Eastman's Pentagon Theory

[QuietStorm]

I haven't a clue what he calls it but this is what I call it.

Eastman's Analysis: He breaks eyewitnesses into two categories and analyzes the rikus photos in an interesting way. This analysis suggests there were two planes. One the Boeing and two what he refers to as the killer plane. below are a number of excerpts.

11. Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it.

12. Star witness Riskus saw the Boeing, but was tricked when the killer jet, flying low with background visual noise -- hit the building. The Boeing was instantly lost behind the explosion and smoke.

13. Reagan National Airport is only one mile away in the direction Flight 77 was going when it flew over the crashing killer jet. After passing over the crashing killer jet -- FLight 77 was able to blend into normal Reagan National air traffic almost immediately (i.e. before the sound of the explosion could reach the White House or Capitol Building).


14. There were foreigners at both Dulles (where Flight 77 took off) and Reagan National (where Flight 77 landed after the crash) who each had an illegally gotten top security badge that enabled them to gain access anywhere in those airports -- tower, security, baggage, hangers, surveillence, loading docks, boarding, etc. They were deported by Ashcroft a few months after the crash. (Since they were not held it is reasonable to assume that they were British subjects or Isreali citizens. A British firm was subcontracting many services at the airport at the time.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

III. HOW DID FLIGHT 77 DISAPPEAR ONCE IT FLEW OVER THE PENTAGON DIRECTLY BELOW THE CRASHING KILLER JET? It merely coasted one mile to Reagan National Airport, turning less than 5 degrees.

Here is the "Reagan National Airport Explanation" of the Disappearing Act of Flight 77:

With its engines off so that its silence was remarked by Riskus and other witnesses, Flight 77 approached the Pentagon's west wall at an angle much closer to 90 degrees than the 45-degree approach of the killer jet. That is, it came from the west rather than the northwest. And it never got lower than 100 feet while over the Pentagon. (The Pentagon is 71 feet high.)


At a speed between a third and two-thirds that of sound and leveling from its necessarily accelerating dive, Flight 77 was over Reagan National Airport before the sound of the killer jet's crash reached the Capitol Building or Washington Monument -- --since the airport begins only one mile from the crash. Disappearing from the sight of turnpike observers, behind the explosion, and blending in with routine airport traffic was accomplished in less than 7 seconds -- the plane was closer to the airport than to the Pentagon in less than 3.5 seconds.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm

All New "Evidence" Presented by the Defenders of the Official
Cover-up is now highly questionable, since it was proven that
this famous proffered "proof " was planted false evidence,
and a demonstrated impossibility


1) Planted Evidence: The world-famous piece of a
Boeing 757 photographed on the Pentagon lawn south
of the crash did not come from Boeing 757
# N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77.

Here is the famous piece of wreckage, the "star evidence"
backing the official story of what happened in Arlington on
September 11, 2001.

And because photographers found it on the Pentagon lawn
ten minutes after the explosion (and after men were already
on the lawn moving pieces from one place to another) it
has been considered the prime piece of evidence that the
plane that hit that building was really American Airlines
Flight 77, Boeing 757 # N644AA.


Could this fragment alternatively have come from the letter "n"
painted on the port side of Flight 77 plane N644AA?

Definitely not. It couldn't because it is only on the starboard side
that the "n" is followed by several inches of additional blank space,
matching alleged the debris piece.

The piece is not merely "n", rather it is "n___" ( note the extra empty
space to the right of the letter) on the fragment. There is no room for
that extra space to the right of the "n" on the port side. Why not?
Because an escape exit follows the letter and it is less than three
inches from it.

This difference in the space gap following letter "n" on the port and
the starboard side is viewed clearly in the larger version of the following
photo. TO SEE IT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GAPS
FOLLOWING THE LETTER "n" ON THE TWO SIDES YOU MUST
VIEW THE ENLARGEMENT OF THIS PICTURE : :

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

AND I DO BELIEVE THESE ARE HIS UPDATED COMMENTS WHICH DANCING DAVE PLACED HERE IN THE PHYSICS.ORG THREAD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=652&mesg_id=652

-----------------------------

Now the goal for me would be to read it again. As I only skimmed it back 3 - 4 months ago and see how it can be strengthened. NOT JUST DEVOLVED ON UNRAVELD because perhaps one doesn't like his politics or his hillary theory. The AAAR already states there was an initial report of a crash on runway 1-19. It is backed up by another article which I will find.

if need be we go through ever eye witness every one and test it against Eastman's statements.

Yes we will go through harveys lampost theory and match each side by side.

These are only suggestions. Reviling for diversionary purposes has ended. Those who only want to argue Eastman is a delusion kook need not enter the thread.

[acerbic]

1. Interesting... shall we see Dickey arguing against his own theory

...since the current theory has three, not two planes... or is it four planes, a goat and a pair of lederhosen? :-)

[QuietStorm]

2. well than I named it wrong

sue me. And if Dick wants to get into the act certainly he shall. I in the meantime I have to read it more thoroughly and refresh my memory as to the sources I have read through.

