IPB




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pentagon Theories, split from latest news section

23investigator
post Dec 30 2010, 11:23 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 30 2010, 01:33 AM) *
Ah, must be just a coincidence that Adam Larson used to post at LCF under the nick "Pentagonrealitycheck".
Either way, you're spouting the same repetitive nonsense and ignoring the points that don't suit.

"Unreliability" doesn't really come into it when a sizeable group of witnesses from differnt perspectives within the basin described the same thing.



Even detractors hell bent on poisoning the witness pool by whatever means could not find anybody
that contradicts them. Instead they reinforced and found more NOC evidence.

Even the online witness testimonies fail to support the necessary FDR data/directional damage path

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

So the real question should be, is "impact" possible from any other path than the official path?
If not, and the overwhelming majority of witnesses in the Pentaon basin totally contradict this, and it has been shown that the aerodynamical manouevres necessary are near impossible and totally non-witness compatible, added to the aircraft limitations, which should we believe? People who claim to have seen an "impact"? Or should we look at the physical realities of "impact" from lightpole1 through to the "exit hole" from the NOC trajectory?

1)Do you accept that "impact" is impossible from NOC?

2) If you don't accept the NOC evidence, can you link me to a group who contradict the NOC witnesses interviewed by CIT and those who contradict the official path (right banking, over the Navy Annex, etc)?


One thing is to say that witness testimony is "unreliable", another is to say that the majority of witnesses are wrong. All of them. That's bullkack.


It may be more "accurate" and perhaps 'kinder', to say they are in most cases, "very confusing".

Having spent a fair portion of my life trying to make sense of 'witness account', I believe I can say that with some reasonable experience.

There are two distinct situations here.
One of them, supported by some hard evidence.

Taking the marked up map you have provided and using your terms, 'official path', for the light pole approach and 'NOC', for north of the petrol station approach.

Lets deal with the 'official path', hard evidence, first.

(1) There is "collateral damage" along this path, before evidence of impact with the building.
(a) A series of "light poles", (according to report I have read, about 90 feet 'laterally' apart), were knocked down.
[Any aircraft involved in striking the series of poles, would seem to have had wings wider than 90 feet.]
(b) A mobile unit, "generator ?", was impacted and severely damaged.
[The damage and 'significant displacement' of the mobile unit suggest a glancing impact from the direction of 'line' through the series of poles.]
["Wire fencing and supporting poles" in the immediate area of the mobile unit, are locally damaged in a manner from the direction of 'line' through the series of poles.]

This is where, what I understand to be the 'official path', of the 'official', "Boeing 757 story", becomes untenable.
My understanding from what I have read, of argument to support the 'official', "Boeing 757 story", is that the impact of the 'aircraft' was said to be at ground level, with the aircraft then extruding itself through the impact hole to disappear completely into various rings of the building.
[Evidence in front of the building does not support that an aircraft with large engines on either side of the fuselage, below the wings, entered the building through the impact hole at ground level.]
[The ground shows absolutely no evidence of engines having dragged, let alone burrowed through it, which would have had to have been the case for the fueslage to have entered the impact hole.]
[The engines on a Boeing 757, are 21 feet either side of the centre of the fuselage, there being no evidence at all of an engine on the left of the fuselage impacting the wall of the building even if the fuselage was considered to have entered the building through the impact hole at ground level.]
(2) There is damage, (significant puncture) to the building though, at a 'height', "one level up", to the right of the impact hole at ground level, consistent with the trajectory of 'prior impact' with the top of the mobile unit, and in a manner consistent with the direction of line through the series of poles.
[The overall damage is complex, with various 'scars' across the face of the building, with the one significant puncture through the wall "one level up", with fire visible behind it, prior to the "collapsing" of that portion of the building, this information only available in video and still photographs after the explosions and impact.]

Lets now deal with the 'NOC', hard evidence.

(1) There is NONE.

Lets now deal with the hard evidence at the time of impact and immediately subsequent.
For this consideration, the limited amount of "official video" is the only source of information.

(1) It appears from the video evidence, that there were two distinct type of explosion.
(a) The first explosion appears to have been at ground level immediately at the front wall of the building, with the explosion having a 'white' appearance.
[Something other than hydrocarbon jet fuel had to be the cause of this explosion.]
(b) The second explosion appears to be at a point 'forward' of the front wall of the building, in fact initially enclosed within the 'more developed' white explosion.
[This explosion, by the typical colour, was of hydrocarbon material, the most obvious source, jet fuel.]
[The hydrocarbon explosion appears to start in the proximity of the mobile unit 'generator?'.]

(2) It appears from the video evidence, that a number of distinct effect resulted from, or immediately followed the hydrocarbon explosion.
(a) Sizeable objects hurtled over the top of the wall of the building emerging out of the top of the red explosion.
[The trajectory appears that it would have carried them towards the centre of the pentagon complex.]
(b) Various large objects hurtled along the face of the building to the left of the explosion, in a northerly direction towards the video camera.
[These objects appeared to be on fire, quite intensely.]
© Some sizeable objects hurtled, others bouncing along the ground to a point not far from the video camera.
[Some of these objects appeared to be on fire.]
(d) There was a rain of small objects, appearing to be carbon composite material, as far as upto, immediately in front of the video camera.
[This was some 400 to 500 feet from the apparent point of impact and explosion.]

Lets now deal with the hard evidence available, following the explosions, and the subsequent distribution of debris attributable to some form of aircraft.
The evidence is apparent in still photographs and frames of video taken in the aftermath of the explosions.

(1) It is apparent from both sources, that the bulk of the debris is to the left of the explosions and apparent impact points on the building.
(2) The "collateral damage" in front of the building is to the left of the explosions and apparent impact point on the building.
[This is most likely explained by the path of the aircraft between the poles.]
[Reference to the marked up map, shows the line of the 'official path', is oblique to the wall of the building.]
[Should the aircraft have not entered the building upon impact, but been deflected away from the wall, the direction of the debris is in that direction.]
(4) It is apparent, that a jet engine came into impact with a fire truck parked some distance to the left from the apparent impact point on the building.
(5) It is apparent that a motor vehicle parked in front of the building about midway between the apparent impact point on the building and the fire truck, suffered significant damage by something impacting it.
(6) It is apparent that wire fencing and supporting steel posts in the vicinity of the damaged motor vehicle, suffered significant damage by something impacting them.
(7) It is apparent that what appears to be a portion of aircraft fuselage was midway between the impact point on the building and the fire truck.
(8) The portion of fuselage appeared to be burning vigorously.
(9) The area beyond the impact point of the building upto the fire truck and beyond on the lawn area in front of the heliport building was heavily covered with debris, which mostly appeared to be of small fragments of carbon composite material and small metal components, with some shredded and mangled parts that looked typical to airframe construction, used on small. aircraft fuselage.

