| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| blackcat wrote: | | USA TODAY reporter Richard Benedetto says aircraft he saw hit the Pentagon 'sounded like an artillery shell.' (USA Today) |
Misquoted. What he said was:
”It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly...I didn't see the impact. It sounded like an artillery shell. It hit on the west side of the building, near the helipad...The sound itself sounded more like a thud rather than a bomb…rather than a loud bomb explosion it sounded muffled, heavy, very deep.”
Notice the ”It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly..."? Talk about selective evidence.
Another Richard Benedetto quote:
"Then the plane flew right over my head . I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast. That plane is going to crash .... The noise was like an artillery shell , not an explosion like a bomb"
The Hartford Courant, 9/12/01
| blackcat wrote: | | Pentagon Renovation project coordinator Michael DiPaula says aircraft that hit the Pentagon 'sounded like a missile.' (Baltimore Sun) |
Here we go again:
”Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. It sounded like a missile… Buried in debris and covered with airplane fuel, he was briefly listed by authorities as missing...There were three loud thump, thump, thumps. You could hear the metal cracking and crinkling, and the explosion.” (Sunspot - Baltimore sun)
Very selective.
| blackcat wrote: | | Space News editor Lon Rains was 'convinced a missile' hit the Pentagon by the way it sounded and how fast it flew in. (Space News) |
Lon Rains, Editor Space News, from Springfield somewhere on Interstate 395:
”With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane...I remember vividly that as I turned off my cell phone I was watching the almost serene image of thick pieces of flaming fiberglass insulation floating down onto the highway.” (http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html)
He didn't see what hit the Pentagon...
| blackcat wrote: | | Pentagon network engineer Tom Seibert said he heard what 'sounded like a missile' crash into the building. (Guardian) |
"We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom...We just hit the dirt. We dived instinctively. We were sitting there and watching this thing in New York, and I said, 'you know, the next best target would be us. And five minutes later, boom." (http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-s rv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html)
He was sitting inside the Pentagon, watching TV...
| blackcat wrote: | | D. S. Khavkin says aircraft she and her husband saw fly overheard towards the Pentagon appeared to be a 'small' commercial aircraft. (BBC) |
”At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft...The engine was at full throttle. First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon.” [It depends on what you call small, compared to a 747 the 757 is pretty small indeed. Without an additional interview nothing can be said about his statement]
| blackcat wrote: | | Steve Patterson says aircraft he saw crash into pentagon appeared to hold about '8 to 12 people' and sounded like a 'fighter jet.' (Washington Post) |
"The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway..." [The route the plane is flying seems to be accurate, but since this person couldn't even identify the American Airlines logo, which dozens of other could, he doesn't seem to have been in a particularly great spot to have given an accurate description of the airplane.] (http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-s rv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html)
| blackcat wrote: | | USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman says he saw the body and tail of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, but 'did not see the engines.' (CNN video) |
"It came screaming across the highway, route 110…I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet, it was not a Lear jet, ... it was a bigger plane than that."
| blackcat wrote: | CNN's Jamie McIntyre live at the Pentagon scene says there's no evidence a plane crashed anywhere near the building other than pieces that are small enough to pick up by hand. (CNN video)
Jamie Mcintryre, CNN correspondent
"From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed." - CNN (09/11/01) [Video archived at: Prison Planet; The Web Fairy] |
He was roughly 500 yards away from the crash site, not surprising he didn't see much either.
| blackcat wrote: | | Engineer Steve DeChiaro says he was perplexed that a plane had crashed into Pentagon by seeing only a small hole in the building and seeing 'no tail, wings, no nothing'. (Memphis Online) |
”I reached the west side of the building I saw a light post bent in half. But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building,… No tail. No wings. No nothing…shortly after 10 a.m. police yelled at people to get back. Just as we're about to open the door[to get into the building], they start screaming, 'There's another inbound plane'…For nearly 15 minutes, they stood watching the Pentagon burn and periodically checked the sky for another plane.” [It is not clear to me if he saw the plane, he was about a mile away when the impact occurred. The the hole doesn’t seem that large and the plane was entirely gone so it’s not really that strange he finds it hard to believe]
| blackcat wrote: | | Army Captain Lincoln Liebner says remarkably there was 'no debris from the airplane' at the Pentagon when he got to the building. (Army) |
Captain Lincoln Leibner , (a.k.a. "Liebner") was parking his car at the moment of attack: He rushed into
the building to help. His hands were burned, and after he was taken away to a hospital for treatment, he returned
later in the day to do more.
