Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
This Is What Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11
- Thread starter Terral
- Start date
you mean they dont get on those wheels and force you to watch??well, they DO tend to do the same things over and over and over again
lol
At least gerbils don't try to force you to share their experience.
LOL
I guess in a way, gerbils do force you to watch because of the skull-splitting squeak of the wheel turning on its axis.
FYI: WD-40 kills gerbils.
eots
no fly list
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Last edited:
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Don't tell me that you're one of "them"!
yep.Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Don't tell me that you're one of "them"!
he's the C&P king of the troofers.
i bet he has posted the exact same piece at least 100 times, if not more.
yep.
he's the C&P king of the troofers.
i bet he has posted the exact same piece at least 100 times, if not more.
I find it absolutely amazing that there can be some people when presented with a mountain of evidence and facts, and feels that they can dismiss it all because of one little tiny thing that they notice that seems off.
And, in actuality, the folks on here are not the ones that noticed those little tiny things, but rather people that have been brainwashed into believing these wild stories.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
So you disagree with the threads premise that a jet fired a missile missed the building flew around and then slammed later into the building? I mean since your "witness" points out that with in moments the lawn was filled with people and the op insists the plane had time to over fly turn and fly back.
Ohh and the hole was not 20 feet either.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 36,335
- 19,222
- 1,905
yep.
he's the C&P king of the troofers.
i bet he has posted the exact same piece at least 100 times, if not more.
I find it absolutely amazing that there can be some people when presented with a mountain of evidence and facts, and feels that they can dismiss it all because of one little tiny thing that they notice that seems off.
And, in actuality, the folks on here are not the ones that noticed those little tiny things, but rather people that have been brainwashed into believing these wild stories.
Eots is probably legally insane though. He even admits to be that kind of guy that calls up the Whitehouse and the CIA to tell them about his conspiracy theories. Hes not your run of the mill conspiracy theorist.
While maybe we should feel a bit sorry for his sanity issues, his cut and paste jobs do get annoying. I had to stop reading his posts a long time ago because he only has like 10 of them that he constantly recycles, and all of them are stupid. Ill read the ones that arent cut and paste jobs, but those are very rare.
Xenophon
Gone and forgotten
You are an idiot, they should lock you in a room with no sharp objects to prevent you from hurting yourself further.Yes. The DoD has DUPED you into believing their Cover Story, but nothing says that you must continue swallowing their Loyal Bushie DoD/FBI/CIA 9/11 LIES.
eots
no fly list
yep.
he's the C&P king of the troofers.
i bet he has posted the exact same piece at least 100 times, if not more.
I find it absolutely amazing that there can be some people when presented with a mountain of evidence and facts, and feels that they can dismiss it all because of one little tiny thing that they notice that seems off.
And, in actuality, the folks on here are not the ones that noticed those little tiny things, but rather people that have been brainwashed into believing these wild stories.
Eots is probably legally insane though. He even admits to be that kind of guy that calls up the Whitehouse and the CIA to tell them about his conspiracy theories. Hes not your run of the mill conspiracy theorist.
While maybe we should feel a bit sorry for his sanity issues, his cut and paste jobs do get annoying. I had to stop reading his posts a long time ago because he only has like 10 of them that he constantly recycles, and all of them are stupid. Ill read the ones that arent cut and paste jobs, but those are very rare.
you need to deal with reality ..you pathetic little minion ..and accept the fact that my.. cut and paste ...you call it are the sworn statements of some very high level and knowledgeable individuals decorated and honored for their service to this country and have more than proven their ability and soundness of both mind and character and if you cant recognize that fact ..you can go fuck yourself
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
yet few of them actually support what YOU claim they doI find it absolutely amazing that there can be some people when presented with a mountain of evidence and facts, and feels that they can dismiss it all because of one little tiny thing that they notice that seems off.
And, in actuality, the folks on here are not the ones that noticed those little tiny things, but rather people that have been brainwashed into believing these wild stories.
Eots is probably legally insane though. He even admits to be that kind of guy that calls up the Whitehouse and the CIA to tell them about his conspiracy theories. Hes not your run of the mill conspiracy theorist.
While maybe we should feel a bit sorry for his sanity issues, his cut and paste jobs do get annoying. I had to stop reading his posts a long time ago because he only has like 10 of them that he constantly recycles, and all of them are stupid. Ill read the ones that arent cut and paste jobs, but those are very rare.
you need to deal with reality ..you pathetic little minion ..and accept the fact that my.. cut and paste ...you call it are the sworn statements of some very high level and knowledgeable individuals decorated and honored for their service to this country and have more than proven their ability and soundness of both mind and character and if you cant recognize that fact ..you can go fuck yourself
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
they MIGHT want a new investigation, but they DONT believe it was an inside job
you just use their words and twist it
if they ever actually said those words
eots
no fly list
no ...my premise unlike yours is a logical one... there needs to be a investigation unlike the 911 cover up commission that examines eyewitness testimony and allows for the examination of the forensic evidence and the release of the 84 surveillance tapes still classified..is that really to much to ask...Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
So you disagree with the threads premise that a jet fired a missile missed the building flew around and then slammed later into the building? I mean since your "witness" points out that with in moments the lawn was filled with people and the op insists the plane had time to over fly turn and fly back.