Lets now deal with "some" of the witness evidence related to the 'official path'.
This is by far, not comprehensive, but supports observation of some form of aircraft along the 'official path'.
Names are not used, just the general description of the persons observation.

(1) The first a business man with a workshop and office on the roadway near to the Navy Annex.
[The person heard a low flying aircraft and rushed out into the driveway in front of the business.]
[They reported that they saw an aircraft fly more or less overhead, the most noticeable thing to them, being the wide wings.]

Considering the time taken to rush out side and make the observation, with the limited vision available in the proximity, it has to be wondered how they could have heard and then observed the same aircraft.
This leads to the distinct possibility that the person may have heard one aircraft, but then subsequently sighted another.
With the geographic location of the business it is quite possible that the person heard and observed two separate aircraft, which in fact followed different routes, once they passed the location of the business.
With the limited vision available it would have been impossible for the person to determine.

(2) Numerous people on the roadway surrounding the Pentagon lawned area in front of the west wall, observed a very low flying aircraft, which numerous of them reported impacted with light poles in their immediate vicinity.
[It appears from the report of these various people they were nearest to the 'official path'.]
[Numerous of the people described the instability of the aircraft as it went nearer to the Pentagon building, and described seeing the aircraft impact and explode, some saying that it hit the ground before exploding.]
[With the brevity of this experience, it would seem natural that the observer would have been transfixed upon the immediate event before them, with any other occurence out of their immediate line of observation, most likely not even realised, especially if it were behind them, or above their first line of vision.]

Lets now deal with "some" of the witness evidence related to the 'NOC'.
This again is far from comprehensive, with names not used.

(1)Other than the business man by the Navy Annex, who may have sighted either of two aircraft, the first people to observe an aircraft distinctly on the noth side of the Citicorp, petrol station, were an employee at the petrol station and two police officers at the petrol station.
[All three people have described seeing a large two engined jet passenger aircraft, fly very low and quickly past them, on the north side of the petrol station.]
(2)Another gentleman working at the Arlington Memorial Cemetary, described a similar experience, with his geographic position being further to the north that the other three people.
[None of these four people were in a position to observe the aircraft they sighted actually impact into the Pentagon building, but all four had no doubt at all that it flew directly towards the west wall of the Pentagon building.]
(3)Various people on the roadway surrounding the Pentagon lawned area in front of the west wall, reported that they observed a large two engined jet passenger aircraft fly over the top of them towards the west wall of the Pentagon building.
[Most of these people considered that the aircraft exploded as it reached the building.]
[There was some report by others that considered the aircraft may have in fact flown over the top of the building at the time of the explosion they also observed.]

By considering the marked up map it can be seen that the position of the various people who considered that they observed a large two engined jet passenger aircraft, has brought about a flight path plot, which would have the aircraft approaching the building very nearly square on.
This does not support the fact that debris deflected in the one direction, towards the left of the impact point on the building.

The amount of debris and the nature of the debris outside of the building does not support consideration, that an aircraft of the size and mass of a Boeing 757 impacted the building by either of the considered flight paths.
The amount of debris and the nature of the debris that was removed from inside of the building does not support consideration, that an aircraft the size and mass of a Boeing 757 impacted the building by either of the considered flight paths, or the two different impact points considered in this discussion.

Clearly if any further progress is to be made, more evidence needs to be brought forward in the way of still photographs or video, for detailed consideration.
More consideration must be given to the observations of people who had access to the effected areas.
Especially those who so expeditiously removed, all the hard evidence 'material evidence', such as airframe and jet engine components from the front of the building, without properly taken 'forensic' photographs and report taken.
Those who helped pickup the immense amount of small debris scattered over such an extensive area on the left of the impact point should be interviewed, for their observations.
Firemen involved in hosing down burning debris in front of the building, such as a jet engine and airframe should be interviewed.

There were obviously some immensely brave individuals who did everything within their human powers to assist in the rescue of people from the building, although constrained and hampered by 'official order'.
They have their stories to tell too, of their observations, including what was observed in the central garden of the Pentagon building and along pathways leading close to the 'official path'.
In no way does the implied criticism of actions at the scene of what can only be considered a callous mass murder, reflect on such wonderful human beings.
My fervent wish is for them to enjoy a wonderful 2011, along with all the other wonderful people, who placed themselves at unknown risk, in applying first aid, and beyond that rescuing the people they brought that aid too.

Lets make 2011 a year we can all be proud of.
God Bless, every single one of you, especially those who need to gain courage to speak up.

Robert.

ps
For those who have looked at the photographs and videos of the "collapsed" portion of building.
It does not appear to contain any components that could be considered as previously part of a Boeing 757.
There are some photographs which show the "collapsed' section stripped away.
It does not appear to have been damaged in line with the 'upper level' impact point, the next ring looking very much undamaged.

So what caused the massive damage inside of the lower level, inwards of the apparent impact point?
There also appeared to be considerable damage, certainly lots of evidence of fire, in portion of the building to the right of the considered impact points.
So what caused this?

What ever it was in all case, carried out the planned murder of a lot of people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 18 2011, 12:47 AM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Dec 31 2010, 12:53 AM) *
It may be more "accurate" and perhaps 'kinder', to say they are in most cases, "very confusing".

Having spent a fair portion of my life trying to make sense of 'witness account', I believe I can say that with some reasonable experience.

There are two distinct situations here.
One of them, supported by some hard evidence.

Taking the marked up map you have provided and using your terms, 'official path', for the light pole approach and 'NOC', for north of the petrol station approach.

Lets deal with the 'official path', hard evidence, first.

(1) There is "collateral damage" along this path, before evidence of impact with the building.
(a) A series of "light poles", (according to report I have read, about 90 feet 'laterally' apart), were knocked down.
[Any aircraft involved in striking the series of poles, would seem to have had wings wider than 90 feet.]
(b) A mobile unit, "generator ?", was impacted and severely damaged.
[The damage and 'significant displacement' of the mobile unit suggest a glancing impact from the direction of 'line' through the series of poles.]
["Wire fencing and supporting poles" in the immediate area of the mobile unit, are locally damaged in a manner from the direction of 'line' through the series of poles.]

This is where, what I understand to be the 'official path', of the 'official', "Boeing 757 story", becomes untenable.
My understanding from what I have read, of argument to support the 'official', "Boeing 757 story", is that the impact of the 'aircraft' was said to be at ground level, with the aircraft then extruding itself through the impact hole to disappear completely into various rings of the building.
[Evidence in front of the building does not support that an aircraft with large engines on either side of the fuselage, below the wings, entered the building through the impact hole at ground level.]
[The ground shows absolutely no evidence of engines having dragged, let alone burrowed through it, which would have had to have been the case for the fueslage to have entered the impact hole.]
[The engines on a Boeing 757, are 21 feet either side of the centre of the fuselage, there being no evidence at all of an engine on the left of the fuselage impacting the wall of the building even if the fuselage was considered to have entered the building through the impact hole at ground level.]
(2) There is damage, (significant puncture) to the building though, at a 'height', "one level up", to the right of the impact hole at ground level, consistent with the trajectory of 'prior impact' with the top of the mobile unit, and in a manner consistent with the direction of line through the series of poles.
[The overall damage is complex, with various 'scars' across the face of the building, with the one significant puncture through the wall "one level up", with fire visible behind it, prior to the "collapsing" of that portion of the building, this information only available in video and still photographs after the explosions and impact.]

