up some of my loose ends if it were flight 77. They could have sent in a decoy Boeing for the purposes of eyewit identification. they had to.. if there was no boeing in the air no one would have confused things. the eyewit accounts would have been more consistant.

For right now it doesn't have to be F77. Please read my comment to you in the Eastman thread. and in that thread you might expound upon why you don't think it was Flight 77, but a boeing HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN THE SKY otherwise NO ONE WOULD HAVE SEEN A BOEING .

you understand what I mean. I am not stuck on the plane actually being flight 77 at this very moment. Though I would like if it was Read my post please in the eastman thread. I have repeated these same comments already too much.

[Abe Linkman]

46. No, no, no. Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst.

"a boeing HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN THE SKY otherwise NO ONE WOULD HAVE SEEN A BOEING ."

The vast majority of people don't even know the word "Boeing."

[QuietStorm]

48. excuse me... I mean a commerical liner

something resembling a boeing so that when the officials announced FL -77 hit the pentagon... It washed... what I mean to say is not so much that it was FL-77 or even a boeing 757,,, but it was a commercial liner... IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN THE SKY FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES....

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SMALLER REPLICA that hit the pentagon....

All I am saying is that it didn't have to be.... SOMETHING HAS TO ACCOUNT for the initial report of the CRASH on runway 1-19....

I had thought that there was one plane that only looked like a boeing.... BUT THERE IS A MATTER OF THE CRASH on runway 1-19... In the eastman pentagon theory thread I opened I give crispy the page this is on in the AAAR if you have the AAAR you can read for yourself.

Also as I already outlined in the eastman thread I opened IT WAS THE EYEWITS TO SOME DEGREE THAT ESTBLISH however cockamamie the target path.... you will have to read through that thread.... I am not going to repeat myself...

[RH]

59. No, no, no. Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst.

No, no, no, no, no,   of course not.

To know what happened we need to listen to somebody who was never anywhere to the event.

How could we possibly argue against that?

:silly:

[Abe Linkman]

61. And you live WHERE?

To know what happened, I rely on people who get paid to inform us.

[RH]

64. Where.

:eyes:

In the real World.

You should try it sometime.

Or read my previous messages.

[Abe Linkman]

45. You keep walking into their traps.

It's crazy to think you can win on any issue where the basis of the argument includes eyewitness testimony. Disinformation agents will eat you up every time because for every witness you quote, they'll make up one, find an opposing one, or make up lies to try and discredit yours.

Make them argue about logical scenarios, plausible theories etc. There, they must either engage or expose themselves for what they are.

A good example is asking and reasking them to take a position on the "smoke trail" in the Pentagram parking lot images of what is alleged to be FL 77.

[QuietStorm]

49. Yes I understand

they don't deserve the time... thanks.

[RH]

50. for every witness you quote, they'll make up one?

Such as?

Which witness was ever "made up"?

You can ask all you like about the "smoke trail". You have nothing more that a Rosarch test. Whatever anyone may care to see into it to suit themselves, until such time as better evidence may happen to be available there is really nothing to say about it that has not already been said, over and over again.

:boring:

[Abe Linkman]

62. Repeat after me. "The images are doctored or phony, or both."

If AA FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon, the Government would release proof. And, don't say "well, after the SH WMD lies, they're gonna be more careful about falsified evidence," because 9/11 happened long before the SH WMD lies were ginned-up and sold to the public.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QuietStorm]

26. You don't get it do you acerbic

I was on this beat for a couple of months at the beginning of the year THIS IS REHASH FOR ME. I contributed MANY THOUGHT AND MANY ARTICLES.

I have placed some of MANY SOURCES i contributed at the beginning of the year. BESIDES KEVETCHING what has been you contribution to this effort?

[RH]

27. Look around.

Google for "Acrid smell" and "Pentagon".

It was was a widely occurring description of the experence.

The smell of cordite is acrid but it is not, of course, the only possible source of an acrid smell.

[QuietStorm]

31. acrid smell could be consistent w/ death and burning flesh

Besides cordite.

I already placed more cordite sources. in the thread along with the c-130 sources I pulled. I know you have a comprehensive list of the c-130 accounts as well as a very comprehensive list of the eyewitnesses all the variations.

THIS IS A HEAD'S UP. The only REASON i would bother rehashing all of this is to line it up with, or see how it lines up with EASTMAN'S TWO PLANE THEORY.

But since you do not seem to be on that team. I will have to see who is.

[dick_eastman]

69. cordite, no reports of burning-flesh odor -- & response to 3 objections

I've seen the cordite smell report -- and always forget to mention it when summarizing evidence.

I have never seen a report of the smell of burning flesh -- not a fact that gives much weight to the small-killer-jet-Boeing-overfly thesis, but certainly one that does not help the official "Boeing-did-it" version either.

I'd like to address some other matters here:

Here are some statements by discussants and replies:

======================

Statement:

"77 was not on a path to Reagan National Airport"

Reply:

I believe this comment is supposed to mean that Flight 77 was not headed striaght for Reagan National as it came over the Sheraton, over the Annex, over the gas station and over the crash of the killer jet into the west wall of the Pentagon. However I have never ever -- not even once -- maintained that it was. Here are the relevant facts concerning the overfly:

a) Reagan National airport is only one mile from the crash.

b) The path over Sheraton, Annex, gas station and crash is a straight line path which when extended east takes Flight 77 just north of the 14th street bridge. The first Washington D.C. local radio accounts of a crash, based on listeners calling in reports, had an airliner crashing into the 14th-Street bridge.

c) After flying over the crash it would be less than 4 seconds before the jet would be closer to the airport than to the crash -- so it would become part of the airport scene

d) To land immediately at the airport the plane the airplane would have to bank sharp to the right, and even then it would have to land at the southeastern-most runway

e) The Boeing could also have merely climbed into the holding cue of aircraft waiting to land -- as all aircraft had been called upon to land at once and normal scheduling was cancelled -- landing from any direction at any time.

Summary: The fact that the path of approach from Sheraton to crash is not a straight-line path that leads to the airport is well known and has been taken into account from the day I learned of the close proximity of the airport. Ron Harvey has been told all of the above time and time again.

HERE IS VERY IMPORTANT SUBSTANTIATION AND EXPLANATION IN DETAIL WITH PHOTOS OF INFORMATION ABOVE:

Here is what happened to Flight 77 after it overflew the Pentagon crash
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/18

===============

Statement:

77 was nowhere near to any legitmate flight path, nor even was it headed towards DCA when it hit the Pentagon, nor (according to all but one of the witnesses who noticed) was the landing gear deployed.


Reply: All three of the above statements are true and in agreement with my account of the events. It takes six seconds for landing gear to come down and lock. Since there is no contradiction with my understanding of the events and since these three facts are not incompatible with any portion of the small-plane thesis, we can safely proceed to the next comment.

=================

Statement:

Witnesses familiar with the airport's activities especially said that they noticed the plane because it was flying too low and not on any nornal flight path.


Reply:

I believe this discussant means to say that witnesses who live and work near the airport know the normal approaches to the runways of Reagan National, and that some witnesses first noticed the plane because it coming in from the west rather than from the north, northwest, northeast, or south, southwest or south east. If that is what is meant, then it is a true statement. I have quoted these witnesses in several locations. These statements are compatible with the small-plane thesis. (See above URL for illustrated treatment of the overfly and the blending into the airport traffic.) Remember, these witnesses are speaking of the plane before it reached the crash-overfly point -- as I said above, the plane would have to have banked over the 14th street bridge to have landed immediately (and then it would have had to forgoe the closest runway or else touch down in the middle of it further south -- but it also could have merely made a larger circle around the airport, joining the planes in the emergency landing cue.

Here is another illustrated overview of the relevant stages of this black-op deception:

Here is what really happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/10

Forgive me for not commenting on the many posts that I agreee with or that raise new points that I have nothing worthwhile to add to (none of the points that I have seen raised challenge the evidence or the offered deductions from that evidence that is the "small-plane" interpretation of the Pentagon event.

-----------

One important line of evidence has not yet been explored to any depth here.

Everyone accepts the civil engineers conclusion that the killer jet nosed into the Pentagon dead-center at external pillar designated #14 in the report. (By pillar we mean the vertical column of wall between columns of windows.) Yet in every simulation that has the correct angle of appoach (50 to 60-degrees of angle from the wall), including that of Sarah Roberts herself, has, as it must, the starboard (right) wing engine of the Boeing in a line to hit the wall between pillars #'s 16 and 17. YET, AS IS DISTINCTLY SHOWN IN SEVERAL PICTURES, AND ESPECIALLY IN AN ENLARGEMENT PREPARED BY SARAH ROBERTS HERSELF (WHICH I USED TO OFFER, BUT WHICH IS GONE NOW THAT YAHOOGROUPS NO LONGER ALLOWS ATTACHMENTS IN ITS POSTED MESSAGES) THE INTERIOR WALLS ARE CLEARLY STILL STANDING BETWEEN PILLARS 16 AND 17, AND ALSO, FOR EXTRA MEASURE, BETWEEN PILLARS 17 AND 18. (I will send this to anyone who asks for the SARAH ROBERT'S SMALL-PLANE PROOF PHOTO.) It is proof as conclusive as the missile-smoke-and-missile-explosion photos, as conclusive as the too-short aircraft photo, as conclusive as the contradiction in paths between that of the killer jet as determined by the physical evidence of holes and downed poles and the path of the Boeing that overflew the crash as observed in its approach by witnesses who describe it always in a line over the Sheraton, over the Naval Annex, over the gas station.

