Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The power generator oddity at the Pentagon

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 01:42 AM
Original message
The power generator oddity at the Pentagon
What could have knocked down the barbed wire fence, smashed through the floor of the wooden deck, smashed through the upper front port-side section of the power diesel generator and created a rear gouge in it's top in front of the Pentagon?




CatHerder says it was Flight 77's right engine and flap track fairing under it's right wing that did all this:

Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane... (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building...

Closeup of generator smashed in the front and gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both of these. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator, part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something very large, and very heavy smashed into this extremely heavy diesel generator.

Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of the impact area, including the large diesel generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degrees from the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towards the building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion could ONLY have spun it away from the building.

- CatHerder: Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11



However, the NIST report seems to say that only Flight 77's right wing hit the generator and that it's right engine missed the generator and just knocked down the fence:

3.2 EYEWITNESS INTERVIEWS

The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1. The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator.

The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the planes path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.

6.1 IMPACT DAMAGE

This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure.

- Pentagon Building Performance Report



If you look at damage to the generator, you can see that the front damage is above the middle of the generator (purple dotted line) which I measure to be about where the top of the fence line is:




If my measurements are correct and if the right engine hit the top part of the generator, then the right engine could not have hit the fence and the gouge on top of the generator could not have been caused by one of the plane's flap track fairings even if Flight 77 came in level:




Note that officials have Flight 77 coming in with it's right wing tilted upward which would seemingly make it more improbable that the flap track fairings caused the gouge on top of the generator:




So the remaining questions would be:

1) If CatHerder's correct in that the planes right engine struck the generator and spun it 45 deg towards the Pentagon, then how could the right engine have also struck the fence and one of the flap track fairings gouged it's top?

2) If NIST is correct that the plane's right engine just struck the fence and only it's right wing hit the generator, could the small area of one of it's wings have enough force to spin the heavy diesel filled generator 45 deg toward the Pentagon and could one of it's flap track fairings have gouged a straight line in it's top while the generator was spinning towards the building?



Seem more about Flight 77 and the power generator oddity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do you have an alternate explanation that explains the damage..
or is this more endless CT'r nitpicking? Thought I would cut to the chase on this post to see what happens!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You're in the 9/11 forum, what do you expect
Edited on Wed Dec-14-05 07:38 PM by StrafingMoose

...besides, you seem quite quick to reply to "nitpicking". If you're not interested in this topic, just don't reply. That's the best way to express your distaste for a certain post.

It's quite unusual for me to come out against someone on this board but I think the kind of post above (yours) quite drag the debate to other fields this forum was initially meant for.

I hope no offense taken. And by the way, I'd have probably said the same thing to both alternative-CTer or official CTer.

It's just a matter of protocol.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You are right, I apologize n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. We shouldn't nitpick physics?
When you say "CT'rs", do you mean coincidence theorists who believe in the official 9/11 version?

My explanation to the damage would be that it wasn't a 757. What would yours be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I am looking for a positive idea from you...
i.e. "this is what caused the damaged.". Not necessarily to pick on you, but it is all to common on this forum to show what is wrong with the official story in excruciating detail and yet then fail to provide an equally detailed explanation as to what caused X that proves conspiracy. You are basically saying that since the official story is wrong, it must be conspiracy. I don't buy that logic - how can you be so certain that there are only two choices?

As to your post - when I can't explain things like this I fall back on the eyewitness statements. How do you explain away scores of eyewitnesses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. We only need to know what didn't cause it
anything else is a moot point.


You are basically saying that since the official story is wrong, it must be conspiracy. I don't buy that logic


So if the official story that the 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon is wrong, you wouldn't believe it was a conspiracy???


how can you be so certain that there are only two choices?


Do you have another choice?


when I can't explain things like this I fall back on the eyewitness statements. How do you explain away scores of eyewitnesses?


I talk about that in my theories page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So you are basically saying you never have to prove anything?
Interesting.

So 9/11 is a blank slate for any conspiracy theory? It was a remote controlled 757 / A-3/ Global Hawk / small plane / missile and they are all right? Or are you the only one with the truth? What evidence and facts do you use to prove that yours is the only true theory?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Do you even read what you write???
>>>So you are basically saying you never have to prove anything?<<<

I am trying to prove something, that Flight 77 didn't crash there.



>>>It was a remote controlled 757 / A-3/ Global Hawk / small plane / missile and they are all right?<<<

If it was any of those, then wouldn't you agree it was a conspiracy?



>>>Or are you the only one with the truth?<<<

Where did I say I was the only one with the truth?