[crispy]

3. Re: "Eastman's Two Plane Theory"

Right now I do think a military plane firing a missile into the Pentagon and then crashing itself is the explanation which best fits the facts. However, I would like to argue against a few key points of the two+ plane theory, which holds that F77 landed at Reagan. But I want to do so against Mr. Eastman's current theory, not something some points of which have already been revised or thrown out. So we should get his most recent treatise on the subject before we begin discussing the theory.

[QuietStorm]

4. crispy & eastman

have you already read through this entire think. Just curious because I haven't yet I skimmed it on and off quickly. I am not sure the F-16 landed at RRNA either, but I have to read through it not skim it.

I was drawn to it for two reasons

there was a boeing in the sky.

there was an initial report of a crash at RRNA

I wasn't aware eastman stated it was the F-16 that landed there . I always thougth because of the eyewitness on the highway who said it looked like the boeing was headed to RRNA that it was the boeing that landed or perhaps crashed there. Which would account for that initial crash report.

Whether that boeing is flight 77 I don't know.

I have to read the theory through.

Arguing against point is good, tweaking others based on all info we know so far. is good. In my mind this would be more constructive rehashing

There are comprehensive accounts of eyewits, and C130 sitings. If you noticed I placed them in the pent 3 thread along with cordite.

I find his explaination of that scap metal piece works for me. Because it is simple but we can visit that as well. reorg seems to be on that beat. I just think
in areas this theory rings the truest.

Also I have no problem believing that scrap metal was placed after the fact for officialdom with riskus on the job. A rehash of interviews with riskus are in order. I hadn't heard he had been interviewed I was under the impression he had not.

But reviling Eastman IS NOT ALLOWED even if we find the whole theory is off. My guess is we will find some of very on. Those aspects can be strengthened.

From Eastman I would like to know if any of this has been presented to anyone on Captial Hill. I know at one point Some of Bart's work was pulled together and presented to a Senator I think. But I have been away from the investigation although I can double check that.

[acerbic]

5. Go ahead, try to make Leastman stop reviling itself, I dare you...

But reviling Eastman IS NOT ALLOWED

This is what reviles poor Dickhead and it's written by the same Dickhead:

"I have long been convinced that Hillary Clinton was behind the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders that created the distraction the night before the very day Hillary became the first First Lady to testify in a criminal investigation. I also know that she was involved in serious economic crime when she received criminal payment for corrupt services in the form of a million-to-one (i.e. impossible to come by honestly) illegally manipulated first-timer bonanza killing in the commodities futures speculation. Also, that she had one of the Secret Service men she detested, a man who might have heard too much, transferred to Okalahoma city -- to perish in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building there, even as the drug-trade-dealing BATF chose to be away from the office that day. And there is the Vince Foster murder. If Mrs. Olsen is in the hands of Hillary Clinton and her associates now, I am sure she would much rather be in the Atlantic trench."

If you can make that sick freepy lunacy stop, good for you...

[QuietStorm]

6. Thank you acerbic I have now seen this paragraph 3 times.

I am not interested in seeing it again. OKAY. enough with this paragraph. I WANT TO BE QUEEN and do my version of eastman's theory give or take. Hillary kidnapped the plane isn not in MY VERSION.

There is something about eastman's theory that floats. It floats more than any others. Well actually I haven't seen any others besides the time lines and the timelines are chronologies mostly tracking the story via mainstream.

based on all the information I have read through there is an aspect of eastman's theory that makes sense it touches upon some of the dots ...

The hillary part seems too complicate. Look this Administration is dancing right before our eyes. I think it might be simpler. If perhaps once we get through organizing the eyewits and locations and which planes based on wits were seen (I am not sure we can consider radar it was very fucked up in washington that day which leds me to believe one of the planes could have been a scrambler ... a radar scrambing UAV. .. or just a scrambling device....

Tell me is this the only part of eastmans' theory you have read. where did you get this paragraph is it in one of the three part series that I have placed here.?

I skimmed one the first part back in february the other two I just encountered via dancing dave... I had seen the hillary theory as well but not in tandem with the eastman theory I had read through...

enough with the hilary paragraph... there are other aspects of his theory that are sound.

[acerbic]

7. You're right about that:

There is something about eastman's theory that floats. It floats more than any others.
Indeed... it floats and floats and just won't flush. :hurts:

[Old and In the Way]

8. 2 Things with the alternate theories that'd have to be explained.

(1) The lightpole spacing (width) is such that a 757 wingspan could take them down...but how would that be addressed if the plane was an F-16?

(2) If the Boeing was in fact landed at Reagan, what happened with the passengers?

[demodewd]

9. too risky

My thoughts exactly, Old and In the Way. This theory is COMPLICATED.Whoever pulled this caper off would want to keep it as simple as possible.And no one would see the "Boeing " fly over trhe Pentagon? It's broad daylight...too too risky.

[QuietStorm]

14. what do you mean too risky...

well I have to go now and read this stuff over the eastman theories... I do not understand what you mean. What is too risky? That a plane lands at RRNA or crashes there. Why is that too risky. There was a beoing in the sky... The explosion becomes a distraction... People are seeing this from different locations so they are assuming where that plane went . the only reason everyone follows the official line is because MOMMY AND DADDY told us FLIGHT 77 hit the building.

This theory is only as complicated as how many plane are in the sky. .. this theory is not actually that complicated... it takes time to read through all the wits and such but complicated it is not...