I am most anxious to see this one discussed. Remember: write to [email protected] for the pictures that prove no starboard wing engine of a plane whose nose struck the Pentagon at pillar #14 hit the Pentagon as SARAH ROBERT'S SMALL-PLANE PROOF conclusively demonstrates. (Of course, Sarah Roberts was attempting to make a different point when she prepared this very powerful evidence for the small-plane thesis.)

By the way, some have wondered how I heard about the DU forum. I exchange information with many investigators and Nico Haupt, whom I do not know well and whom I do not believe is posting here, indicated that that lively discussion was going on here with Sarah Roberts and Ron Harvey -- but I finally checked it out at the time of the new format transition and only got in two comments before those discussions were closed. Then I returned later to see what had started up.

I do not know any of the discussants here except Ron Harvey, although I think I am getting to know and appreciate the most active discussants pretty fast. Just thought you needed to know that.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

[QuietStorm]

70. I am going to FLIP if I don't get something straight here.

I have to read your whole post including the links - I have read some of it. But I am yet unwilling to discard that there was a CRASH on runway 1-19. Perhaps I am stubborn. Perhaps I am not fully informed.

we need to get in sync, because I have questions that I have asked and I need to understand beyond reasonable doubt. If you do not mind I would like to suggest to some degree you put aside for the moment what you said or what you defended in the past. I need to know we are talking about the same planes, and i need to ascertain this yesterday.

Those people you have now informed me you know may have been disruptors only. There observations useless is what I mean to imply by that.

OKAY....

you are aware that there was an initial report of a crash on runway 1-19 right? I probaby the only one here that refuses to let this initial report go. NOT UNTIL I am clear that there is no way THAT BOEING that some of the eyewits seemed to be describing WAS NOT THE ONE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON, but instead did in fact crash land on runway 1-19 at RRNA.

you are aware (as I have gotten this from your theory BTW) that different witnesses saw different things from different locations. right?

So based on this so far I gather there was a BOEING (perhaps FL 77 we do not know this for sure).

There was a 4 prop smaller plane (is this the plane you feel was the killer plane?

There was a F-16. There was a c-130 (ONLY ONE?)

NOW

we have a BARBARA who speaks of a BOEING flying in the direction of RRNA.

HERE IS HER INTERVIEW....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1627&page=


we have a Captain McCoy who called his siting in from the same location BARBARA seems to have seen what seems to be THE BOEING not the four prop but THE BOEING.

HERE IS HIS STATEMENT FROM THE AAAR

there is also a map in the AAAR

According to the AAAR, Flight 77 was observed at 9:37am. It was in a steep descent, banking sharply to its right before it disappeared beyond the horizon, seemingly on a collision course with the pentagon. This observation was made by Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 enroute to a training session in Crystal City, traveling north on 395. One minute later at 9:38am Flight 77 is reported crashed. Apparently this is the official account as it so far has been repeated twice pretty much verbatim.

The second time this account is repeated, it continues on to say that shortly after the plane disappeared it was preceded by a tremendous explosion. However, Captain McCoy was, "unable to pinpoint the precise location". The Captain immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communication Center (ECC) "reporting an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th St Bridge or in Crystal City", and advised that the FBI should also be notified."
END QUOTES



This needs to be mapped along with our friend BARBARA. BARBARA alludes to the memorial street exit but there is something in that interview that tells me WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE SHE IS CALLING IN FROM... HMMMM... Anyone on board now where the 14th street bridge is in relation to the Memorial street exit? McCoy is on 395. BARABARA ALSO speaks of I395. MEMORIAL STREET AND 14TH STREET BRIDGE is this approximately in the close proximity?

---------


NOW BASED ON THESE TWO WITNESS it seems to me BOTH are seeing a BOEING (for right now we don't know if it is FL77).

I am of the impression that the damage assessment is TOO SMALL to have accomodated a BOEING but instead it seems to me PERHAPS the 4 prop might suffice as the killer plane IF it can be established. as you say:

"(I will send this to anyone who asks for the SARAH ROBERT'S SMALL-PLANE PROOF PHOTO.) It is proof as conclusive as the missile-smoke-and-missile-explosion photos, as conclusive as the too-short aircraft photo, as conclusive as the contradiction in paths between that of the killer jet as determined by the physical evidence of holes and downed poles and the path of the Boeing that overflew the crash as observed in its approach by witnesses who describe it always in a line over the Sheraton, over the Naval Annex, over the gas station."

IS THIS THE SMALL 4 PROP THAT WAS DOING DIVES AT THE MALL.

It sounds like there are a collection of witnesses that do establish a path for this plan. this is NOT THE BOEING. These witness were they south of the pentagon?

I SEEM TO THINK the path of the BOEING can be estblished from those sitings from THE NORTH of the pentagon ALONG I395. IF THE KILLER PLANE is established by eyewitness accounts and IF THIS PLANE is the smaller plane THERE DOES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN still the BOEING for which a flight path must be estblished .

I want to explain why there was an initial report of a crash on runway 119 I SEEM TO FEEL the boeing sited by MC COY and this BARBARA is perhaps the BOEING THAT they are describing BARBARA STATES CLEARLY IT SHE ASSUMED IT WAS HEADED FOR A LANDING.

IF THIS PLANES PATH HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED I WANT TO KNOW BY WHOM it seems to me this BOEING had to have gone somewhere WHY IS RUNWAY 1-19 not the most likely destination? OR have I got it all wrong and this is, what I am calling the BOEING, the same smaller craft THAT HIT THE PENTAGON?


HERE ARE OTHER THOUGHTS IN THIS SAME AREA I HAVE PLACED TO YOU AS WELL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1651&page=

I in the meantime will go over the stuff you placed in your post above. perhaps some of my questions would be answered.

[dick_eastman]

72. Here is information on some of these points, not on others.

QuietStorm is unwilling to discard that there was a CRASH on runway 1-19. I am less informed than QuietStorm about this possibility -- all I know is that the Reagan National fire trucks were first called to the runway. I merely conjecture that someone saw Pentagon smoke, saw the Boeing perhaps banking very steep over the 14th street to get on runway and connected the two as a crash on the runway -- just a hypothesis that fits the information -- BUT LET ME SAY I HAVE NOT SEEN ALL THE INFORMATION YOU ARE PRESENTING ON THIS AND I HAVE AN OPEN MIND. (I got to some basic information first -- I expect other people with additional information and minds at least as good to uncover more of what actually happened. I do think there is enough known to impress any impartial member of House, Senate or a grand jury.

Forgive me for not being in sync -- I have developed lines of proof, a good case for a prosecutor I think -- but I have studied a some evidence very intensly and have neglected much detail and, to me, side issues.


I am aware that there was an initial report of a crash on runway 1-19.

If you are the only one here that refuses to let this initial report go, then I am interested in what you are finding.

I cannot say that Flight 77 (or at least the Boeing 757 that people saw come over the Hotel, Annex, gas-station, and to the explosion did not subsequently crash on the runway. I can only say that, given what is known from the photo, security cam and witness accounts it need not have. I will be alert to anything I run across that bears on the question of whether or not Flight 77 may have crashed land on runway 1-19 at RRNA.

Yes, I say different witnesses saw different things from different locations. For example, see:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

I am certain there was a Boeing that witnesses saw -- I am not sure that it was FL 77, or whether there really was a FL 77 (it may have been a spook plane from start to finish, as Dulles and Reagan are presumably carefully monitored and controlled by intelligence agencies (as when international figures or spies come and go without being noticed, without having "been there.")

You say, "There was a 4 prop smaller plane (is this the plane you feel was the killer plane?"

Not at all! The four engine jet that did exhibition dives over the D.C. mall was a large jet. And the C-130 was of course gigantic (and yes, only one of these!!!!)

Here is the message that will clarify this with actual photos of the four-engine diversion plane!!! It's a long download but the pictures drive home the conclusions:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/38

There was an F-16 equipped with a missile or the functional equivalent (a different fighter with air-to-ground missile, or a cruise missile with tail fin that itself could launce a missile ahead of itself -- the F-16 is the simplest explanation that fits the bill of all that we know of the killer jet (it fires missiles, it hugs the ground, it has strong off the wing turbulence, it can fire a missile, it can attack under remote control when modified with known general dynamics technology, it is the plane people would expect to see shadowing off-course Boeings near Washington D.C.) -- but other platforms are possible -- there is the witness who said the killer jet resembled a private business jet with a seating capacity of "no more than 12 passengers" etc.

Barbara needs to be questioned about exactly where she was, what she was doing, the direction she was facing, her eye contact from first siting to the explosion.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1627&page=


Captain McCoy says he saw "The BOEING" -- but not all Boeings are two engine planes -- some are four engine and he may have seen the four engine plane that was diving over DC -- THAT PLANE WAS NOT A "FOUR PROP" IT WAS A FOUR JET ENGINE PLANE AS PHOTOS (URL, ABOVE) SHOW.