Ohh and the hole was not 20 feet either.
Last edited:
- Dec 29, 2008
- 36,335
- 19,222
- 1,905
I find it absolutely amazing that there can be some people when presented with a mountain of evidence and facts, and feels that they can dismiss it all because of one little tiny thing that they notice that seems off.
And, in actuality, the folks on here are not the ones that noticed those little tiny things, but rather people that have been brainwashed into believing these wild stories.
Eots is probably legally insane though. He even admits to be that kind of guy that calls up the Whitehouse and the CIA to tell them about his conspiracy theories. Hes not your run of the mill conspiracy theorist.
While maybe we should feel a bit sorry for his sanity issues, his cut and paste jobs do get annoying. I had to stop reading his posts a long time ago because he only has like 10 of them that he constantly recycles, and all of them are stupid. Ill read the ones that arent cut and paste jobs, but those are very rare.
you need to deal with reality ..you pathetic little minion ..and accept the fact that my.. cut and paste ...you call it are the sworn statements of some very high level and knowledgeable individuals decorated and honored for their service to this country and have more than proven their ability and soundness of both mind and character and if you cant recognize that fact ..you can go fuck yourself
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
For every decorated and honorable person you find that agrees with you, there are a hundred more who disagree, that are EVEN MORE decorated and honored for their service. Regardless, i was in the military, and i can tell you first hand that just because someone is decorated, doesnt exactly mean they are smart. You put so much emphasis on the credentials of these people as if thats all that needs to be said. There have been plenty of decorated people who were later discovered for committing treason and sent to prison. Robert Hanssen had impeccable credentials, but we all know how that turned out.
The truth is, you find wack jobs in all walks of life; they just arent always as obvious as you are eots.
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
really such as..?...can you post some of these military people coming forward to swear we know the truth of 911 ?
You are an idiot, they should lock you in a room with no sharp objects to prevent you from hurting yourself further.Yes. The DoD has DUPED you into believing their Cover Story, but nothing says that you must continue swallowing their Loyal Bushie DoD/FBI/CIA 9/11 LIES.
I agree, except for the part about no sharp objects.
Terral
Terral Corp CEO
- Mar 4, 2009
- 2,493
- 92
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #76
Hi 9/11 Inside Job:
Thanks for letting me know about the bad link. Other Boards (like Let’s Roll) allow us to fix this kind of thing years later, but this place removes the Edit option. Bummer. A new Michael Kelly video link is here
Michael Kelly Pentagon Witness >> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYpy4chsyVM]YouTube - Pentagon Witness, Michael Kelly, CBS, 9/11, 09:58[/ame]
The funny thing is that the Michael Kelly Video in my Let's Roll Opening Post (link) is still working. :0)
BTW, Loyal Bushie Official Story DUPES <<--
Thanks again,
Terral
Hey Terral,I just tried to watch that Michael kelly video the second one and its not working.They deleted it.thats what youtube always does with these 9/11 videos.Go figure,they allow you to post videos of porn there but they delete 9/11 videos all the time.
Thanks for letting me know about the bad link. Other Boards (like Let’s Roll) allow us to fix this kind of thing years later, but this place removes the Edit option. Bummer. A new Michael Kelly video link is here
Michael Kelly Pentagon Witness >> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYpy4chsyVM]YouTube - Pentagon Witness, Michael Kelly, CBS, 9/11, 09:58[/ame]
The funny thing is that the Michael Kelly Video in my Let's Roll Opening Post (link) is still working. :0)
BTW, Loyal Bushie Official Story DUPES <<--
Thanks again,
Terral
Last edited:
Terral
Terral Corp CEO
- Mar 4, 2009
- 2,493
- 92
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #77
Hi Retired:
You are referring to the rense.com JT8D article by Russell Pickering. Right? I know Russell Pickering (Pentagon Research) very well and have debating him many times on these Pentagon Topics. Usually I begin the first OP thesis paper on a new Board under the hypothesis that “Flight 77 Never Crashed Near The Pentagon” like you can see on the old Loose Change Board here. Russell Pickering was a LC /Admin/Moderator who began his assault on my person on Page 2 of that discussion to heat up on Page 3. Russell’s assault begins to mature on Page 8 where he says,