"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low,' said Army Captain Lincoln Liebner.
"We got one guy out of the fire truck cab,' he said, adding he could hear people crying inside the wreckage.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/html/webspecial/WTC/wtcnews15.htm l
"The First Rescuer" / Carolyn Weaver / Washington / 13 Oct 2001 02:43 UTC
View Carolyn Weaver's VOA TV report (RealVideo)
"Plunging into the fire" / David M. Shribman / Globe Staff, 9/8/2002
"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low,"
"My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening, Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.
We got one guy out of the cab," he said, adding he could hear people crying inside the wreckage. Captain Liebner, who had cuts on his hands from the debris, says he has been parking his car in the car park when the crash occurred.""
http://abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010911230953_1.htm
"Flames, bombs strike at symbolic heart of a nation" /Gay Alcorn / Sept. 12 2001
French version:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/reseau/monde/0109/mon_101090013337.html
usmedicine.com / May 2002 quoted
"Maj. Leibner." a communications officer for the secretary of defense.
"I was about 100 yards away," he said. "You could see through the windows of the aircraft.
I saw it hit."
"...The aircraft went in between the second and third floors. "
" It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "
http://www.theosuobserver.com/main.cfm/include/smdetail/synid/54846.ht ml
Talk about selective quotes again...
| blackcat wrote: | | Army Captain Allan Lindsley says he was 100 meters from the Pentagon crash site and didn’t see 'any of the plane.' (Army) |
As well as taking the time to actually read the full quotes from people above, you should check out the full pdf that this was taken from: http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/soldiers/responding.pdf
| blackcat wrote: | | Nurse Eileen Murphy upon reaching the Pentagon crash scene says she was real surprised that the plane 'wasn't there.' (Army) |
Again, read the whole of http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/soldiers/responding.pdf
| blackcat wrote: | | Sergeant First Class Maybon Pollock says he was in awe that he saw 'nothing left from the plane' at the Pentagon crash site after being told the size of the plane that had crashed there. (Army) |
"At that point we were able to see the last part of the plane, where it stopped, basically. It was a big 8 by 10 or bigger, I’m just guessing, hole in the wall. You could see the tire, the landing gear, were just forward of it.
I was more impressed, I was truly impressed, with how the building stood up, after they told me the size of the plane. And then I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane. It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building."
8 by 10 punch-out hole, sees the tire and the landing gear. If you'd bothered to have read the links I put in earlier posts, rather than fling the insults out, you'd see that it isn't too surprising that the plane would be shredded to pieces.
| blackcat wrote: | | Will Jarvis of the Office of Secretary of Defense tried but failed to see the plane at the Pentagon saying there was just 'nothing left' and couldn’t see a 'tail or a wing or anything.' (U of T Magazine) |
See above. Planes aren't made out of solid steel. The tail and wings are the least dense parts.
General Benton K. Partin in the The New American:
"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder — the plane fuselage — is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml
| blackcat wrote: | | There has been plenty of time to muddy the waters (nearly five years now) |
Yes, there has been plenty of time to muddy the waters, by people claiming no-757 who use misquotes, & misrepresented photos and evidence.