Lets now deal with the 'NOC', hard evidence.

(1) There is NONE.

Lets now deal with the hard evidence at the time of impact and immediately subsequent.
For this consideration, the limited amount of "official video" is the only source of information.

(1) It appears from the video evidence, that there were two distinct type of explosion.
(a) The first explosion appears to have been at ground level immediately at the front wall of the building, with the explosion having a 'white' appearance.
[Something other than hydrocarbon jet fuel had to be the cause of this explosion.]
(b) The second explosion appears to be at a point 'forward' of the front wall of the building, in fact initially enclosed within the 'more developed' white explosion.
[This explosion, by the typical colour, was of hydrocarbon material, the most obvious source, jet fuel.]
[The hydrocarbon explosion appears to start in the proximity of the mobile unit 'generator?'.]

(2) It appears from the video evidence, that a number of distinct effect resulted from, or immediately followed the hydrocarbon explosion.
(a) Sizeable objects hurtled over the top of the wall of the building emerging out of the top of the red explosion.
[The trajectory appears that it would have carried them towards the centre of the pentagon complex.]
(b) Various large objects hurtled along the face of the building to the left of the explosion, in a northerly direction towards the video camera.
[These objects appeared to be on fire, quite intensely.]
Some sizeable objects hurtled, others bouncing along the ground to a point not far from the video camera.
[Some of these objects appeared to be on fire.]
(d) There was a rain of small objects, appearing to be carbon composite material, as far as upto, immediately in front of the video camera.
[This was some 400 to 500 feet from the apparent point of impact and explosion.]

Lets now deal with the hard evidence available, following the explosions, and the subsequent distribution of debris attributable to some form of aircraft.
The evidence is apparent in still photographs and frames of video taken in the aftermath of the explosions.

(1) It is apparent from both sources, that the bulk of the debris is to the left of the explosions and apparent impact points on the building.
(2) The "collateral damage" in front of the building is to the left of the explosions and apparent impact point on the building.
[This is most likely explained by the path of the aircraft between the poles.]
[Reference to the marked up map, shows the line of the 'official path', is oblique to the wall of the building.]
[Should the aircraft have not entered the building upon impact, but been deflected away from the wall, the direction of the debris is in that direction.]
(4) It is apparent, that a jet engine came into impact with a fire truck parked some distance to the left from the apparent impact point on the building.
(5) It is apparent that a motor vehicle parked in front of the building about midway between the apparent impact point on the building and the fire truck, suffered significant damage by something impacting it.
(6) It is apparent that wire fencing and supporting steel posts in the vicinity of the damaged motor vehicle, suffered significant damage by something impacting them.
(7) It is apparent that what appears to be a portion of aircraft fuselage was midway between the impact point on the building and the fire truck.
(8) The portion of fuselage appeared to be burning vigorously.
(9) The area beyond the impact point of the building upto the fire truck and beyond on the lawn area in front of the heliport building was heavily covered with debris, which mostly appeared to be of small fragments of carbon composite material and small metal components, with some shredded and mangled parts that looked typical to airframe construction, used on small. aircraft fuselage.

Lets now deal with "some" of the witness evidence related to the 'official path'.
This is by far, not comprehensive, but supports observation of some form of aircraft along the 'official path'.
Names are not used, just the general description of the persons observation.

(1) The first a business man with a workshop and office on the roadway near to the Navy Annex.
[The person heard a low flying aircraft and rushed out into the driveway in front of the business.]
[They reported that they saw an aircraft fly more or less overhead, the most noticeable thing to them, being the wide wings.]

Considering the time taken to rush out side and make the observation, with the limited vision available in the proximity, it has to be wondered how they could have heard and then observed the same aircraft.
This leads to the distinct possibility that the person may have heard one aircraft, but then subsequently sighted another.
With the geographic location of the business it is quite possible that the person heard and observed two separate aircraft, which in fact followed different routes, once they passed the location of the business.
With the limited vision available it would have been impossible for the person to determine.

(2) Numerous people on the roadway surrounding the Pentagon lawned area in front of the west wall, observed a very low flying aircraft, which numerous of them reported impacted with light poles in their immediate vicinity.
[It appears from the report of these various people they were nearest to the 'official path'.]
[Numerous of the people described the instability of the aircraft as it went nearer to the Pentagon building, and described seeing the aircraft impact and explode, some saying that it hit the ground before exploding.]
[With the brevity of this experience, it would seem natural that the observer would have been transfixed upon the immediate event before them, with any other occurence out of their immediate line of observation, most likely not even realised, especially if it were behind them, or above their first line of vision.]

Lets now deal with "some" of the witness evidence related to the 'NOC'.
This again is far from comprehensive, with names not used.

(1)Other than the business man by the Navy Annex, who may have sighted either of two aircraft, the first people to observe an aircraft distinctly on the noth side of the Citicorp, petrol station, were an employee at the petrol station and two police officers at the petrol station.
[All three people have described seeing a large two engined jet passenger aircraft, fly very low and quickly past them, on the north side of the petrol station.]
(2)Another gentleman working at the Arlington Memorial Cemetary, described a similar experience, with his geographic position being further to the north that the other three people.
[None of these four people were in a position to observe the aircraft they sighted actually impact into the Pentagon building, but all four had no doubt at all that it flew directly towards the west wall of the Pentagon building.]
(3)Various people on the roadway surrounding the Pentagon lawned area in front of the west wall, reported that they observed a large two engined jet passenger aircraft fly over the top of them towards the west wall of the Pentagon building.
[Most of these people considered that the aircraft exploded as it reached the building.]
[There was some report by others that considered the aircraft may have in fact flown over the top of the building at the time of the explosion they also observed.]

By considering the marked up map it can be seen that the position of the various people who considered that they observed a large two engined jet passenger aircraft, has brought about a flight path plot, which would have the aircraft approaching the building very nearly square on.
This does not support the fact that debris deflected in the one direction, towards the left of the impact point on the building.

The amount of debris and the nature of the debris outside of the building does not support consideration, that an aircraft of the size and mass of a Boeing 757 impacted the building by either of the considered flight paths.
The amount of debris and the nature of the debris that was removed from inside of the building does not support consideration, that an aircraft the size and mass of a Boeing 757 impacted the building by either of the considered flight paths, or the two different impact points considered in this discussion.

