Why Pentagon damage is incompatible with a missile attack
Henry62 Sat, 05/10/2008 - 2:02pm
Hi guys,
I wrote an article about the Pentagon damage and why this damage in incompatible with a missile attack.
This is the link:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-pentagon-damage-is-incompatible.html
Thanks, best wishes,
Enrico (Henry62)
- Henry62's blog
- Login to post comments
Your comment at the end...
...about the plane that crashed into the sea is disingenuous because Itavia I-TIGI was exploded either by a bomb or missile (no one knows) and that damage was not caused by crashing into the sea. In any case, my question to you regards the color of the fireball we have all seen in those four pictures released by the Pentagon. The color of the explosion's fireball is inconstant with an explosion of jet fuel and in fact its bright orange color is consistant with the color of missile explosions. How do you reconcile the color of the fireball with your theory?
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence
Hi Knowar, nobody knows if
Hi Knowar,
nobody knows if Itavia I-TIGI plane was destroyed by a structural collapse or by a bomb/missile, because after many years and some trials nobody got sure of an explosion.
I know that some complete bodies of passengers were found by rescue helicopters on the sea surface and these bodies couldn't be killed by an explosion.
We have no proofs about an explosion, but we are sure that Itavia debris were found in deep sea and recovered to study the real situation of the plane; after several trials and many years, the relict of I-TIGI is in Bologna museum and we can see it.
I hope that in the future also AA77 debris could be avaiable to clear every remaining doubt about AA77 crash against the Pentagon.
Thanks and bye,
Enrico (Henry62)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
Actually...
...we are quite sure there was an explosion we just don't know if it was from an onboard explosive device or a missile. I would love to see your research showing that we are not sure it was even an explosion. All the research I have seen states quite the opposite. It was definitely an explosion.
But that is besides the point. You still didn't answer my question. How can you explain the bright orange color of the fireball at the Pentagon? Without an explanation your whole theory is called into question.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence
Hi Knowar, I think you could
Hi Knowar,
I think you could have a look at this article:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/03/il-secondo-scoppio-al-pentagono...
I think your question about the color of the fireball is inconsistent, because we have only the video captured by a tvcc camera.
This type of camera has a ccd that is quickly saturated by red-orange radiation, therefore we cannot discuss about the real color of fireball.
Thanks,
best wishes,
Enrico (Henry62)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
Missile attack
I started to read this but gave up quickly because I saw no answers to the questions that have been raised over and over again.
I suggest that the author take David Griffin as a point of departure and try to make as much sense as he does. A missile is still the best hypothesis. At any rate, we know it was not Flight 77.
Hi Michael Morrisey, tell me
Hi Michael Morrisey,
tell me why you think so; have you seen any error in my article?
I speak about what I can see in videos, in images, in official reports and what I see is that missile attack is only a fake theory.
Sorry, but I think you should demonstrate I 'm in error.
I repeat, did you see any error in my article?
Thanks,
bye,
Enrico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
...
Henry, its hard to take any of your words serious after having a look at this flat-earth-WTC7 article on your website:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-phot...
which mixes the usual debunker crap with outright lies.
a couple of examples, so that peple dont have to bother visiting the above link:
"Several pieces of photographic and video evidence of the damage to the south face of WTC7, the well-known third skyscraper of the World Trade Center that collapsed on 9/11 despite not being hit directly by an aircraft, have recently emerged."
Well-known?
"The collapse of Building 7 was the subject of video manipulation from the outset, leading to the common (but flawed) opinion, among conspiracy theorists, that such a collapse could only be caused by a controlled demolition."
"The video of the collapse, or rather, the video that shows only the final part of the collapse, i.e., when the building collapses vertically, almost within its own footprint, after forming a kink near the southwest wing ...There are other videos, taken from different angles, which clearly show that the collapse was not limited to what that video shows, but developed in a far more complex way. Most importantly, the collapse time is longer."
pathetic
Hi em7,could tell me which
Hi em7,
could tell me which lies you refer, please?
It's too easy to define "pathetic" without giving proofs of fake images or lies.
