1 of 2
2 of 2
Thanks for these SnowCrash.
Simply boggles the mind that after looking at the evidence that anyone could possibly believe an airplane did that damage. Its a testament to the gullibility of man and how easily they can be manipulated.
Here comes the blogger brigade. I predict our posts will be down-voted and hidden in no time.
But you haven't said anything yet except that your post will be voted down. So what are you talking about? "Blogger brigade?"
Maybe I wasn't clear. My post was meant in support of MrM above me, who was voted down and collapsed before mine, which is slightly behind. I've just been in a bad mood since the Jesse Ventura Pentagon blog wasn't considered front page news. Check that thread out if you want to see the Blogger brigade in action.
Called a spade a spade. The reasons form loose nuke for not posting this as front page news made sense to me. The credibility of that Ventura piece was awful and brought nothing new to the table. You are really that upset about it not being on the front page? Is it that big a deal? Also, you posted your assumption that you would get voted down before MrM or you was were down or "collapsed" for the record.
I have the opposite feeling. It's absolutely amazing to me, to think, that anybody could still possibly believe this was anything other than the site of a plane crash.
"No plane" theories when there is no proof of this.
No need for mind boggling. Just the facts.
I studied at uni in france in the 20th century (!), and I've used my french to invite Thierry Meyssin to comment on this page whether for or against airliner wreck. Longshot but I wanted to try. He's a busy man too I'm sure but quand meme...
Some of the geopolitical overview resources at Voltairenet are- to me - very impressive (eg I just read an excellent article there on the CIA's boy Sarkozy) and I think that those of us who question the official conspiracy theory could discuss our differences and we might all benefit from healthy debate.
I think that those of us who question the official conspiracy theory could discuss our differences and we might all benefit from healthy debate.
To some extent, I agree, but by now I'm obviously committed to 9/11 research, and my integrity will no longer allow me to claim anything other than a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. To each his own.
if he saw the above stuff he might rethink
I pondered to myself that perhaps a good way to sow disinfo in the TM would be for the baddies to wait until someone publishes something erronious then buy loads and make it a bestseller
then the author feels he has TM kudos and defends his erronious research and sees his popularity as vindicating his research - enforcing to him that he was right all along in any argument within the TM
Would be interesting to see his perspective. Unfortunately Meyssan was a huge pusher of not just "no plane" pentagon theories but also ZIHOP rhetoric. He was given a lot of attention about 3-4 years ago unfortunately by the insidious Webster Tarpley. Perhaps he could clarify his position indeed. It is unfortunate though how Meyssan so far has ascribed to vague fringe theories. I heard an interview with him on Tarpley's radio show where he describe a past opportunity he had to speak to a gov't panel on national tv and what did he bring up? "Dancing Israeli" ZIHOP assumptions. And then he and Tarpley went off incredulously as to why folks would be offended by asserting theories like these. How unimpressive of two people who are obviously intelligent, yet when both of them got in big public formats, they only discussed fringe theories instead of presenting a few good basic "facts." People can enjoy there theories with friends all they want. If at any point though those people lose touch with the fact that they are discussing a "theory" and not a "fact," then spreading that fact disguised theory immediately becomes false. Again not, because of the possible plausibility of a potential theory, but because the individual presenting it isn't presenting the theory as though it is already a proven fact. I'm sick of people arguing "no plane" or "missle" at the pentagon.
The 911 inside jobbers are the wildest of ALL... Not only they destroyed WTC 1, 2, and 7, but the had to kill the people inside the Pentagon's Accounting Department to further their AGENDA... WOW! They destroyed all corporate fraud document at the Trade Center, and killed everybody involved in investigating the Pentagon Accounts..
The 911 inside jobbers make Sadam Hussein PALE in comparison....
I am impressed!
911 inside job for you all! And a Happy New Year!
just my style!
so i have resurrected you from a -1 to a 0
go see the movie four lions- super dark
Whether we are in the "plane or no plane camp", it is essential that we limit the friction between us as a community.
What can we agree on when it comes to the Pentagon part of these state crimes?
*Minetta Testimony = evidence of a stand down
*Remote Control of plane likely do to impossibility of Hanjor or ANY human pilot executing maneuver
*The missing 2.3 trillion/ records being housed in impact zone, it does have shades of WTC 7 where key logs/books/data conveniently missing.
*The nose cone did not cause the Punch-Out Hole in the C-ring.
*We deserve release of ALL surveillance videos.
"A study of the locations of fatalities also yields insight into the breakup of the aircraft and, therefore, its influence on the structure. The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building."
Jesse Ventura & Rob Balsamo's 'nose cone' is a straw man argument. We are dealing with a large cylinder, not a small cone. Whatever punched the exit hole was a soup of debris, as photos taken of the exit hole demonstrate.
The original explanation was that this hole was created by Flight 77's nose. Two days after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld, appearing on ABC's Good Morning America, said:
"The plane came in... between about the first and second floor... And it went through three rings. I'm told the nose is--- is stil in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away."
Two days later, Lee Evey, the program manager for the Pentagon Renovation Project, said at a Pentagon news briefing:
"The plane actually penetrated through the ... E ring, D ring, C ring.... The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit."
I am not a No-Planer at the Pentagon. My point is that Rumsfeld lied, since the nose could not have done this. I agree that it's a false conclusion to then say there was no plane, like the person did in Ventura's show.
My take is that a plane did hit the Pentagon under Remote Control.
If anyone here does not think that Flight 77 was under remote control, I challenge them to get into the flight simulator and try to duplicate Hanjour's feat.
Hey... they don't understand what actually physically happened at the Pentagon, especially not shortly after, they made some hasty assumptions... and... plausible deniability. [Rumsfeld]
Popular Mechanics made their assertions, often equally flawed, to the point of ridiculous. They don't know what they're talking about, their job is to tow the line at any cost. It doesn't matter if their facts are accurate.
