IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
April Gallop Sues American Airlines, But Claims There Was No Plane?, April Gallop Set to go to court again, but should she be supported?

23investigator
post Jul 6 2011, 09:18 AM
Post #61





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2011, 08:32 AM) *
Here are a couple more tit2


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
http://patriotsquestion911.com/




Bob Pugh – Pentagon eyewitness. Freelance video and still photographer




<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/93rTlfo8dZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K9kOWBw1e4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Dear onesliceshort

Thankyou for the two videos you have provided.

The second of which I must bring to your attention.

It contains much clearer and more substantive information of what was raised in the 23investigator video placed on Youtube which demonstrated the consideration of a 'jet engine' having impacted the back of the fire truck by the heliport building.
At 4.31 --4.36 in the video you have provided it is very clear that an object is being dragged away from the proximity of the firetruck towards the Pentagon building.
Another large component is static in front of the object being dragged away.

At 2.14 --2.35 it can be seen that there are some objects -seriously on fire-- to the immediate right side of the firetruck at the rear, where damage to the firetruck was subsequently revealed in other photographs.

The amount of debris in this area, some of it quite large in size, is quite apparent.

There is no doubt from the 'frantic' actions of those removing the objects (jet engine), and quite likely parts of 'airframe', was because the people doing it, did not want the evidence to be able to be considered.
Much more priority given to this than rescuing people!!!!

With respect, it is this aircraft people should be giving consideration too, it fits so many of the other conditions, could easily have slipped under every bodies guard, especially people focusing on a Boeing 757 who no doubt heard and saw that aircraft .

People on this forum have suggested that what debris was present was 'planted', or caused to be, by exploding some device at the building to spread it around.
If so --which cannot be accepted--.
Why then expend such energies and urgency to remove it from the scene???

Which then raises the most 'criminal intent'.
If the aircraft --Boeing 757-- flew over the top of the building, and an aircraft splattered all over the place to the north of the apparent impact point.
What the people in the building heard, was either a land launched, --or as it seems the more the likely--, an 'air launched' explosive projectile or projectiles.

Arguing whether an aircraft, that is considered it seems by a lot of people on this forum, flew over the building, could be heard or not, seems somewhat academic, to the reality, that something most definitely exploded inside the building.
The flight path of the aircraft that it is considered flew over the building does not support the possibility of it having launched projectiles into the building, --at least not in a direct straight path-- .

So what did???

With respect, this is the question that every body should be concentrating upon.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 6 2011, 03:29 PM
Post #62





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Robert

I'm not quite sure of the specifics of your question, "what did?" What did the flyby if there was one, or what struck the building, if it was struck? My bet is that the bulk of the damage done there was by planted HE.

But I look at the events of the day from the perspective of if I personally were planning the events, what would be the best way to carry them out, all things considered.

For the Pentagon, my hunch is that some sort of flying object hit there, but I don't know what. That is heresy in some circles, but it's just my hunch. Only because of the debris inside--some landing gear components and some engine components. If they were real and not planted, then it's likely that some aircraft did strike, but not a 757.

When I first started visiting Pilots4Truth, some were speculating that perhaps an old Douglas A3 might have been used. I think perhaps an ALCM or even SLCM might have been used, but neither of them have landing gear. From a planning perspective, it seems fairly easy to get some kind of drone type aircraft to hit the electronic bullseye that might have been on the wall of the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 8 2011, 04:18 AM
Post #63





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 7 2011, 04:59 AM) *
Robert

I'm not quite sure of the specifics of your question, "what did?" What did the flyby if there was one, or what struck the building, if it was struck? My bet is that the bulk of the damage done there was by planted HE.

But I look at the events of the day from the perspective of if I personally were planning the events, what would be the best way to carry them out, all things considered.

For the Pentagon, my hunch is that some sort of flying object hit there, but I don't know what. That is heresy in some circles, but it's just my hunch. Only because of the debris inside--some landing gear components and some engine components. If they were real and not planted, then it's likely that some aircraft did strike, but not a 757.

When I first started visiting Pilots4Truth, some were speculating that perhaps an old Douglas A3 might have been used. I think perhaps an ALCM or even SLCM might have been used, but neither of them have landing gear. From a planning perspective, it seems fairly easy to get some kind of drone type aircraft to hit the electronic bullseye that might have been on the wall of the Pentagon.


Dear amazed.

The "what did" relates to what caused the explosion /s inside the Pentagon building.

As aircraft were the 'theme of the day", the natural inclination seems to be that the explosion and damage inside the building was caused by an aircraft.
Especially so in the 'general mind' considering the emphasis given that two separate aircraft caused the explosions and damage in the two WTC towers.

Even there, if carefully considered, there appear to be two distinctly different types of explosion involved in each of the towers.

There certainly appears to be two separtate type of explosion in the case of the Pentagon building too.

The distinct possibility is that the first explosion evident in all instance --Towers and Pentagon building-- was as result of some sort of explosive device associated with the aircraft involved, most likely projected from it, which is well within the capabilities of technology of our time, whether -man triggered-- or some form of proximity triggering device.

Not to say that there could not have been other planted explosives waiting to join into the 'act'.

What is considered in respect to the Pentagon situation is that the said Boeing 757, did not have a direct involvement in the explosion situation, that is 'physically involved', but it would have had some involvement, or otherwise it would not have been there at such a coincident time.

Considering the activity in 'intense decontamination' that took place after the explosions, that in itself should raise suspicion, even to those who may want to consider that the Boeing 757 did impact the building.

For such concern, it would have required the 'hijackers' to have taken some pretty nasty stuff aboard the aircraft, 'explosive stuff', or for the aircraft to have been preconditioned with such explosive material.

The evidence is strongly against the immediate above circumstance.

So what carried, and projected explosive material into the Pentagon building.

That is the question.