It might have some flaws... complicated I don't think so... problem is people might only be up for pat answers...

[RH]

52. It might have some flaws...

Supposing a pre planned strategy to the effect that a plane would fly low over the Pentagon but not be seen, what then if but one bystander would happen to snap a photo of the said event?

Or for that matter, how would anybody be sure the event was not possibly recorded by a road traffic camera or a live webcam?

You also need to explain the experience of a witness such as Scott P. Cook. Watching from across the River he wrote especially to say that saw the C130 but not at all the B757 which was directly to the other side of the Pentagon from where he watched. How could he possibly not have noticed an airliner flying very low and across the river straight towards him?

Yet another paid disinformation agent? Does anybody happen to happen to live near to Washington DC who is not a paid disinformation agent?

:eyes:

The hypothesis is ridiculous. This happened in broad daylight, with hundreds of people on the roads or with clear views from skyscrapers in Rosslyn, Crystal City and Washington.

[Dancing_Dave]

85. From what the Bush Administration has done in Iraq and Afghanistan

You should know that the idea of "too risky" never stopped these guys from doing any crazy thing! Hey, they are really gearing up now to fight NUCLEAR WARS! And you think they would be shocked by an out of place Boeing? Indeed, everything that happened on 9/11 is pretty small scale in comparison to the risks they're running now. OF COURSE, they are capable of doing such a thing, and much, much more!

[crispy]

10. Re: "2 Things with the alternate theories that'd have to be explained."

> (1) The lightpole spacing (width) is such that a 757 wingspan could take them down...but how would that be addressed
> if the plane was an F-16?

I think the F-16 part of the two-plane theory should simply be abandoned. There is NO WAY an F-16 could have done that damage to the light poles.


> (2) If the Boeing was in fact landed at Reagan, what happened with the passengers?

I don't think F77 landed at Reagan. Hell I don't even think a Boeing was in the area of the Pentagon. Please prove me wrong if you are able. :)

[demodewd]

11. Anablep

Are you familiar with Anablep and her extensive research and photographs?

[crispy]

12. Re: "Anablep"

Yes I made a point of reading every post of hers in the old Pentagon threads. I noticed she hasn't been around here lately. I am going to send her an email sometime soon to hopefully talk about some things with her. Anyone know if [e-mail] is still her active email address or if she has a newer one?

[QuietStorm]

16. no where is her stuff?

[demodewd]

21. re:stuff

She was a heavy on the earlier Pentagon Crash threads...1,2,3 4 and more probably. Very thorough. She ended up turning my head

[QuietStorm]

15. why couldn't have the feds taken those lamposts down

to set up the crime scene in a way that establishes their story.

[Old and In the Way]

27. I've thought about that too,

I suppose that is conceivable if this was planned, but most of the bases look pretty intact. I don't know how you could knock the poles down that way with destroying the bases.

Another question about the Boeing/Eastman theory. Wouldn't the security camera that shows the crash (agreeing that I don't see a 757 in those frames) show a 757 going overhead at some point in the frames? I don't see any other aircraft in those frames....

[crispy]

28. Re: "why couldn't have the feds taken those lamposts down"

Did they also fake every witness testimony in which people said the plane was knocking down light poles?

Taking the poles down isn't enough, they'd have to cut them and bend them in the correct places.

Why would the feds have taken them down, even if it supported their story? We only know they support their story (at least over the F-16 theory anyway) because Ron Harvey put together a website about them. Is Ron Harvey working for the feds? }(

[QuietStorm]

18. a boeing was sited

why don't you think a boeing was in the area... there were sitings of a boeing. unless that woman from the highway was a plant... THERE WAS A BOEING SITED flying unusually low along side the highway from the 14th street bridge... they assumption was that it was coming in for a landing at RRNA but still it was unusally low... ONCE IT PASSED it went out of view....

THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN A BOEING IN THE SKY

THEY HAD TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A BOEING ... IF NOT

NO ONE WOULD HAVE SEEN A BOEING OR A COMMERCIAL LINER

AND ALL THE WITS WHO SAW IT WOULD BE LYING. CAN'T BE!

[RH]

38. Uh?

THERE WAS A BOEING SITED flying unusually low along side the highway from the 14th street bridge... ??????????????????

[QuietStorm]

13. the boeing two considerations

there are many considerations or speculations in my mind with that boeing that would have to be established. And one of my problems with all of the these planes is they few so off course of their targets and then backed around. which never made sense to me. Anyway... was the boeing that was seen in the air flight:

1- was it flight 77 why do you think it was? why would you think it wasn't

2- AAAR and another article states there was a CRASH not a landing but a CRASH reported on runway 1-19 at RRNA... so if we go with that I realize this poses problems with reality.. however we need all the very earliest of reports...

look at the black out... I happened to be online for that so I caught ever single report from black out to flames at coned to a thunderbolt in niagra to canada to ohio to michigan.... no thunderbolt but tripped switiches...

THE POINT.... TO ESTABLISH FIRST WHERE THIS PARTICULAR BOEING WENT the most obvious place, might just be the place, and that would be runway 1-19 landed or crashed as it is mentioned in one of their official reports. I know there were early reports of other fires in the area. One was dispatched and recorded in the AAAR... a high rise in roslyn

As for the lamposts (and actually as for everything the government says). Their story is it was a boeing. So if it wasn't you have to think criminally. They would have to set the stage so it did look like a beoing swooped in from some direction. the AAAR does not have any logisitics on target path. So all of those speculations on directions and so forth are solely based on eyewitnesses right?