As for Hani Hanjour piloting, I have doubts about that also.
Moreover, the Pentagon should have been evacuated, except for critical command centers. And I definitely want to know what Brigadier General Montague Winfield's game was.
Where are the videos of the actual event itself? Why aren't those being released? All those Pentagon cameras, and surrounding area private or public security cameras...
Cause all the other videos being withheld don't show the impact point.
isn't it possible that there was a cctv video of the actual impact itself from a better perspective than the fab five frames?
Here is a 15 min piece with Michael Ruppert : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xeym4t_michael-ruppert-le-grand-echiquier_news
He explains how the US géo-political strategy was to first weaken the (former) Soviet Union before moving into the resource rich former satellite states of Russia, the Caspian Basin / Central Asia. At the 6min30sec mark he says: “The first step of this was to diminish the possibility of Russia to reassert the dream of the Soviet Union: which we did: you want to know how we did it? Over the last decade, thanks to Goldman Sachs, The Harvard Endowment, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the World Bank, we looted 300 Billion dollars out of the Russian economy. $ 300 Billion.”
You may be asking: what does this have to do with the Pentagon?
If you watch former Governor Jesse Ventura’s film over the Pentagon http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?annotation_id=annotation_80603&p=54C32E3BD79452D0&feature=iv he gives a heavy financial motive for attacking the offices of the pentagon where a group of Naval Intelligence and civilian comptrollers were tracking where the 2.3 Trillion of the Pentagon that had gone missing.
But it is also very interesting to note that in this same Office of Naval Intelligence, a small group also tracked the origins and use of the so called “Black Eagle Trust”. In the end of June 2008, a quite amazing 60 page research document by E.P. Heidner showed up, and is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4866520/Collateral-Damage-911-Covert-Ops-Funding-Targeted It amply describes the “Project Hammer” to which Michael Ruppert was referring. (With more than 250 references, it is a treasure trove for any 9/11 researcher. The author writes in the introduction: “This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day.” If the editor permits, I’ll post an excerpt below this comment).
It should be noted that the private “investors” who put Russia under artificial perfusion of money, in order to make them dependent, and buy out key assets, they did so without taking too much risks: their invested funds were backed by gold bonds, taken from a secretive “Black Box” reserved for this type of covert ops to further American (and MI6?) geo-strategic interests. The troublesome origin of this “covert-op war chest” needed to be kept a secret, as also the dark history of criminal black-ops it had already served. One can imagine it was also very tempting to steal the gold, since so few were aware of its existence, and let the gold-bonds held by the “investors” be cashed out, not in “Black Eagle Trust” gold, but in US tax-payer dollars paid out graciously to save the face of the US economy after the unfortunate destruction (and massive gold heist) that happened to WTC 1, 2, (3,) 4, (5, 6,) and 7 when, as the Grand Wurlitzer keeps repeating, radical kamikaze jihadists crashed two airliners into WTC 1 & 2 in order to make a political statement (?).
One could also imagine that there was a lot of planning that went into pulling off September 11th: It is conceivable that it was a way to consolidate executive power by snapping into the “State of Emergency” of the COG plan that Rumsfeld and Cheney had prepared for many years together, it was a “watershed event” for PNAC people like Philip Zelikow, or a business proposition for people like Larry Silverstein and friends of Dick Cheney. For those who wished to hush the missing 2.3 trillion of the Pentagon announced on September 10th 2001, it was quite a fortunate coincidence. But, to the biggest financial criminals of “The Enterprise”, under the cover of keeping the lid on the dirty past of the gold used as a collateral to “investors” who helped weaken the Russian economy during the nineties, it was imperative to finalize the gold heist of the century before the 10 year gold backed bonds arrived to their maturation on September 12th 2001 : Motive and Opportunity !
Bin Laden and his 19 hijackers armed with box-cutters: 1 motive
G.W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Zelikow, Zakheim, PNAC, Silverstein & co, Reason of State and gold heist of “dirty” “Black Eagle Trust” Covert-Ops-war chest of “The Enterprise” insiders: 1 motive.
Question: who has the heaviest motive, the time imperative opportunity, and the means to pull it off, and cover it up?
Another question: Where are these criminals today and where is the gold?
Was it perhaps a glimpse of them we caught when Lord James Blackheath mentioned the “Foundation X” with their "amazing obsession for secrecy" on November 1st? I do not know, but I do maintain we must investigate the financial criminality behind every person and institution that has been riding & driving the “war on terrorism” gravy train.
This is beyond politics, geo-politics and State Secrets. It is the money & blood stained underwear of the US deep state. This seems to be becoming more and more common knowledge, but now we need to make a concerted effort to bring the criminals involved in the preparation and cover-up the events of 9/11 to trial, or at least to some kind of truth and reconciliation commission.
We must also let the media know about the nature of the criminals that they have been protecting: the terrorism so-far has been highly manipulated by western “intelligence services”: We must not allow the medias to continue to dupe US and World public opinion.
I recommend a more careful and critical study of the document, and its > 250 references. If more has been learned obout the author, or his work, I would be interested to know. Following the money is often useful when we are trying to track down the perpetrators of this crime against humanity, that so far no-one has been taken to a credible court for.
"As the Fall of 2001 approached, Junior (ed. note = G.W. Bush) faced a conundrum. The enormous trove of 10 year bonds which his father had covertly borrowed to flush out the Soviet economy in 1991 were coming due. Yet, the collateral pledged against the notes were being held in the illegal Black Eagle Trust, sourced from stolen war loot. The secrecy of the funds could be compromised if they were used to pay off the securities, which were held by Cantor Fitzgerald in vaults beneath the World Trade Center.
