| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:03 am Post subject: Samuel Danner, Pentagon eyewitness, speaks out |
 |
|
Click the link for several audio interviews.......
http://www.total911.info/2006/07/samuel-danner-pentagon-eyewitness.htm l
| Quote: |
Samuel Danner saw an aircraft apparently crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 and went to the scene to offer his help as a trained emergency medical technician. Five years later, with his children now grown and himself facing a life-or-death battle with lymphoma, he has decided to speak out.
|
Sam Danner (red arrow), was one of the people who helped pick up scraps. The white arrow points to a mysterious agent with a name like "Erkstein" who was directing the destruction of evidence. -- EricHufschmid.net
| Quote: | Before he appeared on RBN, Danner was interviewed by 9/11 researcher Eric Hufschmid :
"Here is Sam Danner's story, along with discussions of related subjects (If you don't have the time to listen to the entire interview, listen to the brief excerpts below this box. Also, check out the points at the bottom of this article.)
Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour1.mp3 6.3 mb
(the phone cut out, and then we continued)
Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour2.mp3 9.7 mb
Note: he had a chemotherapy treatment a few hours earlier, so he was a bit tired.
A Few Important Excerpts
Sam Danner, who had been an emergency medical technican, was driving near the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
When he was in front of the Pentagon, traffic began to slow down. Danner noticed an airplane in the distance. He knew about the attack on the WTC, and he pulled over and got out of his car. He noticed a small aircraft in the distance coming towards him.
However, he also noticed some people on the Pentagon property watching the traffic and the aircraft:
WhiteCollarPeopleLooking.mp3
He saw a second airplane with 4 engines high up in the air above the Pentagon:
JetHighAbove4Engines.mp3
A couple seconds later the first aircraft passes in front of him. He describes it as a white aircraft about the size of Gulfstream 300. The front was like a humpback whale. It was flying very low to the ground:
HumpbackWhaleOneEngine.mp3
There was only one engine, and it was in the tail:
TailConfigurationOf727.mp3
As other witnesses have said, the airplane seemed to be under perfect control. He did not notice any windows on the plane:
LookedLikeUnderPerfectControlNoWindows.mp3
He felt the air move as the aircraft flew by, but the aircraft was amazingly quiet:
FeltAirVeryQuiet.mp3
He saw some of the light poles that had been hit by the aircraft, but they seem to have fallen in the wrong direction, as if explosives knocked them down:
LightPolesBlownBackwards.mp3
Danner walked onto the Pentagon property to help the survivors, but he didn't find any bodies or luggage:
WhereAreTheDeadPeopleAndSuitcases.mp3
He joined the people who picked up scraps (see the photo at the top of this page):
AskedToHelpPickUpScraps.mp3
One of the other people assumed they were picking up scraps only to make it appear as if they were doing something useful; ie, in order to impress somebody important:
HorseAndPonyShowNothingToPickUp.mp3
All they found were bits of shredded aluminum and some type of polymer material with fibers:
RoughOnOneSideWithFibers.mp3
He saw tiny bits of aluminum, a few large pieces, and only one engine:
BitsOfAluminumAndOneEngine.mp3
Danner's description of the airplane and the scraps supports the theory that a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon.
Many people started to wonder what was going on:
PeopleUpsetConfused.mp3
The people who appeared to be official government agents did not seem interested in rescuing victims:
AgentsDidntSeemToCare.mp3
Are you aware that prior to the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center, the people in the area were told to move away because the building might collapse? Well, Danner said that after a while they were told to move away from the Pentagon. Some of the people in the area obviously knew that a portion of the building was about to collapse:
AgentsToldPeopleToBackAway.mp3
Most of the Pentagon employees were as confused about what was happening as Danner, which implies that only a small number of the Pentagon employees were part of this scam. This implies that a lot of Pentagon employees must have figured out that they were lied to:
LotOfPeopleSuspicious.mp3
Danner's testimony shows that there must be thousands of people who know that the official story is a lie, but they don't realize that their information is important, or they are too frightened to talk.