That is what set up target path more so than radar or the Feds on the job.
We have two distinctly different descriptions of what was seen as to type of craft. The media put people on the air. THINK if it was a crime most could have been plants. LETS PRETEND....

Okay now if the FEDS say the boeing came in a certain way... there would have to look at the scene of the crime than and as best they can set it up that way, but for that hole that is pretty good visual proof that boeing did not hit that building ( at least I think so as I know do others.) If not a boeing the LAMPOSTS WOULD POSE A PROBLEM to the official story.

This is one hypothetical and I know this mysterious Riskus may be a fly in the ointment. And don't all chew my head off at once. But if the Feds need to set the stage that a boeing hit the building when it didn't there would have to be premediation involved and those lamposts could have be knocked down by the feds. Don't marry that. it is for argument sake. Understand I have to reacquaint myself more intimately with the eyewits and the geographics.

No of course that hypothesis is off the top of my head and I am one that NEVER believed the boeing hit the building. I was one who AT FIRST with no information believed with passions THEY LET IT HAPPEN... and THEY WERE PREPARED... it in essence in my warped mind a SELF ATTACK...before we even get to the possibility that it was orchestrated from with in.

We don't even have to get there to orchestration. ... if one lets something happen... it is in essence a self attack... they are accessories before and after the fact... might be a better way to say it.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT...

The planes the helicopters the F-16 in the air at the time. Their flight paths ... the eyewits... what planes when where... when... based on materials all have... Riskus is problematic without inside dope on this guy.

ALL I KNOW IS THIS --- that alleged CRAFT in those supposed series of photos supposedly from the security video at the pentagon... IS NOT A BOEING... so none of this is reasonable to me... we have to play with reality and what facts and hearsay we have...

this thread are for those investigators that DO NOT BELIEVE IT WAS A BOEING THAT HIT THAT BUILDING. Those investigators that are not in this to be the best investigator... or the smartest investigator. Just those that have thoughts on the matter...

we go back to the beginning. For those who wish to sit back and dare us on. Let me thank you before hand for all your help.

enough like I really have time for this shit. I just couldn't believe after all the time I invested of my time on another forum that we were nowhere here still arguing the stuff in the same counterproductive manner.

You either believe the official story or you don't .... if you do believe the official story this thread is not for you unless you really have something constructive to say... Leastman Dickhead IS NOT constructive. Status quo has made many people crazier than Eastman... can't imagine how crazy it might have made jim garrison...

that is all....

[crispy]

17. Re: "the boeing two considerations"

> 2- AAAR and another article states there was a CRASH not a landing but a CRASH reported on runway 1-19 at RRNA

Can you link the other article for me please? And do you have a page number handy for where in the AAAR it said that? If not I'll look myself. I'm not familiar with the crash on that runway, but what are you suggesting might have crashed there?


I am not convinced people saw a Boeing. I am convinced people saw what they were supposed to think was a Boeing.

First of all, the light poles. How could the feds have knocked them down beforehand? And cut them in the correct places? Plus NUMEROUS witnesses said the plane was hitting light poles as it approached.

If the feds didn't knock down the light poles, they had to be knocked down by the plane.

If they were knocked down by the plane, the plane would have to have a wingspan of at least ~95 feet.

If the plane has that big of a wingspan, my theory, that the "killer jet" was supposed to make people think it was a Boeing and thus was not nearly as small as an F-16, makes alot more sense than the "F77 + F-16" theory.

You'd think people would describe seeing an F-16 if they saw one.

The light pole evidence supports my theory over Eastman's, though we do agree on the most important thing, that the Pentagon was hit by a missile + military plane.

[QuietStorm]

22. crispy

I am tired now I will get the articles you request tomorrow and the page number in the AAAR

cap defina article

interview with woman from the highway... and what she described, it was I believe from memory a commercial liner it. DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A BOEING PER SE but close enough so people would be okay with A BOEING HIT THE PENTAGON.... I agree there.

I am not sure a f-16 flew in either... but there was that convincing eyewit that did see... a smaller plane which fit the description of an F16... which perhaps could have been a UAV run by remote by that helicopter that was seen riding up behind the CRAFT whatever it was....

Remember even in the mainstream mags TWO APPROACHES WERE DRAWN IN one coming from the 14th street bridge (where people assumed the plane was headed in for a landing at RRNA) and the other coming low to the ground from the in front of the crash target....from the opposite direction.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE BOEING THAT WAS SEEN FROM THE HIGHWAY....WENT AS IT CROSSED OVER THE PENTAGON...... EVEN BEFORE THE EXPLOSION....IT WAS NOT THE HIT PLANE. I mean IF it was not the hit plane... I am not married to anything I JUST WANT THIS counterproductive shit to stop so with some concensus we can narrow in on SOMETHING THAT really floats.