According to an unofficial analysis based on documents released by the Office of Naval Intelligence*, this circumstance may have provided a strategic rationale for the WTC attacks." (* Ed. note : individuals of the ONI had inside knowledge about the Black Eagle Trust, its origin, and use. They could have been ready to blow the whistle, and their computers contained critical information. The office was +/- wiped out by whatever it was that hit it.)
“The Vulcan’s drive to bring and end to the Cold War was fueled by a covert war chest invisible to congressional oversight.32 This war chest would be known by several names: Black Eagle Trust, the Marcos gold, Yamashita’s Gold, the Golden Lily Treasure, the Durham Trust or Project Hammer.33 These same Vulcans would be brought back to power in 2000 under the administration of President George W. Bush, son of President George H. W. Bush.
The covert operations conducted by the Vulcans involved – at a minimum – potential securities fraud, money laundering and violation of Foreign Corrupt Practices act.34 In a number of situations, murder and false imprisonment seemed to be the mainstay of efforts to prevent any remorseful participants in this operation from going public with their stories.35 While accomplishing its objective – bringing about the demise of the Soviet Union – the program also seems to have lined the pockets of the individuals that executed this policy, at US taxpayer expense. This was done to the tune of a mere $240 billion dollars in covert and allegedly illegal bonds, which appear to have been replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers in the aftermath of September 11!
Seventeen years later in 2008, the personal financial empires of those who benefited directly from these covert securities should now stand at several trillion dollars, and are rightfully the property of various citizenries. Putin’s purge of selected oligarchs is consistent with this story.
The covert securities used to accomplish the original national security objective of ending the Cold War ended up in the vaults of the brokers in the World Trade Center, and were destroyed on September 11, 2001.36 They came due for settlement and clearing on September 12. The federal Agency investigating these bonds – The Office of Naval Intelligence- was in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11.37 To a key group of senior National Security officials who had participated in the victory of the economic cold war in 1991, the WTC, the Pentagon, the four airliners and their occupants would became ‘collateral’ damage in the ending of the Cold War. Their deaths were required to hide the existence of the Black Eagle Trust, and the covert activities it had funded for over 50 years. The alternative view of these events suggests that the destruction of these lives and buildings constituted a cover-up of continued lawlessness by a fraternity or brotherhood of businessmen and criminals often referred to as ‘the Enterprise’ in the 1980s, but has remained in the shadows since.”
This material deserves its own blog entry. Very interesting, probably significant.
...lest we argue a bogus point that is easy to attack
primary sources: GOLD WARRIORS, Americas secret recovery of Yamashita's gold by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave. THE PLOT THICKENS, but I think we are getting closer to the true story of who and why. Thanks for these insights, Jon
Does acceptance of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon rule out the possibility that bombs or explosives were also used? Clearly planes + explosives were present at the Twin Towers. If planes + nanothermite were part of that aspect, then might a plane + cordite (or some other explosive) have been employed at the Pentagon? Is there evidence of an explosion at the Pentagon prior to Flight 77's impact, or after?
If a bomb went off before the plane impact people would have been running out of the building and be standing around wondering WTF is going on? When the plane came in. That didn't happen. There were explosions after the plane hit. Were they bombs going off or gas lines? I don't know. Why have bombs in the building? To make sure certain things got blown up? I guess one could say that but it doesn't make it true. How come people pretend to care so much about what happened at the pentagon but can't be bothered to read a book by authors who researched what happened at the pentagon?
Is it because the authors are secret agents? One could say that but doesn't make it true. I wonder what these researchers found? One would have to read the book.
Isn't that what we are all after? Of course there is conflicting evidence and testimony. So what gets people to doubt the official story and demand a NEW investigation, the stuff that seems to support the offical line or the stuff that doesn't?
I see some marks on the exterior of the building that look very difficult to have been made by a bomb or missile only. I don't rule out 'no-large-plane' but I can clearly see the points raised by the pro-plane crowd.
However, like you, I don't see one mechanism being exclusive to the other. What if there were explosives planted on a large plane that went off the moment of impact.
That would explain a few things:
1. why the vertical stabilizer broke off and caused no damage in the expected area (better than other explanations)
2. Why there was so little large debris (better than the other explanations)
3. Why the impact hole/damage was not as expected (better than the other explanations)
4. Why the exit hole/damage was not as expected (better than the other explanations)
The reasons for such may be:
1. to make sure the inertia of a crashing airplane does not reach Rummy & crew by blasting it into tiny pieces and destroying its momentum
2. to make sure that potentially honest FBIers n such don't find remote control gizmos
2. to make sure that potentially honest FBIers n such don't find positive evidence that the craft was not AA77
Of course the pentacon/flyover crowd, in addition to the counter-intuitive scene, tout CIT's NSA's 13/13 NoC witnesses and cab drivers conflicting testimony as strong proof. I see the weakness of the evidence:
1. relies on human testimony
2. investigators could be agents
3. witnesses could be agents
4. witnesses could be honestly mistaken
5. witnesses and/or their testimony could be cherry-picked
Of course not. The acceptance of a Boeing at the pentagon doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of bombs or explosives. The lack of any evidence to prove bombs or explosives rules out the possibility of bombs or explosives.
There must be an explanation. Do we know what time this report was ? Is it 10:10 EST as noted in the lower corner of the video? That certainly would be well after the initial impact.
Multiple images of the post-impact damage were used to create the photomontage of the damaged facade. See:
These photomontages show that the damage to the Pentagon facade can match the shape of an airplane. We see a rectangular perforation on the second floor that can correspond to the impact of the fuselage of the airplane ((Even if it would be possible to expect that the form of impact damage has a circular aspect, not rectangular. There is well a circular damage but only at the ring C of the pentagon). We also see extensive damage at first floor that can match the impact of the wings of the Boeing 757.
But there are physical data which are extremely suspicious. The slab separating the first of the second floor remarkably resisted to impact and supports the part of the building above the first floor.