This thread just happens to be the most-viewed Pentagon Topic with the most replies of any other for this Second-Edition Loose Change Forum, but the guy never showed us one picture of AA77 crashed anywhere and all the man could do is attack my person. For anybody reading that thread, the YCHTT guy is a real Arlington County Firefighter that taught me a thing or two about what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Russell will continue his threats on my ‘Dod Manipulated Firefighters’ Thread here where I am threatened with a vacation for even insinuating that the DoD was carrying out an inside job by manipulating the fire that burned for 60 hours (Carol Valentine's Article). I have sat on the phone with Russell and discussed these things at length and he continued to be a Loyal Bushie Cover Story Operative right up to the moment that he retired and went into hiding. Russell Pickering is a DoD handler who helped the Loose Change Brats (Dillon Avery and company = DoD Ops hiding in plain sight) start things off like Michael Anderson (PilotsForTruth = Painter) has been CIT’s handler (Craig, Aldo, Dominick= see their handiwork here) since they began running diversion for the Department of Defense as field ops managing assets years ago. Russell and Michael were fellow members with me at AE911truth.org were we had many discussions behind closed doors that were never seen by the general public at large and I can assure you that I know these cartoon characters far better than most anyone here. If you read through Russell’s work (he taught me a bunch about this Pentagon case), then you see that he makes several clarifying statements like:
Russell’s Rense Article:
This guy is taken from the same mold as Killtown and Webfairy (Killtown’s handiwork) from 911Movement.org who care only about ‘what did NOT hit the Pentagon’ rather than what actually ‘did’ hit the Pentagon. When you boil Russell’s article down, then he is trying to split hairs over precisely which jet engine type from the Pratt & Whitney arsenal was used for the Pentagon attacks, as no engine parts from any Rolls-Royce Engines (used in Boeing 757’s) were ever found at the Pentagon. Since Retired Guy is ‘retired’ and so happy to misuse Russell’s Rense Paper to support his own stupid Official Cover Story LIES, then perhaps we are looking at a Russell sock puppet right now. :0)
First of all, the Bushie Administration and now the Obama Administration are saying that a real 100-ton Boeing 757-200 Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. Are we on the same page with that or not? :0) Nobody is saying that an A-3 Skywarrior struck the Pentagon, but that is the decommissioned Jet that DoD Contractors used (story again) to begin the retrofitting process. The DoD bad guys used a variety of parts from many different decommissioned jets to kill the paper trail leading back to any one individual plane ‘and’ to throw a monkey wrench into any real Pentagon Investigation. Colonel George Nelson says,
Physics911.net Story
Anybody who actually takes the time to review the evidence from the expert military witnesses will see that they conclude the very same thing!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA]YouTube - Boeing Hijackers on the Pentagon lawn[/ame]
So what? All of the evidence says no 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. The fact is that jet parts ‘were’ removed from the Pentagon ‘and’ nobody in authority has made any attempt to simply turn over the serial numbers on even one time-change part, because the Government would be caught in a Loyal Bushie LIE. :0) Here is the deal in a nutshell: The Boeing 757 Jetliner that the Government wants you to believe hit the Pentagon carried Rolls-Royce Engine Parts that are more expensive and require less maintenance than the standard Pratt & Whitney engines used in U.S. Military Aircraft. Pratt & Whitney Jet engines are like cheap Briggs & Stratton engines for your lawnmower. We are not concerned about precisely ‘which’ Pratt & Whitney engine the DoD decided to pimp onto their retrofitted flying BOMB, but only that no Rolls-Royce Engine parts were ever found anywhere near the Pentagon.
The retrofitted A-3 did not clip all five light poles, but the airspace on the south-of-Citgo flight path was used by ‘both’ the DoD Missile ‘and’ their retrofitted A-3 Jet. The DoD Missile went hypersonic between the outer Route 27 cloverleaf (green flight path here) and the outer E-ring wall at the Column Line 14 location, which means the bow shockwave (pic) enlarged during the final moments to literally rip some of these light poles from their ‘breakaway’ bases. The light pole debacle is what caused the remote-control operator to pull back on the joystick, when the retrofitted A-3 began taking that nosedive into the Pentagon law; which is the reason that exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds passed before the same painted-up retrofitted A-3 Jet returned to strike the same location (between CL-9 and CL-14 = lower left).
No missile can create the hole? :0) Now you are playing the fool, as if all missiles carry just one payload and the DoD inside-job bad guys are not smart enough to plan and carry out this self-inflicted wound.
Your statements are based upon what is ‘unlikely’ and not upon any ‘evidence’ at all, which is common among Loyal Bushie DUPES (<<) who try to convince others of ‘their’ delusions based upon “I believe” testimony.