Robert


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 8 2011, 10:11 AM
Post #64



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Just to approach this from a different angle guys..

1. is this the same "flying object" that the witnesses (NOC) described?

2. if it is, how did they manage to ensure the complete "penetration" of the facade?

3. how did they manage to dissolve (literally) an entire aircraft within 40-60ft of said "penetration" (I mean, totally unscathed columns)?

4. how did they manage to "penetrate" the first floor in a low level trajectory given the obstacles that immediately preceded the facade right up to @400ft from the facade which would have required an immediate descent and pull-up within a fraction of a second? How did they avoid leaving debris on the lawn on a downward trajectory?

5. how could they launch anything from the aircraft on the witnessed trajectory and cause the damage in the opposite direction?

6. if something was launched from anywhere other than the aircraft, where from? How did they overcome the steep incline that precedes the lawn? I know there are "ground hugging" devices, but one that "knows" when to pull up?

7. if the claim is that explosives were used to help with the "desintegration", why are there no craters of any kind? how did people in the immediate vicinity survive unscathed? how would any penetration have been successful?

8. how did they control a "missile" launched from outside the building to stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed when it inevitably "emerged"?

I have links and images to ack the above up if you want.

Those are just some of the questions I've asked myself when looking at the possibilities (and I have honestly looked into them all with the information we have - I used to believe in the "missile theory). I have my own theories as to how they carved out the damage but that's all they are at the minute. Theories.

I know for a fact that they knew the weaknesses and strengths of the newly renovated section.
I know for a fact that they even knew what effects blasts of different kinds would have on the building.
I know for a fact that the same guy who helped with the military "advice" on securing the Renovation Project also had access to a program that was designed to show the effects of blast damage on the building.
I know for a fact that it wasn't Hani Hanjur.
I know for a fact that it wasn't Flight 77.
I know for a fact that nobody described the OCT path nor manouevre.
I know for a fact that the aircraft exceeded its VMO.
I know for a fact that the ASCE Report falls on its ass (much more than NIST) and admits that it can't explain what happened to the extremities of the alleged aircraft (and repeatedly contradicts itself)
I know for a fact that no parts have ever been identified.
I know for a fact that they let the Pentagon burn.
I know for a fact that the aircraft flew NOC.

The question you have to ask yourself is why there was no concentrated effort to attack the "missile" theories up until the NOC testimony was stumbled upon. Why would certain so-called "leaders" of "9/11 Truth" openly expose themselves as liars and frauds? Openly fraternize and work with their alleged "enemy" duhbunker friends? Send never ending drones pretending to be "truthers" to be continually exposed? Trip over themselves in the rush in 2006 (when the missile theory was at its peak), to try and cover their tracks when the NOC witnesses were coming to light? A right wing, psyop run "Judicial Watch" on the Alex Jones Show, no less, spearheading the "Pentagon is a Honeytrap" campaign with the alleged FOIA Citgo footage under their arm? Openly manipulating the Citgo footage itself (which was released within weeks of the discovery of Robert Turcios). The emergence of disinfo bloggers "Arabesque", "Adam Larson, John Farmer (for Christ's sake lol) among many others.

Hope you read this far Amazed, I know you love long posts lol.

Peace

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 8 2011, 01:03 PM
Post #65


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Well I read it all slice. Great post!

I'm not going to bother with the missile/drone huggers. The fantasy has a stranglehold on them. I can only surmise that they don't want to let go or admit they were wrong because they went around telling everyone they know what happened at the pentagon. Now its a matter of not being able to admit they were wrong.

The sad part is all of your excellent questions won't even jump start their critical thinking skills.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 8 2011, 02:26 PM
Post #66





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes OSS, I made it that far. rolleyes.gif

Gosh, and now I discover I'm a missle/drone hugger! Oh, the cruelty!

But I'm used to playing the heretic/iconoclast role--sometimes it's fun.

I don't know there was a flying object that penetrated the building, but I do suspect that, only because of the presence of assorted engine pieces and landing gear pieces. I am totally open to the possibility that somebody placed those pieces there, but so far nobody has provided evidence either way, at least as far as I know.

And just for the record, I've not made any claims here that I know it all.

And just for the record I'm convinced CIT has proved that the path was NOC, and that somebody made a low pass in a Boeing.

In an effort to throw my 2 cents into answering some of the questions posed by OSS:

1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.

When I first visited PFT, there was a thread somewhere claiming that some guys at a shop somewhere in Colorado, like Jeffco, had been paid to modify an A-3. Maybe it was just a planted thread, and a planted story, but I do remember reading it, having spent some time in Denver and Jeffco.

2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.
3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.
4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.
5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.
6. Ditto #4
7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.
8. No opinion.


Robert

Humans, explosive experts with military experience, I suspect, carried and placed the explosives into the building. It is an artform, you know, to work with explosives over many years experience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 8 2011, 05:47 PM
Post #67



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 8 2011, 07:26 PM) *
Yes OSS, I made it that far. rolleyes.gif

Gosh, and now I discover I'm a missle/drone hugger! Oh, the cruelty!

But I'm used to playing the heretic/iconoclast role--sometimes it's fun.

I don't know there was a flying object that penetrated the building, but I do suspect that, only because of the presence of assorted engine pieces and landing gear pieces. I am totally open to the possibility that somebody placed those pieces there, but so far nobody has provided evidence either way, at least as far as I know.


We could go round in circles with this one, but simply put, the trajectory witnessed makes "impact" by any flying object impossible.

QUOTE
And just for the record, I've not made any claims here that I know it all.


I never even insinuated that!

QUOTE
And just for the record I'm convinced CIT has proved that the path was NOC, and that somebody made a low pass in a Boeing.


Agreed. Though I'm totally open the the very real possibility that it was a "souped up" or modified aircraft disguised as a "Boeing".