| blackcat wrote: | | but events reported AT THE TIME and descriptions and photographs taken AT THE TIME indicate that NO 757 HIT THE PENTAGON. |
Erm, no they don't. Events reported by people who don't do proper research, and present their evidence very selectively in order to back up their claims, definitely do indicate that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. Events properly reported AT THE TIME and photographs AT THE TIME indicate that a 757 DID HIT THE PENTAGON. (Don't use caps, it's rather rude)
| blackcat wrote: | | The damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent, there is little or no evidence of a 757 or bodies or body parts or luggage, the lawn is undamaged (though subsequent photos show extensive damage!!!), and the video footage, seized by the authorities, is not being released. |
How is the damage inconsistent? The total span of the 1st floor hole was 101.5 feet, and the total span of the damage (facade and the hole) was 178.1 feet. Evidence of a 757 - if you had bothered to actually do your research, actually find out the entirety of the quotes from the eyewitnesses, actually looked at the all the photographs, etc - there is more than plenty of evidence. There is absolutely no evidence of a missile (not one eyewitness seen a missile, or remains of one), there is absolutely no evidence of a military jet fighter (again, not one eyewitness seen one or remains of one), and there is absolutely no evidence of a global hawk (not one eywitness seen a global hawk or remains of one). And if you'd again bothered to look at the links above, you would have seen photos of corpses. As to the video footage not being released, as stated above, since you haven't done any proper research (as proven by your misquotes, etc), and you are angrily insulting anyone else who thinks 911 was an inside job but who believe that it was a 757, what would be the point of releasing videos showing the 757? You are happily insulting others in the truth movement, and god knows how many of the public must hear those insults too if you speak to them in the same way. Why would the perpetrators want you to stop doing that? It's definitely working in their favour.
| blackcat wrote: | | Add to that, hours before the event Rumsfeld announced 2.3 thousand billion dollars was "missing" from the Pentagon accounts and the part of the Pentagon hit just housed all the records and the personnel. |
And...? I believe it was an inside job & this is certainly true - so why are you telling me this? You don't even bother again to read my posts.
| blackcat wrote: | | Further, the flight path taken by the "757" appeared to air traffic controllers to be a military plane as its trajectory was so incredible for a civil airliner!! |
Danielle O'Brien, from the Radar room at Dulles Airport:
”It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more… At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe… The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away… Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building… And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away… the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver… We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited…. The Pentagon's been hit.”[500mph is high rate? Well, when were talking about an unidentified plane that is at 500mph closing in on the capital we might say that it’s fast…I think.]
her explanation:
”I think that they came eastbound and because sun was in their eyes that morning, and because the White House was beyond a grove of trees, I think they couldn't see it. It was too fast. They came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them. You can't miss the Pentagon. It's so telltale by its shape and its size, and they said, 'Look, there it is. Take that. Get that.' They certainly could have had the White House if they had seen it.”
CBS news:
”Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet [2100 meter] in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.”
"You don't fly a 757 in that manner" - very true. What the 757 did was well within the capabilities of a 757, but practically impossible for a human pilot (let alone flight-school dropout Hani Hanjour). Again, if you'd bothered to have read my posts and links you would know what I am talking about.
| blackcat wrote: | | Why in god's name do you spout this nonsense about everything points to it being a 757? Are you paid by the government? Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe what you are pushing as reality. |
Do you have difficulty reading or are you really so narrow-minded & only see what you want to see? If a 757 hit the Pentagon, it doesn't mean that 911 was not an inside job, rather it points to some more substantiated evidence that should be pointed out - Hani Hanjour could not possibly have been in control of Flight 77, and why the hell was Flight 77 not intercepted! The no-757 theories completely distract from this (and all the other substantiated evidence that points to an inside job), instead giving us a theory that the MSM uses to smear us. Have you not wondered why all the MSM articles concerning 911 truth cite the no-757 theories? It's because they are easily disproven. What better way to say that 911 truth is all about spouting nonsense.
"Are you paid by the government?"  Good to see you chuck out the accusations of "shill" too as soon as someone disagrees with you. The perps must love you being on our side.
Since you don't bother to read my posts (although telling me not to reply to you then you reply to me again...) or check your facts before hurling abuse, it is completely pointless to engage you in any further form of conversation.
| IronSnot wrote: | The idea of a booby or honey trap for 9/11 movement is rubbish. Only a real conspiracy nut could dream that one up.
It's plainly obvious that coming up to the 5th anniversary, that they are hiding something. |
If you hadn't noticed, the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theories get us all labelled as "conspiracy nuts". Since you like chucking out insults too, no point in discussing anything with you either. Again, the perps must love people like you being on our side, you do a great service to the truth movement.
For anyone else actually interested in seeing the full quotes & sources (rather than selective snippets), you can find most of them here:
http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.htm l
and here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/Flight77-Witnesses.pdf
and in all the links that I put in earlier posts. If anyone wants to discuss/debate this further without chucking abuse, I'll be all ears.
ps. just for info, I used to buy into the no-757 theories til a couple of years ago, when I decided to check them out further.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freddie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I commend Dodgy for taking the time to make that post and I do hope people will read it all, because he explains beautifully how some people avoid/manipulate the evidence.