The suspicious government agents intimidated the innocent people who wanted to help:
WeWereIntimidated.mp3
He made a sarcastic remark to a government agent about how there was a tremendous loss of life from the airplane crash but he couldn't see any of it:
AgentsDidntSeemConcerned.mp3
Danner's final conclusion was that there was no 757; the official story is a lie:
No757ItIsBigLie.mp3
----- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anna123
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 19
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attac k_Simulation&only
It’s hilarious to me that with all of the real surveillance footage available (that we're not allowed to view of course) we need a crudely simulated, synthetic graphic representation of the event to explain it. That in itself proves that reality doesn’t match up to the official version. They had to actually artificially create a whole new video to support the official theory because the 'real' footage evidently doesn't do the job. What a work of fiction. Talk about fabricating reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
To start of the video provides no rational explanation whatsoever for why the lamp posts simply popped out of the ground as if they weren’t even properly fastened instead of breaking in half at the point where the wings would’ve come in contact with the pole. In previous documented cases (as cited in Loose Change) the plane immediately crashed after striking just one lamp post.
| Quote: | On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet en route to Houston to pick up George Bush Senior clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby Airport.
The wing ripped off upon impact, scattering debris over 100 yards. |
This plane however against all odds somehow managed to plow through several of them unscathed and without even so much as altering its flight pattern. Uh-hummm, sure. That’s real believable
| Quote: |
And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, without damaging either the wings or light poles themselves. Instead, they seem to have just popped out of the ground. |
Besides, no one’s saying that something did or didn’t hit those lamp poles. What we are saying (at least I am) is that it surely wasn’t a Boeing 757 based on the initial damage of the façade of the first wall of the Pentagon. The video simply states the obvious without answering any of the poignant questions.
I also love how they merge their cartoon animation of the plane into the actual frames of the video (the few frames we were allowed to see) as if it were really there all along. You have to ask yourself, why didn't the real video capture the plane? So much of the official version seems to rely heavily upon Photoshop and other imaging software.
Also, why didn’t it show where the wings, fuselage, tail section and engines went ’before the outer wall had collapsed’ or how if the plane hit the ground as we were told and skidded it didn’t disturb the lawn in any way. No simulation of any of that eh? How did it ultimately fit into this small hole ‘before the outer wall had collapsed‘? Why wasn’t this photo included in the animation?
Oh yeah, because it’s impossible! That’s why.
Instead (below) this is how the damage was haphazardly explained. Match it with the above photo and see if the initial damage is in anyway consistent with their shoddy recreation. Of course not! In the above photo there’s just a small hole with the windows both above and on either side of it not even broken. Was this an incredible shrinking Boeing 757 that vanished into that tiny opening?
At this point in the clip I ceased to even watch it anymore fully realizing that it was nothing more than a cheap comic book story.
My God I would hope that people have enough common sense not to be hoodwinked and bamboozled by such a poor depiction of what obviously ‘didn’t happen‘ on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a better one:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
is
Minor Poster
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I agree with some of the critisisms of the simulation video, be aware that it is made by a guy who seems to be a truther, a pentagonplanehugger, as are many of the respected mebers of the movement. I think this video has been made to actually give us more credibility.
This just makes it funnier that it is clung to by sites such as littlegreenfootballs, as if it alone validates the entire official story.
_________________
The truth about 9/11: Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think this video has been made to actually give us more credibility. |
I don't think so.
Go back and click the link and read the many negative comment fields below the video player. Almost every single one states that this crappy video somehow proves that there isn't and never was any sort of conspiracy. They seem to think that this poorly put together pile of swill debunks the non-mainstream versions of 9/11.
Example:
| Quote: |
I saw this video when it first cropped up on the Web about a week ago. It was stellar. I give it an A+.
But it's absurd that we even have to debunk these delusional conspiracy theorists. They should be relegated to the lunatic fringe of society, but the LLLunatic fringe has now become the mainstream. |
Anyone that would give this pathetic video an A+ must've flunked out of school.