Bye,
enrico
-----------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
...
heres an example:
"The initial opinion of a professional in the demolition field, who without knowing any of the facts and merely after viewing a single video (as discussed later), said that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not. He then corrected his guess as soon as he realized that the building was on fire, had not been set up for demolition, and had collapsed on the same day as the Twin Towers in the same attack after being hit by the debris of the North Tower. In his subsequent clarification, which unsurprisingly has not circulated as widely as his initial statement"
-> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4
Apart from that, the whole 'but look, the south side was damaged' explanation is laughable at best.
So is this one: "There are other videos, taken from different angles, which clearly show that the collapse was not limited to what that video shows, but developed in a far more complex way."
its really not worth any time speculating whether the earth is flat or not. Been there etc..
Dear em7, you are talking
Dear em7,
you are talking about your personal opinions, not about real facts.
Do you really think the South facade of WTC7 had no damage?
Therefore, in your opinion, the Aman Zafar photos are fake and also the ABC video is a fake video?
Thanks,
Henry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
...
its not my 'personal opinion' that the text on your site contains a lie about Jowenko having retracted his statement.
its a fact. what are you going to do about it?
about the south-side damage: you know just as well as i do that i did not say that the images are faked or that there was no damage, but that damage on one side of the building certainly is no explanation for a full and symetrical collapse in near freefall speed.
bye
em7, where did I write Mr.
em7,
where did I write Mr. Jovenko RETRACTED his opinion?
I wrote:
"The initial opinion of a professional in the demolition field, who without knowing any of the facts and merely after viewing a single video (as discussed later), said that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not. He then corrected his guess as soon as he realized that the building was on fire, had not been set up for demolition, and had collapsed on the same day as the Twin Towers in the same attack after being hit by the debris of the North Tower. In his subsequent clarification, which unsurprisingly has not circulated as widely as his initial statement, this professional pointed out that the collapse begins at the bottom in WTC7 but at the top downward in the Twin Towers. The two kinds of collapse are certainly different: I believe this is beyond question and self-evident, and it doesn't take a demolition expert to say so. The nature of the collapse, instead, cannot be discussed as confidently and certainly cannot be determined just by looking at a few seconds of video."
This is exactly what happened, where is the lie?
Henry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
uh
"He then corrected his guess as soon as he realized that the building was on fire, had not been set up for demolition, and had collapsed on the same day as the Twin Towers in the same attack after being hit by the debris of the North Tower"
-> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4
So, no, its not 'exactly' what happend.
Em7, look at the original
Em7,
look at the original interview of Danny Jovenko and then read what I wrote.
It's exactly what happened.
Bye,
Henry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
Another view
Hello Henry,
have you read my fairly widely linked analysis of WTC 7? It can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Your comments could be useful.
Btw, to my knowledge Jowenko has not retracted, but on the contrary reaffirmed his intial view of WTC 7. My page has a link to another page of mine, listing people with demolition expertise who question the official explanation (see the links section up on the right). Check it out!
I agree that the missile theory is problematic, not least because it diverts attention from the more important question of why *anything* was able to hit the Pentagon 35 minutes after the second tower had already been hit, while the Andrews Air Force Base was just 15 miles away from the Pentagon (a 2-minute flight away).
Hi Vesa,thank you for your
Hi Vesa,
thank you for your link.
It's a good article, but the video "Seven is exploding" it's a fake.
Nobody said "Seven is exploding", but someone said "Shit is exploding" or perhaps "City is exploding".
Bye,
Henry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my 9/11 blog:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
"Seven is exploding"
Actually, I recently finished "Finnishing" (translating into Finnish) the "Seven is exploding" clip, and as I wasn't able to hear that precise phrase, I left it out.
However, there's this police official who clearly says "That building is about to blow up, moving back". He actually uses the verb "blow up" twice. Also, you can hear several explosions, including in the telephone scene, after which someone may be saying "Shit is exploding" or "Seven is exploding" - I can't make it out, no matter how hard I try.
Of course, the cause of building 7's destruction could have been determined by actually investigating its debris. The fact that this was not done speaks volumes.
Dear Henry...
After reviewing your site I have to agree with the other criticisms here, you may be posting on the wrong site.
Thanks for not making a spectacle of yourself, you could have gone down in flames had you chosen to do so.
I won't delete your blog here, but you should probably find a more hospitable climate for posting your "debunking" work.
Thank you.
-rep.
P.s. One thing you should consider, is that the NIST "corner damage" photos could very well be photo-shopped. It sure looks that way to me. I challenge you to obtain the original digital captures with intact EXIF data to prove me wrong.