QUOTE (Amazed!)
In an effort to throw my 2 cents into answering some of the questions posed by OSS:

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
1. is this the same "flying object" that the witnesses (NOC) described?


1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.


These witnesses?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2414255

You don't think that the fact that people from much further away who claimed to see a "commuter plane/small plane" don't corraborate with witnesses who saw it right over their heads or coming towards them might lead to only one conclusion?

One of them, Steve Patterson, (who can't be found) made 3 totally contradictory claims. That the aircraft flew over Arlington Cemetery, yet flew 150ft from his apartment in Crystal City and that he saw the fireball rise "from the back of the building"!

The "whoosh" A?

QUOTE (Amazed)
When I first visited PFT, there was a thread somewhere claiming that some guys at a shop somewhere in Colorado, like Jeffco, had been paid to modify an A-3. Maybe it was just a planted thread, and a planted story, but I do remember reading it, having spent some time in Denver and Jeffco.


First I've heard of it to be honest, but it sounds planted. If 9/11 was indeed a military op there's no way they'd leave a loose end like that IMHO.

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
2. if it is, how did they manage to ensure the complete "penetration" of the facade?


2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.


Agreed about the charges planted inside, but it doesn't answer the question. If there was a shape charge designed to allow entry, you don't see the dangers to the op? The precision timing needed?
Why complicate the op so much? A large aircraft flying NOC, a smaller plane flying SOC (backed by dubious testimony from miles away), shaped charges to allow entry for the smaller plane and a flyover?


QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
3. how did they manage to dissolve (literally) an entire aircraft within 40-60ft of said "penetration" (I mean, totally unscathed columns)?


3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.


I'm talking about an alleged "NOC impact" scenario. The aircraft would have had to have "dissolved" within 40-60ft.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/a...0daysmarked.jpg

Nobody saw any flying object of any description flying the necessary OCT SOC path. Nobody.


The unidentified parts? Didn't you just tell Robert that one of the craft mentioned didn't have a landing gear?

QUOTE
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
4. how did they manage to "penetrate" the first floor in a low level trajectory given the obstacles that immediately preceded the facade right up to @400ft from the facade which would have required an immediate descent and pull-up within a fraction of a second? How did they avoid leaving debris on the lawn on a downward trajectory?


4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.


But one that can navigate steep inclines? Pull up?

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
5. how could they launch anything from the aircraft on the witnessed trajectory and cause the damage in the opposite direction?


5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.


That wasn't primarily directed at you. I was just trying to cover all of the theories floating about.
"even if it existed"? What, the aircraft seen by the witnesses? Are we talking holograms now?

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
6. if something was launched from anywhere other than the aircraft, where from? How did they overcome the steep incline that precedes the lawn? I know there are "ground hugging" devices, but one that "knows" when to pull up?


6. Ditto #4


Ditto the answer to 4

QUOTE
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
7. if the claim is that explosives were used to help with the "desintegration", why are there no craters of any kind? how did people in the immediate vicinity survive unscathed? how would any penetration have been successful?


7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.


There were no craters.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/a...elookingout.jpg

QUOTE (Amazed!)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
8. how did they control a "missile" launched from outside the building to stop at C Ring and leave the wall of B Ring unscathed when it inevitably "emerged"?


8. No opinion.


No answer more like?

All I've learned from the exchange is that you believe an A3/Douglas modified aircraft with tracking capabilities that can pull up at the exact moment was launched from ? , and that it was timed to coincide with the (possible hologram?) NOC multiple witnessed aircraft (as opposed to the "commuter jet" allegedly witnessed up to 1, 2 or 3 miles away but witnessed by nobody in the immediate area), the NOC plane flew over, while the "commuter jet cum smart missile" pulled up, entering the building thanks to perfectly timed, perfectly placed shape charges that allowed full "penetration"?

The parts that were allegedly found were allegedly Boeing pieces (or at least from a larger aircraft). Were these pieces actually part of this smaller plane? Or were they planted on the smaller plane??

I'm lost man. Sorry if the post became a bit sarcy but I'm even more confused.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jul 8 2011, 06:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 8 2011, 09:50 PM
Post #68





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 9 2011, 07:17 AM) *
We could go round in circles with this one, but simply put, the trajectory witnessed makes "impact" by any flying object impossible.



I never even insinuated that!



Agreed. Though I'm totally open the the very real possibility that it was a "souped up" or modified aircraft disguised as a "Boeing".



1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.

These witnesses?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2414255

You don't think that the fact that people from much further away who claimed to see a "commuter plane/small plane" don't corraborate with witnesses who saw it right over their heads or coming towards them might lead to only one conclusion?

One of them, Steve Patterson, (who can't be found) made 3 totally contradictory claims. That the aircraft flew over Arlington Cemetery, yet flew 150ft from his apartment in Crystal City and that he saw the fireball rise "from the back of the building"!

The "whoosh" A?



First I've heard of it to be honest, but it sounds planted. If 9/11 was indeed a military op there's no way they'd leave a loose end like that IMHO.



2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.

Agreed about the charges planted inside, but it doesn't answer the question. If there was a shape charge designed to allow entry, you don't see the dangers to the op? The precision timing needed?
Why complicate the op so much? A large aircraft flying NOC, a smaller plane flying SOC (backed by dubious testimony from miles away), shaped charges to allow entry for the smaller plane and a flyover?




3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.

I'm talking about an alleged "NOC impact" scenario. The aircraft would have had to have "dissolved" within 40-60ft.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/a...0daysmarked.jpg

Nobody saw any flying object of any description flying the necessary OCT SOC path. Nobody.


The unidentified parts? Didn't you just tell Robert that one of the craft mentioned didn't have a landing gear?



4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.

But one that can navigate steep inclines? Pull up?



5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.

That wasn't primarily directed at you. I was just trying to cover all of the theories floating about.
"even if it existed"? What, the aircraft seen by the witnesses? Are we talking holograms now?