There's also a link to the hit piece "Screw Loose Change". I don't see this presentation as having any well meaning intentions behind it as far as the 9/11 truth movement goes. If this was meant to lend credibility, the maker needs to be fired. It's propaganda to me....
| Quote: | | Here’s a detailed, frame by frame refutation of Dylan Avery’s despicable Loose Change video: Screw Loose Change. |
I also just love it when these so-called "refutations" rely on the findings of the severely flawed and biased 9/11 Commission hearings. You might as well put the crooked Ken Lay in charge of investigating his own Enron scandal. Gee, how much do you want to bet he wouldn’t find any wrong doing. Fox in charge of the hen house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MarkyX
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There's also a link to the hit piece "Screw Loose Change". I don't see this presentation as having any well meaning intentions behind it as far as the 9/11 truth movement goes. If this was meant to lend credibility, the maker needs to be fired. It's propaganda to me....
|
I am Karl Rove, bitch.
So explain to me how a missile manages to hit all those light poles, a generator, then go through several rings of the Pentagon again? I'm all ears.
_________________
- Mark Iradian
Writer of Chronicles of Garas (A dark tech fantasy webcomic)
The b****** behind Screw Loose Change video |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I am Karl Rove, bitch.
|
Who? I could couldn't possibly care less about who you are BITCH!!!!!
| Quote: |
So explain to me how a missile manages to hit all those light poles, a generator, then go through several rings of the Pentagon again? I'm all ears. |
Where did I ever say that it was a missile numb nuts? All that I said was that it wasn't a Boeing. Reading comprehension problems? Besides, if you don't believe that a bunker buster missile could've penetrated three layers of concrete walls then how in the hell do you possibly expect the fragile nose of a Boeing to do so? That belief is ten times more absurd. It’s only made of lightweight carbon and it’s mostly hallow. We're supposed to believe that the nose of the plane burrowed all the way through but the two, multi-ton, 9-foot engines left not even an imprint? Are you serious?
| Quote: | | The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it. |
One eyewitness btw described what struck the Pentagon as being a "cruise missile with wings". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
And Danner's 2006 revelation fits with what other evidence?
Folks, it's best when considering information from someone like Holocaust and moon landing denier Eric Hufschmid, to be very, very skeptical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | | Folks, it's best when considering information from someone like Holocaust and moon landing denier Eric Hufschmid, to be very, very skeptical. |
I agree.
And it's also best to be very, very skeptical when considering the information presented by posters to this site who assert that no element within the US government had anything to do with planning or carrying out of the attacks on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | Gravy wrote: | | Folks, it's best when considering information from someone like Holocaust and moon landing denier Eric Hufschmid, to be very, very skeptical. |
I agree.
And it's also best to be very, very skeptical when considering the information presented by posters to this site who assert that no element within the US government had anything to do with planning or carrying out of the attacks on 9/11. |
I'd agree with you if there was evidence of US government complicity. I go with the evidence, with facts, with logic. As you can see, some of the posters above simply accepted a preposterous story because it agreed with what they wanted to hear. That's the problem with people like Hufschmid, Avery, Alex Jones, Fetzer. Where 9/11 is concerned there's absolutely no critical thinking involved. They simply believe – and repaet as fact – any outrageous tale that agrees with them.
Critical thinking is crucial in all aspects of life, not just in 9/11 internet forums. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | | Critical thinking is crucial in all aspects of life, not just in 9/11 internet forums. |
What you are engaged in is not critical thinking pal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Critical thinking alway falls apart when confronted by belief systems: Logos vs Mythos, so poorly understood: becuase we are "educted" that way
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: critical (but not thinking) from gravy |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | | I go with the evidence, with facts, with logic. |
Well you certainly like to think you do, judging by your recent posts.
The truth is your just as prolific at making intuitive statements conclusions as everyone else.
For example, in your exchange with 'Me' regarding molten metals you decide to ignore addressing his main point directly - i.e. that there is an unresolved question over how temperatures in isolated areas got so high.