Terry Cohen was standing in front of the E-ring entry hole just about one minute after the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike (first video in OP) and all she reported seeing is ‘black smoke.’ The A-3 flew over the E-ring roof to make the wide turn to the north, until eventually striking the same location just under five minutes later. Do not try to tell me that Terry Cohen saw this scene in the initial moments after the 'first' attack:
Go ahead and try to tell me that Lloyd England (lower left-hand corner) is looking at ‘just smoke’ in this scene, but that is exactly what he also reports when standing directly in front of this very location at the very same time that Terry Cohen is seeing the same thing just minutes earlier after the ‘first’ attack. First read through Barbara Honegger’s famous paper (here) where she interviews Lloyd:
Again, look up at the picture and tell me if Lloyd is looking at ONLY “inside-the-building fires” in that picture!!! No he is NOT!!! About half the length of the E-ring wall is consumed by a raging fire that can in NO WAY be described as ‘inside-the-building fires’ created by the original 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike! Lloyd’s taxi cab was hit by Pole #1 at 9:31 AM and the five minutes PASS, until he and his partner (white van from Russell’s interview here) wrestled with the light pole and BOTH were knocked to the ground from the explosion of the ‘second’ attack (lower pic) taking place at 9:36:27 AM.
How would the Retired Guy like to explain the ‘time’ between the ‘two’ attacks from the testimony of these two Pentagon Witnesses standing directly in front of the Pentagon on 9/11? :0)
Loyal Bushie DUPES << ---
GL in the debate,
Terral
YOU claim an A-3 was used to attack the Pentagon, THIS site dispels that claim by reviewing all the supposed proof. The JT8D and A3 Skywarrior Pentagon Theory I don't know how more direct I can be in regards your ignorant claims.
You are referring to the rense.com JT8D article by Russell Pickering. Right? I know Russell Pickering (Pentagon Research) very well and have debating him many times on these Pentagon Topics. Usually I begin the first OP thesis paper on a new Board under the hypothesis that “Flight 77 Never Crashed Near The Pentagon” like you can see on the old Loose Change Board here. Russell Pickering was a LC /Admin/Moderator who began his assault on my person on Page 2 of that discussion to heat up on Page 3. Russell’s assault begins to mature on Page 8 where he says,
Russell >> Terral,
I am upgrading my gentle guideline to a caution.
You are spewing endless lengthy and repetitive posts - I.E. spam.
You are being asked direct and honest questions by people without a proper response.
You have also refused to respond to my questions or address me personally.
If you continue to avoid dialogue and refuse to answer questions the next step is an official warning.
This is not a podium for you to preach - it is a two way street here.
Russell
This thread just happens to be the most-viewed Pentagon Topic with the most replies of any other for this Second-Edition Loose Change Forum, but the guy never showed us one picture of AA77 crashed anywhere and all the man could do is attack my person. For anybody reading that thread, the YCHTT guy is a real Arlington County Firefighter that taught me a thing or two about what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Russell will continue his threats on my ‘Dod Manipulated Firefighters’ Thread here where I am threatened with a vacation for even insinuating that the DoD was carrying out an inside job by manipulating the fire that burned for 60 hours (Carol Valentine's Article). I have sat on the phone with Russell and discussed these things at length and he continued to be a Loyal Bushie Cover Story Operative right up to the moment that he retired and went into hiding. Russell Pickering is a DoD handler who helped the Loose Change Brats (Dillon Avery and company = DoD Ops hiding in plain sight) start things off like Michael Anderson (PilotsForTruth = Painter) has been CIT’s handler (Craig, Aldo, Dominick= see their handiwork here) since they began running diversion for the Department of Defense as field ops managing assets years ago. Russell and Michael were fellow members with me at AE911truth.org were we had many discussions behind closed doors that were never seen by the general public at large and I can assure you that I know these cartoon characters far better than most anyone here. If you read through Russell’s work (he taught me a bunch about this Pentagon case), then you see that he makes several clarifying statements like:
Russell’s Rense Article:
Russell >> Am I saying that an A3 Skywarrior did not hit the pentagon? NO. Am I saying that I know what hit the pentagon? NO. Nobody knows what did or did not hit the pentagon (except for those that were a part of it and those that have seen the tapes). The rest of us are all speculating on plane, no-plane or replacement aircraft theories in one form or another . . .
This guy is taken from the same mold as Killtown and Webfairy (Killtown’s handiwork) from 911Movement.org who care only about ‘what did NOT hit the Pentagon’ rather than what actually ‘did’ hit the Pentagon. When you boil Russell’s article down, then he is trying to split hairs over precisely which jet engine type from the Pratt & Whitney arsenal was used for the Pentagon attacks, as no engine parts from any Rolls-Royce Engines (used in Boeing 757’s) were ever found at the Pentagon. Since Retired Guy is ‘retired’ and so happy to misuse Russell’s Rense Paper to support his own stupid Official Cover Story LIES, then perhaps we are looking at a Russell sock puppet right now. :0)
The wheel is NOT that of an A-3, the supposed engine is NOT one that was ever ON an A-3, in fact it is an engine used on, wait for it, Large passenger JET LINERS.
First of all, the Bushie Administration and now the Obama Administration are saying that a real 100-ton Boeing 757-200 Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. Are we on the same page with that or not? :0) Nobody is saying that an A-3 Skywarrior struck the Pentagon, but that is the decommissioned Jet that DoD Contractors used (story again) to begin the retrofitting process. The DoD bad guys used a variety of parts from many different decommissioned jets to kill the paper trail leading back to any one individual plane ‘and’ to throw a monkey wrench into any real Pentagon Investigation. Colonel George Nelson says,
Physics911.net Story
American Airlines Flight 77
This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
Conclusion
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.