THINK TIMING ONE PLANE FLIES FROM THE 14th street bridge this is the one that looks like the boeing... it just keeps going. THE TOWER was reported to be waiting for a missing plane.... this might have been it... (F77 I am not sure... )

We have to walk through the timing but follow me .... it flies over the pentagon... the purpose it serves is to set in the mind a boeing... or a commerical liner .... it headS for RRNA... (let is leave it be for now we get to whether it crashed or landed later).

Just after this happens comes the whatever it was that actually hits the pentagon UAV's I am not sure how big they are... but I have a list of UAVs I can find as well... this is the sighting with the the helicopter coming up behind...

I just through that out about the feds knocking the lamposts down... I am not convinced that is true... but keep it in the back of you mind...

I am not arguing it is eastman's theory but it serves as a bases...

WHAT IS YOUR LAMPOST THEORY? I will get you the other info tomorrow.

[crispy]

29. Re: "crispy"

> WHAT IS YOUR LAMPOST THEORY?

I think they were knocked down by the plane that hit the Pentagon. It is the only logical theory.

We should talk about the Boeing you think was in the area. I don't think there was one there, just something people were supposed to look at and think was one.

[QuietStorm]

30. well than I am confused what it is you believe

the question for you than would be would a plane with a wing span as wide enough to hit the lamposts have made that small hole in the pentagon. How large a plane would that have been? and could that hole not have simple been created by a missile itself taking into consideration the expanse that it would have created from the explosive itself accounting for the circumverence around the weapon device or the missile itself.

I have to still get you the eyewitness siting of plan from the highway, these were sitings of a commercial liner thought to be a boeing and seen from the highway around by the 14th street bridge.

to tell you the truth. You lost he here as I am not sure anymore a craft hit the pentagon or if it did in only came in close enough to extract it's weapon as it is clearly not evident in the alleged security video photos.

[crispy]

33. Re: "well than I am confused what it is you believe"

96 feet isn't that small of a hole. For a 757, maybe.

> and could that hole not have simple been created by a missile itself taking into consideration the expanse that
> it would have created from the explosive itself accounting for the circumverence around the weapon device or the
> missile itself.

Doubtful. I think only a shaped charge missile could have caused the exit hole in C ring, and if it were a shaped charge it wouldn't make a plane-sized hole.

I don't see how anyone can think at this point that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. If you still think so, go reread anablep's stuff on the old DU Pentagon threads.

The question is what type of plane it was.

I have no opinions at this point about decoy planes. Just what hit the Pentagon. I think the plane which hit the Pentagon was a military plane modified to make witnesses think it was a Boeing.

[QuietStorm]

35. then WHERE is it in the series of photo's

OR IS THE PHOTO INDICATIVE OF THE EXPLOSION WHICH WAS DELAYED AFTER IMPACT SO WHAT THAT BLIP IS is a smoke thread from a plane that would only trail ONE TREAD?

not that I disagree with you. Even if you look at the variance of Wallaces eyewitness accounts, they indicate that with surety he could not state beyond doubt it was a real boeing. In one description he describes coloring that is inconsistent with a boeing. I have no problem with a plane however made to resemble a boeing. What would have accounted for the two approaches to the pentagon one from behind one from in front.

I am not sold on any one theory. Just that I do not believe it was flight 77 and I would like to explain to my satisfaction what accounted for the report of the initial crash on runway 1-19.

[crispy]

41. Re: "then WHERE is it in the series of photo's"

> then WHERE is it in the series of photo's

Behind the pylon, I'd say. That part may have been touched up. Who knows. The important part is that the plane DID have a wingspan of at least ~95 feet, so even if we don't see it in the photos yet we expect to, then the photos just aren't showing a plane like we'd expect them to.

I have yet to make a decision about planes other than the one that hit the Pentagon. But I think we can say for sure that there was a plane in the area which people mistook for an AA plane because it was painted up to look like one, had a wingspan of at least 95 feet, and then hit the Pentagon.

My next order of business is to look at the reports of other planes in the area.

[QuietStorm]

44. I have links regarding UAV's. Drones.

I did not pay much attention to them but for who makes them and who sells them. I am not sure of specifications. Certainly some are attack oriented. I have some links on them. I wonder if any would have a wing span of 95 ft.? I have seen pictures of small ones. Radar scramblers. there was one just found in Iraq it looked larger than the ones I have seen. That would be the ticket than. If not an F-16. You are talking a smaller replica with no passengers and potentially run by remote which would perhaps explain the sighting of the helicopter coming up behind the CRAFT that looked like an AA.

I will find drone links and do a current search.

[crispy]

45. Re: "I have links regarding UAV's. Drones."

I don't know of any specific ones that have a 95 foot wingspan but that doesn't mean there aren't any. If the conspirators decided on remotely guiding the thing in there then firing a missile I think they'd want to make it look as Boeing-like as possible - not just with paint and fake windows but size-wise too.

[QuietStorm]

54. crispy some thoughts on air to land missile strike

werdygo.

Hypothesize: I ran this down at one point elsewhere. and was reminded of after I read an article in the IP forum this morning.

Quote from article: "Israeli helicopters fired missiles on Ahmad Rushdi Ishtiwi, aged 24, Waheed Hamid Al Hams, aged 20, Muhammad Kan’an Abu Libdeh, aged 21, Ahmad Muhammad Abu Hlal, aged 23, killing them immediately."