Clearly if any further progress is to be made, more evidence needs to be brought forward in the way of still photographs or video, for detailed consideration.
More consideration must be given to the observations of people who had access to the effected areas.
Especially those who so expeditiously removed, all the hard evidence 'material evidence', such as airframe and jet engine components from the front of the building, without properly taken 'forensic' photographs and report taken.
Those who helped pickup the immense amount of small debris scattered over such an extensive area on the left of the impact point should be interviewed, for their observations.
Firemen involved in hosing down burning debris in front of the building, such as a jet engine and airframe should be interviewed.

There were obviously some immensely brave individuals who did everything within their human powers to assist in the rescue of people from the building, although constrained and hampered by 'official order'.
They have their stories to tell too, of their observations, including what was observed in the central garden of the Pentagon building and along pathways leading close to the 'official path'.
In no way does the implied criticism of actions at the scene of what can only be considered a callous mass murder, reflect on such wonderful human beings.
My fervent wish is for them to enjoy a wonderful 2011, along with all the other wonderful people, who placed themselves at unknown risk, in applying first aid, and beyond that rescuing the people they brought that aid too.

Lets make 2011 a year we can all be proud of.
God Bless, every single one of you, especially those who need to gain courage to speak up.

Robert.

ps
For those who have looked at the photographs and videos of the "collapsed" portion of building.
It does not appear to contain any components that could be considered as previously part of a Boeing 757.
There are some photographs which show the "collapsed' section stripped away.
It does not appear to have been damaged in line with the 'upper level' impact point, the next ring looking very much undamaged.

So what caused the massive damage inside of the lower level, inwards of the apparent impact point?
There also appeared to be considerable damage, certainly lots of evidence of fire, in portion of the building to the right of the considered impact points.
So what caused this?

What ever it was in all case, carried out the planned murder of a lot of people.


Dear "all".
If I can be excused, I have taken the liberty of resurrecting this post by 'onesliceshort', along with comment I had added.

The recent post raised regarding questions about the 'light pole' damage has prompted my actions.

It is now 10 months since placing my comments.

During that period, steadily more and more photograph images have emerged, with better quality, along with more and better quality video image.

There is no doubt from this, that an object of the proportions of the jet engine fitted to a 'Global Hawk', was dragged away from the fire truck that was damaged and burning near the heliport building.
There is also no doubt, that another object which is of the proportions of the main fueslage frame of a 'Global Hawk', was in the proximity of the burning fire truck, midway between damaged cars and the firetruck.

The engine appears to have then been left to stand, in the proximity of the doorway near the burning firetruck, to be then removed.

It is highly likely the fuselage section, was dragged behind the heliport building, to be then removed.

It is apparent, the amount of debris in the immediate area of the burning fire truck was considerable.
Mr Wallace the fireman connected with the burning firetruck, has said in his statement, he had to be very careful where he was walking because of this debris, especially as most of it was on fire.

Mr Wallace also said he managed to get the burning firetruck engine started, immediately he tried, but when he engaged drive the vehicle would not move, with the engine refusing to increase in 'revs'.
Which sounds very much likely something 'heavy' was retarding its movement.

Interesting point in a photograph taken later than the immediate time after impact, is that the same firetruck had been moved slightly south than it was whilst on fire, despite it having a collapsed rear left wheel, which is where the damage to the vehicle and the fire occurred.

When the firetruck was finally removed on a vehicle transport, it appears to have still had the damaged rear left wheel.

The larger proportion of the wings of a 'Global Hawk' are comprised of 'carbon composite', material.
The wing is not overly sophisticated in its design, with limited 'avionic' functions, but quite sophisticated in its construction, to obtain the high strength and flexibility of such long wings.
But they were not designed to whack into light poles or the side of the Pentagon building.
They were the main conveyor of 'fuel' for flight, contained outwards of the central fixed part of wing that ran under the fuselage, which carried the undercarriage and the main fuel circulation plumbing to the external wings either side.
This plumbing and componentry, was quite sophisticated, to use heat exchangers to maintain the fuel at necessary temperature.

There is another portion of debris visible in later photographs, which looks remarkably like the portion of fuselage which surrounded the central wing portion.
Numerous of the small metal mechanical components lying on the ground could be parts of this system.
Plus parts associated with the navigational components of the aircraft.

The main fuel explosion related to the aircraft impacting the Pentagon building wall, if it was in fact a "Global Hawk", would not have done the wing a lot of good at all, especially the outer skin surface of the external wings, which being relatively thin 'carbon composite' would have disintegrated into very small pieces.
Most likely the reason for the 'slave line' of people dilligently picking up small pieces of something off of the lawn surface, at both the north and south side of the explosion.
At the southern end right out to the perimeter of the precinct lawn area and beyond, where people remarked and are shown picking up debris which looks to be 'carbon composite', and small metallic components, which don't appear to be parts associated with a large commercial aircraft like a Boeing 757.
In fact some of the people 'filmed' picking up the parts making comment that they appeared to be off of a smaller aircraft.
As did people who were interviewed.

A serious investigation of these components, would most likely reveal, they are in fact part of a "Global Hawk".

It appears that it is generally conceded that an aircraft flew to the north of the 'citgo' service station, the aircraft consistently described as a large twin engine commercial aircraft.
There appears to be not as much certainty, that the aircraft 'flew' over the top of the Pentagon building.

Logically it must have, if the "official" opinion that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon building followed a flight path that brought it into contact with the 'light poles'.

Other wise two large twin engine commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon building.

The evidence to any rational consideration does not even support the notion that 'one did'.

So surely a logical consideration would be to pursue any other consideration of an 'aircraft' having hit the Pentagon building, to the fullest degree possible.

If that should reveal that there was no possible way another type of aircraft was involved, well then, the objective could be concentrated upon what else could have caused the type of damage evident to the Pentagon building and objects on the western side (outside) of its wall.

It appears from my position, that investigation is a long way from being at this point.

Robert

ps --people involved need to be spoken to again, just like what has been carried out with the 'north of the citgo considerations'.
There were a heck of a lot more people in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon building, at the time and after the explosion, than have been involved in the 'north of the citgo considerations'.

For starters, what was it that stopped Mr Wallace from being able to drive his firetruck away from the building.
He would have a pretty good idea, I reckon, as he has described how he tried to dowse the fire at the rear of his firetruck with a half empty extinguisher, which he then through away.
There were another two fire officers there with him associated with firetruck 161, one of them commenting that when ever Mr Wallace accelerated the engine of the firetruck it caused the flames of the fire at the rear of it to intensify.
This suggests he would have a pretty good idea of what it was that was on fire at the rear of firetruck 161.