>>What evidence and facts do you use to prove that yours is the only true theory?<<<

Again, where did I say that "my theory" is the only "true theory"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Give me something to replace the official story with
plain and simple ... tell me what happened, not what didn't happen.

That's all I ask. I will concede that the official story is fucked up - now tell me what really happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You want me to speculate?
Do you also want me to tell you the color of the object(s) and the names of the people who assembled them at their manufacturing plant(s)?

Are you then going to ask me if Flight 77 did crash at the Pentagon, then where did it go???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Hmm..
Edited on Thu Dec-15-05 12:29 AM by StrafingMoose

That's all I ask. I will concede that the official story is fucked up - now tell me what really happened.


Well, my friend you hit the nail right on the head here. If you admit the OCT is flawed in some regards, then all bets are open. As you know, the 9/11 Commission had subpeona powers (which I beleive they didn't use), had millions of budget (not as much as some people wish) and yet, put out a "fucked up" story about the most tragic attack on civilians on US soil in history. In history.

The fact that they put this out can be seen as 1) coincidence: they "flipped a coin" and ended up with a whitewash 2) they, or some elements of it, willingly have not looked at certain issues making sure the "fable" that Clarke and Tenet spitted out right on the morning of 9/11 ("it smells like al-Qaeda", bin Laden, etc) stayed intact, or tried to explain it rather than trying to see if it was true. That's right on the morning of an event that supposedly came as a surprise.

After all, the commission admits it itself; their purpose wasn't to place the blame on anyone, rather to make recommendation, ie: to "fix" the "system" by injecting more of your taxpayers money in the "system". Do you know anyone by the name of System ? So don't be surprised if the alternative CT'ers don't have solid answers for you - a 9/11 Commission 2.0.

You know, people with serious (or sometimes less serious) questions will ask them here. Then some people will try to explain it. Some will explain it trough a conspiracy or suggest a coverup while others will try to find ways back into the OCT; no matter who's right - it (OCT) needs to be "fixed" over and over again.

I don't really want to hear apologies for the official theory from people in here.

I want to hear them from the people who are in charge or were in charge in testimonies under oath in public hearings. Not explanations from people, no matter how appealing, on internet forums.

I want them to speak about this ISI 100,000$ wire to Atta or this "insider trading" information that miraculously came out of a newsletter trough a fax machine, for example. Among dozens of other questions, or issues.

And by the way, if you want to know how security services can have all the proofs they need to arrest terrorists but yet, choose to let/make it happen and coverup for 18 years, here's the story

(Videos at the right) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/files_invest...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/backgrounder/airindia /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. I find this from your theories page very interesting- for WTC & Pentagon

► When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
"Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.
For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.
"Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things," says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.
Digital morphing voice, video, and photo has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.
To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.
Allah on the Holodeck

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.
The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns raised by Arab coalition partners.
But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions." -Washington Post (02/01/99)



► "Making Three-Dimensional Holograms Visible From All Sides
A technique for projecting holographic images to make both still and moving three-dimensional displays is undergoing development. Unlike older techniques based on stereoscopy to give the appearance of three-dimensionality, the developmental technique would not involve the use of polarizing goggles, goggles equipped with miniature video cameras, or other visual aids. Unlike in holographic display as practiced until now, visibility of the image would not be restricted to a narrow range of directions about a specified line of sight to a holographic projection plate. Instead, the image would be visible from any side or from the top; that is, from any position with a clear line of sight to the projection apparatus. In other words, the display could be viewed as though it were an ordinary three-dimensional object. The technique has obvious potential value for the entertainment industry, and for military uses like displaying battlefield scenes overlaid on three-dimensional terrain maps." -NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (04/02)



► "Computer-generated characters are common in movies and video games and on the Internet. But imagine walking into a store and seeing a virtual model hovering in front of you, even welcoming you and selling you the latest makeup or clothing styles.
Cameron has been turning heads at Hugo Boss in New York.
He's a digital model projected into free space. Star Wars fans will recall R2D2 beaming Princess Leah into free space. But Cameron is in a real environment, not on a movie screen.
Cameron's highly realistic three-dimensional presence is completely computer-generated. He's the product of Virtual Characters of New York City.
"We can beam characters into your living room," says Lloyd Nathan, CEO of Virtual Characters.
"We have a series of optics that we've designed that can take a computer-generated image and project it onto a point in space where your eye is trained to focus," Nathan." -CBS (12/23/00)