McCoy speaks of the plane diving and also of it disappearing over the horizon -- we do not know which plane (Boeing 575 or four-engine diversion plane that he saw diving and refers to as "the Boeing" (which may be an assumption rather than a by-sight identification.)


Remember, the steep descent does not jibe with the Boeing coming over the top of the SHeraton, over the Annex at 80 feet etc. The dive -- if the Boeing did dive, must have occured west or (given the reported right turn after the dive) southwest of the Sheraton.



Please see the photos and maps in the above URL for maps and aerial photos that I think will make the different roles played by different aircraft quite clear.

---------
Now, let me say again, in response to your letter: I know nothing of any four prop EXCEPT the C-130 which followed the Boeing through the smoke of the crashed killer jet. THis was the only (turbo)prop-engined plane in the these events.



"(I will send this to anyone who asks for the SARAH ROBERT'S SMALL-PLANE PROOF PHOTO.) It is proof as conclusive as the missile-smoke-and-missile-explosion photos, as conclusive as the too-short aircraft photo, as conclusive as the contradiction in paths between that of the killer jet as determined by the physical evidence of holes and downed poles and the path of the Boeing that overflew the crash as observed in its approach by witnesses who describe it always in a line over the Sheraton, over the Naval Annex, over the gas station."

"Sarah Robert's small plane proof" -- is not a picture of any plane, rather it is a closeup picture of damage to the wall to the right of pillar #14 which shows that no starboard engine of any aircraft hit the pentagon.

Remember, there is no "small four-prop" plane inthe story as I understand these events based on the evidence I have assembled. (Did I somewhere give you the impression that there was a small four-prop plane?)


For me most witnesses saw the real for sure Boeing 757 and missed the killer jet (the F-16) that did the crashing. Others saw the (large) four-engine jet doing its aerobatics over the mall as a distraction.


People on I 395 who experienced a plane go over their car, heard and felt the killer jet -- although looking out the window they only saw the Boeing and mistakingly took that plane as the author of the noise, the downed poles etc. effected by the killer.

When I interviewed Riskus and Lagasse via e-mail I found out completely different story than I had been hearing. For example, Ron Harvey was saying that Riskus saw the Boeing knocking down the poles (which, because I believed Ron Harvey, caused me to publically retract on e-lists and newsgroups my conclusions pending further study etc. -- only to find out from Riskus himself that he only saw the downed poles later as he was driving away (to the south).

Another shock was when Lagasse told me that from the gas station the Boeing 757 passed him on its starboard side (i.e., from the gas station he saw the right side of the Boeing 757 as it crossed from left to right on its way from Annex to Pentagon (overfly.) Making it impossible for the Boeing to have been near enough to those four or five lamp posts to have brought them down with its wing turbulence, much less by "clipping"one of them.

I think I have a pretty exact path of the Boeing from witness accounts. Anything over I-395 or or the Columbia Pike was the killer jet -- with people in cars a second or two afterwards looking out of their windows to see the Boeing which was higher, bigger, slower, brigher etc.

You say:

" I want to explain why there was an initial report of a crash on runway 119 I SEEM TO FEEL the boeing sited by MC COY and this BARBARA is perhaps the BOEING THAT they are describing BARBARA STATES CLEARLY IT SHE ASSUMED IT WAS HEADED FOR A LANDING. "

This seems plausible to me, QuietStorm.

You also say:

"IF THIS PLANES PATH HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED I WANT TO KNOW BY WHOM it seems to me this BOEING had to have gone somewhere WHY IS RUNWAY 1-19 not the most likely destination? OR have I got it all wrong and this is, what I am calling the BOEING, the same smaller craft THAT HIT THE PENTAGON? "

Perhaps what I have given you above will convince you of the formula: witnesses are the best source for the approach of the Boeing. The downed poles and the line of the two holes in the E and C rings respectively are the best indicators of the path of the killer. They were not the same plane.

If a plane crashed on the runway of Reagan National it would have to have been either the four-engine (large) distraction plane or the Boeing 757 after overflying the Pentagon. It was not the C-130 becuase that plane, very suspiciously, turned left (not right) after overflying the crash (following the Boeing which banked right at the bridge) and then it (the C-130) flew to the site of the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania -- at a time when the order was out for ALL PLANES TO LAND AT ONCE! (Yet we have the pilot's own word that that is what he did! It was Minnasota National Guard plane, that had just come up from the Carribbian, btw.)



Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

[QuietStorm]

83. Reagan National fire trucks

Yes they were Captain Defina is the captain of that crew. He and that crew were first called as per articles that I haven't placed yet to a disturbance in a parking lot at RRNA with a diabetic who ran amok and crashed into some parked cars in this said lot. In this article it also states an initial crash was reported on runway 1-19. Interetingly the article was very vague about the particulars of this vehicular accident with the diabetic and it was also stated in this article that Defina and Crew all had their backs turned ( I have to get this article ) I don't want to state right now what they had their backs turned to.

Captain Defina and his crew AFTER this vehicular accident in the parking lot WERE called to pentagon crash site.

[QuietStorm]

84. Okay thanks let me look at these materials

I will get you the defina articles as well. I will let go of a plane crashed on runway 1-19. When it seems that is the case which might happen when I get a better sense of distance geography and location.

[RH]

89. Never trust a word he says.

He twists everything.


"For example, Ron Harvey was saying that Riskus saw the Boeing knocking down the poles (which, because I believed Ron Harvey, caused me to publically retract on e-lists and newsgroups my conclusions pending further study etc. -- only to find out from Riskus himself that he only saw the downed poles later as he was driving away (to the south)."

Is NOT correct.

I only ever said that Steve Riskus said that the plane hit the poles, which was correct; Steve Riskus did say that the plane hit the poles, and to the best of my knowledge he has never since expressed the slightest doubt about the fact, just as he has never yet expressed the slightest doubt that a Boeing B757, Flight 77, hit the Pentagon.

[dick_eastman]

92. "Never trust a word he says" says Ron Harvey of me (My last post to DU)

Ron Harvey says (referring to me):

"He twists everything."

As his example of some of the everything I twist, Ron offers you this statement of a post to this thread:


"For example, Ron Harvey was saying that Riskus saw the Boeing knocking down the poles (which, because I believed Ron Harvey, caused me to publically retract on e-lists and newsgroups my conclusions pending further study etc. -- only to find out from Riskus himself that he only saw the downed poles later as he was driving away (to the south)."

Harvey: Is NOT correct. I only ever said that Steve Riskus said that the plane hit the poles, which was correct; Steve Riskus did say that the plane hit the poles, and to the best of my knowledge he has never since expressed the slightest doubt about the fact, just as he has never yet expressed the slightest doubt that a Boeing B757, Flight 77, hit the Pentagon.

========

Eastman Reply and farewell to DU:

What you did, Ron, was trickery and deceit -- and after you knew that everyone was understanding you to mean that Riskus actually saw the poles going down -- you did not correct or clarify -- (otherwise why even bring Riskus's opinion into the matter since everyone who knew about downed poles naturally assumed given expectations from the WTC and from announcements on radio and TV that the Boeing did it -- why bring up Riskus the witness in a discussion of which aircraft brought down the poles? -- if Riskus the witness did not himself witness the Boeing bringing down the poles then why say that Riskus the witness "said the poles came down..." (note the "...") giving the impression that he is saying that he SAW the poles being downed by the Boeing when he did not?

It so happens I have exactly what you said, below, Ron, for all to see.

First a little background:

Steve Riskus was a witness to the Boeing crossing, he says, one hundred feet in front of him while he Riskus was still north of the crash, driving southbound on Washington Blvd. The downed lamp posts were more than 400 feet ahead. I was arguing that the Boeing, being so close to Riskus could not have knocked down those posts. I said there were no witnesses who both recognized a Boeing 757 and saw it knock down lamp posts.

Then Harvey stated that Riskus had seen the posts being knocked down. I took him at his word and retracted my small-plane conclusions in a post with the subject:

subject: Olive branch: hey! Ron Harvey is right about Riskus seeing the lamp posts go down

Did Harvey come back and say -- "I only said he said they were knocked down by the Boeing, I did not say he said he saw them being knocked down by the Boeing?" NOOOOoooo! He did not. Rather he responded with this:

---------

From: "Ron Harvey" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: Olive branch: hey! Ron Harvey is right about ....


> No matter how many times you care to lie about it,
> Steve Riskus has clearly stated that the B757 hit lamp
> poles before hitting the Pentagon. Ergo wrong trajectory
> to pass over the Cemetery.

-----------

Notice the word "stated" -- witness Riskus -- being a witness is his only claim to fame -- and what he witnessed the only reason why we consider his statements -- Harvey knows he is telling us that the witness stated something (he is keeping from us the fact that what the witness stated was his opinion based on hearsay and not what he actually saw!!!!

The question in my mind is: Why did Harvey state an opinion of Riskus, giving the impression that Riskus observed it happening?

And why, afterwards, when it was clear that I had taken his statement as meaning that Riskus said he saw poles being knocked down by the Boeing -- why did Harvey not correct the false impression he had left of what Riskus said? Rather he accepted the accolades for vanquishing the liar from Yakima.




