posted on March 5, 2002 03:45:41 AM new
I'm flabbergasted!
What does this do to the official line? These are a series of photographs of the pentagon after a Boeing 757 SUPPOSEDLY was crashed into it--BUT there's no airplane! There's no pieces of airplane - no tail, even.
Not only that, the pictures, derived from an official U.S. army satellite photo site, clearly show that it really isn't possible for that airliner to have hit that building. The initial damage was to the bottom floor ony, and the building is (was) 26 yards high at that point......... The airplane is 14.9 yards high........ it presumably did not taxi up to the building...........well heck! The silly thing don't fit! There are several other questions raised by this little collection of photographs as you see.
Now what does this do to their story? Why would they want an airplane to have hit the building and not, perhaps, a truck bomb? Too many terrorists plots for one day maybe. Or maybe they simply wanted to embellish the storyline in order to artificially give an added boost to the hoped for national fervor?
Do they have to lie?
posted on March 5, 2002 08:36:36 AM new
It's hard to determine what the deal is, because of the limited amount of data and close-ups of the wreakage. From what was shown, it looked like to me that the aircraft actually came in too low, scraped the ground at around 600mph just before the Pentagon. It then broke up and smashed into the building like a scattergun blast. That would account for the sand on the lawn, the size of the impact, the missing pieces of debris, and the tiny width of the hole.
However, it does not explain why the debris was thrown OUTWARDS from the building, instead of a nice, clean hole and all of the debris inside.
My other thought for the reason why they were sanding the lawn was to allow heavy removal equiptment vehicles into there to remove the debris and to make repairs. It was very wet, and as anyone who has lived in the Pacific Northwest knows, you have to add sand first to firm up the footing with sand.
posted on March 5, 2002 09:08:24 AM new
Go back and look at the two enlargements. In the first you can see that there's a large beam or construction section right in the middle of the hole. No airplane hit that.
The grass area later covered with sand and rock was not damaged immediately after the explosion. Were they putting in sand to make it appear to be a trough of the sort left when an airliner impacts?
Where's the fuel? Those things were reported to have been topped up. Have you seen tapes of airliner crashes - the ones they do in safety testing? There's an almost immediate fireball that's huge. Nothing like that occurred in any tape they've shown. In fact, all of the footage showed a relatively benign fire.
Wings? This airliner was supposed to have impacted at a flight speed, yet the damage to the building is shallow and contained within a pretty mall section and there is no sign of any wing strike on either side.
posted on March 5, 2002 09:48:51 AM new
Trouble is too many civilian people reported seeing the plane fly over the nearby highway at near tree top level. It stopped traffic. However I believe what they may be trying to cover up is that there is a weapons system protecting the pentagon.
After they got back in their cars and started back up the people reported driving over a lot of small pieces of debris. These small light pieces of aluminum were not blown clear from the impact zone. I believe they were shredded off the airplane as it approuched and passed over the road because it was under fire.
The pentagon probably has a system similar to the automated gatling guns mounted on navy ships or a system such as I read about being tested for defending aircraft carriers that is a coaxial laser and partical beam weapon that does not fire physical projectiles.
I would bet that when the plane impacted the wall it was a swiss cheesed mass with a lot of the fuel gone and the engines were the biggest masses left in one piece that could penatrate the outer wall.
A 757 is a much bigger mass to try to shoot down than a cruise missle or a fighter plane.
I would bet that the sand and gravel was spread to cover up either a large amount of droplets of molten aluminum from the plane or debris such as depleted uranium from the weapons system.
I am also betting that if you researched the path along which the plane came in you would find either a debris field from the pieces shed off the plane as it came in or if it is a system that shoots physical bullets the rounds that when through or missed the plane.
There were numerous reports that ANOTHER plane following pulled up in a sharp climbing left hand turn and departed. If they were using a two plane strike like they did in New York the second plane could have broken off their approuch because of seeing or even talking to the first plane as it came under fire and broke up in the last few hundred yards before impact. I'd like to research if the plane that went down it PA could have reached the pentagon and PA from the time we know it departed and crashed.
I also can not believe the damage is consistant with a fully loaded 757 impacting. However I can believe the damage is consistant with a couple engines and the light remains of a shredded or vaporized plane hitting.
posted on March 5, 2002 09:55:53 AM new
Right. And what happened to all the people that were on that jetliner? Yup, they're all in "protective" custody in those secret government "camps". They're not really dead. Nosiree! And all the eyewitnesses who SAW the Boeing crash had all been given hallucinatory drugs by secret "government agents". It was all a hoax.
posted on March 5, 2002 10:16:53 AM new
Katy - If you read my idea carefully you will note it does not leave such a huge problem to explain. It did crash / the people were on board / it just did not do as much damage because it was badly shot up before impact.