Presumably you are aware of the fundamental difference between 'temperature' and 'heat' - the latter being a measure of energy. So you could have responded, for example, that the 'hotspots' were the result of kinetic energy in the collapses being converted to additional heat which raised the temperature in isolated areas.
But you didn't - you continued to obfuscate Me's point by answering his questions about 'temperature' in terms of 'heat' e.g.:
| Gravy wrote: | | you haven't shown that the piles and fires didn't have the insulative and heat properties necessary to maintain the heat |
You ignore the fact that heat normally requires a 'temperature gradient' for it to transfer from one body of mass to another (unless there is another mechanism, such as kinetics which is why I said you could have suggested it).
Again, when 'Me' (I am tempted to refer to him as 'poor Me' for all the 'headmastering' he's been getting from you  ) brings up the woodstoves analogy, you decide that the relevance lies not in the relative temperatures of blue flame gas/ woodstove flame or kerosene, but in the fact that one is a stove and the other is 'world's largest commercial complex'.
In fact Me's analogy, not yours, is the more relevant one - i.e. the maximum flame temperature of fuels.
This does not seem very 'logical or scientific' to me - it looks like your just trying to slam down any argument that 'Me' comes up with, using the fact that he's not researched every last fact to the n'th degree to your advantage where possible. Furthermore, I assume you're taking this approach because you've already made up your mind about what did and didn't happen regarding the tower collapses, pentagon etc.
Unfortunately, this is the same approach that NIST took in their investigations - they already made up their minds that they weren't going to consider the exposive demolition theory, even though the collapse data for all three buildings fits this scenario perfectly whereas other collapse scenarios all require some degree of speculation.
Nobody needs to be a 'conspiracy theorists' to want to have matters properly investigated. Also, nobody needs to be an expert to be allowed to ask questions if things don't make intuitive sense to them (and something else does). They also deserve to be treated like human beings in a public forum, where their auestions and arguments are genuine and made in good faith until you know otherwise, not like some kind of 'guy fawkes' mad traitor types, or even as retards just because they don't have the right academic background to support their intuitive observations.
On the other hand, if your a scientist involved in a serious forensic investigation, and the data suggests certain scenarios, you've got to investigate them. NIST did not do that and that's only one (amongst the hundreds) of the reasons why Me's questions are valid. You should stop asking him for evidence for everything - it's not his job - the ones who's job it was deserve your demands for accountability more then 'Me' does.
(b.t.w. I just realised that 'Me' might be female and I've been refering to them as 'him' - apologies to 'Me' if this is the case) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: critical (but not thinking) from gravy |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | | you haven't shown that the piles and fires didn't have the insulative and heat properties necessary to maintain the heat |
This is more than clutching at straws it is clutching at thin air.
This is one of the kind of 'arguments' put forward by people like 'gravy' that tell you for cetain that you are not engaging with an individual who is remotely interested in discovering the truth about 9/11. This person has another agenda entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guthead
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I'd agree with you if there was evidence of US government complicity. I go with the evidence, with facts, with logic. As you can see, some of the posters above simply accepted a preposterous story because it agreed with what they wanted to hear. That's the problem with people like Hufschmid, Avery, Alex Jones, Fetzer. Where 9/11 is concerned there's absolutely no critical thinking involved. They simply believe ? and repaet as fact ? any outrageous tale that agrees with them.
Critical thinking is crucial in all aspects of life, not just in 9/11 internet forums. |
Gravy, we know who you are with, we know what your trying to do, we know you know what happened. If you have a family, please take a second to think about them, then think long and hard about what you are doing to not only them but to every person that has been affected by 911 because of the clearly proven bs you are telling people. I cant believe their are people in this world like you (well I can but it sickens me), you can change, please change, for the better of humanity.
________
magic flight launch box
Last edited by Guthead on Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest Hufsmidt and Jones are right wing clowns. I can't imagine a world in which they were in power, but needless to say it would actually be worse than this one.
Lumping Fetzer and Avery in with those two though, is unfair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IronSnot wrote: | .....but needless to say it would actually be worse than this one......
|
Don't speak too soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