------------

Next look at this that I wrote:



From: "Eastman" <[email protected]>
To: "populist-talk" <[email protected]>; "nygreens" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Dave Bosankoe" <[email protected]>; "APFN" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:10 PM
Subject: NEW PENTAGON INFO IN BRIEF & Anybody seen Ron Harvey? Tell him Dick Eastman is lookikng for him about words he put in the mouths of Riskus and Omar Campo.

> "Wooster, I'm going to twist your head off and make
> you eat it." -- Stilton Cheeseright
>
> Before we get to whether Ron Harvey has made good
> on his make-or-break claims that 1) witnesses Steve Riskus
> saw AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, down the lamp posts,
> and 2) that National Cemetery gardener Omar Compo
> was not on cemetery cemetery as Flight 77 flew over
> his head while he was cutting grass -- here is THIS
> further corroboration of the two-plane (Killer jet and Boeing)
> explanation sent by Eric from www.sweden.com:
>
> "They are intelligent planes and they have software limits
> so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. ... their
> flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers... They are
> limited to approximately 1.5 g's -- military personnel have
> calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and
> seven g's in its final turn."
> http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=4536
>
> But even though Harvey is now agreeing with my physics
> and geometry, he still rejects the broader conclusion that
> there must have been two planes, in favor of the official story,
> on the basis his unsubstantiated claim that Riksus says that he
> saw the Boeing knock down lamp posts. I have not seen Riskus
> saying this. I have not seen this claim on any other 9-11
> investigators websites or correspondence -- no one but
> Ron Harvey has ever raised this objection, which, if it were
> true would indeed be the coup d'grace for the two plane
> theory. (When I say two plane theory I am referring to the
> killer jet and the Boeing 757 Flight 77 -- I am not referring to
> a helicopter or a C-130 that are also reported to have been
> in the general vicinity at the time, although the C-130 is
> reported to been seen following the Boeing before the
> crash -- which means it was higher up and behind the
> Boeing (and those who were looking at the C-130 would
> certainly have missed the ground-hugging approach of
> the killer jet (still most likely a modified F-16).
>
> So where is Riskus statement. I am, so far, inclined to
> believe Riskus's account, BUT I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS
> FROM HIM, NOR HAVE I HEARD ANY OTHER INVESTIGATOR
> OR COVERUP PROPAGANDIST MAKE THIS CLAIM ABOUT
> RISKUS. I told Harvey that if he can provide the quote and
> the source, or the url with this statement on it that that would
> be a significant point in favor of the anti-two plane argument
> -- BUT WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR IT. DOES HE HAVE IT
> AND IS DESIRING ME TO GET FRUSTRATED AND CALL HIM
> MORE NAMES BEFORE HE PRODUCES IT OR IS HE UNABLE
> TO PRODUCE IT AND SO HAS TAKEN UP OTHER HOBBIES?????
>
> ALSO, after four days Ron Harvey has still not backed this claim:
> >
> > "The gardener" presumably refers to Omar Campo,
> > a Salvadorean, who was cutting the grass on the other
> > side of the road.
> > You can see where this was in contemporaneous photos.
> > The grass is strewn around on the flyover ramp road.
> > Ergo, not in the Cemetery.
>
The fact that you see grass along the highway overpass does
not at all establish where Campo made his observation. Campo
was working as an Arlington Cemetery Gardener, not as Highway
Department Landscape Maintenance -- if the Arlington Gardener
was cutting Arlington grass, than the road furthest south he could
have been cutting along would be Patton Drive just north of the
Annex -- and the right trajectory through poles and holes could
not have been attained by any Boeing if it was at all over the Annex
or anywhere from the Columbia Pike northward.

> You make some boasts and some accusations below, Harvey.
> Why not give these some credibility by giving us the Riskus
> statement and the Campbo statement that will prove me wrong
> and vindicate all you have ever said. It will be a significant
> contribution to a very important question -- and it will put me
> in my place for good (I don't think I will be able to recover
> if you can produce even one of these pieces of evidence.
> Seriously.)

---------------------------------------


And Harvey's replies to the above:

From: "tw45ph" <[email protected]>
> I provided an abundance of demonstration, web pages full of
> pertinent extracts from witness reports, all fully referenced.
> In return you Mr. Eastman stubbornly neglected to
> acknowledge the work, with no link to my pages ever provided
> in any of your various messages, and it was all too often obvious
> that you'd never even bothered to examine pertinent items even
> after they were pointed out to you. I do not therefore desire
> now to entertain any further disingenuity in that respect.
> For as far as I am concerned you are a great deal worse than a
> complete waste of time.
>
> I do not trust you and I shall continue to caution others not to.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Harvey

--

And with this:

From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: NEW PENTAGON INFO IN BRIEF & Anybody seen Ron Harvey? Tell him Dick Eastman is lookikng for him about words he put in the mouths of Riskus and Omar Campo.
>
>
> > "...Ron Harvey of London who alone claims that witness
> > Steve Riskus states that he saw the American Airlines
> > Boeing 757 knocking down the lamp posts .." ???
>
>
> This is absurdly, annoyingly tedious.
>
> Will Mr. Eastman perhaps be honest enough at least to tell us on
> how many previous occasions I have urged him and others to give
> Steve Riskus himself a hearing in a recorded interview he gave
> to a French journalist? After all this time, and all this trouble,
> has he still not yet bothered to listen to it? The item is available
> here:
>
> http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/490/Riskus2.ram
> e.g.
> "... It was coming like at tree level probably 20 feet off the
> ground, It was knocking over light poles as it came in towards the
> building, and it stuck the building right near the ground. So it was
> really low. ... "
>
> The same is also confirmed here:
>
>
> i.e.
>
> "I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the
> building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof
> first... It hit the roof first... It hit dead centre on the side... I
> was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that i could see
> the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the
> building... .. It was not completely level but it was not going
> straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It
> knocked over a few light poles on its way...
> I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane.
> I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle...
> I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have
> those turbine engines on the wing.. and yes, it did impact the
> Pentagon... There was none of this hitting the ground first crap I
> keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... there
> is no doubt about that... When i got to work I checked ot out."


----

Note how Harvey has edited the very sentence mentioning the poles.

Note too, Riskus says he saw no smoke or debris coming from the plane. Nor does he mention jet fuel spray or smell.



Only later, when balking at my forced retirement, did I write to Riskus and learn that he had NOT seen the lamp posts being hit after all -- that he only noticed some of them down as he was driving away, continuing south on Washington Blvd (across the path of the killer jet). You will notice that Riskus has definite ideas that the Boeing did not hit the ground -- but he offers no description of the Boeing hitting or entering the Pentagon either. I believe Riskus and I believe Lagasse and I take them literally in their descriptions of what they actually saw -- and their stories fit the facts.

But Ron Harvey knowlingly took credit for winning the debate -- and he know that I conceded precisely because I was believing him that Riskus said he saw the poles being brought down by the Boeing. He did not correct the mistaken impression.

Ron Harvey says I twist everything. He has said it before. And there is always a percentage of discussants who believe him and pass on the news.

And so I spend another fucking night away from my seven year old daugher and my neglected wife -- we have been through hell over what I do -- because of Ron Harvey doing his thing yet again.

I hope at least one person has bothered to read my defense -- but damn it -- what the hell has been proved here.

Why is that fellow able to hang up me up time after time?

I am sorry -- I can no longer take this emotionally or physically.

You who have fight left -- you have the pictures I cam to show you and you have, I have seen, very good minds -- better than mine, at least at this point.

Last tip. The four engine plane may have been the one that was seen diving at an irrecoverable angle that Robbins talked about -- thnking it was the plane that hit the Pentagon -- but just maybe the plane doing acrobatics over the mall did crash on the runway even as the Boeing was overflying and the killer jet was crashing -- perfect reliable distraction if it happened that way -- I am not saying that a crash on the runway happened, although at one point reported -- I am saying that IF there was a plane crash on the runway it was probably the four-engine jet photographed over D.C. that Robbins (from his office at National Review) saw.

In parting, let me say that this is the most intense forum I have ever participated in -- I could not keep up with you all. I am confident I have successfully given the right evidence to the right people.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

[RH]

93. Eastman's deliberately irritating mendacity:

There is no reasonable excuse for Mr. Eastman to have continued to misrepresent the issue of what Steve Riskus had to say for the facts of that matter were clarified beyond any doubt for instance within the following message I sent some time ago to the Yahoo 'frameup' mailing list.

------------------------------------------


From: "tw45ph <tw45ph@s...>" <tw45ph@s...>
Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: Got an AAA card?


Why does the idiot persist with this?
Just because he loves to annoy?

i.e.
"(Now you know why a certain defender of the offical version felt he
had to float the lie that Riskus saw the Boeing knock down the poles "

Mr. Eastman knows perfectly well that I never said that Riskus saw
the plane hit lamp poles.

In message #2971 to the 'frameup' mailing list, I reminded
that "Steve Riskus has clearly stated that the B757 hit lamp poles
before hitting the Pentagon."

That information was perfectly correct. Steve Riskus had indeed
stated exactly that and nothing since has contradicted
his judgement of the issue.

The information that I supplied was perfectly correct.