Then there are all of those people who were involved in dragging debris away and hiding it.
Even if we don't know their names, we certainly know what they look like, unless the plastic surgeons have been very busy, in the last ten years.

At least Mr Wallace made attempt to go into the building to try and rescue any body he came across, although he has come down pretty hard on himself, for not going to a woman who was 'clapping' her hands to guide him towards her.

The immediate trauma and post trauma of the people immediately involved in this horrific event, is only what they would know, something we should all be grateful we have not had to face.

It may be that some of these people, would welcome the opportunity to be more complete in their account of what they experienced.
We are not here to judge them, if they need help, we should bring it to them.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Oct 18 2011, 05:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 18 2011, 08:34 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Interesting stuff Robert.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 18 2011, 11:39 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



Robert, that's a very long and inaccurate post on many fronts.

First off, no matter how "confusing" you deem witness testimony to be, what are the odds that nobody countered their testimony?

The alleged physical damage is the "hard evidence" of a black op given the NOC evidence.

How can witnesses such as William Middleton and William Lagasse describe the OCT flightpath that they couldn't physically see it from their POVs?

There are no confirmed witnesses to the lightpoles being "struck". Bar Lloyd England who repeatedly denies being on the bridge and whose story has been pummelled to the point of irrelevancy.

The poles around the generator are bent out and away from the facade

I've already explained to you in some depth that the damage to the Titan firetruck shows the perimeter of the outer casing of the engine bent out the way. That the engine parts within that casing are in tact. That you're suggesting that a a several ton component allegedly travelling at 540 mph at 37 to the facade was instantaneously deflected to an almost right angle away from its trajectory. Actually away from the facade!

1) There is no damage whatsoever to the foundation at the alleged point where the left engine was supposed to have struck.

2) There was no visible engine debris in that area.

3) You even state yourself that "there being no evidence at all of an engine on the left of the fuselage impacting the wall of the building even if the fuselage was considered to have entered the building through the impact hole at ground level."

(Also add that the centre of the fuselage would have had to go through the slab between the first and second floor. At an angle.)

You claim that the two cars that caught fire beside the heliport were "struck".They weren't. They caught fire. One just after the explosion and one just after the collapse.

Please show the "aircraft fuselage" you are referring to.

The "right wing damage" you refer to is inconsistent with the lack of damage to column 18AA and the roof slab between 17AA and 18AA.

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03885.JPEG
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9171/column18aalegend.png

The "video evidence" is government controlled and proven to have been manipulated but if you want to trust it, it's up to you.

The unidentified scraps of alleged debris on the lawn..do they look like the the aftermath of a high speed collision of the wafer thin outer perimeter of an aircraft against a concrete facade?
If there had have been an impact and an explosion, shouldn't the debris have been blown in all directions given how light the material appeared?

How could those pieces with the AA logo situated between the cockpit and the wings have exploded on to the lawn if the explosion was the result of the fuel tanks striking the facade? Did they just float about there until the fuel tanks reached the facade?

There are no images or videos available until at least 7 minutes after the explosion.

Basically Robert, it's a case of your dismissing corroborative witness testimony, collected by people on our side, which is "hard evidence" to pursue a pet theory of yours?

You think that we'll get anywhere with this theory?

Robert: There was an impact but it was an A3 SkyWarrior.

OSS: Where do we go from here?

Robert: First off, we'll ignore an entire pool of witnesses because they don't "fit" into my theory.

That's where you lost me Robert. I'm tired of this bullshit.

Edit added:

QUOTE
Taking the marked up map you have provided and using your terms, 'official path', for the light pole approach and 'NOC', for north of the petrol station approach.


The term "official path" isn't "my term". It's the official path according to the directional damage and the bullshit electronic data. "NOC" is a phrase coined to describe what all of the interviewed witnesses described. Let's get that little dismissive tactic cleared up, huh?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Oct 19 2011, 09:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 18 2011, 06:22 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Oct 19 2011, 01:09 AM) *
Robert, that's a very long and inaccurate post on many fronts.

First off, no matter how "confusing" you deem witness testimony to be, what are the odds that nobody countered their testimony?

The alleged physical damage is the "hard evidence" of a black op given the NOC evidence.

How can witnesses such as William Middleton and William Lagasse describe the OCT flightpath that they couldn't physically see it from their POVs?

There are no confirmed witnesses to the lightpoles being "struck". Bar Lloyd England who repeatedly denies being on the bridge and whose story has been pummelled to the point of irrelevancy.

The poles around the generator are bent out and away from the facade

I've already explained to you in some depth that the damage to the Titan firetruck shows the perimeter of the outer casing of the engine bent out the way. That the engine parts within that casing are in tact. That you're suggesting that a a several ton component allegedly travelling at 540 mph at 37 to the facade was instantaneously deflected to an almost right angle away from its trajectory. Actually away from the facade!

1) There is no damage whatsoever to the foundation at the alleged point where the left engine was supposed to have struck.

2) There was no visible engine debris in that area.

3) You even state yourself that "there being no evidence at all of an engine on the left of the fuselage impacting the wall of the building even if the fuselage was considered to have entered the building through the impact hole at ground level."

(Also add that the centre of the fuselage would have had to go through the slab between the first and second floor. At an angle.)

You claim that the two cars that caught fire beside the heliport were "struck".They weren't. They caught fire. One just after the explosion and one just after the collapse.

Please show the "aircraft fuselage" you are referring to.

The "right wing damage" you refer to is inconsistent with the lack of damage to column 18AA and the roof slab between 17AA and 18AA.

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2...D-02-03885.JPEG
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9171/column18aalegend.png

The "video evidence" is government controlled and proven to have been manipulated but if you want to trust it, it's up to you.

The unidentified scraps of alleged debris on the lawn..do they look like the the aftermath of a high speed collision of the wafer thin outer perimeter of an aircraft against a concrete facade?
If there had have been an impact and an explosion, shouldn't the debris have been blown in all directions given how light the material appeared?

How could those pieces with the AA logo situated between the cockpit and the wings have exploded on to the lawn if the explosion was the result of the fuel tanks striking the facade? Did they just float about there until the fuel tanks reached the facade?

There are no images or videos available until at least 7 minutes after the explosion.

Basically Robert, it's a case of your dismissing corroborative witness testimony, collected by people on our side, which is "hard evidence" to pursue a pet theory of yours?

You think that we'll get anywhere with this theory?

Robert: There was an impact but it was an A3 SkyWarrior.

OSS: Where do we go from here?

Robert: First off, we'll ignore an entire pool of witnesses because they don't "fit" into my theory.

That's where you lost me Robert. I'm tired of this bullshit.


Dear 'onesliceshort'

I am sorry to hear you are lost.

But apparently the "actual post" I placed yesterday has got lost too.

Perhaps it could be found and placed back on this topic please.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 18 2011, 09:25 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 18 2011, 06:22 PM) *
Dear 'onesliceshort'

I am sorry to hear you are lost.