If they have such a defensive system it is just the normal way the military operates to make evey effort to keep it secret from us peons even if ever other government and bad guy in the world knows about it.
posted on March 5, 2002 11:31:36 AM new
The reason it didn't do as much damage is because of the strength of the building it hit. The Pentagon isn't your average office building, it was built as an armored fortress. It has layer upon layer of reinforced concrete walls, and the govt was in the process of adding extra reinforcing. The part of the building that was hit had already received this extra reinforcing.
The plane that hit it wasn't built as a guided missle. The only reason the WTC towers fell was heat from fet fuel burning, not the impact. If you look at the film from the WTC attacks, the planes were shredded to pieces after entering the towers. The WTC towers were not built as heavily as the Pentagon.
But even IF the govt had a defensive system at the Pentagon, that's fine. I don't need to know about it, unless I'm planning an attack.
posted on March 5, 2002 11:46:08 AM new
The day it happened I heard too many eyewitness reports to believe it was anything other than an airplane. They said it went in sideways, like a hatchet.Can't account for why the wings wouldn't have done more damage. Some of the pictures shown in that montage that they say are the area of impact clearly are not.They are of a different part of the building not the area of impact you can tell by the other pictures of the front of the burning building where they were taken and it was further away from the impact zone but also where the building was on fire.
Now, I am as good a conspiracy theorist as the next person but I don't see it here. Good try on their part though.
posted on March 5, 2002 02:47:31 PM new
"There's a section of text at the end in black on black."
I didn't see anything black at the end. Tried highlighting the large white patch adjacent to the last picture. Nothing there.
I don't know enough about the way airplanes break apart to comment upon the *seeming* anomalies discussed on this website. Gravid's opinion sounds possible.
The following is (part of) eye-witness Terry Morin's account of the Pentagon crash:
The Attack
I had just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO/Federal Office Building (FOB) #2 – call it approximately 9:36 AM. I was already trying to make some sense out of the World Trade Tower attacks having heard about them on the radio. The news was sketchy, but the fact that it was a terrorist attack was already known. I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.
Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.
posted on March 5, 2002 05:48:42 PM new
Gravid, well, what do you know? Good to see you.
Katy, back under your rock.
Does everyone see the last section titled "How did you do?" with it's following text? For my browser it's black on black and reads:
"
Did you find the Boeing? Can you still defend the official version of events?
> Well done! Remember to get in touch with master of illusion, David Copperfield. He'll be
glad to hear from you!
You found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing, for example):
> If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt,
you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask
yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start
asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal!
Source: www.reseauvoltaire.net - The photographs are official images and available on US
army sites. See also the larger collection of photographs in our "Pièces à conviction" gallery -
Translation: Mr Sly - NB: Appearing on bookshelves end of March, the investigation by the
Chair of the Réseau Voltaire into the September 11 attacks, examining the Bin Laden
networks and American secret service involvement.
Asile utopique - www.asile.org
Version simple en cas de problème d'affichage
posted on March 5, 2002 06:47:20 PM new
Oh that! It showed up as white text on black background for me. I thought there was something much more nefarious to look for.
posted on March 5, 2002 10:20:31 PM new
I've read some keen analysis in this thread. I hesitate to make any conclusions without looking at all of the facts for myself; or, to read someone's article in a mainstream media report that has done the footwork for me. I prefer the former to the latter, of course. Until then, the idea that the plane was shot down by some means and the engine fell off and crashed into the Pentagon makes the most sense to the limited facts and me.
The reasons for this are that a long enough time had expired between the second hit at the WTC and the Pentagon. Certainly, when such an alert goes up, the Pentagon would be on full alert status along with everything else in Washington D.C.
The other reason for agreeing with this conclusion from you all is that I could see smashing into the WTC, but the Pentagon? I never could understand why the Pentagon would be a target. The White House & Bush makes much more sense: a high-level building of very great importance to Americans - one of the symbols of America best know artifice around the world (even pygmies in the Congo could tell you that the White House was America). The WTC was chosen for its important symbol of economic strength and wealth in America, and Osama admitted on video that the WTC collapse was totally a surprise to him. It was enough for him just to have a jet fully loaded with fuel slam into the WTC. That was his version of a Cruise Missile. And shoving an Osama-home-made "Cruise Missile" up Bush's ass was something to be cherished throughout the world. What a statement that would have made!
However it may be that the jetliner got shot down - fighter jet or laser/particle gun/phalanx, it is clear to me that Osama had the White House in mind (little did he realize how often the GOP farms Bush out to read a children's book to kindergartners, or he might have picked a different symbol).
posted on March 6, 2002 12:11:47 AM new
I did too click on the links.