Eastman lied. In message #2969 he asserted that
"Both Riskus and the gardener put the Boeing over the cemetery".

The recent quote from Riskus failed to confirm that.

A number of witnesses were particularly clear as to where the plane
flew. Given that it evidently did not hit a radio mast immediately
opposite to the Navy Annex, it must have passed directly over
Columbia Pike as it runs runs just to the south of the Annex.

Nobody other than idiot Eastman has previosuly supposed that anything
flew at 700 m.p.h.

The extra killer jet notion is of course a fiction.

If Idiot Eastman had ever paid the slightest attention to the web
pages that I'd published he would have known by now that detailed
scaled maps of the area are available from the Arlington County
mapping facilty:

http://magellan.co.arlington.va.us

That is where the raw material for my diagrams (which he fails to
credit) was originally obtained.

With all due respect

Ron Harvey, London, UK.

[QuietStorm]

95. well somebodies lying RH.

I have observed you DEBATE. Mr. Harvey and you are egotistical and insulting. I don't have the time to even bother insulting you but of all the people I have interacted with you are VERY difficult to take seriously BECAUSE of your propensity for insult. You will insult anyone. If your claims really stood you would not need waste your time on forums of this nature.

You argue on the side of a story that is a LIE. Supporting the Official Story is hardly heroic and not that challenging. You just need to keep restating what the officials say. When people disagree with you you just call them names and insult them.

If you have such a perfectly closed case Harvey, why are you still here?

You know why? Because you don't! you are here to smear the good work of others who's work makes much more sense than the offical story ever did or will.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QuietStorm]

98. I must say your post makes little sense to me

I do not fathom who she is and who is begging for whom's return, but once again I find you resort to insult both implied (that directed to me) and outright, that insult you have directed to DICK EASTMAN, is his name.

Beyond that, your post make little sense to me.

[QuietStorm]

94. Eastman

you shouldn't leave because of harvey. You must understand there are people who just want to divert things. Perhaps harvey is one of them. He hasn't won the debate. He is just here to stall things when he can. There are people here -- they don't even listen to harvey. You should just ignore harvey.

[QuietStorm]

96. Eastman

I am still going through your materials, so I can reference them better. If it was the 4 engine plane that crashed IF a plane crashed. Where did the BOEING go - he one seen flying over I395. It just landed at RRNA?

hmmmm. I am going to have to be patient with myself till I work through your materials and have them under my belt.

I wish you wouldn't go Eastman, just ignore harvey. There are people who ignore him here. You are upset because he is smearing you. Look how rude he is. If he had a case he wouldn't have to smear you or be deceitful.

I guess if I have any questions for you. I will email you directly.

[QuietStorm]

91. Eastman: you might be aware of all of this I am not sure

as I still have to go through more thoroughly your links. I placed them in the eastman pentagon theory thread by here are the links.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1771&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1772&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1773&page=

I still feel the time line between the AAAR report and this thorough listing of times in the Murphy article needs more comparison.

There appears to be a descrepancy between the 2nd article I placed and the MURPHY article.


2ND ARTICLE SNIP

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Sept. 11, MWAA had 16 on-duty firefighters at Reagan National Air-port, just 0.6 miles from the Pentagon. Another dozen off-duty fire- Medic 325 trans-ported the unconscious driver to George Washington University hospital in Washington, D.C. and then responded to the Pentagon. Paramedic Mike Fetsko says it was the quickest patient transfer he’s ever experienced. “They were waiting for us outside the emergency department,” he recalls. “They immediately moved the patient onto a gurney and told us to go.”

END SNIP

NOTE ABOVE ARTICLE STATE: 16 ON-DUTY FIREFIGHTERS (these men responded to the diabetic in terminal B. Also it states they are 0.6 miles from the pentagon.

With another dozen off duty fire Medic who transported the diabetic. So in this article 16 firefighters with DEFINA then headed to the pentagon.

SNIP FROM MURPHY'S ARTICLE.

Unknown to Captain Defina and his crews, hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, outbound from Washington Dulles International Airport with 64 people on board, was only minutes away from slamming at 0938 hours into the Pentagon, about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from National.

END SNIP

NOTE: in this article there is no mention of on or off duty firefighters and nothing said regarding the transportation of the diabetic. also note the distance from airport to pentagon is different as well from the 2ND ARTICLE. Murphy's article states 3 miles away in distance.

NIETHER ARTICLE IS REALLY VERY EXPLICIT REGARDING THE EXTENT OF THE INCIDENT IN TERMINAL BE BUT FOR A DIABETIC WAS INVOLVED.

[QuietStorm]

71. acrid smell and burning flesh.

actually I have only heard tell of cordite and buring fuel my allusion to burning flesh was actually sarcasm. I never heard or read any account of the smell of burning flesh.

[acerbic]

28. My ongoing contribution:

NOT wasting bandwidth by repeatedly making things up myself and then "debunking" them; pointing it out when someone else engages in such self-aggrandising follies instead of serious discussion.

[QuietStorm]

33. another one on snooze

:boring:

no mind! we are just not on the same team. I can live with that.

[QuietStorm]

29. to be crystal clear.

Any vagueness you might be observing is memory. since participating on the flight 77 and pentagon investigation ... along with a considerable amount of research in an effort to predict strategies in terms of this fiasco we call a war on "terrorism" I have absorbed tons and tons of information. These links I pull are a spit in the bucket. You see I don't have people handing me things to regurgitate or cut and paste on to forums. TALK POINTS are not my specialty (THOUGH I AM AWARE OF THEM)...

I follow my intiution I have pulled hundreds and hundreds of articles on flight 77, the pentagon, arms proliferation, intelligence cross overs, iran contra, even tried to track itinerary of certain leaders. pulled tons of links on that. which do to the volume of information I needed to get straight in terms of history. I have not even yet gone through my itinerary links.

So I don't have much patience with the antics that you have displayed here.

Does this make me extraordinary. NO. I will leave extraordinary to YOU. I am merely curious. When something does not sit right I follow my intiution. 3000 dead in lower manhattan just never sat right enough for me to out of hand swallow the garbage the government dished out in spades WITHOUT ever calling a spade a spade. Not to this very day.

[RH]

51. to be crystal clear

Try logic and evidence.

[QuietStorm]

56. Ron are you following me around

why don't you put me on ignore? Or perhaps that is what I will do with you.

[QuietStorm]

13. A Whiff of War?

This has nothing to do with anything I don't think. I just thought it was funny.

A Whiff of War?
Associated Press

December 1991-January 1992
Revision History
Revision 1 December 1991-January 1992
The Alternative Orange. December 1991-January 1992. Vol. 1 No. 3 (Syracuse University)
Revision 2 September 2, 2000
DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original.

The following AP story demonstrates the marriage of good old American ingenuity and the spirit of global capitalist competition in the arms trade. It’s comforting to know these arms manufacturers have a sense of humor when it comes to making a killing.

DALLAS (AP) You can now buy a whiff of war.

Weapons maker BEI Defense Systems proudly is promoting its "extraordinarily lethal” Flechette rockets with scratch-and-sniff ads.

The trade ads, with the slogan “The Smell of Victory," released the smell of cordite, the rocket explosion aroma.

"My advertising usually gets lost in magazines,” said BEI's George Coutoumanos, who came up with the idea to boost the $47 million in defense contracts his firm won last year.

"I usually get buried by the big guys, the Boeings and the General Dynamics. Who’s going to read my ad when they can look at a beautiful F-16 (warjet) going over the countryside?"

"I’d really like to hire a major star and get them to sing and dance, but it doesn’t work that way,” Coutoumanos said. “And shooting off rockets on television isn’t really appropriate, I think."

"Next year, I’m going to do the 'Sound of Victory,’” he said. “You're going to run your thumbnail across some kind of strip and you will hear the explosions."

http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/1/v1n3_awow.html

I found it searching on keywords Boeing AND cordite. In an attempt to see if cordite is used in jet engines. To tell you the truth I really don't think so . I just doesn't make sense to me. PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME this search is a waste of time. Someone I like I mean. Please someone I like (not one of the buzzards) tell me cordite would have nothing what so ever to do with commerical jet engines.

If someone begs to differ PLEASE DO provide a link which states CLEARLY cordite is utilized in commercial airline propellsion. (that just doesn't seem right to me).

[crispy]

8. Trail of smoke in Pentagon pictures

The reason people give for not wanting to discuss the Pentagon crash photos is that we have no idea if the photos are authentic, and thus any speculation about what the photos imply is just a waste of words. Yet we still can draw some pretty important conclusions if we set up a little experiment.

Let us just assume, for now, that the photos are authentic. If we can rule out the possibility that a Boeing 757 caused that white trail of smoke, then the 757 camp has no choice but to say the photos are fabricated. This would be a very significant conclusion. It would be especially so if the photos were then proved to be authentic, which would effectively end the debate in favor of the "no Boeing" camp.

So, when we talk about the trail of smoke and other elements in the photos, let us for now assume that the photos are authentic.

So now let me begin the discussion with the very important question: Under what circumstances would a Boeing 757 create a single trail of white smoke?