The first floor of the pentagon has a very low height ((14 ft 1 in). Height mentioned in the “the pentagon building performance report”). There are obstacles to be avoided on the course of the boeing 757. So that its wings could nevertheless hit the first floor of the pentagon, the plane must hit the pentagon with a trajectory slightly in descent.
At the time of impact at a speed of 530 miles per hour, the engines of the plane practically had to be at ground level. But we do not see the physical consequences of such impact. The lawn of the pentagon was not damaged and there is not crater on the ground. Besides, according to the opinion of professional pilots it was impossible to do this at a speed of 530 miles per hour with a plane of the size of a Boeing 757.
Therefore the statements of some witnesses did not surprise me:
9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001 : Some inside Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There
“Even though two planes have already crashed in New York, some people in the Pentagon initially think a bomb has gone off when their building is hit :”
« Steve Carter, who is in the Building Operations Command Center on the first floor of the Pentagon, hears a “big boom,” and tells his assistant, “I think we just got hit by a bomb.”
“John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, is in his office near the main entrance to the Pentagon’s south parking lot at the time of the attack. He later describes, “Most people knew it was a bomb.”
“Army Colonel Jonathan Fruendt is in his second floor office in the Pentagon’s inner A Ring, when he feels and hears “a very sharp jolt and the sound of an explosion.” He later recalls, “I thought it was a bomb that had gone off.”
"(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001 : Some Officers in Area Where Pentagon Is Hit Think Bombs Have Exploded"
“At least three Pentagon employees in the area of the building that is hit, and who narrowly survive the attack, initially believe that what they have experienced is a bomb, or bombs, going off :”
“John Thurman, an Army lieutenant colonel, is in a second floor office just above where the Pentagon is hit. [Washington Post, 4/12/2006] He later describes the moment of impact : “To me it didn’t seem like a plane.… [T]o me it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me.… [i]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time.” He will add : “I had thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten construction workers to come in and place explosives.”
“Lt. Nancy McKeown is on the first floor of the Pentagon’s D Ring in the Navy Command Center, which is mostly destroyed when the building is hit. She will recall : “[i]t initially felt like an earthquake.… It sounded like a series of explosions going off.… It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to like firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off.” She yells out to her colleagues, “Bomb ! »
“bullet Army Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell is returning to his second floor office, and is just yards from where the building is impacted. “Bomb ! I thought,” he recalls of the moment the building is hit.”
I won't dive into the 757 or no 757 debate - but what is very clear to anyone with a background in the use of explosive cutting charges and warheads is that it is completely imposible that a 757 could have made the C Ring Exit Hole - period. Why would such an obvious "signature" be left at the Pentagon is anyones guess, but you can't cut through the C-Ring brick and rebar wall with anything other than explosives. you can find my blog on this here
Actually you very obviously did dive into the 757 or no 757 debate, but sideways. About your article, I've read it, but Christmas is coming up and I'll make to sure to read it more thoroughly later.
In the mean time, that soup of debris you see in my comment above, was that soup placed there for a 'fire department photo op'? Did they attach an airplane tire remnant to the 'shaped charge' or the 'wall breaching kit'? Did they spray some passenger DNA all over the 'wall breaching kit'?
Remember, these are questions you must answer, and not just by saying "I don't trust evidence coming from the suspect", because that's a circular argument. You are already trusting evidence coming from the suspect: the photographs, many of which were taken by DoD, FBI or FEMA photographers.
"... but what is very clear to anyone with a background in the use of explosive cutting charges and warheads is that it is completely imposible that a 757 could have made the C Ring Exit Hole - period."
"...but you can't cut through the C-Ring brick and rebar wall with anything other than explosives. "
Are both bare assertions, based on your personal speculation. Nonsensical claims have been made by Popular Mechanics and documentaries at various times, this is nothing new.
Based on my own assessment of the evidence, I conclude that it is perfectly possible for a cylinder-shaped avalanche of debris to punch such a hole, and I also conclude there is no physical, chemical or testimonial evidence of either shaped charges or a wall breaching kit.
The article's author is Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer:
But this is not the view of Jim Hoffman, another expert :
Quote of this one: «In this photograph showing debris outside the C-Ring punchout hole, an apparent piece of aircraft debris that does not appear to have been greatly distorted shows a curvature corresponding to the 12-foot diameter of a 757.»
If that is the fuselage of the plane that caused the hole in the C ring, why it is not mentioned in the official report «the pentagon building performance report”? They forgot to mention it? Or they were not authorized to examine the hole in the ring C and in that case why?
See also these videos:
«Mystery Of The Pentagon C Ring Hole»:
Second explosion Pentagon, FOX, 10 10, 9 11 (This explosion comes shortly before the collapse of the damaged section of the Pentagon at 10:15 am) :
Pentagon Reporter Heard Explosion :
Reporter Heard Explosions At The Pentagon :
Pentagon Witness Explosions :
Pentagon Explosions After Plane Hit (In this video an explosion can be heard at approximately 10:14) :
Snow Crash says:
"Based on my own assessment of the evidence, I conclude that it is perfectly possible for a cylinder-shaped avalanche of debris to punch such a hole"
How did you calculate that a cylinder shaped avalanche of debris would be in tact to reach the "C" ring to make such a cylinder shaped hole?
I said "my assessment of the evidence", peacefulwarrior, I didn't say I did calculations. I do however, believe key elements of the Purdue simulation, that is, how structure behaves when it is subjected to tidal wave of disintegrating metal.
Moreover, I'm actually taking steps towards this end, because unlike Craig Ranke, I do believe in the merit of calculations or simulations, provided they are conducted honestly.
Now, what does my assessment of the evidence entail? The cracking, bending and spalling of columns, airplane debris outside of the exit hole, the splatter pattern of the DNA and many discussions on forums on the physics of avalanches and fluid dynamics.