6. Ditto #4

Ditto the answer to 4



7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.

There were no craters.

http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/a...elookingout.jpg



8. No opinion.

No answer more like?

All I've learned from the exchange is that you believe an A3/Douglas modified aircraft with tracking capabilities that can pull up at the exact moment was launched from ? , and that it was timed to coincide with the (possible hologram?) NOC multiple witnessed aircraft (as opposed to the "commuter jet" allegedly witnessed up to 1, 2 or 3 miles away but witnessed by nobody in the immediate area), the NOC plane flew over, while the "commuter jet cum smart missile" pulled up, entering the building thanks to perfectly timed, perfectly placed shape charges that allowed full "penetration"?

The parts that were allegedly found were allegedly Boeing pieces (or at least from a larger aircraft). Were these pieces actually part of this smaller plane? Or were they planted on the smaller plane??

I'm lost man. Sorry if the post became a bit sarcy but I'm even more confused.


Dear Onesliceshort

Have you had the opportunity yet to consider the --dragging event-- at the 4.31 --4.36 time slot given in the previous post to you.
The video is the second of those you included in your post of June 27 -2011, 08.32am.
It is being a bit slow to open up here this morning-- but that could be because it is Saturday morning, but if the Youtube button is clicked it will open up very quickly on Youtube as 9/11 Pentagon victim eye witness accounts.

There can be no doubt that something sizeable is being dragged away towards the Pentagon building.
It is immediately after the fire at the back of the --firetruck-- was extinguished.
It seems to be heading in the direction, where in another photograph, an object is apparent that looks remarkably like a jet engine.
This is a long way from being inside of the Pentagon building.
There is obviously a lot of other debris in this area, at the time of the video, which does not show up in later photographs, nor the object that looks like the jet engine.

As expressed in the previous post to you, a lot of priority and energy was being expended in moving the debris, amply demonstrated in the video.

Even if the object being draggged was not a jet engine --which it certainly has every appearance of-- what was it then, and what was all the other debris from??

Nothing has been said "officially" about this --debris-- material, the only person who made some belated reference, then retracted, goodness knows under what pressure to him, or his family, it appears.

If some sensible, better still, qualifiable explanation can be given for the --debris-- referred too, and why it was so rapidly removed and not been openly made known of, until then it should be considered a very significant matter.

This may fall on some deaf ears, and closed eyes, I certainly hope your's are not amongst them.

With respect to you.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jul 8 2011, 09:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 8 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #69



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Is this what they were trailing?

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03896.JPEG

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9315/gurneymarked.png

I honestly couldn't make out anything Robert.

This piece isn't the engine piece that you're claiming is it?

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8615/66643001.jpg

Here are a few more images from different angles, precollapse, post collapse and the next day:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03894.JPEG

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9743/pentcars1.jpg

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...rge/133_283.jpg

http://www.twf.org/Gallery/911f/Pentagon91...pact%20Zone.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03905.JPEG

http://i.imgur.com/oI1Ji.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1374/forklift2.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2159/forklift3w.png

The firetruck damage:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03912.JPEG

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3269/66643013.jpg

Look at the damage done to the engine cover. It's bent out the way. And look at the engine itself. No way an engine of any type struck this vehicle.

I personally believe that the dmage done to the facade and possibly through the building originated from the generator. But that's just my 2 cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 8 2011, 11:50 PM
Post #70





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 9 2011, 03:56 AM) *
Yes OSS, I made it that far. rolleyes.gif

Gosh, and now I discover I'm a missle/drone hugger! Oh, the cruelty!

But I'm used to playing the heretic/iconoclast role--sometimes it's fun.

I don't know there was a flying object that penetrated the building, but I do suspect that, only because of the presence of assorted engine pieces and landing gear pieces. I am totally open to the possibility that somebody placed those pieces there, but so far nobody has provided evidence either way, at least as far as I know.

And just for the record, I've not made any claims here that I know it all.

And just for the record I'm convinced CIT has proved that the path was NOC, and that somebody made a low pass in a Boeing.

In an effort to throw my 2 cents into answering some of the questions posed by OSS:

1. No, I don't think so. I have not been keeping up with all the details lately, but it seems that all the legitimate eye witnesses reported some sort of airliner. As I recall, some witnesses in the greater DC area reported a smaller type aircraft, maybe commuter or business jet? Some reported hearing a 'whooshing' sound.

When I first visited PFT, there was a thread somewhere claiming that some guys at a shop somewhere in Colorado, like Jeffco, had been paid to modify an A-3. Maybe it was just a planted thread, and a planted story, but I do remember reading it, having spent some time in Denver and Jeffco.

2. Don't know. Crude 'shape charge'?? But we know there were charges expertly placed inside.
3. It wasn't dissolved--fake or real, there were some engine and landing gear parts there.
4. Yes, we do have terrain-following systems in use, and I think did have then too. Homing devices including laser targeting was also in use in 2001.
5. No opinion. I have not suggested anything was launched from the aircraft, even if it existed.
6. Ditto #4
7. I'm no explosives expert, but it would seem that how and to what any explosives might be attached would determine any resulting craters. No opinion.
8. No opinion.


Robert

Humans, explosive experts with military experience, I suspect, carried and placed the explosives into the building. It is an artform, you know, to work with explosives over many years experience.


Dear amazed

Yes, and it appears there was no shortage of them around the place that day, outside and very likely inside the building at the 'explosion' location.
From the evidence of the fortunate people who survived the event, it does not sound as though their colleagues were injured and killed by direct effect of any aircraft, but from what they have said, the massive affect of explosion.

On the outside of the building in the frames of video that have been provided taken at the gatehouse, it is evident that in the immediate period before the object 'aircraft' appeared from the west (ie) the right side of the image, objects --it appearing like three of them-- can be seen travelling away from the building towards the fence area on the west side of the grassed area, at a very fast rate.
It is immediately after this the object 'aircraft' appears from the west, with every appearance of being very close to the ground.