Anybody who actually takes the time to review the evidence from the expert military witnesses will see that they conclude the very same thing!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA]YouTube - Boeing Hijackers on the Pentagon lawn[/ame]
The supposed wing being REMOVED from the Pentagon lawn is in fact probably a Tent being carried ON TO, not off the Lawn.
So what? All of the evidence says no 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. The fact is that jet parts ‘were’ removed from the Pentagon ‘and’ nobody in authority has made any attempt to simply turn over the serial numbers on even one time-change part, because the Government would be caught in a Loyal Bushie LIE. :0) Here is the deal in a nutshell: The Boeing 757 Jetliner that the Government wants you to believe hit the Pentagon carried Rolls-Royce Engine Parts that are more expensive and require less maintenance than the standard Pratt & Whitney engines used in U.S. Military Aircraft. Pratt & Whitney Jet engines are like cheap Briggs & Stratton engines for your lawnmower. We are not concerned about precisely ‘which’ Pratt & Whitney engine the DoD decided to pimp onto their retrofitted flying BOMB, but only that no Rolls-Royce Engine parts were ever found anywhere near the Pentagon.
Further an aircraft the size of the A-3 would not be able to clip 5 telephone poles and just correct it self and fly off.
The retrofitted A-3 did not clip all five light poles, but the airspace on the south-of-Citgo flight path was used by ‘both’ the DoD Missile ‘and’ their retrofitted A-3 Jet. The DoD Missile went hypersonic between the outer Route 27 cloverleaf (green flight path here) and the outer E-ring wall at the Column Line 14 location, which means the bow shockwave (pic) enlarged during the final moments to literally rip some of these light poles from their ‘breakaway’ bases. The light pole debacle is what caused the remote-control operator to pull back on the joystick, when the retrofitted A-3 began taking that nosedive into the Pentagon law; which is the reason that exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds passed before the same painted-up retrofitted A-3 Jet returned to strike the same location (between CL-9 and CL-14 = lower left).
No known missile can create the hole made in the Pentagon at all. And there is no blast crater from where a missile would have struck and exploded either.
No missile can create the hole? :0) Now you are playing the fool, as if all missiles carry just one payload and the DoD inside-job bad guys are not smart enough to plan and carry out this self-inflicted wound.
It is so highly unlikely that explosives and the sophisticated wiring and control devices needed for a controlled blast on several rings of the Pentagon could have been smuggled in and then placed with no one the wiser as to border on impossible.
Your statements are based upon what is ‘unlikely’ and not upon any ‘evidence’ at all, which is common among Loyal Bushie DUPES (<<
) who try to convince others of ‘their’ delusions based upon “I believe” testimony. Further you claim the missile hit and the plane had to fly around. Yet witnesses state that within moments of the attack people from inside the Pentagon had rushed onto the lawn to find out what happened.
Terry Cohen was standing in front of the E-ring entry hole just about one minute after the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike (first video in OP) and all she reported seeing is ‘black smoke.’ The A-3 flew over the E-ring roof to make the wide turn to the north, until eventually striking the same location just under five minutes later. Do not try to tell me that Terry Cohen saw this scene in the initial moments after the 'first' attack:
Go ahead and try to tell me that Lloyd England (lower left-hand corner) is looking at ‘just smoke’ in this scene, but that is exactly what he also reports when standing directly in front of this very location at the very same time that Terry Cohen is seeing the same thing just minutes earlier after the ‘first’ attack. First read through Barbara Honegger’s famous paper (here) where she interviews Lloyd:
“He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent event in the building, as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside−the−building fires. The taxi cab driver drew a diagram of what he saw that morning while overlooking the Pentagon’s west face from I−395.
Again, look up at the picture and tell me if Lloyd is looking at ONLY “inside-the-building fires” in that picture!!! No he is NOT!!! About half the length of the E-ring wall is consumed by a raging fire that can in NO WAY be described as ‘inside-the-building fires’ created by the original 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike! Lloyd’s taxi cab was hit by Pole #1 at 9:31 AM and the five minutes PASS, until he and his partner (white van from Russell’s interview here) wrestled with the light pole and BOTH were knocked to the ground from the explosion of the ‘second’ attack (lower pic) taking place at 9:36:27 AM.
How would the Retired Guy like to explain the ‘time’ between the ‘two’ attacks from the testimony of these two Pentagon Witnesses standing directly in front of the Pentagon on 9/11? :0)
Loyal Bushie DUPES << ---
GL in the debate,
Terral
Last edited:
Terral
Terral Corp CEO
- Mar 4, 2009
- 2,493
- 92
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #78
Hi Retired:
You guys can disagree all you like, but this 'two attack working hypothesis' is the ONLY 9/11 Pentagon Explanation corroborated by ‘all’ the evidence without creating a single contradiction.