[QuietStorm]

36. I offered an answer in the other thread

if all but one of it's engines were out? It is a laymen perspective.

were there any descriptions are speculations in news reports of the engines being out on the alleged boeing. In my mind as i already stated without response from ANYONE. a boeing has more than one engine SO with that being the case HOW WOULD IT ONLY STREAM ONE STREAM OF SMOKE.

ONLY IF ALL BUT ONE ENGINE WERE OUT.

also I asked you look at the alleged series of photos again. Because I was wondering what you thought about that blip that is generally thought to be the CRAFT. On blew on in that digitalsword analysis it hardly looks like a boeing. does it look like a boeing to you .

couldn't it be best described as perhaps the missile itself. It looks to me even too small to be an F-16. That blip that is suppose to be a CRAFT looks more to me like a cummulus billowy object. what do you think.

[crispy]

41. Re: "I offered an answer in the other thread"

A B757 has two engines. I don't think the plane could be travelling at 460 MPH with an engine out. Even still, why would an engine make white smoke? If it made smoke at all, wouldn't it be black? But why would it smoke at all? The planes which hit the WTC didn't smoke.

Who knows exactly what the thing behind the pylon in the first pic is. It's kinda pointless to speculate about since we don't know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff spatially. The trail of smoke is what I think is the most important, followed by the explosion.

[QuietStorm]

43. crispy I am not the one that said it did.

although I do know on occasion I have looked up in the sky well no that is not true the only planes I have seen that puff smoke are sky writing planes. Yuo really need to talk to a pilot. But again it is not two streams it is one. and tht does not make sense unless by the time the camera comes on one had dissipated.

no one knows what the thing behind the pylon in the first pic is. did you look at the enlargements of it in the digitalsword link? I don't even think it matches an F-16. A UAV would require more information. if you study the enlargements do you think they look perhaps like a missile with smoke thrushing out or perhaps it was not a missile but an attack UAV. Damn I posed these questions before they never get followed through and then someone always arrives who offs the discussion.

I want to read eastmans theory completely. If I am going to do this again I want answers or I want to discredit what doesn't work. I just think there is an aspect of Eastman;s theory that works as a good basis to jump from.

[crispy]

47. Re: "crispy I am not the one that said it did."

> crispy I am not the one that said it did.

Yeah I know, I wasn't talking directly to you. :)


> although I do know on occasion I have looked up in the sky well no that is not true the only planes I have seen that
> puff smoke are sky writing planes.

I can see how, at first glance, one might mistake the trail of smoke in the Pentagon crash pictures as a contrail. But contrails simply do not form at low altitudes. The only other plausible thing it could be is the turbulence caused by wing differentials, which as I already explained would create two visible trails 125 ft apart due to the tilt of the plane's wings.


> no one knows what the thing behind the pylon in the first pic is. did you look at the enlargements of it in the digitalsword
> link? I don't even think it matches an F-16. A UAV would require more information. if you study the enlargements do you
> think they look perhaps like a missile with smoke thrushing out or perhaps it was not a missile but an attack UAV. Damn I
> posed these questions before they never get followed through and then someone always arrives who offs the discussion.

I don't attach too much significance to what is behind the pylon. The image is too blurry, too distorted, I'm not qualified to say what it is, we don't know its dimensions, and a whole bunch of other reasons. It may not look like it would have a wingspan of at least 95 feet, but we know it does.


> I just think there is an aspect of Eastman;s theory that works as a good basis to jump from.

Yeah I agree. I will be posting my own theory once I flesh it out a bit more.

[RH]

53. The only other plausible thing it could be ?

So why then is it not plausible that smoke or visible vapour would result from a collision of lamp poles with fuel tanks in the wings or with one of the engines?

When an airliner clipped light poles in Detroit, 1987, the result was considerable.

[crispy]

57. Re: "The only other plausible thing it could be ?"

> When an airliner clipped light poles in Detroit, 1987, the result was considerable.

Do you have a link or two you can post about that?


> So why then is it not plausible that smoke or visible vapour would result from a collision of lamp poles with fuel tanks
> in the wings or with one of the engines?

I already responded to this in post #78 in the Pentagon thread 2 post.



If the engine had begun smoking after colliding with the second pole, witnesses would have mentioned a trail of smoke. None did. (After reexamining Correa's account, not even he saw a trail of smoke, I was mistaken on that because he was inside and didn't see the collision.) Witnesses likely confused the trail of smoke for dust kicked up by the plane when it supposedly hit the ground first. Yet if the engine had begun smoking all the way back at pole 2, they would not have confused that as dirt from the impact, because no witness would have been stupid enough to think the plane hit the ground at pole 2 and bounced hundreds of feet into the building. The only plausible conclusion is that the trail of smoke was formed right before the plane hit the building, and right before the plane entered the view of the security camera, close enough that people would have confused it for dirt. Close enough to be from a missile fired by the plane.

[RH]

67. a link or two

Use google.com

This should give you something to start with:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1987/870816-2.htm

More detailed versions are probably around somewhere. A book was published. A wing was torn of by a pole.

witnesses would have mentioned a trail of smoke. None did

That's one reason why I doubt that the "smoke" was smoke but why would the same not apply to missile smoke?

Sonme poeple did report the effects of hit poles, debris flying, a flash, that sort of thing. You have to bear in mind that it would have taken about one second to get from the poles to the building and there was a lot going on to give attention to.



Hitting the ground at pole 2 and bounced off was pretty much what happened, and from a distance that would have been the impression gained. The plane had been heading for the lawn, not the building. A straight line drawn from the building, passing back through the poles, does not lead on to a high enough position to get past the Navy Annex. This may easily be confirmed by consulting countour maps.

Pole 2 was before the plane entered the view of the security camera. Where the "smoke" appears the plane is already past the poles. Your argument on that account I do not follow.

[RH]

52. we do know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff

Because the camera angle was remarkably wide there was some 'barrel distortion'. The extent of this may be determined easily enough by examining, for instance, the apparent roof line of the Pentagon, curved by the distortion.

Last year I produced some distortion corrected versions of the images. Dave Bosankoe used them for the work he presented on his web site.

[crispy]

58. Re: "we do know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff"

> Last year I produced some distortion corrected versions of the images. Dave Bosankoe used them for the work he
> presented on his web site.

Cool. Do you still have them?

[RH]

63. still have them?

Possibly, somewhere in the archive. My purpose was to work out the topography, e.g. the position of the horizon and the trajectory. It is difficult to do that with a distorted image.

I also performed some experiments to judge to what extent the disputed effects may be due to file compression distortions. I am not convinced that the "smoke" is smoke and I am a good deal less than convinced that the "tail fin" is a tail fin. It may be a composite effect: dirt on the lens plus a building in the background plus an unwlcome degree of image enhancement and file compression. The same 'tail fin' is to some extent visible in the other frames, if you look closely enough.

I did some work on it but then thought it best to keep out of the arguments for the same reason that Dave Bosankoe chose to withdraw: Idiots like Eastman misquote or deliberately misrepresent what you've done and then it takes up all your spare time to have go around the internet to say "no, I did not say that, what I did say was ..."

And then there's the persitent "paid disinformation agent" abuse. How can anybody who just makes up that sort of crap hope to be respected as being objective?

:boring:

All in all it is just not worth it. Those willing to change their minds did so a long time ago. I doubt that the rest ever will.

[QuietStorm]

66. Oh really? Well if that is the case and you have the definitive

explanation alla your wonderous expertise and body of work on the subject why are you still here. Waiting for a medal or something? Yes :boring: indeed.

[RH]

68. why are you still here?

I may perhaps have hoped to help.

Some, of course, are way beyond or below help, not even up to identifying themselves.

Others e.g. Crispy ask more sensible questions.

The psychosis of denial is also intriguing.

[QuietStorm]

60. what was the model of the security camera?

[dick_eastman]

85. Not true that: "we do know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff

We see clearly the non-distorted contours of buildings in the background -- consistently in proper proportion in all five clips.

AND we see the smoke in frame one, followed a the subsequent frames each showing that same location without distortion or anamoly.

And we see that the smoke to the right of the yellow parking-machine in the first frame is in line with the smoke trail that continues to the left leading into the white-hot missile explosion.

AND we have the clear shape of the tail fin above and behind the parking-machine -- distinct enough to show the presence of some kind of marking as well as the angles of the edges of the wing (the standard efficient form consistent with most jet aircraft today including both the Boeing 757 and the F-16 -- but the point is that the tail fin is clearly seen and it is a smaller and less distinct feature than the smoke.

AND in the extreme closeup we see holes in the smoke with dark high-contrast buildings in the background through the holes.

The camera is not an issue -- it is true in every detail both close-up and in the distance, including in the location where the missile plume had been but where background buildings are clearly shown in the subsequent shots.

Endless trivial quibble -- all that you know to be frivolous -- all that you have raised to me on half-a-dozen forums before this -- never to follow up once answered -- merely throwing up flak to confuse and throw off discussants.

You work to arguments at once, Harvey. Suggesting, but never committing, that it is not smoke, but rather an anamoly in the recording in one post. Then, that the smoke is real but that it is the result of hitting one of the poles in a second pole --

ignoring the details of witness accounts

ignoring the other evidence that puts the Boeing approaching the Pentagon across Washington Blvd from west to east to the north of those poles that were downed by the killer jet (which blew all but perhaps one of them down) -- the Boeing definitely coming over the SHeraton, over the Annex, and over the gas station and north of Riskus who saw it nearly pass directly over him etc.