► "Holographic Real Image Targets and Countermeasures
This Phase II program resulted in an entirely new process for producing uniform and virtually defect free large Photoresist Holographic Coatings (PHC) for applications ranging from military decoys and countermeasure systems to large scale 2-D and 3-D commercial displays. This process allows for holographic recording and mass-replication of various surface microstructures, and has been a gateway for Physical Optics Corporation (POC) entry into a large display arena.
This technology can produce unique 2-D and 3-D decoys and countermeasures that operate in the spectral range from UV to near IR.
Military decoys, camouflage systems, cockpit displays, head-mounted displays, advanced countermeasures, invisible lidars, range finders, and military optics." -Navy SBIR/STTR Bulletin Board



- See also: The Nessie Files; Hologrammetrics; Covert Technology; Top Secret Projects/Blue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. can this be used to make one object appear like another?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That's why I never discounted the "hologram/cloaking" theories
because they sure would explain a lot of things such as:

1) Pentagon witnesses who said the plane hit the lawn first.

2) Pentagon witnesses who said it looked like the plane "enveloped" into the building and were shocked the plane didn't seem to cause much of an explosion.

3) Flight 175 seeming to disappear into the WTC 2 like planes do in Flight Simulator.

4) The video of Flight 175 that seems to show the plane suddenly appear out of sky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. a plane
hit the WTC2!!! i saw it. thousands saw it in person. millions on TV. it wasnt a F***ing hologram! it was a plane! it didnt "disappear" it didtn suddenly appear!


tell me this if planes did nto hit the WTC then where are all the passengers and crew?
if a plane did not hit the pentagon where are the passengers and crew?

tell me, without linking to your personal vanity site.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. How do you know?
>>>a plane hit the WTC2!!! i saw it. thousands saw it in person. millions on TV.<<<

If it was a hologram, how would you know the difference?


>>>tell me this if planes did nto hit the WTC then where are all the passengers and crew?
if a plane did not hit the pentagon where are the passengers and crew?<<<

I'd like to know that too! ;)


>>>tell me, without linking to your personal vanity site.<<<

Why do you keep insulting me? Are your arguments getting weak or something?


Btw, here's a thread I think you'll find interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. a hologram
you have got to be kidding me!

it wasnt a F**KING hologram! it was mentioned about how in forrest gump it can be made to appear that hanks met JFK. but that was a fragging movie! a scene that took hours via a computer to develop. and the people filming it didnt see it. it first appeared on a computer.

how do you explain the thousands of witnesses on the scene?

a hologram??!?


and no i am not insulting you, but you make links to your personal vantiy site. these links prove nothing other than what you have chosen to put up on your site. it is a nice site well set up but stil a vanity site.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. How do you know it wasn't a F**KING hologram?
The Air Force (Farce on 9/11) has been working on hologram technology since the mid 90's:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

Digital morphing voice, video, and photo has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.

But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.

Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future." - Washington Post (02/01/99)
__________________________________________

Air Force 2025

5.6 Airborne Holographic Projector



"The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary." - US Air Force



And you can insult my website all you want, it just shows your true colors. Btw, I notice you haven't defended your favorite Snopes.com page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Did you see the plane from the streets in New York....or on TV? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I know a dozen people working in NJ
that were watching the WTC fire from a roof top in Bayonne as the that plane passed overhead. They are located about 1.5 to 2 miles away from the WTC and watched it impact the building.

So unless someone has created the ability to project a hologram for a few miles, traveling at 4 to 500 MPH, with the appropriate sounds, the hologram theory is what it always was, a fantasy from the fevered dark-weaved swamp of CT science fiction based reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. So you will concede that if the Military has perfected
the hologram technology they've been working on since 1994, that is what the military could have used on 9/11 and that is what people could have seen instead of Flight 175?

(It's a simple yes or no question.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. As soon as you provide reliable information that the Military
CAN create a hologram that looks, sounds and feels like a boeing 767 flying overhead I'll give you that yes you want to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. So you want me to prove that a top secret
weapon exists and is functional kinda like how the Stealth bomber was operational for over 10 years before the military made it public?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. Nope, I don't want you to prove anything
Just acknowledge that there is no known technology that can create a hologram good enough to fool tens if not hundreds of thousands of people from many different angles into believing a imaginary high speed commercial airliners impacted the towers then blew an imaginary hole in the side of the building that looks just like the outline of said commercial airliner. The hologram was even good enough to simulated parts of the plane going out of the building on the other side.

Mind you it did not only fool all human senses, it was good enough to fool sophisticated video cameras as well.

But listen, don't let me interrupt the fantasy, as I've said before I'm only trying to shed some light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. How can I do that?
I don't know if the tecnology exists and I don't know that it doesn't (you should be able to understand that too).