They have been doing this with regularity. Mind you I am not saying Israel shot a missile into the pentagon. NO. I pull the quote merely to provide proof that missiles are shot from helicopters.

This hypothesis works with either FL 77 or a craft painted up to look like flight 77. Perhaps it would work better if is NOT flight 77 though. Only because if it was NOT Flight 77. It would have to be destroyed completely.

Remember the famed eyewitness timmerman "It was there and then it was gone" He said that more than once. We have an eyewitness account (perhaps more than one) of that friggin helicopter. It flew up behind the CRAFT and then flew up over the Pentagon heading for what looked to be the Whitehouse. Yes.

Why could it not have shot a missile into that CRAFT just upon impact. If the CRAFT was shot through with a missile JUST UPON IMPACT it would not have with as much force of velocity rammed THROUGH it might explaine the with of the hole in the front and explain that exit hole in the back.

What I mean is one would assume if not shot with a missile JUST ON IMPACT their would not have been an exit hole in the back. Instead what would have happened was that hole back wall would have been crumbled rather than just a hole. WHERE ARE THE DETONATION EXPERTS?

People like that would be best apt to answer what kind of circumference of damage would be left by which type of missile.

THE SHOT THROUGH THE AIRCRAFT THEORY. AIR TO LAND SHOT FROM THE HELICOPTER.

Probably it has been considered already it was one of my first thoughts before I even knew a helicopter was following up behind the CRAFT. It is hard to tell because as I said it seems people are grappling with exactly the same questions they were grappling with months ago.

I am not sure the hypothesis would work with FL 77 as then there would be that matter of where were the passengers?

[crispy]

55. Re: "crispy some thoughts on air to land missile strike"

> THE SHOT THROUGH THE AIRCRAFT THEORY. AIR TO LAND SHOT FROM THE HELICOPTER.
> Probably it has been considered already it was one of my first thoughts before I even knew a helicopter was following
> up behind the CRAFT. It is hard to tell because as I said it seems people are grappling with exactly the same questions
> they were grappling with months ago.

I think Occam's Razor cuts out that possibility, unless better evidence can be presented.

[QuietStorm]

59. yeah well you know what PUT your theory on forum

WHAT BETTER EVIDENCE.

I DID A SEARCH LAST NIGHT ... no one is any further along then the were... various theories and no one is anywhere...

This case is not going to be made up of substantive evidence. Anyone thinks that is dreaming. This is a string of circumstantial evidence.

And how does Occam Razor cut out that possibility exactly? It is a very logical hypothesise all in all. WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE TO SUPPORT a craft was painted up to look like a boeing? Most of the evidence it seems to me can be shot through with holes it is the nature of the beast.

[RH]

62. a case not going to be made up of substantive evidence.

is not a case.
It is a fantasy.

[QuietStorm]

66. Yes it is a FANTASY and that FANTASY is called the OFFICIAL STORY

It is not made of of substantive evidence EITHER. Why in the world are you following me around this morning?

[RH]

75. You are wrong.

perhaps your English is just too poor to understand what "substantive evidence" is.

[RH]

37. Uh?

.. but there was that convincing eyewit that did see... a smaller plane which fit the description of an F16... ??????

[QuietStorm]

25. crispy AAAR runway 1-19 Annex A page A-6 2nd paragraph

[demodewd]

19. In Broad Daylight

I believe American Airlines Flight 77 or a drone the size or very near the size of a Boeing 757 replete with American Airlines decals hit the Pentagon probably with the passengers on board. But...it was brought in by remote and there probably wasn't any highjackers on the plane. A homing device was planted on the Pentagon exterior and the plane came in at that exact spot just barely clearing the generator and trailor.There may have been a bomb triggered inside the building that precipitated the jet fuel explosion by a split second. This researched theory puts all preparation prior to the day of the event.

[demodewd]

20. re:stuff

She was a heavy on the earlier Pentagon Crash threads...1,2,3 4 and more probably. Very thorough. She ended up turning my head.

[QuietStorm]

23. well I never read her stuff I wasn't here than

I do not have search privileges here would her stuff come up on googles search.

[demodewd]

24. re: google search

She contributed to rense.com under her real name but I can't recall it. Betcha plaguepuppy or dulce would know.

[QuietStorm]

26. If you Have the AAAR I listed page in post above re: runway 1-19

cap defina was advised of a crash at end of runway 1-19 not a landing a crash. quote "that was quickly amended, identifying the crash site as the Pentagon"

He later than was advised of a runaway diabetic in one of the parking lots. A vehicular accident.

that comes up in an article... I have to get that... I believe the wanted to divert captain defina because perhaps there REALLY WAS a crash on runway 1-19. In the article the account of this diabetic and what it hit is so vague it really seems to me it was a diversion to get Captain Defina busy with something.

I will find the article. probably much later tonight or tomorrow.

[crispy]

42. Re: "If you Have the AAAR I listed page in post above re: runway 1-19"

Okay here is the quote from the AAAR:

"Meanwhile, at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) Fire Department at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Captain Michael Defina was investigating an incident at Terminal B when he heard the impact and saw the smoke rising in the distance. He called Fire Communications and was advised of a report of a Boeing 757 crash off the end of Runway 1-19. That was quickly amended, identifying the Pentagon as the crash site."