You need to state your claim as to what happened Harvey, so we can test your assumptions and your deductions from the evidence.

Why is there no fuselage seen sticking out from behind to the left of the parking-machine given the size of the tail fin clearly visible? Remember, the Boeing is long enough to have seven of its tail fins along its back, Stegosaurus style, while the narrow parking-machine with the tail fin sticking out above it from behind is all 1/5th the width of the parking-machine -- there should have been, had the killer jet owning that tail fin been a Boeing 757, 2/7ths of that shiny aluminum fuselage with the red and white stripes along the side, prominently sticking out in the direct morning sunlight.

You acknowledge nothing. You commit to no position -- just innuendo questions, insinuating but never wanting to commit to a definite explanation. Yes, planes have been known to smoke. But missiles are known to make exactly this kind of smoke and exactly the kind of explosion that followed -- and the smoke is following the tail in exactly the right position for an F-16 missile firing -- and wintesses did see the missile firing all of a sudden appear and interpret its appearance as the "Boeing" crashing first into the grass and then bouncing into the building -- as even Pentagon spokesmen were saying in the beginning.

===========

RON -- OIL SMOKES NOT GASOLINE -- EVER OWN A CAR?



Endless quibbling and baseless indirection of tossed out overly general insinuating questions for the purpose of forstalling a conclusions and movement to the next step, viz., polticialization of the established fact.


Discussants do not have to be convinced that on various occasions airplanes have emitted smoke in emergencies --

the missile was fired after the poles were passed -- the smoke from the missile appearing suddenly over the lawn giving witnesses, in the split second of observation, the stimulus basis for their response confused interpretation that the plane crashed on the grass and bounced into the building -- the missile firing i.e., smoke and rocket fire suddenly beneith a plane less than eight feet above the ground, not being accurately proceessed by witnesses in the short time abailable.

Smoke of this density and positioning relative to the plane and matching perfectly the smoke trail of an air-to-ground missile is inconsistent with a leaking jet-fuel kerosene. No witnesses on Washington Blvd or in the cloverleaf interchange remarked being sprayed by falling fuel or smelling jet fuel or seeing the plane smoking during its approach before the perceived mid-lawn "crash and bounce" that never happened.

I grant that planes smoke when they hit things in flight. I grant that lamp posts were brought down. But in the case of the killer jet -- the smoke appeared suddenly while the plane over the lawn (interpreted as a crash into the grass) consistent with the sudden firing of the air-to-ground missile -- which matches the initial white-hot explosion and the damage to the first-floor of the structure (the way pillar #15 is blasted away with the rods still standing -- see

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/wolfowitz_9-11_involvement/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=proof+no+starboard+engine+hit.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.hires=t

[Abe Linkman]

86. Thank you, Dick. Your reasoned, informed, intelligent analysis is great.

You make it very hard to argue with your scenario. But, be very careful on this board. An Admin. deleted a message of mine that was NOT insulting to anyone, but when a certain well-known person here posted a personally insulting message about me, it has yet to be removed. Maybe it will be, because I've asked them twice to remove it, but so far it hasn't been deleted.

[dick_eastman]

87. Hello Abe Linkman

Thank you for the wise counsel, Mr. Linkman (Abe) -- I know from sad experience at other forums that you are right -- and not even the advanced age of 54 has cured me losing it when up against an accomplished freeper -- but who can overcome their own vanity that is so easily wounded?


By the way, here is where 6 key pieces of Pentagon-attack photo evidence can be found in one place (some not available since yahoogroups eliminated attachments to messages):

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/lst

Abe, I hope you will argue with the scenario -- no one is convinced of anything unless put through the fire of criticism and tests

I am also learning to stick to more positive analysis, leaving out the normative analysis (moralizing) and political (grab the pitchforks) for others to make on their own as they choose once they are convinced by the evidence of the fact of the deception. It's been a gradual learning curve for me.

Dick Eastman

[dick_eastman]

88. correction -- I meant to say Lagasse at gas station, not Riskus

I really mangle messages.

Sorry.

Battle fatigue.

[dick_eastman]

73. 1) missile smoke v. Harvey's smoke 2) photo proof: no wing engine in crash

Ron Harvey of London, who with Sarah Roberts, first introduced the downed poles to the 9-11 investigation community writes:

"A B757 has two engines. I don't think the plane could be travelling at 460 MPH with an engine out. Even still, why would an engine make white smoke? If it made smoke at all, wouldn't it be black? But why would it smoke at all? The planes which hit the WTC didn't smoke.
Who knows exactly what the thing behind the pylon in the first pic is. It's kinda pointless to speculate about since we don't know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff spatially. The trail of smoke is what I think is the most important, followed by the explosion."

Here is Ron's argument broken down:


Eastman says the photo shows smoke from a missile.

But the plane is a Boeing.

The planes that hit the WTC didn't smoke.

A smoking Boeing engine would probably smoke black.

No one can know what exactly is in this picture.

We don't know but that the camera distored things.

{Implied conclusion: Forget the missile-trail idea, it's just a trail of smoke followed by the explosion --don't look at it too closely or try to explain it. Ignore the picture of an F-16 firing a missile with a trail that looks exactly like the trail in the photo. -- and the photo of Boeing 757 turbulence that does not at all resemble this thick creamy lumpy-with-puff smoke trailing the plane below the level of the tail fin at about the right level for a missle under the wing of an F-16.)

Ron later asks:

"So why then is it not plausible that smoke or visible vapour would result from a collision of lamp poles with fuel tanks in the wings or with one of the engines? When an airliner clipped light poles in Detroit, 1987, the result was considerable."

Answer: Jet fuel does not smoke, combustion is immediate, the smoke results from the combusion -- the wing would have been in flames to emit that much smoke. Leaking gasoline, the tanks are not under pressure, would spill not hang in the air. And what was considerable in the 1987 incident with the lamp post was considerable wing debris -- not considerable smoke trailing as in Pentgon picture #1 -- be careful Ron, you vaguely state an irrelevant point giving the impression that there is real evidence for the explaination you are suggestion that thean airliner gave off missile-trail-like smoke after hitting a pole in Detroit when all that happened was that their was a lot of stuctural damage to the wing (which we don't see on the Pentagon lawn, as all but one of the poles were brought down by hurricane force off-the-wing cyclonic turbulence of a jet fighter passing at mach 1).

The problem with all of your argument above is that it starts with the assumption that there was a Boeing and nothing else -- you just won't process the fact of the smoke trail that looks like a missile smoke trail, that trails below the tail fin of aircraft that is proportioned like an F-14 rather than a Boeing (in tail fin to fuselage length ratio), and which missile-like-looking-smoke-trail results in frame two in a distinctively air-to-ground missile-like super-white-hot explosion inconsistent with aluminum airliners with kerosene and people hitting concrete, wood and glass etc.

But let us go back to your premise. Let's go back to your first sentence above:

"A B757 has two engines."

You are right, the Boeing 757 does have two engines.

But the plane firing the missile, that is, the killer jet that hit the Pentagon had only one -- one engine in the fuselage that entered the building at column #14 and exited through the hole it made in the wall of ring "c" where it landed in the ourside corridor between rings "c" and "b" -- the only engine seen lifted out of the wreckage -- the only engine placed in the north parking lot afterwards with other removed debris (but no luggage, passenger seats etc. etc.)

BUT LETS CUT TO THE CHASE

THERE WAS NO STARBOARD ENGINE -- I'VE GOT SARAH'S GREAT PICTURES UP AGAIN FINALLY, THE ONES THAT PROVE THERE WAS NO STARBOARD WING ENGINE ON THE PLANE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON.

The two extremely important pictures are here:

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/wolfowitz_9-11_involvement/lst

We know from witnesses and from the civil engineers' report that the nose of the killer jet hit at pillar #14. And knowing the dimensions of the Pentagon (height 71 feet, distance between window-separating pillars approx. 10 feet etc.) we know (as civil engineers and even Sarah Roberts and other simulation-makers (e.g. Purdue) agree: HAVING ITS NOSE ENTERING AT PILLAR #14 AND GIVEN THE ANGLE OF APPROACH TO THE WALL (BETWEEN 50 AND 60 DEGREES) A BOEING STARBOARD WING ENGINE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE HIT BETWEEN COLUMN #s 16 AND 17, TO THE RIGHT OF COLUMN #14 BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS INTERIOR WALL STILL STANDING EXACTLY IN THE WAY OF WHERE THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE PUNCHED THROUGH. SEE FOR YOURSELF:

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/wolfowitz_9-11_involvement/vwp?.dir=/&.src=gr&.dnm=proof+no+starboard+engine+hit.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/wolfowitz_9-11_involvement/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=gr%26.view=t

(click to get enlargement)

The outer wall below the second floor was brought down by the missile blast -- see how pillar #5 was blasted away leaving vertical reinforcement rods still standing (not sliced through or hacked through by any wing (the most massive portion of a Boeing wing between the fuselage and that massive engine did not break through here either!!!)