But apparently the "actual post" I placed yesterday has got lost too.

Perhaps it could be found and placed back on this topic please.

Robert



According to your post today, Oct 18 at 12:47AM Eastern Time, you did not post anything in this thread "yesterday".

QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 18 2011, 12:47 AM) *
Dear "all".
If I can be excused, I have taken the liberty of resurrecting this post by 'onesliceshort', along with comment I had added.


And your post is still there above. Just click the little arrow in the quote above and it will take you to your post.


By the way 23investigator, if you are going to sign your real name to your posts, please sign with a last initial or last full name so that readers won't be confused that your post may have been made by me.

Either that, or let me know and I will change your UserID to "Robert" with a last name initial.

Thanks.

I say this as I have recevied some emails in which readers thought that I made your posts because they were signed as "Robert".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 18 2011, 11:55 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
I am sorry to hear you are lost.


I'm not lost Robert. I know exactly where I am on this. It's your logic on why we should dismiss solid evidence in favour of your pet theory.

Usually when I see the sentence (or variation of), "witness testimony is unreliable" when approaching the NOC evidence, I know there's gonna be a theory tagged onto it. Whether it's the OCT or whatever.

It's dishonest, lazy and insulting to those who have been under constant attack for 5 years simply for releasing these interviews.

I'd appreciate an answer to some of those points raised by the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 19 2011, 12:04 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



[quote name='rob balsamo' date='Oct 19 2011, 10:55 AM' post='10802052']
According to your post today, Oct 18 at 12:47AM Eastern Time, you did not post anything in this thread "yesterday".



And your post is still there above. Just click the little arrow in the quote above and it will take you to your post.


Dear Mr Balsamo

I have clicked the little arrow, as you have instructed.
It does not bring up the complete post that I am concerned about.

The post is an extension upon the portion you have identified.

As I explained in my message to you, the complete post was there originally, as I had viewed and read it from going in through the "research" topic.

For some reason or other it is not there now.

I had shared the post to 'blogger', where it still shows in its entirety.
It is identified on there as Pentagon theories - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum #entry 10802041.

thankyou
Robert S

ps: by the way, 18/10 in my part of the world, was yesterday.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 19 2011, 06:40 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 18 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Dear "all".
If I can be excused, I have taken the liberty of resurrecting this post by 'onesliceshort', along with comment I had added.

The recent post raised regarding questions about the 'light pole' damage has prompted my actions.

It is now 10 months since placing my comments.

During that period, steadily more and more photograph images have emerged, with better quality, along with more and better quality video image.

There is no doubt from this, that an object of the proportions of the jet engine fitted to a 'Global Hawk', was dragged away from the fire truck that was damaged and burning near the heliport building.
There is also no doubt, that another object which is of the proportions of the main fueslage frame of a 'Global Hawk', was in the proximity of the burning fire truck, midway between damaged cars and the firetruck.

The engine appears to have then been left to stand, in the proximity of the doorway near the burning firetruck, to be then removed.

It is highly likely the fuselage section, was dragged behind the heliport building, to be then removed.

It is apparent, the amount of debris in the immediate area of the burning fire truck was considerable.
Mr Wallace the fireman connected with the burning firetruck, has said in his statement, he had to be very careful where he was walking because of this debris, especially as most of it was on fire.

Mr Wallace also said he managed to get the burning firetruck engine started, immediately he tried, but when he engaged drive the vehicle would not move, with the engine refusing to increase in 'revs'.
Which sounds very much likely something 'heavy' was retarding its movement.

Interesting point in a photograph taken later than the immediate time after impact, is that the same firetruck had been moved slightly south than it was whilst on fire, despite it having a collapsed rear left wheel, which is where the damage to the vehicle and the fire occurred.

When the firetruck was finally removed on a vehicle transport, it appears to have still had the damaged rear left wheel.

The larger proportion of the wings of a 'Global Hawk' are comprised of 'carbon composite', material.
The wing is not overly sophisticated in its design, with limited 'avionic' functions, but quite sophisticated in its construction, to obtain the high strength and flexibility of such long wings.
But they were not designed to whack into light poles or the side of the Pentagon building.
They were the main conveyor of 'fuel' for flight, contained outwards of the central fixed part of wing that ran under the fuselage, which carried the undercarriage and the main fuel circulation plumbing to the external wings either side.
This plumbing and componentry, was quite sophisticated, to use heat exchangers to maintain the fuel at necessary temperature.

There is another portion of debris visible in later photographs, which looks remarkably like the portion of fuselage which surrounded the central wing portion.
Numerous of the small metal mechanical components lying on the ground could be parts of this system.
Plus parts associated with the navigational components of the aircraft.

The main fuel explosion related to the aircraft impacting the Pentagon building wall, if it was in fact a "Global Hawk", would not have done the wing a lot of good at all, especially the outer skin surface of the external wings, which being relatively thin 'carbon composite' would have disintegrated into very small pieces.
Most likely the reason for the 'slave line' of people dilligently picking up small pieces of something off of the lawn surface, at both the north and south side of the explosion.
At the southern end right out to the perimeter of the precinct lawn area and beyond, where people remarked and are shown picking up debris which looks to be 'carbon composite', and small metallic components, which don't appear to be parts associated with a large commercial aircraft like a Boeing 757.
In fact some of the people 'filmed' picking up the parts making comment that they appeared to be off of a smaller aircraft.
As did people who were interviewed.

A serious investigation of these components, would most likely reveal, they are in fact part of a "Global Hawk".

It appears that it is generally conceded that an aircraft flew to the north of the 'citgo' service station, the aircraft consistently described as a large twin engine commercial aircraft.
There appears to be not as much certainty, that the aircraft 'flew' over the top of the Pentagon building.

Logically it must have, if the "official" opinion that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon building followed a flight path that brought it into contact with the 'light poles'.

Other wise two large twin engine commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon building.

The evidence to any rational consideration does not even support the notion that 'one did'.

So surely a logical consideration would be to pursue any other consideration of an 'aircraft' having hit the Pentagon building, to the fullest degree possible.

If that should reveal that there was no possible way another type of aircraft was involved, well then, the objective could be concentrated upon what else could have caused the type of damage evident to the Pentagon building and objects on the western side (outside) of its wall.

It appears from my position, that investigation is a long way from being at this point.

Robert

ps --people involved need to be spoken to again, just like what has been carried out with the 'north of the citgo considerations'.
There were a heck of a lot more people in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon building, at the time and after the explosion, than have been involved in the 'north of the citgo considerations'.