Who were these people??
What were they upto??

Were they just fleeing for their safety?
Which then suggests some pre knowledge that something was about to happen.

Were they involved in presetting explosives?

Were they involved in some way in a final --guidance-- system for an 'aicraft' - programmed to reach the pentagon precinct?

Were they an abort team-- that were aware a mission was in its final actions and were not therefore required to take any actions.

The policeman that arrived through the security gate and then stationed himself over by the western fence of the grassed area, should be asked if he saw these people.
And while he was driving into the area that the explosion occurred did he observe an aircraft heading low towards the building across the grass area.
Also did he see or hear a large aircraft fly virtually over the top of him

Of course again it is highly coincident that he arrived at the time he did, was that his normal circuit time, for that matter was that his normal circuit?
He did not do much when he first was aware of the explosion, except drive over to the western fence at a very fast rate. --evident in the video--.

Surely his automatic duty, if not moral human response, should have been to go to the site of the explosion immediately to give any aid he could.

No he did not do that!!

But he can be seen wandering around the place when all the other 'busy beavers' got there, surely that is more the time he should have been performing --cordon-- duties!!

Who was the guy standing by the western fence, almost from the onset of any video or photographs??
He also eventually found his way in to wander around.
Why wasn't he told to "piss off", by our first policeman, he was big enough to have convinced me to do so.

Who was the guy controlling all the 'busy beavers'?

Who were the 'busy beavers'?

Come on guys, open your eyes.
You are pissing around the edges.
These are the people you should be going after.

If they refuse to speak to you, get some subpoenas, for what ever reason, 'agitate the bastards', bring them out into the open, for criticism, if it is warranted.

My last comment on the subject, unless I come across something substantive.

But let me tell you.
If I was closer, I would not be sitting on my "butt", no matter what the consequences.
And there are a lot more people evident in the video and photographs I would be going after.

Robert





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 9 2011, 04:28 AM
Post #71





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 9 2011, 12:08 PM) *
Is this what they were trailing?

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03896.JPEG

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9315/gurneymarked.png

I honestly couldn't make out anything Robert.

This piece isn't the engine piece that you're claiming is it?

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8615/66643001.jpg

Here are a few more images from different angles, precollapse, post collapse and the next day:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9975/dsc0438l.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03894.JPEG

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9743/pentcars1.jpg

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...rge/133_283.jpg

http://www.twf.org/Gallery/911f/Pentagon91...pact%20Zone.jpg

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03905.JPEG

http://i.imgur.com/oI1Ji.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1374/forklift2.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2159/forklift3w.png

The firetruck damage:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03912.JPEG

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3269/66643013.jpg

Look at the damage done to the engine cover. It's bent out the way. And look at the engine itself. No way an engine of any type struck this vehicle.

I personally believe that the dmage done to the facade and possibly through the building originated from the generator. But that's just my 2 cents.


Dear Onesliceshort.

No, none of the images you have provided show the object that was being dragged away.
In the near future a video demonstrating the situation will be put on Youtube under 23investigator.

Thankyou for putting up the high resolution image files.

When this was being discussed before I think it was you who provided spec details of the 'firetruck'.
The rear cover you refer to as being bent out of the way, is high tensile aluminium of some considerable thickness.
It looks more like a hole was punched in it.
Fragments of it can be seen laying on the ground.

It depends what velocity was left with the object when it hit the firetruck, it may well have been nearing the end of its travel, but to knock a hole of the size in the cover would have taken some considerable force.
The object itself could have collapsed on its self too, which would have absorbed further energy.
All that said the rear tire did not 'fare' to well, with perhaps the wheel hub damaged also.
All these things would have dissipated the kinetic energy available, in a manner I dont believe you or I could simply determine.

Perhaps when the video points out to you where to consider looking for the object being dragged away we can discuss this further.

At this time you have your belief, which is fine, it is up to me to clearly demonstrate what I am considering.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Jul 9 2011, 06:58 AM
Post #72





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 144
Joined: 27-April 07
From: France, Ajaccio
Member No.: 999



Quote of onesliceshort : « if something was launched from anywhere other than the aircraft, where from? How did they overcome the steep incline that precedes the lawn? I know there are "ground hugging" devices, but one that "knows" when to pull up? »

If I understand what you say (I'm French), I'm not absolutely certain that “ the steep incline that precedes the lawn” eliminates the possibility of a missile strike “ from anywhere other than the aircraft”. Watch this video: (The missile takes altitude, then returns to the ground to hit the target) :

http://www.koreus.com/video/anti-tank-missile.html

I signal below the opinion of an explosives expert and a video about « the  Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery » :

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_ExitHole.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7364619849681669102

I know that for the attack of the pentagon, no witnesses reported seeing a missile, but some witnesses reported hearing the sound of a missile. I do not know if the items available for analysis allow to have a certainty on this issue.

Quote of amazed!

« Of course in the first place, nobody in the Pentagon heard the approaching airplane for the simple fact that there was no approaching airplane. Ours here is simply an academic exercise about a hypothetical situation. »

Recall of one of the stories that I signalled : : « 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. »

At “just yards from where the building is impacted” by a Boeing 757 at a speed of 781 feet per second with 36,200 lb. of fuel remaining upon impact with the Pentagon (see below), what is the probability to be always alive?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31594959/9-11-NT...light-AA77-UA93





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 9 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #73



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Run it by me Robert. What struck the fire engine? What actually "struck" the Pentagon? I swear, if I hear another "whoosh" story my head's gonna explode!

Explain the physics of a heavy object striking strengthened aluminium sheeting and bending the edges outwards. I'm not "referring" to it being bent out the way. It is bent out the way.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3269/66643013.jpg

It was at "the end of its travel"? The aluminium sheet cover for the engine is tensile, very strong, but it's also very thin.