Nobody realized that the Pentagon had been struck by A MISSILE (Rumsfeld's testimony to Parade Magazine on 9/12) during the 9:31:39 AM first attack! You guys are missing the boat on the ONLY “inside-the-building fires” from the eyewitnesses to the original 9:31 AM attack! If your witness sees the 9:36:27 ‘second attack’ as the time that the Pentagon was attacked, THEN ‘their’ witnesses begin their Pentagon Timelines at between 9:36 and 9:38 AM; when the damaged A-3 struck the E-ring wall. BTW, the Pentagon lawn was filled to the brim with people long before these attacks started, which you can verify by reading Alan Wallace’s account (on-station firefighter story) working on Foam 161 when he and Mark Skipper were injured during the original missile strike. His testimony says,
Alan Wallace Story
The west side E-ring Pentagon lawn location was filled with people who saw these attacks, but like Alan Wallace, they started running ‘north’ at the moment the painted-up A-3 was originally sighted; which means their ‘backs’ were turned to the Column Line 14 location during the original 9:31 attack (like Lloyd England the taxi driver). These people thought the A-3 hit the Pentagon, because their eye was first on the DoD Jet and nobody saw the hypersonic missile; but the A-3 simply flew into the black smoke cloud to disappear from view. Alan Wallace and the other people were hiding under their vehicles, AND were suffering from hearing loss AND extreme shock; until they were chased out from under their vehicles just minutes later by the FIRE of the ‘second attack.’ These people had no idea that this was the same PLANE that they saw just minutes earlier, because they thought that PLANE struck the Pentagon. These people interpret this second attack explosion as merely a secondary explosion ‘and’ to this day they do not realize that the Pentagon was attacked ‘twice’ in just under five minutes.
Really? Just how big would you like to make the E-ring impact hole at the second-story elevation? Remember that a real 100-ton Boeing 757-200 Jetliner stands almost 50 feet tall above the tarmac and none of the third-story windows were broken (damage schematic) during both attacks! The original E-ring impact hole measures exactly 18-feet 3-inches, which anyone can figure out by knowing these 21-inch concrete columns are spaced on 10-feet centers. The missile blew ‘out’ the masonry units between these two solid concrete columns, which is the reason that the chain-link fence and poles are thrown ‘back’ over the vehicles in this picture:
These 21-inch columns are on 10-feet centers, which means exactly 18-feet 3-inches of masonry stands between each column. Look at the fence blown back in our direction to realize the massive initial explosion came from ‘inside’ the Pentagon, because that is where the missile and L-Pill components exploded. Now look at the two windows on this side of the impact hole and tell us how they remained unbroken ‘and’ the Green SUV remains untouched (another pic of the SUV). A man can literally stand on the roof of that undamaged SUV and reach up to the ‘second story slab elevation’ where “you say” a real 100-ton Jetliner passed through. :0) Here is another good picture of the original E-ring impact hole:
Look at the tall cable spools (tall as a man) that are also untouched, as if a real 100-ton Jetliner can pass ‘over’ the top and still ‘under’ the standing second-story concrete slab. Again, the initial blast blew ‘out’ everything between Column Line (CL) 13 and CL-15 on the second floor, but that is still only 18-feet and 3-inches no matter how you try to slice this cake. The damage schematic shows that CL-9 and CL-10 are still intact (pic), which means the actual first-floor impact hole extends only about forty to fifty feet (max) left (north) of the CL-14 location.
The reason that these Loyal Bushie DUPES concentrate so much time and effort on the size of the little hole is because of the lack of ANY Jetliner debris at all. :0)
GL,
Terral
So you disagree with the threads premise that a jet fired a missile missed the building flew around and then slammed later into the building?
You guys can disagree all you like, but this 'two attack working hypothesis' is the ONLY 9/11 Pentagon Explanation corroborated by ‘all’ the evidence without creating a single contradiction.
I mean since your "witness" points out that within moments the lawn was filled with people and the op insists the plane had time to over fly turn and fly back.
Nobody realized that the Pentagon had been struck by A MISSILE (Rumsfeld's testimony to Parade Magazine on 9/12) during the 9:31:39 AM first attack! You guys are missing the boat on the ONLY “inside-the-building fires” from the eyewitnesses to the original 9:31 AM attack! If your witness sees the 9:36:27 ‘second attack’ as the time that the Pentagon was attacked, THEN ‘their’ witnesses begin their Pentagon Timelines at between 9:36 and 9:38 AM; when the damaged A-3 struck the E-ring wall. BTW, the Pentagon lawn was filled to the brim with people long before these attacks started, which you can verify by reading Alan Wallace’s account (on-station firefighter story) working on Foam 161 when he and Mark Skipper were injured during the original missile strike. His testimony says,
Alan Wallace Story
Alan Wallace On-station Firefighter >> As I said, we were expecting President Bush about Noon, which would be a Code One Stand-By. In such situations, one of the problems I see at the heliport is that there are too many people there. Plus, there are many vehicles, including Secret Service, Pentagon SWAT, U.S. Park Police, D.C. Cops on motorcycles, and the two Presidential Limousines. And, some of these vehicles even park in front of the fire station apparatus door, blocking the fire truck from exiting the building! That is why I wanted the crash truck out of the station and parked in a good location, for easy access to the heliport in case of an emergency.