For starters, what was it that stopped Mr Wallace from being able to drive his firetruck away from the building.
He would have a pretty good idea, I reckon, as he has described how he tried to dowse the fire at the rear of his firetruck with a half empty extinguisher, which he then through away.
There were another two fire officers there with him associated with firetruck 161, one of them commenting that when ever Mr Wallace accelerated the engine of the firetruck it caused the flames of the fire at the rear of it to intensify.
This suggests he would have a pretty good idea of what it was that was on fire at the rear of firetruck 161.

Then there are all of those people who were involved in dragging debris away and hiding it.
Even if we don't know their names, we certainly know what they look like, unless the plastic surgeons have been very busy, in the last ten years.

At least Mr Wallace made attempt to go into the building to try and rescue any body he came across, although he has come down pretty hard on himself, for not going to a woman who was 'clapping' her hands to guide him towards her.

The immediate trauma and post trauma of the people immediately involved in this horrific event, is only what they would know, something we should all be grateful we have not had to face.

It may be that some of these people, would welcome the opportunity to be more complete in their account of what they experienced.
We are not here to judge them, if they need help, we should bring it to them.

Robert



please find this copy of the post that was placed on 18/10

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 19 2011, 08:18 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
I had shared the post to 'blogger', where it still shows in its entirety.


Of course they accepted it in its entirity Robert.
Is there a link to it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 19 2011, 09:00 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 19 2011, 06:40 AM) *
please find this copy of the post that was placed on 18/10

Robert S




It is right here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10802041

It is post #2 in this thread.

According to the post, you made the post on 10/18 at 12:47am and edited it a few hours later at 5:13am Eastern time.

No one else has edited it, moved it, or deleted it.

No one else has touched your post, except you.

You may have inadvertently edited out some of your post when you made your edit at 5:13 Eastern.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 19 2011, 09:22 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



Edit added to earlier post:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10802044
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 19 2011, 02:56 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 18 2011, 02:17 PM) *
Dear "all".
If I can be excused, I have taken the liberty of resurrecting this post by 'onesliceshort', along with comment I had added.

The recent post raised regarding questions about the 'light pole' damage has prompted my actions.

It is now 10 months since placing my comments.

During that period, steadily more and more photograph images have emerged, with better quality, along with more and better quality video image.

There is no doubt from this, that an object of the proportions of the jet engine fitted to a 'Global Hawk', was dragged away from the fire truck that was damaged and burning near the heliport building.
There is also no doubt, that another object which is of the proportions of the main fueslage frame of a 'Global Hawk', was in the proximity of the burning fire truck, midway between damaged cars and the firetruck.

The engine appears to have then been left to stand, in the proximity of the doorway near the burning firetruck, to be then removed.

It is highly likely the fuselage section, was dragged behind the heliport building, to be then removed.

It is apparent, the amount of debris in the immediate area of the burning fire truck was considerable.
Mr Wallace the fireman connected with the burning firetruck, has said in his statement, he had to be very careful where he was walking because of this debris, especially as most of it was on fire.

Mr Wallace also said he managed to get the burning firetruck engine started, immediately he tried, but when he engaged drive the vehicle would not move, with the engine refusing to increase in 'revs'.
Which sounds very much likely something 'heavy' was retarding its movement.

Interesting point in a photograph taken later than the immediate time after impact, is that the same firetruck had been moved slightly south than it was whilst on fire, despite it having a collapsed rear left wheel, which is where the damage to the vehicle and the fire occurred.

When the firetruck was finally removed on a vehicle transport, it appears to have still had the damaged rear left wheel.

The larger proportion of the wings of a 'Global Hawk' are comprised of 'carbon composite', material.
The wing is not overly sophisticated in its design, with limited 'avionic' functions, but quite sophisticated in its construction, to obtain the high strength and flexibility of such long wings.
But they were not designed to whack into light poles or the side of the Pentagon building.
They were the main conveyor of 'fuel' for flight, contained outwards of the central fixed part of wing that ran under the fuselage, which carried the undercarriage and the main fuel circulation plumbing to the external wings either side.
This plumbing and componentry, was quite sophisticated, to use heat exchangers to maintain the fuel at necessary temperature.

There is another portion of debris visible in later photographs, which looks remarkably like the portion of fuselage which surrounded the central wing portion.
Numerous of the small metal mechanical components lying on the ground could be parts of this system.
Plus parts associated with the navigational components of the aircraft.

The main fuel explosion related to the aircraft impacting the Pentagon building wall, if it was in fact a "Global Hawk", would not have done the wing a lot of good at all, especially the outer skin surface of the external wings, which being relatively thin 'carbon composite' would have disintegrated into very small pieces.
Most likely the reason for the 'slave line' of people dilligently picking up small pieces of something off of the lawn surface, at both the north and south side of the explosion.
At the southern end right out to the perimeter of the precinct lawn area and beyond, where people remarked and are shown picking up debris which looks to be 'carbon composite', and small metallic components, which don't appear to be parts associated with a large commercial aircraft like a Boeing 757.
In fact some of the people 'filmed' picking up the parts making comment that they appeared to be off of a smaller aircraft.
As did people who were interviewed.

A serious investigation of these components, would most likely reveal, they are in fact part of a "Global Hawk".

It appears that it is generally conceded that an aircraft flew to the north of the 'citgo' service station, the aircraft consistently described as a large twin engine commercial aircraft.
There appears to be not as much certainty, that the aircraft 'flew' over the top of the Pentagon building.

Logically it must have, if the "official" opinion that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon building followed a flight path that brought it into contact with the 'light poles'.

Other wise two large twin engine commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon building.

The evidence to any rational consideration does not even support the notion that 'one did'.

So surely a logical consideration would be to pursue any other consideration of an 'aircraft' having hit the Pentagon building, to the fullest degree possible.

If that should reveal that there was no possible way another type of aircraft was involved, well then, the objective could be concentrated upon what else could have caused the type of damage evident to the Pentagon building and objects on the western side (outside) of its wall.

It appears from my position, that investigation is a long way from being at this point.

Robert

ps --people involved need to be spoken to again, just like what has been carried out with the 'north of the citgo considerations'.
There were a heck of a lot more people in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon building, at the time and after the explosion, than have been involved in the 'north of the citgo considerations'.

For starters, what was it that stopped Mr Wallace from being able to drive his firetruck away from the building.
He would have a pretty good idea, I reckon, as he has described how he tried to dowse the fire at the rear of his firetruck with a half empty extinguisher, which he then through away.
There were another two fire officers there with him associated with firetruck 161, one of them commenting that when ever Mr Wallace accelerated the engine of the firetruck it caused the flames of the fire at the rear of it to intensify.
This suggests he would have a pretty good idea of what it was that was on fire at the rear of firetruck 161.

Then there are all of those people who were involved in dragging debris away and hiding it.
Even if we don't know their names, we certainly know what they look like, unless the plastic surgeons have been very busy, in the last ten years.