Put it this way; if certain documentary makers, writers and activists were so confident in their claims of "a 16 foot wide hole only", "no aircraft pieces", "no eye-witnesses", etc etc, then why would they selectively choose terrible photos masked by foam and smoke (ignoring much clearer photos of ground floor damage), why would they edit-down people's statements (ignoring all the other eye-witnesses), why would they focus on 'missile' (or even worse; global hawk) theories when the evidence simply isn't there?
I said to myself I wouldn't debate the pentagon on this forum again, but few seem to be on the same page as Dodgy here, so I thought I better speak up
_________________
- www.takectrl.org - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello dodgy
Good post - lots of points resolved.
How do you account for the lack of 757 engines and the image of the small engine at the Pentagon?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Global Hawk ? |
|
|
Thanks, both were interesting to read - although Penny Elgas who found that part knew it was an American Airlines that she saw crash into the building.
Also on the same site, you should see http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html which shows all the airplane parts at the scene and matches them up with a 757. It's a very good site.
As to the other site - it is trying to point out the shape of a global hawk with objects from the background, if you see the 2nd frame (of the 5 "leaked"), the background outline is still there (apart from part of the 'tail' bit):
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/024.html
plus the other frames, and in the 2 Pentagon "new" videos too.
It is also trying to make a shape out of the explosion taken from the 5th frame, which was 4 seconds after the first frame, and the photo also has extra compression artifacts. Go by the photo here: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/027.html - and zoom it in 2x, and you'll see the difference. It simply looks like part of the explosion.
I'm not into trying to make out anything in the five frames/two videos released so far, they are so indistinct as to what it is, it could indeed be a "flying grilled cheese sandwich" just solely based on them. 
The last photo on that page, showing some supposed large chunk of debris - do you have a source for the complete photo (it appears to be cropped, plus has a lot of artifacts again)? Here's some photos of the same area:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/yarddebris.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/morris.html
There is something there, but completely indistinct as to what it is. But if the rest of the http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh2/Pentagon2.htm page is to be believed, that part that it claims it may be was blew away in the explosion picture, so it wouldn't have been lying to the north of the fuselage hole, lying next to where the planes left engine would have been impacted. It would be good to see a clearer photo though, if anyone knows where the full picture is.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | Hello dodgy
Good post - lots of points resolved.
How do you account for the lack of 757 engines and the image of the small engine at the Pentagon? |
Hi Leiff 
Here's some good explanations of the engine parts (compressors and rotor etc):
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml (excellent explanation of most of the 757 engine debris)
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/081.html
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/110.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/debris.html
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
| freddie wrote: | I commend Dodgy for taking the time to make that post and I do hope people will read it all, because he explains beautifully how some people avoid/manipulate the evidence.
Put it this way; if certain documentary makers, writers and activists were so confident in their claims of "a 16 foot wide hole only", "no aircraft pieces", "no eye-witnesses", etc etc, then why would they selectively choose terrible photos masked by foam and smoke (ignoring much clearer photos of ground floor damage), why would they edit-down people's statements (ignoring all the other eye-witnesses), why would they focus on 'missile' (or even worse; global hawk) theories when the evidence simply isn't there?
I said to myself I wouldn't debate the pentagon on this forum again, but few seem to be on the same page as Dodgy here, so I thought I better speak up |
Thanks freddie, it really is the disinformation & those that are spreading it (especially the documentary makers & scholars/writers/webmasters/etc) that really does concern me. Whether they are indeed sincere in their beliefs, or are consciously spreading disinformation, it really makes me wonder as it is extremely damaging to the truth movement. I've got a project in the works which is going to be solely based on exposing disinfo, the sooner that the hoaxers are ignored & their ego's crushed, the better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I keep an open mind about what hit the pentagon. of course this could be proved one way or another very easily if the tapes from numerous surveillance cameras which would have seen the whole thing were released.
so why won't they release them?
the obvious reason would be that the footage shows something other than a 757 hitting the building.