The west side E-ring Pentagon lawn location was filled with people who saw these attacks, but like Alan Wallace, they started running ‘north’ at the moment the painted-up A-3 was originally sighted; which means their ‘backs’ were turned to the Column Line 14 location during the original 9:31 attack (like Lloyd England the taxi driver). These people thought the A-3 hit the Pentagon, because their eye was first on the DoD Jet and nobody saw the hypersonic missile; but the A-3 simply flew into the black smoke cloud to disappear from view. Alan Wallace and the other people were hiding under their vehicles, AND were suffering from hearing loss AND extreme shock; until they were chased out from under their vehicles just minutes later by the FIRE of the ‘second attack.’ These people had no idea that this was the same PLANE that they saw just minutes earlier, because they thought that PLANE struck the Pentagon. These people interpret this second attack explosion as merely a secondary explosion ‘and’ to this day they do not realize that the Pentagon was attacked ‘twice’ in just under five minutes.
Ohh and the hole was not 20 feet either.
Really? Just how big would you like to make the E-ring impact hole at the second-story elevation? Remember that a real 100-ton Boeing 757-200 Jetliner stands almost 50 feet tall above the tarmac and none of the third-story windows were broken (damage schematic) during both attacks! The original E-ring impact hole measures exactly 18-feet 3-inches, which anyone can figure out by knowing these 21-inch concrete columns are spaced on 10-feet centers. The missile blew ‘out’ the masonry units between these two solid concrete columns, which is the reason that the chain-link fence and poles are thrown ‘back’ over the vehicles in this picture:
These 21-inch columns are on 10-feet centers, which means exactly 18-feet 3-inches of masonry stands between each column. Look at the fence blown back in our direction to realize the massive initial explosion came from ‘inside’ the Pentagon, because that is where the missile and L-Pill components exploded. Now look at the two windows on this side of the impact hole and tell us how they remained unbroken ‘and’ the Green SUV remains untouched (another pic of the SUV). A man can literally stand on the roof of that undamaged SUV and reach up to the ‘second story slab elevation’ where “you say” a real 100-ton Jetliner passed through. :0) Here is another good picture of the original E-ring impact hole:
Look at the tall cable spools (tall as a man) that are also untouched, as if a real 100-ton Jetliner can pass ‘over’ the top and still ‘under’ the standing second-story concrete slab. Again, the initial blast blew ‘out’ everything between Column Line (CL) 13 and CL-15 on the second floor, but that is still only 18-feet and 3-inches no matter how you try to slice this cake. The damage schematic shows that CL-9 and CL-10 are still intact (pic), which means the actual first-floor impact hole extends only about forty to fifty feet (max) left (north) of the CL-14 location.
The reason that these Loyal Bushie DUPES concentrate so much time and effort on the size of the little hole is because of the lack of ANY Jetliner debris at all. :0)
GL,
Terral
Last edited:
Hi Terral.
Here is the picture of your plane.
Here, again, is the picture of the letter "c" from the body of the plane, as you can see at the bottom left corner of the Pentagon building.
It is the same stylized font as shown on an American Airlines plane.
It is also the same font as shown on the fuselage from your own picture, picture #5.
This is well known lettering used by American Airlines.
Actually, you presented the argument. I am merely refuting it. When I wish to start a thread on how an airline hit the Pentagon, I will do so.
That is very interesting. I looked at that and thought it was, indeed, odd. But I also checked all four flights on 9/11. The two that showed the 0:00 were both American Airlines, one departing DC and the other departing Boston. The other two flights were both United Airlines, one which took off from Boston and the other from Newark, which you can see here.
Flight 93
Flight 175
So, if we go by your logic, then not only did flight 77 not take off, but neither did flight 11, which means that an airliner did not crash into one of the WTC towers.
Yet, we know that it did. We saw flight 11 crash into one of the towers (unless you are going to trot out some silly hologram theory).
It also makes little sense that United 175 would strike one tower, which we also saw, but AA flight 11 did not, since, according to your logic, could not possibly have hit the tower because there was no flight record of AA 11 departing!
Thus, something else that looked a lot like AA 11 hit the tower.
Your argument is interesting, and I may research it further. However, the consistency is that the flights not logged were both were American Airlines. That may tell you something more about American Airlines then anything else.
Actually, we do know that people boarded the flight.
http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml
GilroyDispatch.com | 9-11 sorrow, but a joyful life
And, as I've said but you have not answered, where are all the people that were supposedly on those non-flights? They were all booked. What happened to them? There were over a hundred people on those two flights you alleged never took off. Where are they?