Well the one doing the advising was Fire Communications. You say you believe "the wanted to divert captain defina because perhaps there REALLY WAS a crash on runway 1-19." But "they" would be Fire Communications.. if they wanted to divert his attention, that suggests sinister motives, and would sinister people really be at Fire Communications?

I guess I don't understand the significance of the report of the crash on the runway. What are you suggesting hit there, if anything?

[QuietStorm]

48. IF you read through the introduction

1- There were some very recent changes in personnel.

2- wouldn't someone have had to call it into fire communications. Depending on the change in personnel (and I have to double check but the change in personal was higher up within the Arlington County Fire hierarchy. One came when these training sessions began and he was in charge of devicing the sessions in tandem with ... I don't remember I will have to reread that section...

3- I have no problem speculating there was key personnel that would be sinister within Fire communication. If premeditated it would take key personnell in the FBI, and whomever was in the loop in charge of Fire and EMS. Remember NO TRIAGE TAGS WERE USED - that is basic procedure. You are not going to tell me that was panic. That has to have been premediated a - so there would be no record regarding the absense of plane passengers b - the need to establish medical documenation after the fact.

4- there was also a rooky placed on the job in a key position of responsibility which could have also been premediated ... I don't remember which position but it too was mentioned in the AAAR -- again I have to read this section again but if memory serves he was 24 hours on the job.

I will not post again till I have all the sources I mentioned as well as the listing of new or recent changes in personnel and the name of the guy who was 24 hours new on the job. I believe I have that written out somewhere.

I really don't see what is so difficult with considering THERE WAS A CRASH ON RUNWAY 1-19 and how interesting too (9/11 911 1-19). It is just a matter of pulling the speculation together more concisely. and it jiving with the planes in the air.

RRNA tower is another area that requires a better look see as well.

[RH]

51. would sinister people really be at Fire Communications?

Crispy has obviously not yet got the hang of this.

To prove the 'No Boeing' hypothesis the requisite method is to suppose that sinister people are at work wherever and whenever the facts would fail to fit the pre conceived hypothesis.

When, on the other hand, the facts may be twisted to suit the said predilection, the consequent interpretation of the word of almost anybody is then to be accepted, and without a shadow of doubt, as the whole truth and nothing but.

By no other means was the nonsense ever remotely viable.

[crispy]

56. Re: "would sinister people really be at Fire Communications?"

> Crispy has obviously not yet got the hang of this.
> To prove the 'No Boeing' hypothesis the requisite method is to suppose that sinister people are at work wherever
> and whenever the facts would fail to fit the pre conceived hypothesis.

If the alternate scenario can't be proven, at least in part, without resorting to "maybe"s like "maybe people at Fire Com were sinister", then it's a waste of time.

I do not use the "requisite method" as you say. If a B757 didn't hit the building, we should be able to tell from an analysis of witness accounts, crash data, and plane behavior. If the theory doesn't hold up there, it won't hold up anywhere. Facts are always better than speculation.

[QuietStorm]

58. the question is absurd crispy

you are considering that a decoy plane painted to look like a boeing hit the pentagon CLEARLY that would indicate a VERY HIGH LEVEL OF SINISTER. wouldn't you say? We know they had simulated training sessions of something hitting the pentagon. They worked it all out, with key people placed in key spots.

[RH]

61. the question is absurd

So the poeple who man the emergency dispatch services paint aeroplanes in their spare time, do they?

I didn't know that.

:silly:

[QuietStorm]

65. DON'T put words in my mouth !

You are uselessly and purposely misinterpreting.

[crispy]

78. Re: "the question is absurd crispy"

Yes, sinister people high up in the govt (Rumsfeld for one), but not people at Fire Communications in Arlington County. Possible, but I think speculation on this line of logic is useless.

[QuietStorm]

81. well than you do your thing I'll do mine

IMHO mostly because I haven't seen any of your theory yet. And I haven't a clue how you are connecting dots from the standpoint of overview.

As I said there were changes in personnel. IN fact the guy from EOC was less than twenty four hours on the job. Seems to me they have the right personnel in the right place anything is possible.

Perhaps it is useless. I am not convinced of that at this time.

[gandalf]

31. Some people seem to have only limited

possibilities to express themselves, and only a limited number of arguments.
Sadly, they seldom present their own constructive arguments. Mostly they confine themselves to say "What's wrong with the thesis Osama and his guys did it?"

But I am always astonished how persistent they are, and on which facts they base their faith.

What a peaceful life they must have to put so much faith in governmental institutions.

[dick_eastman]

32. I am stunned by the honest critical examination DU the "small-plane thesis

This is the most honest discussion of the evidence I have assembled that has appeared anywhere. Every post I have read is an honest valid criticism.

What follows is nothing new -- I see discussants wanting to know what has changed in the 'small-plane' explanation over time. I tell about the two points on which I was forced to make retractions (I was denying that there were downed poles and I was denying that the hole in the "C"-ring could have been made by a Boeing that hit the wall nearly on the perpendicular (back when the official story was using the actual path of the Boeing for the official-story Boeing, rather than using the actual south-west path of the killer jet for the official-story Boeing as they are doing now.

At the bottom I also answer an inquiry about "how many planes" are involved in the Pentagon event.