however, maybe they are just biding their time....
if the "no plane at the pentagon" idea is firmly entrenched as a cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement's case, and they do have footage of a 757 which they are holding back, then a well-timed release of this footage would be devestating to the credibility of those who have used the "no plane" argument against the official conspiracy theory.
that's why even though the whole thing looks suspicious and the frames released so far show no indication of a plane (and given that they're dated "sept 12th" could easily be fake anyway), I wouldn't rule it out completely.
and I agree that killtown's eyewitness reports cherry pick soundbites in a way that often misrepresents what people actually said. the originals are at: http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can believe your story and I will stick with mine. You sound like the "500 yards away" reporter!! By that I mean when he "translated" his words to fit a totally opposite view later on.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.
"A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane. "
erm 500 yards???????
WOODRUFF: "Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building? "
MCINTYRE: "You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "
That was AT THE TIME!!!! BEFORE he had a chance to change his words presumably because he had pressure put on him to do so!! btw using capitals is not rude it is for emphasis.
What a shame we can't see the videos. Unfortunate that the plane parts haven't been used to identify it. Still it evaporated - perfectly routine. The hole fits the plane!!!! Excellent! That's something that has moved on since the day of the event. As well as so many other pieces of "evidence". And you can stuff your "eyewitness" accounts and I will stuff mine - I never believe them anyway unless it is flesh and blood like Rodriguez talking on video, or the firemen doing likewise.
The reason it is so maddening to hear someone "explain" the inexplicable is that this is just one step from "explaining" that it was the fire that brought down wtc 1&2 (while cooking pancakes) and that wtc7 fell because of diesel fires - and that the 19 hijackers beat the air defences because of incompetence and coincidence - and that Flight 93 is as the movie portrays it - and the "put options" was normal etc etc etc..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | The reason it is so maddening to hear someone "explain" the inexplicable is that this is just one step from "explaining" that it was the fire that brought down wtc 1&2 (while cooking pancakes) and that wtc7 fell because of diesel fires - and that the 19 hijackers beat the air defences because of incompetence and coincidence - and that Flight 93 is as the movie portrays it - and the "put options" was normal etc etc etc.. |
that's bs.
believing that wtc 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, that the failure to intercept the hijacked planes was not just due to the "incompetence theory", that flight 93 was not as the movie potrays it and that the "put options" were not normal - is in no way inconsistent with keeping an open mind about what hit the pentagon.
it is not necessary to believe that what hit the pentagon was not a 757 to dispute the official story of 9/11.
and if you do believe that it wasn't a 757, trying to advance your case by using dodgy misquotes (which can easily be shown to misrepresent what the eyewitnesses actually said) isn't very bright.
and using your "logic"....being so 100% sure that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon is one step away from believing that no planes hit the wtc. do you believe that as well?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: Dodgy science fiction |
|
|
Dodgy,
You’re dependence on science fiction eyewitnesses is indeed dodgy.
The 757 hit the Pentagon story is ridiculous. Most of the evidence for it comes from eyewitness and contradicts the laws of physics. Just to make this obvious: you have got to believe in science fiction to believe the Pentagon 757 eyewitnesses. So, was the 757 actually made in Area 51? Or was it an alien craft, flown by aliens?
Eyewitnesses evidence is a waste of time. If witnesses say they saw a 757 hit the Pentagon, they must be deluded. None of the 757 witnesses say anything that matches the physics. None of them demonstrate that:
- a 757 travelling near the ground would be deafening, or that
- the jet blast and air turbulance of a 757 would throw vehicles and their passengers all over the place.
What happened to noise and what happened to the jet blast and wake turbalance?
What on earth is this rubbish: Pentagon Renovation project coordinator Michael DiPaula, ”Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. It sounded like a missile…”
Suddenly roared into view??!! What is he, deaf?
And here we have another deaf person:
Lon Rains, Editor Space News, from Springfield somewhere on Interstate 395:
”With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left…”
And someone else into science fiction - General Benton K. Partin in the The New American:
"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11...When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide…
What the heck is he talking about? This plane that turned into vapour smashed three holes into the concentric rings of the Pentagon. How did vapour smash a hole into the third Pentagon ring?