Explain the physics of how it shattered this sheet and left the inner tubing untouched and the "caps" in tact shown in the image above.

Explain to me how you know for a fact that a piece of masonry from the facade/blast didn't strike it.

I'll wait to see your video before making any comments on what was dragged away mate.

@tit2

The problem is not whether a mssile could strike the Pentagon, but that there are many ambiguous claims that inevitably tag along with it.

That the "missile" was disguised as an aircraft.
That the "missile" disguised as an aircraft caused the cartoon-plane cut-out damage on the facade.
That the "missile" cum aircraft made the C Ring exit hole but suddenly stopped.
Etc, etc.

That's why all of the questions I posted should be answered in conjunction with the single one you picked as honestly as possible to actually pinpoint exactly what the claim is!

Bottom line. The official story is that a Boeing 757 followed the specific directional damage path which is narrowed to within feet and inches. They are tied to this story. There is no wriggle room.
The NOC testimony (and P4T's annihilation of the FDR data's veracity) is the only real evidence we as truthseekers have regarding the Pentagon.

Aerodynamics and physics are on our side too. The alleged "Flight 77" on the witnessed NOC path cannot in any way, any how cause the physical damage (from lightpole 1 right through to C Ring) strike the Pentagon, fully penetrate and cause the internal damage.

I've been searching and poking through the damage for years. No way.

People can make up their own minds and are entitled to their own opinions as to what actually caused the damage (I have my own), but if it's going to take away from the NOC evidence and is based on convoluted theories that can't be backed up by evidence other than images that can be translated into anything we want to see, hmms and haas, "whooshes" and alleged witnesses with a minimal view from windows miles away, half of whom work for the DOJ and MSM, one is fictional as far as I'm concerned and another is a falsely interpretted Spanish guy's testimony, I don't want to know.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 9 2011, 02:07 PM
Post #74





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



tit2

Yes, I remember reading the statements of several personnel inside the Pentagon reference "sound of a bomb", and thanks, I had not heard those statements before.

Be careful in claiming specific numbers for fuel onboard any given aircraft in these discussions--nobody can know specific numbers for fuel onboard.

And I must amend my previous statement regarding what MIGHT have been heard by persons inside the building. Considering the flyby made by some airliner type, somebody inside MIGHT have heard that event, especially after the aircraft passed and the listener was then BEHIND the jet exhaust.

Robert

We must keep in mind that there were NUMEROUS training exercises being conducted that day, by both civilian and military commands, including FEMA. The training exercises allowed the rank and file personnel to believe that they were participating in some sort of emergency training, and that means they were not particularly observant, and attributed most of what they saw and heard to the training scenario. If you have ever participated in a Field Training Exercise, you know what I mean.

Thus, it is likely that many people knew SOMETHING was going to happen concerning some exercise, but they just did not know what precisely.

Just as people knew enough about the day to buy stock options in advance, others knew enough to expect SOMETHING to happen, however lacking in details they might have been.

We know that 1 civilian helicopter pilot, news ship as I recall, offered his assistance to the locals if they needed help at the Pentagon. Not only "no", but "hell no" he was told, and don't get near here.

We know that the Pentagon has provided something like 5 frames from a parking lot video for public consumption. All the other video cameras on the property, which must amount to dozens of cameras, and including the camera video from the nearby hotel, have NOT been made public. Yes, it's very safe to say that SOMETHING was happening there that day that was the giveaway to exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

OSS

I do not remember having read Craig's comments about witnesses that you linked to there, but the gist of what he said there is exactly what I thought he would have said. That there were other witnesses in other parts of the greater DC area (not just about the Citgo area) is only logical, and rather my point.

I have always respected and admired the work Craig and CIT have done there--they provided a great service to those of us seeking what bit of truth we might find amongst the smoke & mirrors erected by the government.

My only beef with CIT was a particular conclusion they drew, just 1 out of the several. I do not think the conclusion can be drawn that there were POSITIVELY no other aircraft involved. Maybe there were no other aircraft involved, and then maybe there were. It's rather like the old conundrum--if a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody there to hear it, did it really make a sound?

It is entirely possible that while all the witnesses near the Citgo were fixating on a low flying Boeing (or whatever it was), a smaller and faster aircraft went by out of their field of vision. I have no proof that DID happen, I'm just saying it's possible.

As for Steve Gerard, if he worked for the US Justice Department, that makes it a better than 50-50 chance he is making stuff up. Sad to say.

As for the A-3 story, loose ends like that have been known to happen. As an aside, I'm curious if you served in the US military? Point is that I am personally aware of another similar 'loose end' that was observed, completely by accident, by a friend of mine with a career in the USAF. I digress.

Cruise missles have no landing gear, is what I said previously. Thus, assuming that the pictures we saw of landing gear and engine parts inside the Pentagon were genuine, those parts could not have come from a cruise missle. But that does not necessarily mean that a cruise missle was not involved. Weren't there 2 explosions reported there?

As for terrain following flight, clearly the aircraft must have the ability to pitch up and pitch down, for that is what terrain does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 9 2011, 06:23 PM
Post #75



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Amazed!)
My only beef with CIT was a particular conclusion they drew, just 1 out of the several.


Realistically, isn't the conclusion that not only CIT drew but any reasonable, unbiased person would reach, is that the aircraft (a Boeing 757/"Flight 77" specifically) couldn't cause the physical damage from the witnessed trajectory? That it is the only one we can prove? Actual evidence handed to us on a plate?

Anything less like vague and explicable, duhbunker friendly, possibly planted witness testimony (as in the case of the MSM scripted description) and somebody hearing a "whoosh" (incidentally, this witness claimed to see the explosion in his rear view mirror - he was actually closer to NOC on Route 27 - allegedly) or the "possibility" that witnesses on Route 27 may have "missed" the "missile/whatever" travel the OCT path are a distraction.