I'm very much interested in calculations, but while a simple calculation that established under what 'avalanche' load a wall would succumb would be interesting, only a full FEA simulation provides some real answers.
Unlike Michael Meyer, I have these supporting facts: airplane debris outside the exit hole, DNA, and one thing, which is quite ironic, IMO:
This is a picture from the other side; note the angular manner in which the hole was punched; consistent with an angular impact.
What kind of 'wall breaching kit' impacts angularly, sprays DNA and airplane debris to the outside, and has no testimonial, physical and chemical evidence, nor calculations to support its existence?
I appreciate your request for calculations though, I 'm interested in that also, but I never claimed to have them, apart from Purdue's, which does lack, because they didn't model the engines, iirc.
I did do other, simple calculations on what I perceive to be an engine imprint:
My conclusion then:
if one really wants to accept that the round imprint is from a 757 engine (personally, I do), then either the calculation or the source data is incorrect, or the plane engine was ripped off due to the impact with the generator. However, a 757 engine does fit the diameter of the round imprint. Furthermore, the imprint is more pronounced in the left edge, indicating impact of an object moving from south west to north east. (right-to-left facing the Pentagon facade)
I think the latter was correct: the plane engine ripped off on impact with the generator. This is also suggested in the PBPR.
Your previous comment "an engine remnant was right in front of your nose. Did you see the small round puncture in the middle of the imprint? Can you correlate that to the deformed cone in the engine disc? I can.
I understand skepticism, but I don't understand selective blindness."
I guess I am missing something here when you say the small round puncture in the middle of the imprint correlating to the deformed cone in the engine disc,,,,,,,,,,would result in a puncture the size of which seems much larger and uniform then a layman might expect?
If an engine of the Boeing 757 had caused the hole in the ring C, it is virtually certain that this fact would be mentioned in «The pentagon building performance report».
This is a straw man argument.
Never, ever, ever, ever did I say an engine caused the exit hole in the C ring. You should have read the link. This is now a discussion about the façade damage.
If someone can demonstrate conclusively that these two images show the same flying object, I would start to believe that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon:
Otherwise I see nothing that confirms that flight 77 hit the pentagon. For example the pictures of explosion in the pentagon have much more chances to correspond to a detonation of explosives than to a detonation of jet fuel. See the picture below and compare this picture with pictures of the aircrafts strikes on the twin towers and with the explosion of a "Bunker Buster":
But if you are sure that a plane hit the pentagon, I suggest you present your proof that a plane hit the pentagon on forums where people can answer you much better than me (I'm only a French forumer). For example this forum:
You must be joking. You are rambling about missiles now. I don't have time for outdated Meyssan rubbish.
Sorry, but this level of deliberate and willful ignorance is just offensive. Merry Christmas.
I exclude that a missile only may be responsible for damage to the Pentagon because only explosives placed in the building can cause damage that will match the shape of an airplane.
On the first floor of the Pentagon, damage appear to be too extensive and there is too little damage to the second-floor slab and above (the second-floor slab is at about 14 ft above the ground) for anything other than explosives placed in the building could have done this work of demolition.
In the case of a real Boeing 757 crash, these damage extended in length, could not be miraculously limited to the low height of the first floor of the pentagon.
ignoring the big picture?
I know that at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, a photo of the engine of the Boeing 757 that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon would have been presented. See:
But at the impact, no crater in the ground and except for perforation having a strangely rectangular form on the second floor, the damage has mainly concerned the 14 feet height of the first floor of the pentagon. It's physically impossible for the crash at a speed of 530 mph for an aircraft having the size of a Boeing 757.
because you plucked that link from here, and/or my photobucket account, where it has been featured for a long time.
(Click on the picture and see the description, I even provide the name of the photographer)
The engine remnant, as you now know, matches a 757. Thanks for the acknowledgement.
I love that photo, which was, iirc, compiled by an Italian with CIT's help, because it demonstrates quite clearly that the hole was, in the words of Frank Legge, "ample to admit a 757".
People often ignore the impact with the generator, btw: no such obstacle course was present for the WTC impact.
It's a pity that we have to go over this stuff time and again. It's simply fact that a plane crashed at the Pentagon!
what I say is the hole is "ample for the heavy parts of a 757". But that is all it has to be as there was plenty of fragmented light parts outside.
The airline pilot Ralph Omholt has done an analysis of the attack on the Pentagon, in particular an analysis of damage to the pentagon. See:
For my part I am not an expert and being French, I speak bad in English. So I would note only one point in this analysis. but there are many other points that should be analyzed.
Comments by Ralph Omholt:
«note that the columns are broken uniquely to one side. Observing the structural continuity; they are broken at the base and displaced to the left - not inward. The face of the columns display nothing to suggest damage or effect of an inward impact force from a supposed 300 Knot wing. The rotation ‘break’ at the top of the columns is clearly to the side, as well.
A closer look, below:
«Note the volume of “out-pouring” of debris from WITHIN the building. That isn’t “impact” damage.»
I think the question being asked is whether one or explosions that start from inside the building could better explain the damage that an impact of airplane wings. There should be examples.
Image (Missile Strike on Slobodan Milosevic's home):
Quote of the link:
«The missile easily penetrated the masonry and exploded in the rooms at the rear, which were completely devastated by the shockwave. Their non-bearing walls collapsed outward completely. These walls were certainly weaker and their collapse provided ample pathways for the outward venting of the pressure peak.»
In the case of a missile strike, as in the case of explosives placed in the building, the explosion may occur inside the building. What can be noticed in this image is not only possible similarity with the rectangular perforation located on the second floor of the Pentagon, but also the column folded on the left of the image.
This image :
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, shows Flight 77 (Pentagon security cameras footage #1)
Below is a real image of this aircraft:
There are technical processes of image analysis that could determine whether these two images really show the same object, see:
First, such a puncture should be elongated due to the angular impact, and second, we're indeed dealing with a cone that widens in diameter from left to right in the picture above.