And are we supposed to believe that:
- a pilot or a computer puts a plane (at around 7,000 ft, I think) into descent but manages to reduce its momentum to level off it at 20 feet
- the plane speeds up to 500+ miles an hour and flies for a distance at a height of 20 feet without either crashing into the ground or taking off again;
- the engines, with all the aircraft’s thrust, don’t smash into the reinforced concrete but the nose, with no thrust of its own, does
- the wings and engine bends back rather than snap off and follows the nose into Pentagon
- the released video images does not catch any of the plane entering the Pentagon despite the fact that the concrete would slow it down
- windows near the impact site remains intact
- the jet fuel burns the aircraft into nothing in an instant but doesn’t touch computer monitors, books, wooden stools at the crash site
- no signs of extensive fire or building damage in the inside rings of the Pentagon
- the computer simulations of the plane entering the building looks nothing like the actual damage done to the buildings
Is it likely that the results of a 757 airplane weighing 220,000 pounds and travelling up to 530 mph is the same as that seen on the CCTV images recently made public by Judicial Watch?
Is a 757 travelling at 530mph hitting reinforced concrete likely to produce a massive explosion, far bigger than the CCTV, or not?
Dodgy, before you get us to believe in science fiction, could you please explain the anomalies?
insidejob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Global Hawk ? |
|
|
| dodgy wrote: | | Thanks, both were interesting to read - although Penny Elgas who found that part knew it was an American Airlines that she saw crash into the building. |
Ol' Penny, oh sure. She saw it, she didn't see it, she saw it in her rearvision mirror (sister's account) And this piece landed in her backseat through her sunroof, but she didn't notice until she got home. And she didn't recognise it as an American Airlines plane until she got home and switched on the radio.
As far as witnesses go, she's one of the worst.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | and using your "logic"....being so 100% sure that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon is one step away from believing that no planes hit the wtc. do you believe that as well? |
Now who's talking bs!!
I am 100% sure that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I base that on the physical evidence and only a crackpot could believe that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. As for selective quotes - I was making the point that you can quote anything that "eyewitnesses" are supposed to have said to "prove" what you want. They were very selective in allowing eyewitness testimony at the official enquiry - that's the only "selective" quotes you should be bothered about.
No I do not believe that "no planes hit the wtc" - there is physical and video evidence to the contrary. A better question would be do YOU believe the "no planes at wtc" theory since it is YOU who choose to disbelieve the obvious. The obvious in the Pentagon being that whatever it was it was certainly NOT a 757.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MCINTYRE said:
'There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.'
This quote is consistent with an actual 757 crashing into the Pentagon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
insidejob - you're chucking out insults too without fully checking up your case, I'm not going to bother answering you either, your points have been answered elsewhere in the thread.
Anyone else apart from the three I'm ignoring wish to discuss/debate this politely, I'm still all ears.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the links dodgy.
I find the top image on the page below to be most compelling. The compressor stage debris looks to be of considerable diameter and remarkably like a Rolls-Royce RB-211 compressor stage as fitted to 757.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/081.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 'There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.'
This quote is consistent with an actual 757 crashing into the Pentagon. |
Astounding!
If I was to believe this I might as well believe the official report. But of course that is what you are aiming at eventually!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: Dodgy science fantasy |
|
|
OK, Dodgy,
Let's say I missed the thread that explained how VAPOUR smashed three holes into the Pentagon's REINFORCED CONCRETE. And clearly, I'm not doing my research properly because I'm clueless about how vapour could do this. (Perhaps the plane was made out of aluminium and sulphuric acid.) So, Dodgy, especially since YOU QUOTED that (idiot) general bloke, why don't you explain it to me?
And while you're at it, tell me how a computer can decend a plane that is not a jet fighter from 7,000 feet to 20 feet without CRASHING INTO THE GROUND and without a slow decent lasting miles - you know, the sort of descent it makes when it's NORMALLY LANDING. (Perhaps, the airforce should use more passenger planes as fighter jets - they seem to be as manoeurvable.)
And how, jet fuel consumed the plane but DID NOT TOUCH a book or the wooden stole that the book was on on the first floor of the impact site. And why if the plane vapourised, the whole strike side of the Pentagon wasn't destroyed and generally smashed to bits. Cos, I didn't do my research on that one, either.