At least Mr Wallace made attempt to go into the building to try and rescue any body he came across, although he has come down pretty hard on himself, for not going to a woman who was 'clapping' her hands to guide him towards her.

The immediate trauma and post trauma of the people immediately involved in this horrific event, is only what they would know, something we should all be grateful we have not had to face.

It may be that some of these people, would welcome the opportunity to be more complete in their account of what they experienced.
We are not here to judge them, if they need help, we should bring it to them.

Robert


Dear Mr Balsamo

Please find a copy of the post which appears to be disappearing from the Pilots For Truth Forum.
This copy is from 23investigator blogger, with the original date of 18 -10.

Yesterday, that is 19 -10 I placed a similar copy on the Pilots For truth Forum.
It appeared on the "Forum" under 'research', 'alternative theories'.
I noticed at the time of checking this, that the original post I had placed was back on the "Forum" in entirety.

This morning when I checked the "Forum", neither were there, just a post by 'onesliceshort', which made reference to 'edit added to earlier post', and the original post placed in December 2010.

I have also noticed whilst going through this process, yesterday there was another post placed by 'onesliceshort', which disappeared and is not included on the "Forum" now.

It seems something strange is happening around the post I placed on 18 -10, for some reason.
Or at least at this end it is, the events as I have reported them to you.

Thanks

Robert S

ps: if it is necessary, I will retype the 'original post of 18 -10' as a new reply.
in addition whilst going through this process this morning, I noticed a post which was placed by 'amazed', which does not appear now, plus aother edit note by 'onesliceshort', which referred to getting certain terms sorted out, which does not appear now.

it appears somebody has been quite busy adding --stuff-- and then removing it, for some strange reason.

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Oct 19 2011, 03:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 19 2011, 03:23 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (23investigator @ Oct 19 2011, 02:56 PM) *
Dear Mr Balsamo

Please find a copy of the post which appears to be disappearing from the Pilots For Truth Forum.
This copy is from 23investigator blogger, with the original date of 18 -10.


You may want to get your computer checked as you now have 3 copies of the same post on this thread.

Here are the last moderator actions on this forum over the past few weeks.

rob balsamo Moved a topic from Latest News to Research Latest News Catholicism, Masonry, Occultism And 911
Topic ID: 21702 Oct 12 2011, 09:51 PM
rob balsamo Moved a topic from Latest News to Lobby Latest News A Poll - Should Education Be Free? Should Healthcare Be Free? Or Is There Another Answer?
Topic ID: 21690 Oct 4 2011, 11:28 PM

No one has touched your posts and your post, along with oneslice's post, has always been here.

The last one and only one who made changes to your post, post #2 on this thread, is you.... as is indicated by the edit note...

"This post has been edited by 23investigator: Yesterday, 05:13 AM"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 19 2011, 04:05 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 20 2011, 04:53 AM) *
You may want to get your computer checked as you now have 3 copies of the same post on this thread.

Here are the last moderator actions on this forum over the past few weeks.

rob balsamo Moved a topic from Latest News to Research Latest News Catholicism, Masonry, Occultism And 911
Topic ID: 21702 Oct 12 2011, 09:51 PM
rob balsamo Moved a topic from Latest News to Lobby Latest News A Poll - Should Education Be Free? Should Healthcare Be Free? Or Is There Another Answer?
Topic ID: 21690 Oct 4 2011, 11:28 PM

No one has touched your posts and your post, along with oneslice's post, has always been here.

The last one and only one who made changes to your post, post #2 on this thread, is you.... as is indicated by the edit note...

"This post has been edited by 23investigator: Yesterday, 05:13 AM"


Dear Mr Balsamo

With respect, I do not believe there is anything wrong with my computer.
There is absolutely no difficulty at all, with the numerous other posts I have placed and are current on Pilots For Truth Forum.

I am well aware of the process that has unfolded, as I have kept copy of what has appeared and disappeared, and of course the 'edits' which I am aware of.

All of this does not explain why the 'research', 'alternative theory', did not contain any of the ten last posts you, have shown, when I went into it this morning, other than the original post of 30 December 2010, and the edit post by 'onesliceshort' posted yesterday 10.50pm.

Well I guess, if there are three copies showing on the thread, I don't have to go to the trouble of retyping it.

thanks

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 19 2011, 04:17 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Clear your cookies maybe....?

Is anyone else having trouble finding posts or seeing/not seeing the posts in question above?

I have seen them each and every time i have read this thread. I have checked the logs to see if any mods may have moved, deleted or edited posts....

No one has touched your posts except you 23investigator and they have always been here just as you wrote them and edited them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 19 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 20 2011, 05:47 AM) *
Clear your cookies maybe....?

Is anyone else having trouble finding posts or seeing/not seeing the posts in question above?

I have seen them each and every time i have read this thread. I have checked the logs to see if any mods may have moved, deleted or edited posts....

No one has touched your posts except you 23investigator and they have always been here just as you wrote them and edited them.


Dear Mr Balsamo

Did the original of this reach you?
I have typed it here as I sent it previously in responce to your last post #6

Dear Mr Balsamo
With respect I do not believe there is anything wrong with my computer.
There is absolutely no difficulty at all, with the numerous other posts I have placed and are current on Pilots For Truth Forum.

I am well aware of the process that has unfolded, as I have kept copy of what has appeared and disappeared, and of course the edits which I am aware of.

All of this does not explain why the 'research', 'alternative theory', did not contain any of the ten last posts you have shown, when I went into it this morning, other than the original post of 30 December 2010, and the edit post by 'onesliceshort' posted yesterday 10.50pm.

Well I guess, if there are three copies showing on the thread, I don't need to go to the trouble of retyping it.

thanks

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Oct 19 2011, 10:48 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 913
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Got the same problem here, Rob!

Only 23i's first post from 28. Dec. 2010 is visible on the thread starter.

It is only when i click on the 'reply' buttons that the following posts then

appear on this page.

We both post from Australia, so now wonder if this could have anything

to do with it??


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Oct 19 2011, 10:57 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 913
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



I count 10 posts in total visible right now, apart from this one.

And of course posts on the 'reply' page cannot be edited, hence

this extra post from me here!


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 20 2011, 12:55 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Oct 19 2011, 10:48 PM) *
Got the same problem here, Rob!

Only 23i's first post from 28. Dec. 2010 is visible on the thread starter.

It is only when i click on the 'reply' buttons that the following posts then

appear on this page.

We both post from Australia, so now wonder if this could have anything

to do with it??


Cheers



Hmm... interesting.

There are now 20 posts in this thread including this one I'm posting now. I have always been able to see all posts.

Are everyone else who is reading this able to see all posts? The number of the post is in the upper right corner.

Also, for those who may be haivng a problem please check your display mode. In the upper right corner of the top of the thread is an "Options" drop down menu. Click that and make sure you're in Standard mode.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 23rd October 2014 - 02:39 AM