I don't expect a full correlation between the shape of the object impacting a wall and the outline/shape of the damage signature it leaves behind, but looking at that round imprint, I think it's all awfully close. Moreover, by the time engine hit the wall, it had already impacted the generator... one of the differences between the WTC and the Pentagon impacts is the obstacle course AA 77 burrowed through before impact, including a tree approximately in front of column 14.
There was a tree stump left afterward, but I didn't see a tree on the lawn...because the tree wasn't blown outwards. There is so much evidence of a plane crash.. I really don't need to see the videos anymore to know that. Yet, maybe a video unknown to all of us will suddenly surface... at a convenient time.
I understand, the pentagon is where 911 investigators go to die, it’s a trap. I have no problem with a focus on the towers.
But, let me be clear about my intentions. I am not a shill, or provocateur, I am a father of two kids 7 and 9, still figuring out how to tell them how their government is a lie. I am in continuing shock into the attack on our civil liberties. I am a recovering defense contractor, previously with a Secret Clearance working for two different defense firms. I have a Mechanical Engineering degree, as someone with the google will figure out is the Univ of WI.
Go out and find someone with experience with explosive cutting charges and show them the C-Ring exit hole, just do it. Its OK, I first wrote of the C Ring Exit hole in 2005, and I am still waiting for someone with explosive experience, or an Engineering background to offer an explanation for the C-ring exit hole that that had solid engineering behind it. Only people like you, finding some reason just to throw my first hand experience to the curb.
We all want the truth; just don’t attack those trying to help
I feel your pain. I applaud your honesty and sense and desire for justice.
Are you buddies with J Fetz?
"Only people like you, finding some reason just to throw my first hand experience to the curb."
That is obviously not the intention of snowcrash and others questioning some peoples conclusions here. It appears folks just want to get some evidence to back up your experienced based opinion so it can be presented as fact.
I do not think you are a shill or a provocateur. I just disagree with you.
She claims to see a passenger jet fly into the pentagon. Is she "in on it"?
He claims a he saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon. Claims it was an American Airlines passenger jet. Is he "in on it"?
This guy claims it was a "business jet" does that mean the first two I posted are liars and a missile hit? or it "flew over"? He doesn't speak English either. It's called gathering evidence and interviewing witness. Let's Try using some common sense.
This witness said it was an American Airlines 757. Are they "in on it"?
This guy said he was on a nearby roof, and watched a plane fly into the pentagon. Guess what that means? It didn't fly over it and "fool" everyone. But he must be "in on it" right?
This guy said it was a plane, he didn't describe a silly missile theory, no one did. He must be "in on it".
This guy said an American Airlines Jet hit the pentagon. He saw it. But maybe the reporter told him what to say huh? He "in on it"? Maybe the media faked the videos of the WTC and there were no planes at all on 9-11?
Here is someone that didn't see the plane....OMG! We might have something here! Uh Oh...listen to what she says at the 50 second mark though LOL! She must be an actress huh?
This guy lives in an apartment building on the 16th floor he SAW the flyover! Oh wait...no..sorry... he saw a plane fly into the building like everyone else. No one saw a BS missile no planers made up. No one. This guy is sure it was a Boeing 757 American Airlines Jet so he has to be "in on it"? And he is so stupid he f&*ks up and said he thought it hit the ground just before the pentagon. He should have rehearsed the script right? Or maybe....just maybe he like most witnesses get some minor details wrong. Are we allowed to use some common sense? Or is that a cointel jreffer type disinfo stunt?
These witnesses all have something else in common. They are all getting slandered and harassed online by so called 9-11 truthers who can't face reality and the fact that their silly missile or flyover theories are a f*^king hoax. Get a clue. This is not helpful. It is the opposite of helpful. It's also disgusting.
Here are a bunch more that a member of this very forum has called and talked to.....
And a quick check of the comments to these videos show that so called "truthers" think these ordinary working class Americans are lying operatives. They have to be, or a passenger jet hit the pentagon like all the physical evidence shows. Ordinary working class Americans. The very people we need on our side. Who cares right? Release the Government videos!!! Harassing and accusing these people -- no one does that but so called "truthers". Who is getting "fooled" here? ON 9-11 PLANES FLEW INTO BUILDINGS. No plane at the pentagon is a hoax. Who does it benefit?
I couldn't agree more. With so much eye witness testimony is amazing that folks are still willing to cling to their "beliefs." I think if normal folks who "actually" ascribe to no plane theories would easily change their mind after seeing stacks of vids like these. Just keep watching them till reality sets in! I know how it is having accepted ideas or theories that were false about 9/11 truth. And its hard to let go of them, especially after telling 100's of people. But in the end, we fail if we don't stick with the facts.
There are no grounds for denial. The plane hit the Pentagon. I'm not saying a plane "flew over" the Pentagon, nor am I saying that a missile, an A3 skywarrior with surface to air missiles or a global hawk impacted the Pentagon. I'm not even saying I "don't know" what happened at the Pentagon, because I would be lying. I'm saying a plane hit the Pentagon, and that this accounts for the reams of physical, photographic and testimonial evidence that supports it.
It's unfathomable that there are still truthers out there that buy into CIT's fraud, let alone Thierry Meyssan's anachronistic, fantastic, outlandish missile malarkey. We were asked to "hunt the boeing", and we found it. No excuses.
Snowcrash said...."I'm saying a plane hit the Pentagon"
Indeed it did.
There are things I don't know. What hit the pentagon is not one of them. A passenger jet hit the pentagon.
I don't know if fires from office furniture or Jet Fuel can cause this....
"Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high
temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common
in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are
not common in “normal” interior office dust."
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
Isn't this contradicting NIST when NIST said there was no melted steel? I don't know.