Oh, OK I admit it. I think the official Pentagon explanation is SCIENCE FANTASY. And whoever dreamt it up should be writing for Star Trek. If people believe this Pentagon-a-real-757-did-it fairy story without having to explain these anomolies, it just shows how GULLABLE they are.
insidejob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello insidejob
How do you account for the compressor stage debris image in the link above?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dodgy wrote: | | Anyone else apart from the three I'm ignoring wish to discuss/debate this politely, I'm still all ears. |
I assume I'm one of those three, quite pathetic really as if it's of any significance who you ignore. Anyway if you want to put rubbish up here, I'll continue to address it, whether you care to respond or not.
Penny Elgas is not a reliable witness.
Apt username by the way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Compressor stage debris |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | Hello insidejob
How do you account for the compressor stage debris image in the link above? |
I don't know, perhaps the 757 isn't the only flying object to have a compressor stage. And since a 757 has two engines - most of which seems to have turned into vapour - where's the other one?
Anyhow, if you look at the diagrams and the compressor in the picture, it is clear that they are different. Look at the distance between the O-rings and the rim of the section the O-rings are located ie. the left side of the RB-11 diagram has a rim on the top of the section in which the O-rings are. There's a a gap between the rim and O-ring in the diagram that has disappeared in the photograph. Perhpas, the gap turned into vapour.
insidejob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Now who's talking bs!! |
not me that's for sure - I was merely applying your own "logic" to what you posted....
| blackcat wrote: | | I am 100% sure that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I base that on the physical evidence and only a crackpot could believe that a 757 did hit the Pentagon blah blah etc |
who the * are you to refer to people who disagree with you as "crackpots"? grow up....
and the evidence is not as clearcut as you claim - especially if you look through the information at the links posted by dodgy. but if you really want to nail your colours to the mast on this issue go ahead....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jake
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | MCINTYRE said:
'There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.'
This quote is consistent with an actual 757 crashing into the Pentagon. |
and that's precisely what Mcintyre was saying - even though some people can't seem to understand that....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freddie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gentlemen! - Let's keep it civil, please. This is exactly what happened when I tried to clear up a few issues with the pentagon crash months ago, and the thread was derailed and all the time that went into it was wasted - Let's not allow this board to become the name-calling slagging match like ATS.
Dodgy brought forward a lot of stuff, and it does push things in the right direction.
In that old thread I mentioned http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1313&highlight=
we were starting to get somewhere in terms of clearing up some of the falsehoods around the pentagon theories. Maybe some are worth bearing in mind here as it is getting pretty tiring hearing the same mistakes over and over again.
1- The "18 foot hole" claim is clearly false, and the far wider damage can be seen in the image (with measurements) on page 1.
2- The majority of eyewitnesses claim to have seen something simiilar to a 757 ... so at the very least we can say the witnesses identified a plane.
3- There are no witnesses that describe a missile or globalhawk hitting the pentagon.
4- The confiscation of cctv tapes does not prove that it wasn't a plane.
5- The 5 frames of pentagon CCTV footage is highly suspect, and shouldn't be used as evidence without recognition of its questionable authenticity.
6- The mysterious object under the blue tarp is nothing more than a tent.
7- There is some evidence of a 757 (although not as much as one might have expected) such as the engine, wheel, tires, scraps etc - yes there isn't loads, but if we say there is none, then that is false - your only method to explain this is to say they were placed there.
8- The lampposts that were damaged point to a large plane as a missile or global hawk could not have caused this damage.
9- What many members of this board have called the 'perfectly horizontal left wing damage line' is nothing of the sort. It clearly shows the steel beams having been exposed after the bricks and limestone surrounding it have been totally destroyed. The beams even show some sort of damage. - Could a missile do that?
10- The generator that was struck was moved towards the pentagon - a missile, global hawk or bomb could not do this.