I think the problem is that people are stuck in a groove in that something must have struck when in reality a controlled, grounded event would have been more risk free and a 99% guaranteed successful effect on both witnesses and rescue workers/firefighters/Pentagon occupants.

QUOTE
A reasonably forceful blast from any close point along the Pentagon's surrounding network of public roads would create broad personnel risk inside the outermost of the building's five concentric office rings and could cause severe property and structural damage as well. According to Evey, "The Renovation Office recognized this shortcoming and was determined to address it effectively by incorporating improved personnel safety features into the overall renovation program." The blast protection task was included in the new design work for the first of the Pentagon's five "wedges" and is now a "template" for the follow-on renovation of the other sections.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Protective Design Center evaluated possible threats to determine a "most likely" bomb blast scenario, calculating dynamic, time-varying forces for various blast sizes and locations on the building's perimeter. From this analysis, the Renovation Office established blast resistance structural design criteria for the project. The next step in the process was to develop the design, incorporating the established criteria.


http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pe...on-retrofit.htm


QUOTE
The analyses assume that the Pentagon frame is sufficient to resist the loads transferred to it from the exterior walls. Evaluations of the original and retrofitted Pentagon structures were performed using the Antiterrorist (AT) Planner
software [1]. AT Planner is a PC-based computer code that assists installation-level personnel in analyzing the vulnerability of buildings and their occupants to the effects of terrorist vehicle bombs. The program also contains information to aid in developing protective measures.

AT Planner is being developed to present concepts and procedures for protecting deploying forces from terrorist/saboteur attack using expedient methods that require a minimum of engineer resources. Recent experience has shown that the demand for military engineering in support of antiterrorism has risen dramatically as the Army is drawn into a succession of operations other than war. In these situations, U.S. troops may be subject to attack by unfriendly civilian or paramilitary groups. AT Planner is a Windows 95-based application suitable for operation on a notebook computer by combat engineer officers, and draws on completed and ongoing research related to the protection of fixed facilities from terrorist attack as well as work on field fortifications. AT Planner is based on references 2-7. AT Planner provides standoff distance evaluations, structural damage and window hazard calculations, protective measures checklist for terrorist threats, and vehicle velocity calculations and barrier recommendations. When a vulnerability analysis from a terrorist bomb is calculated in AT Planner, blast pressure is calculated at the center of each structural bay on a structure.
Angle of incidence is considered in calculating airblast levels on structures, but clearing effects and shielding effects are not. AT Planner uses PI (Pressure Impulse) diagrams to allow a user to quickly estimate building damage from a vehicle bomb attack.


....

The PI curves presented above are used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and small truck bomb threats as shown in Figure 8 (the windows control these stand-offs).

To analyze the existing retrofits response to blast load, SDOF models of the wall and window systems were developed. The wall model did not consider the effects of window failure. The resistance of the wall included the strength of the façade, the masonry wall, and the tubular framing system (dominant contribution). The wall system model was used in WAC to generate RTE and PI curves and these curves were validated with FE analyses. The high level PI curves were used in AT Planner to define safe stand-offs around the Pentagon for the large and the small truck bomb threats. The custom PI diagrams for the window and wall retrofits of the exterior wall of the E-Ring were used for all walls. Damage plot in figure 9 are intended to illustrate damage to the outside of the E-Ring only.


http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/34/paper/63hall.pdf


QUOTE
Lt. Gen. Bob Flowers commands the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps helped design the Pentagon's new protection. The engineers studied past attacks, including the 1983 marine bombing in Lebanon, Oklahoma City in 1995, the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia and the US emassies in East Africa.

"at Khobar Towers, for example, most of the damage and casualties were caused by flying debris from the structure and the glass, et cetera," says Flowers. "and so based on that, we worked, designed, things to prevent flying debris and flying glass.

At Oklahoma City, the bulk of the casualties were caused by the collapsing structure. So one of the things we studied was how to put redundant capability in a structure to prevent it from collapsing if it was attacked. So by applying the lessons that you learn from doing those studies, you can better protect structures in the future."

It was a tough way to learn a lesson. But there is an easier way. The Corps is making a study of safer buildings by setting off its own bombs at a research center in Mississippi.

Reed Mosher is the technical director for survivability. They have developed a team of specialists that goes to these terrorist strikes as soon as they happen.

The buildings tell the team a great deal. "we want to find what performed well, what didn't perform well, try to characterize the size of the bomb, the blast," says Mosher.

Mosher also designs his own terrorist bombings in miniature with exacting scale models of reinforced concrete buildings.

Recently, Mosher's team tested a common interior wall, particle board, steel wall studs and sheetrock. The wall is set in a steel frame with instruments inside.

Then they set off a bomb. Mosher has done hundreds of these, in an effort to create new building materials. The corps of engineers runs these experiments through its super computer center, which is one of the most powerful in the nation. The computer can test various kinds of bombs against different buildings without breaking any glass.

In a special 3-d imaging room mosher showed how the super computers recreates the blast wave that hit khobar towers. It predicts the path of every shard of glass from a single breaking window.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/...ain319383.shtml


There it is in black and white. They knew how the structure would react to various sized blasts from different angles.

Why use a terrain hugging "missile" in a multi-obstacled, topographical nightmare?

Just as with the towers the aircraft were more for effect and make the public believe whatever shit was spoonfed to them. The collapses had to be internally controlled. Guaranteed. Let the media do the rest. Just as in the Pentagon.

Maybe the truth as to how they fabricated the damage is far simpler than we believe or even more bizarre but I'm leaning towards a much simpler, contained, surefire operation.

Why not let the government explain how the damage was caused given the evidence?