All I can do is give you evidence and the fact that our Air Force (Farce on 9/11) has been working on that technology since at least 1994.


Textgood enough to fool tens if not hundreds of thousands of people from many different angles into believing a imaginary high speed commercial airliners impacted the towers...
Mind you it did not only fool all human senses, it was good enough to fool sophisticated video cameras as well.


That's what a hologram is designed to do!


The hologram was even good enough to simulated parts of the plane going out of the building on the other side.


who says that wasn't parts from a missile or something? But that's a debate for a different thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Exactly how far away were your friends?
In the words of LARED:
Thu Apr-14-05 11:35 PM
I personally know about 12 people that work just southwest of the WTC in the NJ side in Bayonne NJ. I'd guess 4 to 5 miles away. Right on end of 22nd Street.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In the words of LARED:
Thu Dec-15-05 02:39 PM
I know a dozen people working in NJ that were watching the WTC fire from a roof top in Bayonne as the that plane passed overhead. They are located about 1.5 to 2 miles away from the WTC and watched it impact the building.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Every mile counts.....

So did your friends see it from 1 1/2 - 2 miles away or 4 - 5 miles away?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Oh snap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Based on this map about 4 miles is correct.
Edited on Thu Dec-15-05 03:59 PM by LARED
The place of business is locted quite near the word Bayonne

http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPData=Gj0x9Phyzy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Last year you said 24 friends of yours saw fl175.Now you say only 12.


In the words of LARED:
Sat Mar-20-04 08:47 PM
I personally know about two dozen people that watched flight 175 fly over their place of business in NJ and then saw it crash into the WTC. So unless holgrams can travel four or five miles and make really really loud noise, you've entered fantasy land.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


In the words of LARED:
Thu Dec-15-05 02:39 PM
I know a dozen people working in NJ that were watching the WTC fire from a roof top in Bayonne as the that plane passed overhead. They are located about 1.5 to 2 miles away from the WTC and watched it impact the building
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So do you know 24 people or 12 people who saw flight 175?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. What is your point?
The fact remains these people saw the jet fly over their heads. If you want an count I know about 2 dozen people that were standing on the roof and have personally spoken to about a dozen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Don't want to ruin everybody's party, but
could we keep the discussion more about the topic? We can start a Flight 175 thread otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. This guy saw a pod underneath.

I saw the 2nd plane, it was coming strait from the river, over the smoke and it was going very fast. It looked like it was about to hit the tower again. Except when it got closer it made contact with the South tower. THen it exploded into a humongues fireball! It kind of looked like there was a missle attached to the belly of the plane, or some thing that wasn't ment to be there. And the plane went right into like it was nothing. Right into it before it exploded. I'm still trying to wonder what that thing was that was on the bottom of the aircraft.
W, Apr 13, 05


http://www.laurasmidiheaven.com/world-trade-center

Now...if this witness is lying....then it only goes to show how easy it is to lie when you are an anonymouse poster on a forum.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Why are you calling that guy a liar? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Cos' it 's easy to invent "testimony" on forums such as these.

Example:

One of my best mates was on a buisiness trip in lower Manhattan on 9/11.

At about 8:50 he looked out of his office window after hearing an explosion.

He saw smoke coming from the North Tower.

He kept telling me about horrible it was when he started to see people jump from the higher floors.

As he was watching....he told me how the second plane screamed overhead and crashed straight into the South Tower.


Now I just made the above "testimony" up....see how easy it is.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. So based on your view
Edited on Sat Dec-17-05 02:53 PM by LARED
All testimony and evidence can be fabricated? Including the stuff you post.

I'll keep that in mind.

As for how you view my credibility, be assured I'll loss not a millisecond of sleep concerned whether you believe me or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Take this second hand "witness":
Edited on Sat Dec-17-05 03:05 PM by seatnineb
As the jet homed in on the south tower it leveled its wings horizontally just before impact.
www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=174346 - 69k

And yet....when you look at the photo showing flight 175 impacting the building:



....Flight 175 is far from horizontal........

So who to believe?

The witness?

The photo?

I personally don't believe either..........



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Impossible if if he saw the "real" plane...
Edited on Fri Dec-16-05 07:12 PM by MercutioATC
If it was a "replacement" plane, it would still be impossible, because the "pod" in pictures is where one of the main landing gears goes.

I don't think anybody except you is entertaining the hologram theory.


Which leaves us with shadow, light, and a wing root...not a pod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Fl175 supposedly flew on it's side so witnesses could see "underneath".