I saw a lot of French that I could not read and a lot of pictures. I noted that when they superimposed a plane image going into the Pentagon it was flying horizontally. Everything I read and heard that day was that the plane went in sideways,wings vertical to the ground. The damage would be more consistant with what is seen in the pictures if that is true. I also noted that the damage extended to the E ring which is the innermost ring of the structure. That would make it seem to be more than just an engine falling into the Pentagon. I believe the aircraft did go into the building, sideways as was stated that day.
It still could have been shot down but I do not believe it was anything other than a plane.
edited to add that in all the pictures shown [following the links ]of the days following Sept 11 the area in front of the damage, the area where they sanded later on was ruined from all the trucks and equipment used in the rescues . They had every reason to reconstruct the area where the grass had been....and Borillar is correct about the water damage.
posted on March 6, 2002 02:17:03 AM new
"...the plane was shot down and they're afraid to admit to doing it."
Uh, what's your point, Ken? This particular administration is not exactly known for its forthrightness (heck, Baby Bush is trying to hide his papers in Pappy's upcoming presidential library, or something) so what does/would it mean to you if you unearthed concrete proof that the Pentagon Attack (for lack of a better term) was somehow ameliorated (for lack of a better term) by U.S. fire?
There was much talk (and there are probably one hundred websites) alluding to the possibility that Flight 93, which crashed in PA, was shot down by the U.S. I've always been inclined to believe that's true, given the timeframe (WTC and the Pentagon had already been hit) but I have considered the valor of the passengers aboard that flight -- who knew they were doomed and chose to do something about it, and said as much to their spouses and parents on cellphones -- far more important than the absolute "truth" of the (tragic) matter. It *works* for me if they died as heroes (thwarting the plane's ultimate destination of destruction) and it *works* for me if their kids and siblings go through life believing that they acted with uncommon honor and changed that plane's flightpath.
While *we* (U.S. government) may be reluctant to announce that we did, indeed, shoot down that plane AND the plane that hit the Pentagon, I don't see anything except compassion at work here. No one wants to learn that their loved one has been felled by "friendly fire", especially when that loved one has declared his or her willingness to give their life intervening for the benefit of others.
posted on March 6, 2002 04:37:24 AM new
Oh, I'm sure happy to hear that you have an answer that "works for me" for your sake, pat, concerning an episode unrelated to this one, and I'm sure that your motherly compassion will be appreciated by all. But in this case where is the closure for the victim's relations if they cannot be sure where their loved ones lie, or how they came to pass? I do not think that it's possible that the plane could have hit the pentagon going "sideways" wing down without damage to terrian before the impact, and with the minimal damage to the structure itself I do not find sufficient area for the lying on of grieving wreaths by those who care about those aboard.
posted on March 6, 2002 11:33:40 AM new
OK. Say it was just the engine that hit the Pentagon. Wouldn't someone have seen [and mentioned] the body of the plane going into the water if that were what happened? Why would they even bother to cover a thing like that up? Shot down,not shot down, the aircrafts operators were up to no good.The plane and the travelers were doomed.
posted on March 6, 2002 11:36:46 AM new
Forgot this.
If there was a second plane that pulled up and flew off after the other one went down..where did it go? Who was on it?No cell phones on that one,no calls to loved ones? The skys were empty by then and that plane could not just disappear would it?
OR was the second plane supposed to be one of "ours" that shot the other down?
I don't think I am understanding this theory very well.
posted on March 6, 2002 12:29:09 PM new
"But in this case where is the closure for the victim's relations if they cannot be sure where their loved ones lie, or how they came to pass?"
Have you got so much as a shred of information that any of the people affected (family, friends, co-workers) are unsettled about this?
posted on March 6, 2002 03:50:41 PM new
And you have any that they are not? No, of course you don't. But lingering doubts will arise unless they are all a bunch of ignoramuses because, as you have said, questions are being asked. Any doubt that may arise within them, or rather even one of them will not be resolved by a deceit nor by a lack of information and would be prevented by a lingering question. So, forthrightfulness should be the first order of business for all that have knowledge and the fact that "This particular administration is not exactly known for its forthrightness" would not go far as salve in settling the feelings of any bereaved person involved.
posted on March 7, 2002 04:18:07 PM new
CNN has a sequence of security camera frames showing the fireball. The first frame shows nothing at all - there is a light area right where the fireball will erupt that is not recognizable as a plane or anything. I tried blowing it up 200% then 300%, and sharpening it slightly but it did not help. If anyone can manupulate the frame better than me I would love to see you post it.
posted on March 7, 2002 05:13:38 PM new
Here's an interesting side-trip to take regarding all the planes that crashed on 9/11. The following are excerpts; you can read the entire piece here.
Copyright, Gary North, Reality Check, 2001.