BTW, Ron. I know you are in contact with Sarah Roberts (Jean-Pierre Desmoulins is in a three way conversation with you, I understand) -- could you please invite her to join us here. And ask her what she thinks of what we have concluded based on the wonderful photoresearch she has provided us. I want to know if she concurs with my finding.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

[RH]

74. No,

"A B757 has two engines. I don't think the plane could be travelling at 460 MPH with an engine out. Even still, why would an engine make white smoke? If it made smoke at all, wouldn't it be black? But why would it smoke at all? The planes which hit the WTC didn't smoke.
Who knows exactly what the thing behind the pylon in the first pic is. It's kinda pointless to speculate about since we don't know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff spatially. The trail of smoke is what I think is the most important, followed by the explosion."

:eyes:

that was not what Ron Harvey wrote.

[RH]

75. could you please invite her to join us here

No

As usual what you "know" is crap.

I am not presently in touch with Sarah Roberts

:hurts:

[RH]

76. Jet fuel does smoke

(NEWARK - 4Apr01). A smoking engine on a Continental Airlines DC-10 arriving from Houston briefly shut down a runway at Newark International Airport on Tuesday evening so it could be inspected for debris. None of the 217 passengers was hurt and all exited the plane at the gate. No debris was found, officials said.

from
http://www.yalpa.org/safety/accident001.htm

[RH]

77. Jet fuel does smoke

[RH]

78. Jet fuel does smoke

A giant passenger jet was just 30 seconds from potential disaster at Melbourne Airport after its engine exploded close to take-off. Debris from the Emirates flight was scattered along the runway as smoke and flames erupted from the Boeing 777-300's left engine. Air safety experts said flight EK69's 213 passengers had a lucky escape on Tuesday night. The jet was racing down the runway at 100kmh and just 30 seconds from being committed to a risky, single-engine take-off. Pictures taken by witnesses show sparks, then flames pouring from the front of the engine after a rotor shattered

from
http://aussieaviation.virtualave.net/30_seconds_from_crisis.html

[RH]

79. Jet fuel does smoke

After receiving reports of smoke coming from the left side of the aircraft and hearing the urgency expressed by ERS personnel, the captain ordered an evacuation ......

The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the left engine and cowlings, and minor damage to the engine support pylon. The two right main landing gear tires were blown and severe skid damage was evident on the left inboard tire.

from
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1994/a94c0034/a94c0034.asp

[RH]

80. Jet fuel does smoke

The Alliance Air Boeing 737-200, flying from Calcutta to New Delhi with planned stopovers at Patna and Lucknow, crashed into a thickly populated government housing colony and burst into flames.

Rohit Ranjan said he had no recollection of the crash. "I was sitting by the window. The plane started swaying as we were coming in to land and I saw smoke from the engine," he said.

from
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2820&click_id=3&art_id=qw963831901567B253&set_id=1

[RH]

81. Jet fuel does smoke

John's view was South-SouthEast, basically in the direction of both JFK Airport and the Rockaways, just a few miles away from the crash site. John noticed the plane well before it went into it's violent spin and subsequent nosedive. He immediately noticed smoke coming from the right engine as soon as he noticed the plane.

from
http://usread.com/flight587/KeyWitness.html

[QuietStorm]

82. so

we are trying to establish WHICH plane HIT the pentagon. Just because JET FUEL SMOKES IS IRRELEVANT to WHICH plane hit the pentagon.

[QuietStorm]

24. while we are on REHASH how about C-130s

cordite and various eyewit accounts

It is hard to read on the link at the bottom so I pasted it as well. There are accounts here of the smell of cordite.

a few witness reports:

quote
================================
C-130 #1 Disaster Viewed From Arlington

Daily Press; Newport News; Sep 14, 2001; TERRY SCANLON

:
Her brother, , of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first. The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew DIRECTLY ABOVE the American Airlines jet, AS IF TO PREVENT TWO PLANES FROM APPEARING ON RADAR WHILE AT THE SAME TIME GUIDING THE JET TOWARD THE PENTAGON.
================================

C-130 #2: Hampton Roads Woman Says SHE TOO, Saw Plane Following Jet That Hit Pentagon
Daily Press; Newport News; Sep 15, 2001; TERRY SCANLON

:
Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

At the same time, and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/dailypress/main/results.html?num=25&st=basic&QryTxt=%22Keith%2BWheelhouse%22&datetype=7
================================

C-130 #3: Influential Editor

“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.

http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html
================================

C-130 #4: USAToday.com Editor

Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"

http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=704&a=15161,00.asp
================================

C-130 #5: Who The Hell Are You?
Scott P. Cook, September 11

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

http://www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm
================================

C-130 #6: C-130 Crew Saw Pentagon Strike, Official Confirms
Daily Press; Newport News; Oct 17, 2001;
TERRY SCANLON and DAVID LERMAN Daily Press;
:
and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time.

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, ...
================================

C-130 #7 & Secondary Explosions #1


Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic<...>.

The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.


http://www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror/emails/pentagonwitness.html

================================

Secondary Explosions #2

The building that houses 24,000 workers and operates as the nation's military command center suffered heavy damage, with at least a portion of the structure collapsing, witnesses said. Shortly after the crash, witnesses reported secondary explosions and plumes of smoke that could be seen miles away.

"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

================================

Cordite #1
T H E W O R K S O F H U M A N K I N D .
A DISPATCH BY DON PERKAL
- - - -
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The airliner crashed between two and three hundred feet from my office in the Pentagon, just around a corner from where I work. I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you.
My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2001/09/19perkal.html
================================

Cordite #2
A personnel attorney at the Pentagon, Goldsmith was riding a shuttle bus to work on Tuesday, Sept. 11, when she learned of the attack on the World Trade Center.

When she got to her office sometime around 9, she phoned her daughter and heard "an incredible whomp noise."

It didn't seem so unusual since her office is situated near a narrow area where trucks sometimes come by and hit the wall. Moments later, her husband called. He'd received a phone call from a friend in Cleveland, saying there had been an explosion at the Pentagon. Goldsmith was told to evacuate.

"We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.

She left the building and eventually made her way home on foot.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010921/usp14a.shtml
================================

Gas Station Video

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
================================

Hotel Video

A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation.

It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did NOT capture the crash.


http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring092101.html
================================

Security Camera Video

CNN's Jamie MacIntyre: "witnesses told me the day this happened that the plane -American Airlines Flight 77 - came in extremely low, but I'm not sure I realized how low it was until I saw these sequence of pictures that CNN obtained from....a.....that were taken by a Pentagon security camera.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html
================================


~~~ believes flew DIRECTLY ABOVE the American Airlines jet, AS IF TO PREVENT TWO PLANES FROM APPEARING ON RADAR WHILE AT THE SAME TIME GUIDING THE JET TOWARD THE PENTAGON.~~~

_______________
In my mind, in terms of the accounts regarding the C-130 appearing to guide the jetliner...it would seem to me that it conceivable it was a smaller replica of the B757. So while it looks like they were seeing the actual B757. They weren't.

the link with the above was accessed:

http://sydney.indymedia.org:8081/local/webcast/uploads/c130__cord.txt

AGAIN THESE WERE FOUND IN MARCH NOT SURE IF THE LINKS WILL WORK...

there is an even more comprehensive C-130 eyewitness report pulled together I guess for the government also by Ron Harvey. I can get that as well.

[RH]

54. guess for the government ?

Guess again.

In contrast to some others in this vicinity my identity, hence my occupational and domestic circumstance, is not a mystery.

On occassions my wife has chuckled about it but suppositions to any other effect serve only to prove to me, and to others, how lamentably and deliberately ignorant the perpetrators really are.

Those who for whatever reason would prefer to doubt the versions the eye witnesses supplied should then be decent enough to take it up with the witnesses themselves. The continually snide casting of malicious aspersions from anonymous heckers is sickening to behold.

:puke:

[QuietStorm]

55. yes I know the feeling

[DulceDecorum]

90. About the eyewitnesses

Just suppose for one second that we decide to give them all the benefit of the doubt.
Then that means that the hijackers are still alive.
And for some reason, I have faith that the journalists who reported that one checked it out far more thoroughly that the PR fellators did the Galloway/Iraq/al qaeda/old Europe files that suddenly appeared en masse in the wake of the CIA.
Now if the blokes who were driving the plane are still alive, then why is it so hard to accept that the passengers are?
Oh ye of little faith.

But if the Pentagon, which ACTUALLY had some of these pilots DNA says flatly that they are dead, then why should we rule out the notion that the Saudis were cloned?
It wasn't the real Arabs. It was a genuine immitation.

As for the plane that hit the Pentagon, perhaps it encountered a black budget shrink ray. Like the one in Fantastic Voyage. That explains the size of the hole, the eyewitness accounts and the stuff inside the Pentagon that nobody ever got to see. Or talk about.

Oh dear.
I see I have lost you.
You are not ready to accept the existence or rapidly-growing clones and shrink rays.
Well, lets see if you can come up with a grand unifying theory that does not discredit the OFFICIAL STORY and the OFFICIAL EYEWITNESSES.

[DulceDecorum]

99. Please post on the NEW THREAD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=2058

As this one is taking a long time to load.
Thank you.