_________________
- www.takectrl.org - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
insidejob
The significant detail in the compressor debris image is the considerable diameter of the compressor - way too large for a missile or Global Hawk. As for the flange distance discrepancy, the missing area doesn't need to vaporise - the missing distance is in the direction of travel so it could have crushed. Note the large round flange near the bottom, it appears to overhang the rim indicating some crushing has occurred. You cannot expect debris to exactly match the technical drawing as it has been involved in a high speed collision with a reinforced building!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freddie wrote: | | There is some evidence of a 757 (although not as much as one might have expected) such as the engine, wheel, tires, scraps etc - yes there isn't loads, but if we say there is none, then that is false - your only method to explain this is to say they were placed there. |
No major issues with your other points, but this one is not the case. There is some evidence of a plane, but not (necessarily*) a 757. You should change this one.
* in my view definitely not.
Last edited by IronSnot on Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freddie wrote: | | Gentlemen! - Let's keep it civil, please. This is exactly what happened when I tried to clear up a few issues with the pentagon crash months ago, and the thread was derailed and all the time that went into it was wasted - Let's not allow this board to become the name-calling slagging match like ATS. |
Thanks freddie, and agreed. I'm going to answer those doling out the insults without throwing a tirade of abuse back. If they want to continue shooting the messenger, that's really up to them, but it doesn't help their argument.
| Quote: | | Let's say I missed the thread that explained how VAPOUR smashed three holes into the Pentagon's REINFORCED CONCRETE. And clearly, I'm not doing my research properly because I'm clueless about how vapour could do this. (Perhaps the plane was made out of aluminium and sulphuric acid.) So, Dodgy, especially since YOU QUOTED that (idiot) general bloke, why don't you explain it to me? |
You missed it, the link underneath the quote should have been followed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml
Also this: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#facade & further down.
| Quote: | | And while you're at it, tell me how a computer can decend a plane that is not a jet fighter from 7,000 feet to 20 feet without CRASHING INTO THE GROUND and without a slow decent lasting miles - you know, the sort of descent it makes when it's NORMALLY LANDING. (Perhaps, the airforce should use more passenger planes as fighter jets - they seem to be as manoeurvable.) |
Final approach:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#approach
Ground effect:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
| Quote: | | And how, jet fuel consumed the plane but DID NOT TOUCH a book or the wooden stole that the book was on on the first floor of the impact site. And why if the plane vapourised, the whole strike side of the Pentagon wasn't destroyed and generally smashed to bits. Cos, I didn't do my research on that one, either. |
You didn't, follow links above & those in earlier posts. Gen. Partin did not say that the 'entire' plane turned to vapour.
| Quote: | | Oh, OK I admit it. I think the official Pentagon explanation is SCIENCE FANTASY. And whoever dreamt it up should be writing for Star Trek. If people believe this Pentagon-a-real-757-did-it fairy story without having to explain these anomolies, it just shows how GULLABLE they are. |
Please provide all evidence that you have that shows it was a missile/global hawk/Sky Warrior/grilled cheese sandwich.
| Quote: | | Penny Elgas is not a reliable witness. |
Penny Elgas & her 'find' was being used by another poster as back-up to the Global Hawk theory, not to back up my claims. I didn't say she was a reliable witness.
| Quote: | | I don't know, perhaps the 757 isn't the only flying object to have a compressor stage. And since a 757 has two engines - most of which seems to have turned into vapour - where's the other one? |
The Missing Engine: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
| Quote: | | Anyhow, if you look at the diagrams and the compressor in the picture, it is clear that they are different. Look at the distance between the O-rings and the rim of the section the O-rings are located ie. the left side of the RB-11 diagram has a rim on the top of the section in which the O-rings are. There's a a gap between the rim and O-ring in the diagram that has disappeared in the photograph. Perhpas, the gap turned into vapour. |
The compressor appears to have been crushed (highly suprising). See http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml that shows it is the correct part. Otherwise please provide clear evidence that it is from another engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 'm going to answer those doling out the insults without throwing a tira. e of abuse back. |
Quit your carping, nobody's having a go except for you.
Last edited by IronSnot on Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freddie wrote: | | 7- There is some evidence of a 757 (although not as much as one might have expected) such as the engine, wheel, tires, scraps etc - yes there isn't loads, but if we say there is none, then that is false - your only method to explain this is to say they were placed there. |
7 is correct: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#parts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In your opinion. I've seen at least two other analysis of the Pentagon parts concluding that it was a 737. But I'm not going to post that you are wrong because it's possible you may not be. That doesn't seem to be the way you work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