I began with American Airlines, Flight 11. This was the plane that crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. I began with the list of passengers. This was not difficult. The passenger lists for all four planes are posted on CNN's Website. Click on the link. This is a long link for the formatting of my newsletter. If it is broken on your screen, you will have to paste it into your Web browser's address box. This will take two steps.
The CNN page says that there were 92 people on board. I suggest that you print out the list. Part of my exercise was to count the names of the passengers. Besides, you never know when a Web page will disappear. Do you have the print-out in front of you? Count the names. I get 86 names, including the crew. But the CNN page says 92 people were on board. None of the 86 names is an Arab name. This is very, very strange. First, how did the CNN list-compiler know that there were 92 people on board? Five of them are not listed. Second, how did anyone get on board who was not on the list of ticketed passengers? To get onto the flight legally, each passenger had to have a ticket with his or her name on it. Each passenger had to present a photo ID to the check-in agent. The check-in agent was supposed to look at the picture and the person, and then make a judgment. Was it the same person? If the mandated procedure was followed, the check-in agent decided that the ticket's name, the photo ID's name, the photo, and the ID-holder's face all matched. If there was any doubt, the check-in agent was supposed to ask for some other form of identification. If there was none, the person was not allowed to board the plane. We are told by the United States government that five Arabs somehow got through this initial screening procedure. How did they do this? This is puzzle number one regarding Flight 11.
Puzzle number two has to do with the incomplete passenger list. Airlines keep a list of passengers on board. This is for insurance purposes, should there be a crash. It is also for the purpose of notifying relatives after a crash. It is also for the purpose of in-cabin screening. "Has everyone paid who is on the plane?" And, finally, is there a hijacker on board? On American Airlines Flight 11, there were no Arab names on the passenger list. So, how does the government know who the hijackers were?
Why does CNN's Web page list 92 dead, when there are only 86 name listed? Who was the non-Arab? I have seen nothing about government accusations against American Airlines for substandard check-in security procedures. In fact, I have seen nothing about the discrepancy between the published names and the published numbers regarding how many people were on board.
Let's go to American Airlines Flight 77. This plane crashed into the Pentagon.
We are told that 64 people were on board. I count 56, including 6 crew members. There is no explanation offered for the absence of 8 names. There is no Arab name on this list. Something is definitely wrong here.
What about United Airlines? Did the company's employees follow the same check-in procedure? Presumably, they did. I checked Flight 175, which crashed into the south tower.
There were 56 people on board, according to CNN's summation. I printed out the list. I counted the names. Once again, they don't add up. The summation says there were 2 pilots, 7 flight attendants, and 56 passengers. I counted the names. The total is 56 -- the number attributed to the passengers. Nine names are missing. None of the listed names is Arab.
This leaves United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. It had 45 people on board, according to the summation.
Again, there is a discrepancy. Only 33 names appear on the list. A dozen names are missing. Among the missing names are the four Arabs who allegedly hijacked the plane.
So, the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board.
I would also like to see passenger lists that include every passenger's name. I want to see 19 Arab names on these complete lists. If these updated lists are ever released, I want to see that they match the original lists that were not released immediately. I want to know that any new names have not been added retroactively. I want evidence -- from travel agencies' records and credit card records -- that everyone on each plane's updated passenger list actually bought a ticket. Is this too much to ask?
posted on March 7, 2002 08:36:55 PM new
I determined the actual situation by watching Nicole sullivan and friends, Her sidekick Ms Swan was interviewed for a federal air protector position by the bush administration,
I asked her in the interview what terrorist number one looked like she told me that ''he look like a man,
I asked her what terrorist number 2 looked like she told me ''he look zackly like a man,
I asked her what terrorist number three looked like she told me that ''he was a man,
I asked her what terrorist number four looked like she told me that ''he was just like a man,''
posted on March 7, 2002 09:37:17 PM new
Today (for some reason) the government releases a sequence of photographs or a tape which they say show the airplace hitting the pentagon. The tape is supposed to span a time period of some 4/10 of a second. I watched this rhing repeatedly, and no stretch of imagination allows me to discern an airplane.
posted on March 7, 2002 11:35:08 PM new
"Airline employees. They fly free and don't need to appear on public lists because they are on company lists."
That is probably the solution to part of the numbers discrepancy, Ken, but still doesn't account for the absence of the hijackers' names (or the aliases they used to legally board the planes) on the passenger lists.
"Today (for some reason) the government releases a sequence of photographs or a tape which they say show the airplace hitting the pentagon."
Wait for a CIA-produced animation of the Pentagon crash, similar in scope and truth to that cartoon they released to "explain" the downing of TWA 800.
It showed up as white text on black background for me. I thought there was something much more nefarious to look for.