Here are victims who were on American Airlines flight 11 which you said didn't take off.
USATODAY.com - Americans Flight 11 victims at a glance
And here are victims who were on American Airlines flight 77 which you also claim didn't take off.
USATODAY.com - American Flight 77 victims at a glance
What happened to them?
Wouldn't it make more sense that there was a SNAFU in the log regarding American Airlines than over 100 people mysteriously disappearing?
No. Those are pictures of the Retrofitted A-3 DoD Flying BOMB that detonated against the E-ring Pentagon Wall at 9:36:27 AM.
Here is the picture of your plane.
Here, again, is the picture of the letter "c" from the body of the plane, as you can see at the bottom left corner of the Pentagon building.
It is the same stylized font as shown on an American Airlines plane.
It is also the same font as shown on the fuselage from your own picture, picture #5.
This is well known lettering used by American Airlines.
The Opening Post explains what ‘did’ hit the Pentagon without mentioning everything on God’s Green Earth that DID NOT. If you really believe a 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon, then please present your case here or on another thread . . .
Actually, you presented the argument. I am merely refuting it. When I wish to start a thread on how an airline hit the Pentagon, I will do so.
No. AA11 and AA77 were canceled on 9/11, which you can figure out by following this link (here). The Bureau Of Transportation Statistics (link) say that AA11 and AA77 never took off on 9/11, which we know by the fact that no tail numbers were included in the departure statistics. Anyone can figure this out by simply going to the ‘departure’ statistics link (here) to begin plugging in the information for all 9/11 departures. You want ‘All Statistics’ from “Washington, DC – Washington Dulles International (IAD)” near the bottom of the listings, then select "American Airlines (AA)" as the “Airline.” Then select “Sep” for the “Month” and “11” for the “Day(s)” and “2001” for the “Year(s).” Simple enough. Right? :0) Now hit “Submit” and look over the results for yourself (pic).
The data shows the “Tail Number” for 0077 to be “UNKNOWN,” because the aircraft never made the trip to the runway. There is no “Actual Departure Time,” because AA77 never took off on 9/11. There is no “Actual Elapsed Time,” because AA77 never took off. The wheels never left the ground, so there is no time in the “Wheels-off Time” and no “Taxi-out Time” to include in the statistics. Those of you ‘thinking’ that AA77 took off on 9/11 have been DUPED by Loyal Bushie LIES. :0)
That is very interesting. I looked at that and thought it was, indeed, odd. But I also checked all four flights on 9/11. The two that showed the 0:00 were both American Airlines, one departing DC and the other departing Boston. The other two flights were both United Airlines, one which took off from Boston and the other from Newark, which you can see here.
Flight 93
Flight 175
So, if we go by your logic, then not only did flight 77 not take off, but neither did flight 11, which means that an airliner did not crash into one of the WTC towers.
Yet, we know that it did. We saw flight 11 crash into one of the towers (unless you are going to trot out some silly hologram theory).
It also makes little sense that United 175 would strike one tower, which we also saw, but AA flight 11 did not, since, according to your logic, could not possibly have hit the tower because there was no flight record of AA 11 departing!
Thus, something else that looked a lot like AA 11 hit the tower.
Your argument is interesting, and I may research it further. However, the consistency is that the flights not logged were both were American Airlines. That may tell you something more about American Airlines then anything else.
We know that people boarded the flight.
No. The evidence already shows that Toro has no idea about what really happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon, NOR at Dulles International Airport. :0)
Actually, we do know that people boarded the flight.
Sometime today, Frank Jensen will spread his wife's ashes in Monterey Bay, where the San Martin couple spent countless joyful hours scuba diving together.
Two years ago today, Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon. She was homeward bound from a business trip and planned to celebrate her and Jensen's 20th anniversary the next day. Her 43rd birthday would have been just a few days later.
Rescue crews were able to pull Calley's body from Flight 77's wreckage.
http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml
"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."
GilroyDispatch.com | 9-11 sorrow, but a joyful life
And, as I've said but you have not answered, where are all the people that were supposedly on those non-flights? They were all booked. What happened to them? There were over a hundred people on those two flights you alleged never took off. Where are they?
Here are victims who were on American Airlines flight 11 which you said didn't take off.
USATODAY.com - Americans Flight 11 victims at a glance
And here are victims who were on American Airlines flight 77 which you also claim didn't take off.
USATODAY.com - American Flight 77 victims at a glance
What happened to them?
Wouldn't it make more sense that there was a SNAFU in the log regarding American Airlines than over 100 people mysteriously disappearing?
Last edited:
Here is a picture of a turbine found at the crash site. This is a Rolls-Royce turbine used in a Boeing 757.
This is how it fits into the engine
And here is more evidence of photos from the turbine
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
This is how it fits into the engine
And here is more evidence of photos from the turbine
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 468
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 257
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 18
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 101
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-