GroundPounder linked to an article the other day and the message that stood out for me was the author's despair at how overcomplicated the message is for "9/11 truth". All I'm saying is keep it simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 10 2011, 11:05 AM
Post #76





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for a most reasonable and civil post, OSS. I absolutely agree that we should keep it simple.

I have no strong feelings or ideas that a missle or drone was used at the Pentagon. I'm just trying to rationalize in my own mind the debris shown inside, the engine sections and landing gear pieces.

I understand full well that the pictures themselves could have been utterly faked, and I understand that the debris may have been planted there.

For the sake of discussion, if one assumes that the pictures are genuine, then I conclude that the debris was not planted, ONLY because it looks as though those pieces had indeed been in a recent collision at high speed. Yes, it's entirely possible that they planted debris from a previous high speed collision. Really all we can do is speculate because so much is rigged in this case.

And I absolutely agree with your first paragraph above. After seeing CIT's work, I reached the very same conclusion.

I simply disagree that one can prove without a doubt that no drone type aircraft flew into the Pentagon that day, and that ONLY because of the presence of said debris. If it could be demonstrated that the debris was planted, then it would be certain that there was no flying object that struck.

The other thing that makes me wonder about it is the few frames eventually released from the parking lot camera. Yes, I know it could be manipulated. There is a certain probability that it was manipulated, but I don't know if that goes over 50-50. Those few frames do seem to show something flying in, but it's poor quality.

I absolutely agree with your point that they knew how the building would react to various explosive charges. I spent enough time in the US Army to understand military planning and execution.

No, I cannot offer any specific advantages to using a drone aircraft in addition to the HE planted meticulously. At least nothing compelling. Being that it was a large scale military training exercise, I can see how they might have wanted to incorporate some ALCM or SLCM into that exercise, but the landing gear and compressor sections throw that off.

The point is that criminal minds work in bizarre ways, and clearly it was criminal minds who planned and executed the events of the day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jul 10 2011, 02:29 PM
Post #77





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



NORAD tapes tracked a "Special 17", hit the Pentagon, a "quick". look it up.

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Jul 10 2011, 02:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 10 2011, 05:06 PM
Post #78



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jul 10 2011, 07:29 PM) *
NORAD tapes tracked a "Special 17", hit the Pentagon, a "quick". look it up.


Okay, officially released data from people possibly up to their eyeballs in the op, the success of which could not have occurred without concession/active participation at the highest level, consistently caught lying through their teeth

= *thumbs up*

Witnesses within the Pentagon basin from all conceivable angles

= *poopoo*

You can ignore these people Ric. This independently collected, unfiltered, uncensored, MSM free, unrubberstamped by military squareheads, unbleached, non contradictory evidence.

I can't.

If your argument is that the aircraft "impacted", no matter from what angle, or how much the aerodynamics and physics of both the manouevre and physical damage necessary would have to stretch to Star Trek proportions, enlighten me.

If your argument is that the aircraft flew as per the alleged radar/directional damage path, name me one witness to this.

Here, just in case you haven't seen it:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jul 10 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #79



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Amazed!)
The point is that criminal minds work in bizarre ways, and clearly it was criminal minds who planned and executed the events of the day.


Couldn't agree more.

On the manipulation of visible "debris" on the lawn, I searched through all available images (AFAIK) of the lawn and came across some irregularities to the south of the lawn:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795793

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795859

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795876

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795908

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10796019

I know it's pointless trying to convince anybody that their own gut instinct is wrong unless they come to their own conclusions but even though there's no definitive proof and it's based on my own personal speculation, these images always stood out to me as a very realistic and possible controlled method of covering a lot of bases from damaging the facade to spraying "debris" :

http://imageshack.us/f/842/genhires.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/f/850/generatorfacadehires.jpg/

I can't see how any "flying craft" or "missile" could physically plough through this obstacle (the former), or how a "missile" would not detonate prematurely on striking it.

The NOC aircraft couldn't physically cause it. A smaller modified craft's engine raises just as many problems. I was never in the military (I just noticed the question) but was raised in a military state (N. Ireland) but I've seen the damage caused by improvised mortars primarily used against fortified bases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster

If those people could do it, imagine it from a military perspective. A recoilless mortar mounted in the generator trailer with the calculated amount of HE?

The facade was allegedly a mesh of tubing bolting the floors together. The larger bolts were found on the first floor of the renovated section.

QUOTE
Another HSMM design consideration was the projectile potential of the brick infill walls in the event of a terrorist bomb. The solution incorporated a system developed by Protective Design Center to mitigate this concern. The Protective Design Center system employs an extremely tough mesh geotextile material, normally used to stabilize highway embankments, to arrest wall debris loosed by a blast. For the proposed solution, the fabric ends are wrapped around steel plates, which are then bolted to the sill tube and to the support plate at the floor slab below the window. The fabric is also installed between the vertical tubes and the existing concrete columns with the wrapped plates bolted to the support plates at the ceiling and the floor. Masonry Arts, Inc., was the contractor for this portion of the work, and likewise offered a number of practical solutions when circumstances varied from the design. These renderings show the fabric as loosely woven to allow the viewer to see the wall beyond. In reality, however, the material is woven much more tightly. This taut screen deflects to absorb missile energy if brick wall masonry is loosed in a blast, allowing the masonry material to fall harmlessly to the building floor.

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.jpg


This "safety feature" ran through the facade:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7546/pe...riorwindows.png

You can see how it actually worked:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5187/pentmesh.png

Now I know it's way over my head, but I can see how they could have ripped the (desired) hole in the facade with a well calculated, controlled blast. The retaining wall at Column 11 may have been precut to aid collapse. I believe that it was meant to collapse immediately and they f*ed it up.

2cents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 11 2011, 09:19 AM
Post #80





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I've gotta go right now OSS, but your mention of an old Vietnam era jeep-mounted recoilless rifle is something I had not thought about, but might be a good solution to the problem you've raised.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2019 - 06:59 AM