"2.4 Other Particle Types
Many other particle types were observed in WTC Dust including cellulose, wood and others."
Wouldn't the red/gray chips fall under this "others". They should have these chips in their samples. Any idea on what the cost would be for them to do an analysis? I don't know.
"The presence of lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the surface of mineral wool."
I don't know if jet fuel started fires can cause this.
I don't know why President Bush was not impeached and put in prison for interfering with a Congressional Investigation....
"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying." page 19/858
I don't know why this informant who housed some hijackers was then given a $100,000 reward....
"In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset." footnote 197 page 38/141
I don't know why the 9-11 commission didn't put in their report that Bush lied immediately to the American people about his meeting with them....
"I answered every question they asked" --G Bush after meeting with 9-11 Commission (1:55 mark of following video)
"He dodged the questions," said Lehman. page 344
I don't know why Ali Mohamed was never given a prison sentence for setting up the Al Qaeda network. And I don't know why the Government was allowed to ignore the judges order to reveal the deal made with Ali Mohamed.....
I don't know why the Sec of Defense couldn't figure out we were under attack after both towers had been hit...
"Aubrey Davis of the Pentagon police was standing outside Donald Rumsfeld's office on the third floor of the Pentagon's E ring. Inside, Rumsfeld, though aware that the World Trade Center towers in New York had already been hit,
was proceeding with his regularly scheduled CIA briefing. Davis, on the other hand, had concluded from watching TV news that the country was under attack and the pentagon might be a target." Page 1
I don't know how Hani Hanjour seemed to be an excellent pilot on 9-11 when it is well documented he was a horrible pilot....
I have my suspicions about these things. But what I wont say "I don't know" is what hit the pentagon. It was a passenger Jet. I also know there is a hoax being perpetrated and I'm not going to be a part of it. I will instead expose it and those claiming that makes me an agent are suffering from a mental illness called acute paranoia or are simply wanting me to stop exposing the hoax for their own reasons.
air-to-surface missile, not surface-to-air missile.
And thanks, Jim, for the response.
Mainly a deep seated distrust of the official story based on my having learned that there was freefall collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
That and the lack of clear video evidence of an airliner crashing in to the 5 corner building left me suggestible ie more easily led by theories contradicting the official story.
The evidence is there though.
They told the truth then made it look like they lied by not backing it up with a clear video.
This led to our confusion.
One point to the post JFK king pins.
But we can find out the truth.
I hope DRG writes a book putting flyover to bed.
I hope those misled by themselves and by flyover regroup with us.
We need to be polite to them as they are on our side whether or not they think we're disinfo agents =)
Agent Hilton signing out...
check out this thread If he does make a serious about face and denounce the ridiculous CIT junk and his cell phone fakery fraud, I may consider giving him some cred. At this point to me DRG is a huge failure. His debate on democracy spoke volumes for how off point he is. His speech's will put you to sleep before teaching anything. And NOW he is spreading junk. This guy I know was very bright from the get go, so I'm sorry to say, that I'm done with him.
I haven't delved in any deeper (I'm not a super clued up researcher)
anyone got an overview of this?
anyway one of the posts there by EnuffAlready is:
but the air phones issue is different. we have written proof that he was informed of this error - and that he responded with a retraction - in writing - yet he went forward with the same evidence in his new book?
how is that NOT the definition of fraud?
A simple search of this topic will bring up the detailed article from way back in 2007 where Griffin issued the correction that you are referring to, as well as issued a correction for this correction and states the reasons why:
Correcting the Correction
The publication of DRG’s retraction, however, set off a process that has led us to correct this correction, because we discovered three new pieces of evidence supporting the contention that AA 77 did not have onboard phones.
read full article here
You are simply dredging up half the story in order to make baseless accusations against Griffin. He directly addresses your sourced article from February 6, 2002 in his initial correction. You aren't presenting anything that wasn't addressed. He proceeds to explain exactly why that article is not sufficient to prove that the airphones on Flight 77 on 9/11/2001 were functional and lists additional evidence demonstrating that they were not.
Of course all of this ends up being secondary to the information from the Moussaui trial which in essence destroys Ted Olson's credibility on this story anyway:
That conclusion is, in any case, starkly contradicted by evidence about phone calls from Flight 77 presented by the US government at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006. Far from attributing all four of the “connected calls to unknown numbers” to Barbara Olson, as the 9/11 Commission suggested, the government’s evidence here attributes none of them to her, saying instead that each of them was from an “unknown caller.” The only call attributed to Barbara Olson, moreover, is an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” According to the US government in 2006, in other words, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through.29 The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying.
It's really quite amazing that you would attack DRG on this issue thereby defending Ted Olson (the very attorney who won Bush's installation into office in the first place) when all of the details, sourced evidence, and explanation for Griffin's initial claim, the correction, and his correction for the correction are all compiled together in one article on the topic from back in 2007.
It seems as though it is you who has either failed to do any cursory research before leveling accusations of fraud, unless of course you are the fraud who is deliberately misrepresenting the totality of DRG's claims for character assassination purposes.
You were praising me on other threads and now this:
"It's really quite amazing that you would attack DRG on this issue thereby defending Ted Olson (the very attorney who won Bush's installation into office in the first place) when all of the details, sourced evidence, and explanation for Griffin's initial claim, the correction, and his correction for the correction are all compiled together in one article on the topic from back in 2007.
It seems as though it is you who has either failed to do any cursory research before leveling accusations of fraud, unless of course you are the fraud who is deliberately misrepresenting the totality of DRG's claims for character assassination purposes."
Sorry but that thread I posted seems to be quite well responded to by the researchers at truth action. Accusing people of a fraud just for referencing what I thought was a number of straight up reasons that DRG is losing touch with reality. How bout his CIT praising Douglas?