A colleague who earlier had been standing at the window of an adjoining conference room saw the second jet as it approached the south tower from a distance much further out than is commonly seen on videotapes shown on TV. He told me with great emphasis how at first glance the jet's port wing was pointing almost straight down to the ground while the starboard wing pointed almost straight up.

9/11 Commission Report
With Alternative Recommendations
for Positive Change
by Stephen M. St. John
A Citizen Of The USA
2-1-5

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=174346






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Interesting photo
Where did you get that from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Hi Killtown

I got this photo from some blog.....I do have the address saved somewhere.... I'll try and track it down again.

The photo in question is from a New York Times article of the the early 1970's which questioned the dangers of having a high rise in such a densily populated area.....

And yeah ....the similarity between the superimposed plane in that early 70's photo is practically indenticle to the way the planes(alledged) hit almost 30 years later......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Thanks seatnineb
I noticed too how the plane's trajectory is similar. Let me know if you find the link. I copied the photo also.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. No problem.......Just found the web page address.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry_s Donating Member (101 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. UA 175 - Plane without wings






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. WTC 2 - Building with magical reappearing walls



1) "UA Flight 175" crashing into the WTC 2.

2) Yellow arrow = left vertical stabilizer missing.

3) Orange arrow = right engine; green arrow = right wing-tip; yellow arrow = magic reappearing wall.

4) Yellow arrow = magic reappearing wall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Flight 77 did NOT fly into Pent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
42. I'm surprised........
that the stupid notion of a 757 hit the Pentagon is still being discussed?

There's no vertical stabilizer mark on the pre-collapse wall. Everything after that fact is mindless drivel.

If ALL the physics of a 757 jet crash don't exist. I lie has been told.

It doesn't get any easier than that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Maybe the vertical stabilizer
Edited on Sat Dec-17-05 02:59 PM by LARED
did not hit the building.



What do you think the piece of debris seen at the top of the building could be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Some people claim the rear of the plane
is seen bouncing back on that pic (see just above and to the left of the beige toll booth on the right).

If that is the rear of the plane, then what happened to it afterwords? Shouldn't it still be seen on the outside of the building? Also, everybody as been telling me the whole fuselage penetrated into the building in a "liquid state". You guys need to pick a version and stick with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Does that mean you believe it is possible
the vertical stabilizer may be the debris seen in the image?

If it flew over the building how could it be seen in the front as you speculate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Flew over?
People say it's bouncing back. Btw, it's a moot point basing anything off those fabricated security pics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Look at the picture


That debris flew over the Pentagon in the image. People can say all sorts of stuff, but pictures tell a thousand stories.

BTW, not buying the security pics are fabricated foolishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drdtroit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. I'm just curious why all of the security tapes from various locations
were all confiscated and the public has never been allowed to see what really happened.
Why do you think that is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Of course you won't buy they're fabricated
Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 07:24 PM by killtown
that would ruin your "9/11 was no gov't conspiracy" theory.

But for those who don't have their heads stuck in the ground, the official trajectory related to the security photos is the dead giveway that they are fakes:



This graphic by JP Desmoulins shows the trajectory (purple line) that Flight 77 would have had to fly in at to clip the tops of the lamp poles high up on the road (blue lines) and then enter the 1st floor of the Pentagon (which I would agree). The red dotted line (which I drew in) estimates the trajectory that the official theory seems to suggest if the object in the security photos flying very low and parallel across the ground is indeed Flight 77.


The 2nd biggest giveaway is the shape of the explosion progression, specifically in "#2 impact" which the fire ball is in a "teepee" or "/\" shape as if the roof had already collapsed.



The 3rd, and most apparent, is that the security pics show the huge fireball erupting back on the lawn, yet no scorch marks on the lawn where the fireball came all the way out to:



Remember, officials said that 757 flew in at 530 mph. Kinda hard to hit the lightpoles, dip down, fly parallel to the ground, then pop back up and enter the building at a downward angle!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #45
54. Are you
suggesting that jet fuel blew the tail section off?
That's some strong jet fuel for an invisible ground flying jet!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-17-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. I know, but some people just don't want to believe.
9/11 official version sure seems to violate a lot of laws of physics!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #47
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #47
56. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Rock on Bro!
Nice to meet you too Vince! And of course I have your outstanding essay linked on my site!!!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Show me a post on this forum containing...
single equation to back up an argument and then we can discuss the general level of physics knowledge in the 9/11 "research" community. Even the vaunted professor from BYU neglects basic math to explain his ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 20th 2019, 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC