What actually hit the Pentagon: an old stone apparently left unturned

[agentbluescreen]

Well Jimd, what do you have to say?



In the double-length (32') neo-Jamesway pictured here you can park two Ford Expedition or F350-sized trucks and still have room for all your tools and a couple John Deers. There is no easy way whatsoever to keep those arches bent (let alone aligned) should one ever come off the ground either. You'll also note there are no top horizontal arch-stretchers, just a single peak and the other two are at 1' and around 5'.

These "tents" in question are the base-width wider than a two car garage door, and in the center it's comfortably way higher than most of those.

[agentbluescreen]

SO now I have reverse engineered this Tomahawk ADM/JPAD and mated it to the missile used. It should easily be less than 5' wide and approximately 19-21' long. Such a point-blank range ground launch weapon would have to be the duty of an AGM-86B(actually C) Boeing variant of the cruise missile lineup, due to its top intake and wider deployed wingspan, shown here with wings folded:


http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/agm-86b.jpg

and here the AGM-86C (wings opened after 2 seconds) in flight:


http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/agm-86c.jpg

it's top intake, easy to roller-guide smooth bottom and sides, better lift wide-swing-wings make it the clear across-the-lawn type of weapon needed. Here are some more impressive details:

The (older, original) AGM-86B is powered by a single Williams F107-WR-100 or -101 turbofan engine, and armed with a W-80-1 variable-yield thermonuclear warhead. It is equipped with a Litton P-1000 inertial navigation system, which is updated until immediately before launch by the B-52's INS. The wings and control surfaces are folded to the fuselage, and are unfolded in about 2 seconds after launch. Once at low-level, the AGM-86B uses its McDonnell Douglas AN/DPW-23 TERCOM system to find its way to the target. In a TERCOM system, altitude information obtained by a radar altimeter is continuously matched to a preprogrammed radar map of the area below the missile, so that the ALCM can effectively follow a detailed predetermined flight path.

In 1986, Boeing began converting some AGM-86Bs to AGM-86C standard. The main change is the substitution of the nuclear warhead with a conventional 900 kg (2000 lb) class blast-fragmentation warhead, and the AGM-86C is therefore also known as CALCM (Conventional ALCM). It is rather convenient that the C suffix of the designation can also be read as "Conventional", but other than most press releases may suggest, this is pure coincidence. The AGM-86C is also equipped with a GPS receiver for significantly increased accuracy. The AGM-86C was used very successfully during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the NATO's war against Serbia in 1999. Because the CALCM is heavier than the nuclear ALCM, range is significantly reduced.

The original AGM-86C is known as CALCM Block 0. A new Block I configuration, using improved avionics and GPS receiver and a larger 1450 kg (3000 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead, was successfully tested in 1996, and all existing Block 0 missiles were upgraded to Block I configuration. Block IA is a further improvement to achieve very high precision terminal guidance. It features an extremely accurate optimized multi-channel GPS receiver, and also incorporates enhanced shallow and steep terminal dive capability. The projected accuracy is said to be 3 m (10 ft). Development of Block IA started in 1998, and the first missiles were delivered to the USAF in January 2001. More than 300 ALCMs have already been converted to AGM-86Cs, and Boeing has contracts to convert several hundred more to CALCM Block I/IA configuration.

On Sept 11th 2001 when the gas hydraulic front door opener activated and the load straps released it, one of these babies fired out the front of this matching 5' X 20' gray-palleted PEGASYS JPADS 30˚ angle ground launcher and flew across the lawn into the side of the Pentagon.

Then a release valve closed the front door of this funny little "tent".



The CALCM AUP-3M flavor is undoubtedly the exact perfect version that would have done exactly the same damage as was observed by all:

 
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/agm-86cd.gif

[jimd3100]

In the picture you can plainly see that the "skid mark" is already there.

It's not a skid mark, it's just a path that was already there and means
nothing...

The craft would have already been on the ground in this picture
WELL before impact and would have caused a HUGE scattered mess, not a
16 foot hole...

It wasn't a 16 foot hole, you got duped by no plane disinfo and are spreading
it now yourself. 16 foot hole? No, it's the entire first floor which explains why
it collapsed down later.



You got duped by no plane disinfo you thought this was a pic of the hole at
the pentagon, But it's not. It's a pic of the hole being covered up by the water
from the firefighters hose....

Thank you, bluescreen.  The voice of reason.

LOL!

However, the interviewer finds and names two witnesses which saw a plane
fly low over the Pentagon just after the explosion.

This is not true. Roberts has never ever claimed to see any plane fly over
the pentagon. You got conned by a couple of mental patient con artists. I
would suggest you pay close attention to what Roberts actually said. You
might want to look at this....

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4298.msg933760#msg933760

Even in the video "Loose Change", if memory serves, they suggest
that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, and quote Rumsfeld talking about the
"the missile to damage this building."

The loose change crew woke up that it is disinfo. I would suggest you do the
same and stop assisting Rumsfeld and Stubblebine in their disinfo campain.

Interesting, this totally incriminating "covered JPADS Tomahawk-pallet
platform near the road being hustled off under the tarp" photo is suddenly
disappearing everywhere ROTFLMAO

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/216-large.jpg

You are a liar and spread disinfo. I already gave a history lesson on that
website, and it's excellent TRUTHFULL researcher who ran it....
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=164982.msg983435#msg983435
and he exposed your no plane lies, which is why no planers harassed him until he left the movement in disgust. That's your contribution to the truth
movement running off sane rational people and replacing them with disinfo
fools who don't know what they are talking about. I suggest you find another
hobby or stop spreading lies.

How hilarious! The famous "Tent Theory"  lol
I must insist what these traitors are hustling off the edge of the Pentagon
lawn by the highway in this photo is no 'Tent"

It is very obviously a tent and the first one that I'm aware of that exposed
that it was a tent was Russell Pickering's website pentagonresearch.com
that you now falsely claim supports your idiotic theories.




He never did and you are exposed as a liar and fraud. I am very familiar with
the website as I have already mentioned in this thread.

My point about titanium is that yes, there were parts found supposedly, but
they are not proven to be the parts from the aircraft in question, so far as I
have seen.

The plane parts recovered were from a Boeing passenger jet. Plane parts
from any other plane were not found.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/compressor.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hulldebris.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hullpiece.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/gearshaft.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/wheelhub.html

Can you positively identify the engine parts as those of a 757?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html

Then there's the matter of the C130 landing shortly thereafter at Reagan the
witnesses who smelled cordite, the witnesses who saw a plane fly over and
beyond the Pentagon - it's all too obvious.

You tell lies and spread disinfo. The c 130 did not land at Reagan and many
many more smelled jet fuel not cordite, and not a single person on this
planet has claimed to see a plane fly over the pentagon on 9-11.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/fires.html

the very notion that any "jet airliner" could EVER be sucked WHOLE into a
barely 18 foot garage door opening in the blink of an eye is pure balderdash.

You tell lies and spread disinfo you help Rumsfeld and Stubblebine in their
disinfo campaign.This is not an 18 foot hole....

Your lack of both camping and military experience is showing Jimd.

You tell lies and spread disinfo. I would strongly advise you to not spread
lies about me, as I have witnessed you telling lies of Russell Pickering's
website and what it contained. I have not only served in the military, I have
served in two branches of it. The Air Force and Army.

None of you care what the witnesses have to say. And yet, years later when
someone comes forth to say they saw a missile hit the pentagon, you all get
very excited and now the witnesses matter. Well.....only this witness
matters...the title of the thread is...
"Breaking: New witness found, saw missile strike Pentagon on 9/11"
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=32469.0
Read through it and see how giddy everyone is now that we finally have a
witness at the pentagon we will acknowledge. This is the proof that the 9-11
truth movement doesn't care about the truth but their own delusions.
Convince yourself that is a good thing and not harmfull to the cause. And
notice these people are still waiting for that witness.

So, I guess there is your witness, Jim.  I'll let you interrogate.  This should
be interesting.  May the best man win.

He claims to be 3/4 of a mile away and caught a glimpse of something. So
what? Why would I need to "interrogate" him? The CIT loonies went there
and talked with lots of people. I will give them credit for that. And Russell
Pickering and Dylan Avery were with them the first time they went. Russell
and Dylan are not insane, and therefor realized that since everyone they
talked to said they saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon, Loose change
no longer advocates any other "theory". CIT makes con movies. And they
make them just for you folks that refuse to admit your silly no plane at the
pentagon theories are wrong. Any witness that gets the flight path right is
"in on it" while those who put the path 15 degrees off prove the plane flew
over and "fooled" everyone. One thing all the witnesses agreed on...they
watched a passenger jet fly into the pentagon. The physical evidence
confirms this. And witnesses like this would have seen this flyover...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc&feature=related
There are tons of witnesses on the record some standing right next to the
pentagon, not 3/4 mile away, so you can stop pretending to care what the
witnesses have to say. Lots of the photos you've seen at the pentagon were
taken by Steve Riskus, yet another witness....

Steve Riskus took these pictures seconds after the plane hit the pentagon.
He was traveling on route 27 towards 395 when the plane crossed his path
from the right about 100ft in front of him and crashed into the pentagon.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/pentagonattacked.htm

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_eyewitness.jpg

Riskus, Steve
I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the american
airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left
shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.
          Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my
pictures.
          I did acctually see the plane impact the building. Steve Riskus
steveriskus@aol.com  
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta13.html

[citizenx]

Jim,

This guy admits that his memory is vague, so it is not substantive proof.  If he were called to testify in court, his testimony would be almost worthless.  I don't think he is a shill, but it was not necessarily persuasive.

[Kilika]

Tell you what jim, as a citizen, why don't you then run right over to your elected officials and demand they show their proof of what you believe? Surely your not satisfied with the governments handling of the case, are you? I know I'm not convinced of many things about it all, but I am convinced evidence is being withheld to protect their claims. Of that, I have no doubts.

[jimd3100]

Surely your not satisfied with the governments handling of the case, are you? I know I'm not convinced of many things about it all, but I am convinced evidence is being withheld to protect their claims. Of that, I have no doubts.

I have MDR (Mandatory Declassification Review) requests in. It's similar to a FOIA. For information on what a MDR is see...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/guide.html

I'm not expecting much, but at least I'm trying.

But they have nothing to do with what hit the pentagon. I'm interested in real evidence, not no plane fairytale disinfo, so you'll just have to forgive me.

[citizenx]

MDR's
FOIA

Good luck with all that.

[Kilika]

But they have nothing to do with what hit the pentagon. I'm interested in real evidence, not no plane fairytale disinfo, so you'll just have to forgive me.

Of course I forgive you. We all have passion for the truth. And I know what I know is possible, and not possible, in relation to the Pentagon. It is no fairytale. And the truth would be better served if you wouldn't say "no plane" because that is equating this with those people called "no planers" who believe no planes hit the towers, to which I do not espouse. The tower impact video speaks for itself.

You want REAL evidence, then you'll have to rely on the government to provide it, because they snatched it all up and hid it. In the end, I know without any doubt at all I'm correct; no 757, 737, nor any other airliner hit the Pentagon. I will not back off from that. My aviation background tells me it was impossible, period.

At this point, unfortunately, I cannot provide anything to back up what I know to be true. Call it a conclusion based on experience.

Good luck with the info requests. I'm not holding my breath, but God willing, we'll get some actual truth out of this from the government. Miracles do happen.

[agentbluescreen]

You know what Jimd? To a great degree I understand your skepticism, and input into this discussion and greatly value your opposing viewpoint. However I fail to understand your intense paranoia about acknowledging any alternative viewpoint and sincerely hope you just stick to your "facts" and avoid personal ad hominem attacks against me and/or my character for raising valid points and criticisms of the official CIA Mafia "story" of the Pentagon attack, which you seem to so strongly (NOW) support. On the other hand there is nothing like unanimity here at Infowars/Prisonplanet about your particular theory.

You claim to be a "moderator" here in this thread yet you call people like myself and Paul Watson "liars and disinfo agents" for not saluting your Pentagon warlords version of the events? I cannot sink to your level of shallow personal insults in a matter of scientific and engineering debate such as this. I respect what you have to say - but not what you have dared to call me. Please Jimd I want to stay friends here!

Chronicle Hit Piece Says "Whole Country" Saw Plane Hit Pentagon! by Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/190406chroniclehitpiece.htm

A San Francisco Chronicle hit piece which purports to tell 'the truth about 9/11 conspiracy theories' dismisses questions about what happened at the Pentagon by saying that "the whole country witnessed" the sight of a plane flying into the building. The only problem with that statement is that nobody outside of the FBI has seen anything fly into the Pentagon save a few grainy frames from a security camera which the Pentagon doesn't even validate.

I completely fail to see how it does our cause for truth any "harm" whatsoever to find ourselves in critical, categorical and substantial non-agreement with the completely fishy al FBIduh/al CIAduh version of the excuse for this obvious JPADS airdrop pallet missile launcher which if you were in the military you would know without any shadow of a doubt whatsoever is not a 16" wide curved arch Jamesway arctic tent that you have tried to say it was.  But it is especially interesting that afterwards they chose to erect no less than three of these odd, winter huts, all pointing at the impact point and even photographed Bush and Rumsfeldt next to one for added anti-propaganda cointel effect, isn't it?...

 I both hate, disparage, disrespect, suspect and distrust al CIAduh and every sniff of them and every sound they make from the bottoms of their hooves to the tips of their pitchforks and I will never take their "word" for anything as long as I shall live and breathe, and should you agree with them, you are welcome to join their club. I say that both they and their "witnesses" are ALL SUSPECT and I can only assure you that it will do "your cause" no good to throw in with them.

When dealing with a thick web of lies, one sweeps away most "testimony" and focuses upon finding the coherent glimmers of truth. To me these are the numerous people who agreed that they saw a plane fly over the building. Why would anyone make up such a thing? Most dishonest people would want (and choose) to be able to brag that they are poor terrified "brave heroes" who "saw it crash" right under their noses. They probably didn't actually see it, but they still want to be part of the elite club who can say that they did.

This is the most simple discriminating law of discernment always used in weighting and evaluating biased corroborative conflicting witness testimonies, which is consistent with the que bono (who benefits?) concept.

Honestly, like you Jimd I don't know why not kill 100 or so people and just fly the jet into the darn thing as you say they did. Maybe that was the original plan. Most likely they figured out that it was so poorly engineered and built that it would cut right through it.  In fact this building neither has a concrete core nor does it either have 5" thick 30" 0 beam COLUMNS Like the WTC 1 and 2 did. It just has a layer of brick and box frame formed out of flimsy, conventional (for a 4 story structure) 1/2" X 12" soft steel beams none of which are as strong as a single 1" X 16" hardened beams that were the dense outer 'skin" exoskeleton of the WTC towers, so easily sliced through by the then-diced 500MPH moving metal parts of those planes.

If parts of the plane "bounced off" the front of the Pentagon, where are they? Wings flaps. engines landing gear and elevators don't just dissolve, especially if they have not been "diced" nor "shoe-stringed".

BTW I am still looking for the original high resolution image of this alleged 5' wide 20' long JPADS missile launcher and parachute package being removed from the tree by the road:



BTW There are ONLY TWO trees on the whole Pentagon lot by a road with guardrail quite near to where the center lower-left similarly colored JAMESWAY Arctic HUT in this picture is, a few days later:



They were carrying this alleged JPADS Launcher Platform towards the building or a truck near the parking lot, from the point where it says "TREE" where the little yellow tent is - a point exactly on axis with the penetrator missile damage

I have reviewed the 757 Theories and the 737/A7 Theories and found them totally wanting, both depend upon an impossible feat of non- aerodynamic flight phenomenon that could not be duplicated by any human airline pilot in a Boeing 700 series airliner. They would require a perfectly flat and level 3 FOOT touchdown accuracy at 500MPH, after an extended hyper-shallow glide descent rate of only a few and a quarter degrees, such a crash accuracy is simply impossible.

The plane with engines beneath it is three stories high, not two

But then, you pointed put that the third and closest to the blast damage 16' wide 20' long Korean War Era, immovable tensioned-arch M-1948 JAMESWAY QUONSET HUT at the bottom of the picture above by the Big Green normal field tent was being used for DECONTAMINATION!!!  It would be silly to be decontaminating workers at a plane crash, what's the contaminant? Kerosene? Sorry, all gone. Hydraulic oil or gear grease? Likely also burnt. Dasani bottled tap water with fluoride? Maybe, but they probably all broke and/or melted and it had doubtlessly ran off.

AGM-86C Block IA is a further improvement to achieve very high precision terminal guidance. It features an extremely accurate optimized multi-channel GPS receiver, and also incorporates enhanced shallow and steep terminal "dive" capability. The projected accuracy is said to be 3 m (10 ft).

The CALCM AUP-3M Block I/IA (Automated Unitary Penetrator) configuration uses a very specialized DU ultra hardened 'steel' bomblet casing system warhead with very specific armored and well protected controllable Hard Target Smart Fuse target planning decelerometer-tripped, timed and programmed bomblet computer detonation systems that are in the hardened back (HARDBACK) of the missile warhead. This propelled or guided missile "bomb" (BROACH concept) does not destroy the aft 'brains' of the smartbomb itself! In the best case scenario, it delivers itself more or less intact to the final depth expected in the expected structure to be "penetrated".

First off lets remember that the Boeing "HARDBACK" penetrator instrumentation package is interior decorated with the same green primer that the interior of the nose of a Boeing 757 would have but it is filled with Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF) accelerometer and computer parts that control the sequential detonation of the standard three (or even more) AUP depleted uranium shielded penetrator munitions (mini bombs).  The notion that a fat round thin nose cone of a 757 would not be totally shredded and deformed beyond recognition after hitting or cutting through and bouncing off this many beams is ridiculous.



Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM) Block II Penetrator Remnants:


^you can still see a damn wing here^

This missile a 1,200 pound AUP penetrating warhead augmented with two 250 pound forward shaped charges (BROACH concept) for use against buried and/or hardened targets. This 86 AUP is a third generation, hard-target penetrator munition. It has an advanced, heavy steel penetrator warhead filled with high-energy explosives that can penetrate more than twice as much reinforced concrete as the BLU-109.

Performance is enhanced by a void-sensing hard-target smart fuze that detonates the AUP at the optimum point within a target to inflict maximum damage.

The 1700-pound (total) AUP warhead(s) is tucked inside a lightweight aerodynamic shroud. The shroud strips away from the internal penetrator when the weapon impacts the target. The AUP has thicker case walls, a tougher case material, an improved nose shape, and a smaller explosive charge.  A smaller explosive charge reduces collateral damage potential by reducing blast overpressure that could expel chemical or biological agents from the target. A long testing series demonstrated AUP's compatibility with the Munitions Directorate-developed Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF). The HTSF allows the AUP to be detonated at the optimal point within a target to inflict maximum damage. That ability compensates for the reduction in explosive charge.

A recent Internet investigation indicated that in 1996 Boeing started to convert nuclear armed AGM-86B missiles to conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) versions re-named CALCM (Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles) - AGM-86C.

One version of these - the AGM-86D - uses an "advanced penetrating warhead to quickly provide theater commanders with a long range weapon to precisely attack an enemy's most valuable facilities." (source Jane's website and Boeing via: http://www.defence-discovery.com and search for "Defeat of High Value Targets". See also Boeing CALCM AGM-86C).

In the USA in 1998 Lockheed Martin developed an Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP-3M).

In the UK British Aerospace Royal Ordnance developed a penetrating warhead system known as BROACH/Multiple Warhead System (MWS). In May 1998 ground tests in Wales indicated that this could penetrate a 12-foot thick concrete target. It was selected for US AGM-86 systems.

Both warhead systems were under competitive evaluation in 1998-99 to win contracts for re-equipping AGM-86 systems. In December 1998 Operation Desert Fox was an ideal opportunity to test these systems in combat. The Balkans war presented many more opportunities in April-May 1999.

High penetration of targets requires high kinetic energy munitions i.e. made of high- density materials. DU and Tungsten are the most commonly referred to materials in reports on kinetic energy munitions. DU has three advantages over Tungsten: easy availability, far lower cost (it is a waste product of nuclear processing) and its pyrophoric quality that makes it an effective incendiary as well as high penetration material.

BROACH warheads weigh approximately 400 kilograms of which 90 are explosives. After control systems this leaves 150+ kilos of penetrating material. If this is DU (clean or dirty) it would create a far higher volume of Uranium oxide dust than A10 anti-tank attacks. Just 20 missiles would match the total quantity of 10,000 GAU-8/A 30mm armour piercing shells that the US admitted to using in the Balkans war (the DU penetrators in these shells weigh just under 0.3 kilograms). Since deep penetration missile warheads also contain explosive charges the likelihood that DU would oxidise is likely to be higher than the percentage of 30mm shells fired that hit hard targets and burned into DU oxide dust.

[jimd3100]

However I fail to understand your intense paranoia about acknowledging any alternative viewpoint

LOL! You have the nerve to call me paranoid when it was you who claimed the forum was shut down due to you exposing a pic everyone has already seen, proving your paranoia. Classic.
 

You claim to be a "moderator" here in this thread yet you call people like myself and Paul Watson "liars and disinfo agents" for not saluting your Pentagon warlords version of the events?

You expose yourself as a liar, as you just did here. Trying to claim you and Watson have the same view and I accuse Watson of being a liar and disinfo agent. I never claimed you were a disinfo agent. I claim you spread no plane disinfo which you do. In regards to Watson you not only lied as I have never even implied he is a liar or agent, but you are dishonest in what you claim he is reporting. You completely missed the point of his article.

The article was written in April of 2006 and Watson was making the point that an article written in the San Francisco Chronicle claimed that the whole world saw the plane fly into the pentagon. He was making the point that video of the impact has never been released so that is not true.
Look!---
Chronicle Hit Piece Says "Whole Country" Saw Plane Hit Pentagon!
So show us the video!
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | Updated April 20 2006
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/190406chroniclehitpiece.htm

See what was just under the headline, that I put in bold face just for you? That is the point of the article. The article was written in April 2006. The video was released in May 2006....

Judicial Watch Obtains September 11 Pentagon Video
May 16, 2006 Contact: Press Office
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml

So what did Watson write when the video was released?

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 16 2006
Alex Jones and this website have always approached the Pentagon subject with caution because we were wary that it was a potential honey pot that would be used to distract and later discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506pentagonimages.htm

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op
Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 16 2006
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

I would suggest you get a better handle on your dishonesty and paranoia. When I post on here I don't speak for Alex Jones Paul Watson or anyone else. But here's a little secret for you, Watson knows what my position is on the pentagon. And I resent you posting on this forum that I called him a disinfo agent and liar. You only expose your own dishonesty.

engines landing gear and elevators don't just dissolve

landing gear

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml
engine



http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
The rest of your post was the same BS you've flooded the thread with already and frankly I'm bored with it.

[jimd3100]

In the end, I know without any doubt at all I'm correct; no 757, 737, nor any other airliner hit the Pentagon. I will not back off from that.

At this point, unfortunately, I cannot provide anything to back up what I know to be true.

Uh...yup. And yet...you say.....

Look, I'm tired of discussing this with a wall. You believe whatever you want

[Kilika]

Your point being?

[DAVIDE MTL]

9/11 truth has nothing to gain by speculating on what hit the pentagon, the official stance should be we don't know...just my 2 cents

[TheQ]

lol.. jimd3100, who took that landing gear picture again? Yet you post that as proof...  just like the witness accounts you heard on NBC.... and then dare to call anyone who disagree with you disinfo or spreading disinfo... All you do is divide..

[jimd3100]

lol.. jimd3100, who took that landing gear picture again?

That would be the rescue crews. Did they plant it?

Yet you post that as proof...  just like the witness accounts you heard on NBC

The witnesses are all liars? And the news crew that heard explosions at the WTC were lieing too? NBC is the only network that was on the scene talking to witnesses? There were lots and lots of witnesses, were they all plants? Are you saying there were no local news on the scene? Were they all "in on it"?

....

and then dare to call anyone who disagree with you disinfo or spreading disinfo

You mean when someone says it was an 18 foot hole when it was really the first floor is giving good info? Or when they say there were no plane parts, and then when I show the plane parts you say that doesn't count?

..

All you do is divide..

Yes, Indeed. If you're not interested in the truth get out of the truth movement.
Is Jim Hoffman also a divider? Or is he my cointel partner? Or someone else who insists the 9/11 truth movement be truthfull and have it's sh*t together?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html

Or perhaps you think Dr Frank Legge of The Journel of 9/11 studies is my cointel partner?

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

[TheQ]

That would be the rescue crews. Did they plant it?
The witnesses are all liars? And the news crew that heard explosions at the WTC were lieing too?

.... You mean when someone says it was an 18 foot hole when it was really the first floor is giving good info? Or when they say there were no plane parts, and then when I show the plane parts you say that doesn't count?

..

Yes, Indeed. If you're not interested in the truth get out of the truth movement.
Is Jim Hoffman also a divider? Or is he my cointel partner? Or someone else who insists the 9/11 truth movement be truthfull and have it's sh*t together?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html

You know when those pics were taken? You think they can't dump a bunch of plane parts on the lawn like they possibly did in Pennsylvania?  How about the testimony of April Gallup, who worked at the pentagon and who appeared many times on AJ show? How about the account of Jamie Mcyntire who later tried to back peddle unsuccesfully..?

And are you really arguing that NBC and the mainstream media couldn't have shown us fake witnesses because real witnesses will sometimes slip thru the cracks and be heard on TV..? You see, I'm arguing for the possibility that they are fake... you on the other hand is 100% certain that they are real..

haha... No dissenting opinions will be tolerated in the thruth movement, we must speak with one voice and agree on every details!!!! If you don't agree, get out of it, we don't want you!!   Absolutely laughable...

[jimd3100]

You know when those pics were taken? You think they can't dump a bunch of plane parts on the lawn like they possibly did in Pennsylvania?

Is there a reason you like to help debunkers when they claim so many people would have to be involved? So they're all "in on it" huh? Any proof? Or just another "belief"?

How about the testimony of April Gallup, who worked at the pentagon and who appeared many times on AJ show?

She was inside the pentagon and doesn't know what hit it, and wasn't doing any inspections, but rather grabbed her kid and got out, and went to a hospital, I thought you didn't care about witnesses? There were a bunch outside, but you wont acknowledge them. How come? Because it ruins your no plane theories? Your "beliefs" mean nothing. I resent you no planers trying to turn this into a cult.

How about the account of Jamie Mcyntire who later tried to back peddle unsuccesfully..?

This is the reason I do this. You are completely duped by lies and disinfo. He never backpeddled. No plane disinfo shills edited his report.

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

Unedited video proves he's telling the truth....
Pay attention to what is said at the 2:31 mark to the 2:50 mark. You Dishonest no planers edited that out to make it appear he was reporting no plane crash. This is blatantly dishonest. In fact it's disinfo. And if you opened your eyes, what I am trying to do is WAKE YOU UP TO IT. There is a disinfo campain. And I call you no planers because this no plane BS started at the pentagon. You are the original no planers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8

The edited clip that duped you into no plane kookville land....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BQiFHpGglw

And are you really arguing that NBC and the mainstream media couldn't have shown us fake witnesses because real witnesses will sometimes slip thru the cracks and be heard on TV..? You see, I'm arguing for the possibility that they are fake... you on the other hand is 100% certain that they are real..

TV Fakery no plane garbage. The roads were full of people who saw what happened. Use some common sense. There were people all over the place, some right next to the impact point. Take a wild guess what they all claim to have seen.

haha... No dissenting opinions will be tolerated in the thruth movement, we must speak with one voice and agree on every details!!!! If you don't agree, get out of it, we don't want you!!   Absolutely laughable...

How about I just showed that the truth movement tells lies. Guess how you destroy the credibility of a truth movement. Some of us are hip to this. Maybe you should be too. Credibility and honesty matter. If it doesn't there is no truth movement.

[TheQ]

Is there a reason you like to help debunkers when they claim so many people would have to be involved? So they're all "in on it" huh? Any proof? Or just another "belief"?
 
She was inside the pentagon and doesn't know what hit it, and wasn't doing any inspections, but rather grabbed her kid and got out, and went to a hospital, I thought you didn't care about witnesses? There were a bunch outside, but you wont acknowledge them. How come? Because it ruins your no plane theories? Your "beliefs" mean nothing. I resent you no planers trying to turn this into a cult.
This is the reason I do this. You are completely duped by lies and disinfo. He never backpeddled. No plane disinfo shills edited his report.

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

Unedited video proves he's telling the truth....
Pay attention to what is said at the 2:31 mark to the 2:50 mark. You Dishonest no planers edited that out to make it appear he was reporting no plane crash. This is blatantly dishonest. In fact it's disinfo. And if you opened your eyes, what I am trying to do is WAKE YOU UP TO IT. There is a disinfo campain. And I call you no planers because this no plane BS started at the pentagon. You are the original no planers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8

The edited clip that duped you into no plane kookville land....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BQiFHpGglw

TV Fakery no plane garbage. The roads were full of people who saw what happened. Use some common sense. There were people all over the place, some right next to the impact point. Take a wild guess what they all claim to have seen.

How about I just showed that the truth movement tells lies. Guess how you destroy the credibility of a truth movement. Some of us are hip to this. Maybe you should be too. Credibility and honesty matter. If it doesn't there is no truth movement.

First off, calm down... I'm not sure how me saying I believed in the possibility that it could have been a smaller plane make me dishonest noplaner, member of a cult that participated in the editing of some clips... Second, it seems indeed that the CNN clip was edited to make it look as if Mcyntire said no plane ever hit the pentagon.. At the beginning of the vid, he said a plane did hit the pentagon and saw small pieces... Seeing how In Plain Site not only pushed the pod claim but also dishonestly edited the CNN clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8w0NbDJ2SY&feature=related) leads me to believe in the stronger possibility now that it was indeed a large plane that hit the pentagon...

[phasma]

Look, I will "red-line" this for you guys since nobody from the other side has reallys shown up yet (I think).  They will say the wings and tail fin folded in upon impact.  This is why the images above are not concrete proof. Whether that is correct or not, I cannot say.

The counterargument,however, is that the plane could not have flown that low at that angle, especially under the control of an unexperienced pilot (per the official conspiracy theory -- towelheads with boxcutters).

That's why over fifty different films which were confiscated by the FBI are still being kept under wraps from the publlic and the few frames available do not clearly show a plane, but instead something perhaps resembling the nosecone of a missile, which is undoubtedly what punched the hole in the Pentagon precisely where the accounting offices were that were examining the embezzlement of maybe billions of dollars diverted to black projects or private pockets or both.

Now, if you are going to quote me, quote me verbatim or not at all.  I'm beginning to suspect both of (HEBGB and Patriot) of being up to no good, even though ostensibly we would agree on this.

Please take more care in the future, or I will leave you to the troll-baiters who will certainly appear iminently.

Bottom line its the ballistics, and trajectory, of the plane as a whole, not the wings/tail fin etc.  That's terra firma in this argument.

I just watched some guy on contraversial tv here in the uk on "sky".
He said the day before 9/11 the pentagon confessed it couldnt account for ?20 million dollers or some similar insane amount.
How much do you think it would cost to pull off something like the events of 9/11 anyone ?

[TheQ]

"The counterargument,however, is that the plane could not have flown that low at that angle, especially under the control of an unexperienced pilot (per the official conspiracy theory -- towelheads with boxcutters)."

no unexperienced pilots were at the control of those planes... The were probably remote controlled..

[phasma]

"The counterargument,however, is that the plane could not have flown that low at that angle, especially under the control of an unexperienced pilot (per the official conspiracy theory -- towelheads with boxcutters)."

no unexperienced pilots were at the control of those planes... The were probably remote controlled..

The spectacular display of planes hitting things in new york left people so traumatised that when they were told a plane hit the pentagon they had no doubt - "if a plane could hit the twin towers then . . . "
They have never shown a single image of the plane that hit the pentagon - why?
Surely such a important building would have cameras all over it?
Maybe it was to spare the relatives of the victims on the plane - maybe. But then what of the endless re-runs of planes hitting towers?
I have several pilot friends. They are ALL of the opinion that it is not possible to keep a fully loaded, fast moving plane on such a tight course, under such control, at what amounted to mere feet from the ground - it would have bounced - gravity would have pulled it down !
These reasons also stand as reasons against a remotely controlled plane hitting the pentagon.

[Kilika]

It wasn't gravity, but an aspect of aerodynamics of a foil and lift. It creates a kind of suction under the airfoil as part of lift, as strange as that may sound. Once that area under the wing gets so low, it interacts with the ground, basically sucking the foil towards the ground, making flight very unstable. The y key to this is airspeed. At low speeds the effect is minimal, thus landing isn't a problem. Big foils create big "shockwaves" under their wings at speed. I know I don't have that technically exact, but that's the basic idea why a big plane couldn't have did that flight manuver.

High speed itself is a problem, in that when you fly over a building, and drop the nose to dive down to street level after passing over the building, consider how far past that building you are at 500 mph versus say 200mph. It takes time for a plane to respond and by the time your altitude drops, your way past the building, further past than if at 200mph. It's basic physics.

Oh, and it is claimed there were over 80 different security cameras in the area. And they release 5 frames of footage? Hmm, who's the sucker?

[phasma]

It wasn't gravity, but an aspect of aerodynamics of a foil and lift. It creates a kind of suction under the airfoil as part of lift, as strange as that may sound. Once that area under the wing gets so low, it interacts with the ground, basically sucking the foil towards the ground, making flight very unstable. The y key to this is airspeed. At low speeds the effect is minimal, thus landing isn't a problem. Big foils create big "shockwaves" under their wings at speed. I know I don't have that technically exact, but that's the basic idea why a big plane couldn't have did that flight manuver.

High speed itself is a problem, in that when you fly over a building, and drop the nose to dive down to street level after passing over the building, consider how far past that building you are at 500 mph versus say 200mph. It takes time for a plane to respond and by the time your altitude drops, your way past the building, further past than if at 200mph. It's basic physics.

Oh, and it is claimed there were over 80 different security cameras in the area. And they release 5 frames of footage? Hmm, who's the sucker?

everyone who believes a plane hit the pentagon are the suckers !
We are on the same page Leo - aerodynamics or gravity or both - its obvious that no plane hit the pentagon.

[Kilika]

Generally. All I'm saying is I don't accept the claim a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, and definately not in the manner they claim. I say immpossible. That's all I feel safe to say. I have some thoughts on what did, but no basis for those thoughts beyond the size of the hole in the rings and the 1 frame of video that shows a white mass of some type, and I really don't trust those 5 frames of video they released.

[phasma]

no me either. the lack of footage is the give away - same with the london bombs - 5 million cctv cameras and only one or two severely dodgy photos !

what ever did hit the pentagon was moving really fast. I have read reports that there was a plane in the area flying low. distraction maybe? i dont know.

[Kilika]

There is apparently a phsycological "condition" for lack of proper term, where a person views a video and told to observe certain aspects of the video, such as counting how many times a red ball is passed person to person, then they are told to watch the video again, but told to look for the guy in the monkey suit. It appears the guy was there the whole time but the viewer was concentrating on the red ball and never conciously saw the monkey. I did one of those online some time back and I have to say it freaked me out. I thought and thought how they might rig such a scenario, and can't come up with one. So it seems at times we see more than we realize, or rather, see what we are told to see.

[phasma]

its true.
they have adverts here (i m in the UK - i dont know where you are) for stupid things like double glazing - it says in big letters across the screen " read the red writing" which waffles on about all the latest deals - if though you ignore that and read the white writing - you`ll see an APR of over 2000%

smoke and mirrors - an old magicians trick - watch the plane hit the tower - watch the plane hit the tower - watch the plane hit the tower - watch the plane hit the tower - a plane hit the pentagon - watch the plane hit the tower - what hit the pentagon?

[Kilika]

(American southwest)

Yeah, it seems British advert laws are more, uh, lax, than the US. But the globalist intend to make it all the same for all, of course for the good of all.

[phasma]

I always enjoyed the time i have spent in the US - of course i was on holiday / working at the time so "living" there might be different.
I really like the climate in florida.
I love the chaos in NYC
fort Worth was a nice city too from what i saw.

[agentbluescreen]

Furthermore on the subject of Depleted Uranium at the Pentagon on and after 9/11 as is indicated by the use of the third Korean War Era M-1948 tensioned arch insulated winter Jamesway Hut as a decontamination unit here is some more confirmation:

There were two engines on the plane, there should be many more turbine disks, blade and vane fragments, and casing fragments. There should be 9 more wheel hubs to be accounted for, as well as more landing gear parts. There should also be heavy tungsten (not Depleted Uranium) counterweight ballasts to have survived. (These counterweights are used to balance the ailerons, flaps and tail control surfaces, to prevent flutter.) Depleted Uranium is used as ballast on 747s, L1011s, and DC10s, not 757s or 767s.

High-Ranking Army
Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon

Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings
Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates
Depleted Uranium Used
By Greg Szymanski
8-19-5
 
Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.
 
A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.
 
"I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.
 
Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Regarding the missile theory, it is also backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert banished from the Pentagon after the military failed to follow regulations regarding the use, clean up and medical treatment regarding the use of depleted uranium.
 
"When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile," said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week. "And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used."
 
And to prove the government's jetliner theory is wrong, Moret said the quick actions of a friend near the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, provide even more suspicion.
 
Moret recalls on the tragic morning that once she saw the jetliner strike the twin towers and then heard about the Pentagon crash, she immediately called a close friend in Alexandria VA, Dr. Janette Sherman.
 
Thinking radiation might be involved, she quickly asked Dr. Sherman, 77, a radiation expert and medical doctor who lived about 12 miles from the crash site, to get a Geiger counter reading.
 
What the pair of experts found is astonishing. What they found is not only astonishing but four years after 9/11, what's even more incredible is that their findings have been completely ignored by most everyone, including the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media, all who appear more interested in rubber stamping the official 9/11 story then getting at the real truth.
 
"Dr. Sherman was downwind from the Pentagon on 9/11 and her Geiger counter readings show an extremely high reading, a reading of more than eight to ten times higher than normal," said Moret, also an expert in the cause and effects of depleted uranium.
 
"Dr. Sherman, who is well-respected radiation expert herself, then went about contacting the proper authorities in order to try and alert emergency responders of the radiation risk at the Pentagon crash site. And we have also kept photos of the Geiger counter readings in order to verify what Dr. Sherman found 12 miles away."
 
After notifying the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI were alerted and according to Moret, radiation experts later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site possibly from the presence from depleted uranium or other unknown causes.
 
But what disturbed Moret most has been the Bush administration's lack of concern and its failure to mount a thorough investigation into what really caused the high radiation levels, saying perhaps the findings might reveal something contrary to the official story that a jetliner rammed through 12 Pentagon walls of solid concrete.
 
"Even if there was depleted uranium used, do you think the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would really care? These are bottom feeders that 20 or 30 years ago wouldn't have been even allowed to set foot in such high positions of power," said Moret.
 
Although Dr. Sherman's Geiger counter can't be a conclusive finding, another nuclear radiation expert, Marion Fulk, agrees the positive reading, if anything, is suspicious.
 
"It definitely looks suspicious but of course many factors have to be considered before a conclusion is reached," said Fulk in a telephone conversation this week. "The type of Geiger counter used by Dr. Sherman needs to be looked at as well as the possibility of the true source of the radiation, whether it is depleted uranium in a missile, ballast in the airplane or within the structure of the building hit."
 
Even though no one can be sure, one thing positive is the Bush administration never really seriously cared about addressing the possibility of depleted uranium at the Pentagon just like it cares little about the same problem at the World Trade Center and in the war fields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

[phasma]

I was on the myth busters sight the other day - there is a banner there that says they will not accept any suggestions to investigate the myths around 9/11
why not?
they do everything else !
shame mythbusters for allowing your selves to be gagged!

[Kilika]

They did do a show using thermite thought. Melted a car nearly in half with it. They used something like several hundred pounds of it. You know how they insist on blowing something up.

[phasma]

yeah they are not happy without a big bang
they are totally "anti-conspiracy theories" though
i saw one last weekend when they did the moon landings - they frequently daid things like "in your face conspiracy theorists"
It would be easy for them to construct a rig that would show what damage a plane would do if it hit a structure such as the pentagon

[agentbluescreen]

I was on the myth busters sight the other day - there is a banner there that says they will not accept any suggestions to investigate the myths around 9/11
why not?
they do everything else !
shame mythbusters for allowing your selves to be gagged!

Talk about a program that has made itself and it's reason for existence null and void...

They may as well just cancel the show

[Letsbereal]

A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.
 
"I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.

http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

I think the assumption that a (cruise) missile has been used with a depleted uranium warhead highly likely if you look at the fact how far the projectile penetrated the Pentagon building at the façade side which was just been reinforced in a renovation, mind you!

[Kilika]

No way. You can't take their "experiments" serious. Thats' not the point. And they have some pretty educating stuff they do that is just basic science stuff. It's Hollywood entertainment. that's what those guys do.

[phasma]

yeah - they should
i used to think they were quite cool up until i saw thier disclaimer
no explanation just a refusal to go there
gagged i suppose?
if any one could show the truth of that day its them



"punch out" seems an odd phrase for what supposedly happened here, no?

[Kilika]

Excellent photos. Seen them before, and as you point out, how can they explain that inner hole from an aluminum aircraft? There is no way it could have held up that far into the building. I just don't believe it's possible.

[phasma]

least of all when the inner wall is beyond several reinforced walls.
i assume the pentagon has reinforced walls

[Letsbereal]

If people, after seeing all the pictures about the Pentagon, still argue "that it could have been a plane" I don't longer take them serious and debate them.

First of all a Airliner doesn't fit in anyways and secondly it isn't possible that sucha soft airliner nose reaches that far into the building.

But most people can't think logical anymore. They are like little children.

I can't take these gullible people seriously anymore, they wonna be duped and I can't help them anymore.

They just go no where, but not me they better understand!

Move on.


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Fed Up with the Stupidity of the Public (Yes You!) You are too gullible, you believe in 911, Osama etc.-

You’re Doomed http://www.infowars.com/alexs-farewell-interview-with-dr-paul-craig-roberts/