Please read the whole thread I posted a link to in my above quote for Doug is reposting these attack quotes as though they were his own. I think it's pretty clear that DRG's continuing to re-issue bunk information is ugly. I think if DRG's info is bunk, he should be called out for it. If he retracts it, then puts it BACK OUT in other books of his, he should be called on this contradictory behavior as well. Douglas read please the entire thread and the responses to the quotes you picked out before you make me repeat the entire link.
That thread's a bit inconclusive at face value
I haven't delved in any deeper (I'm not a super clued up researcher)
anyone got an overview of this?
anyway one of the posts there by EnuffAlready is:
the rest is a quote written by EnuffAlready on the link you gave me to read
i read every word on the link and decided it was inconclusive as evidenced in EnuffAlready's comment which was some way down the page on the link you gave me
they're not my comments
im not 100% clued up so asking for pointers
here is a clear presentation of what i wanted to communicate after i read every word of the link you posted (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6943)
"That thread's a bit inconclusive at face value
i find it inconclusive eg there is a comment by someone called EnuffAlready near the bottom of the page on your link that goes contrary to the others there so i don't see all the signs pointing one way when i read every word of the link you posted (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6943)"
thanks for the link btw kdub, i think its good to debate and raise topics
i would appreciate more info on this - i dont hold up any one person as a 911TM deity and am open to hear criticism of their work or parts of it
indeed it is refreshing to see that they are open to that too and revise their work accordingly sometimes
please give me more info on this so i can look into it more so i can learn more
i appreciate the words you write on blogger and generally end up voting you up which means i agree with a large proportion of what you say
i wanted to show a quote from a link you gave- i wasnt slamming you on 911blogger - i quoted EnuffAlready slamming JohnA on truthaction, and not in full agreement with EA, just to demonstrate that i felt the link wasn't conclusive for me- it was a mix of opinions and people being emotional
i appreciate facts and though i understand we must have passion, emotion can sometimes keep us from focusing on facts
i come to blogger to learn and look forward to a steady supply of facts - i appreciate 99.9% of kdub snowcrash jimd3100's comments among others and much of jon gold's stuff- you're all good guys, thanks for having me on board
and has kdub/ anyone else got any more info/comment on the subjects mentioned by kdub about DRG? (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-22/new-pentagon-videos-foia-release#c...)
i appreciate all info,
thx kdub and others
Douglas Hilton said..."It's really quite amazing that you would attack DRG on this issue thereby defending Ted Olson"
I defend Ted Olson. He has my sincere condolences. His wife was killed on 9-11 and you DRG and no one else has a shred of evidence he lied about anything. His wife is dead. Try and get that through your head. I don't care if you like his politics or not. Planes flew into buildings on 9-11.He was not the only lawyer involved with the election of 2000. But he's the only one who had a family member die on 9-11. So much for caring about the victims of 9-11 huh?
please read carefully!!
sorry if i have been unclear but i copied and pasted something from a link to try to show a point about the link
has anyone got any more info/comment on the subjects mentioned by kdub about DRG? (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-22/new-pentagon-videos-foia-release#c...)
i appreciate all info,
It was difficult to tell that was from another site. So it was not a quote you made. I think it's best to always provide a link when quoting from another site, in order to be more clear, thanks for the clarification though.
BTW AK Dewdney did a so called experiment with cell phones that DRG always cites. However I also did an experiment my results posted here....
Most of the calls from the planes were from air phones anyway.
Regardless if it was a plane or no plane, survivors reported explosions in the building, even smelled Cordite, and there were most definitely secondary explosions in the building afterwards as well as shown by the following video evidence:
skip to 0:43 in the following video to see the fireball:
is an obsolete replacement for gunpowder, and it is not used in modern explosives. Whatever they were smelling, it wasn't cordite, unless someone was firing a deprecated British gun from WW II. Production completely stopped before 9/11.
It's one of these nagging myths, that one has to play whack-a-mole with constantly.
Secondary explosions? Yeah, absolutely. The generator, gas lines... So what? A plane hit the Pentagon. A pretty big initial explosion ensued. Some more followed. No flyover. No cordite-filled missile, no A3 Skywarrior, no wall breaching kit and no plane shaped sticks of dynamite against the walls that somehow pulled in a tree, a fence and a generator, and caused angular warping, cracking, spalling and severing of spirally reinforced columns.
(And no, the 'columns' CIT says (and IIRC, even the PBPR) were 'up and out' weren't columns, but hanging floor slabs, and they weren't 'up and out', and the fence poles weren't pointing away from the Pentagon initially, they were moved later, presumably by firefighters.)
There was a guy in the second video that said there was no doubt about it, it was an American Airlines that hit the pentagon. No one cares? If he said he'd "bet his life" on it would anyone care?
The subject videos of this blog seem very peculiar in their absence of exposure compensation in many of the inside clips. With the bright sunlight bathing the entrances we would expect openings to appear quite dark from the outside, as they are. But, the moment the camera moves into the shadows it should compensate automatically to the reflected light. We get glimpses of people moving quickly about in the darkness, so we know that they have enough light to walk around without flashlights. Occasionally we see overhead lights, but there is nothing but darkness around them. A vertical pan at 10:38 of the first video shows that the camera has full auto exposure capability. If the camera was equipped with an LCD screen the operator would have been fully aware of what he was capturing at all times. So why would he continue to take extended inside clips if all he was getting was darkness? He clearly thought he was recording much more than is shown. The signature still of the C ring exit hole was taken from the outside and is overexposed, yet there is nothing in the shadows to show for it, not even along the edges. I am also intrigued by the blue filter that appears in many of the clips. Was that a normal camera function, a glitch, or was it an editing artifact? These videos tell us that another video was taken at the same time, apparently by a professional crew. It would be interesting to be able to compare them.
Support Independent Journalism!
9/11 Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support other than from the ads below. We depend on your support. Help us cover the news and improve the site by becoming a monthly donor.