--------

I was arguing, on the basis of the French "Find the Boeing" site that internal demolition at the Pentagon -- with very little evidence to back up the theory. I was holding up this theory in an exchange with David Bosankoe of Bristol, England, who was defending the official version of events. Then in early March 2002 the Defense Department released the five pictures from the security camera. Bosankoe enlarged it and made an "animated" presentation of them, which is what is still circulating. The French later did a similar thing, and the two, as far as I can tell from long examination of both, show the same set of events in every detail. Bosankoe has told exactly how he made his display, so that others could replicate his results to confirm that Bosankoe had not tampered with the image data altering critical content. This improvement in resolution and ease of comparison between the sequential "frames" convinced both Bosankoe and myself that we were each wrong -- and thus the small-plane thesis was born. It was Fescado (who calls himself "agent Fescado" of humanunderground who first suggested the possibility of an F-16.

Since then, as new information was brought to my attention, mostly by the two critics who actually used photographic data, Sarah Roberts of Hawaii (a.k.a., Anablep, Spinner, CCummings, StJarna, ecopilgrim etc.) and Ron Harvey of London (posting here at DU as RH.) Mostly there has been a steady acredtion of detail, a strengthening of the thesis by new information or the discovery that a witness had been misquoted or that the writer added more (making honest assumptions presumably, but maybe not in all cases.) Thus the information I have presented has remained one continuous expositon of a theory that has been elaborated but not significantly revised -- with two exceptions.

Early representations of the attack, animated simulations on televsion, artists' representations in printed and internet media -- all showed the Boeing coming in at a 90-degree angle. In fact I was the first to bring up lamp posts by showing that the lamp posts straight across (and north of the overpass) were visibly not knocked down and that therefore a Boeing 757 could not have passed through them to hit the Pentagon at the angle I was accepting, from the media, as the true angle of attack. Two things happened next. Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts appeared -- Bosankoe was the first to discover their sites -- and they argued (to the public and with Bosankoe, but not with me who got their positions second-hand from Bosankoe, not taking Ron and Sarah seriously enough I guess) they argued that poles had been knocked down -- but I was not being told where -- so I, still in the grip of the assumption that the official story I was now confidently discrediting had the Boeing going straight in -- so I argued, now in correspondence and on e-lists and newsgroups, with Ron Harvey, that without the photographic evidence (which Harvey held back on showing me -- for what reason he left me arguing a point that he could have refuted by a presentation of the evidence at any time I will leave others to speculate about -- but eventually I found pictures that backed up Harvey's contention about the lamp poles -- and I sent out that very hour a retraction and an apology.

I think it is important to note that there was a shift in the official story (i.e., in the coverup scenario) which I believe was a tactical retreat and repostioning in their disinformation and coverup story. The official story pushed by the monopoly media and others was of a 90-degree angle attack -- even the Army Times newspaper showed a 90-degree attack in its illustration of the event (I show examples at my 911_demonstrative_evidence yahoogroup archive) -- but when Bosanko, Fescado, the French, myself and others had successfully challenged that thesis, the coverup version of the approach of the Boeing was changed from the actual path taken from the Boeing (which witnesses saw) to the path actually taken by the killer jet (which is not the path that witnesses saw the Boeing following -- Riskus, Laggasse most particularly, whose written statements to me are also available at the demonstrative evidence archive. This gave the official story "physical evidence" in support of it, trading off inconsistency with many witness accounts of a "straight-in" Boeing appraoch, and over the gas station, over the Annex, over the Sheraton, and over the head of a gardener who was working on cemetery lawn which which lawn extends no further south than the Annex or gas station. Ron and Sarah led this change in the official story, from a witnesses based more-from-the-west attack, to an attack more-from-the-southwest that is based on downed poles and the hole in "C" ring.

The hole in the "C" ring is the other item that was introduced, that I at first argued must have been made by some other cause -- if the killer jet hit the wall at less of an oblique angle. I argued that there was no way that an engine could be deflected to a 60 degree from say and 80-degree angle etc. etc. When I finally saw the photos of downed poles (and yes, there is still a pole that is down in front of a taxi cab that, because of its curve, does not match the other lamp posts, which are ofstright-pipe design -- and in a later shot,when the highway was closed and no one is around, suddenly becomes a post of stright pole design -- this too is shown at the dem. ev. archive.

So these are the two big retractions I have had to make -- poles were downed by the attacking killer jet and the hole in the C-ring was made by the killer jet -- which gives the angle of approach to the southwest wall to be about 55-degrees. All of the material on the APFN pages and in my two sites and in my main newsgroup threads on this subject at uk.politics.crime etc. were posted after this correction based on admission of the downed poles and the hole in the C-ring.

I see discussion of how many aircraft were involved in the "Pentagon event."

Witness accounts establish the presence of the helicopter circling the Pentagon seconds before the hit. The pilot of the C-130 has given his account of how he flew through the smoke 30 seconds after the event and on-the-ground witnesses saw the C-130. Then there was the photographed four engine plane making exhibitionistic dives over the Washington D.C. mall (capitol building, white house location) which was a four-engine plane (over illegal airspace -- so where is the fuss) -- and this plane diving was also shown on BBC (see offtakes from the TV screen made by Joe Vialls's vcr and shown at his site. And of course there is the Boeing (as established by the witnesses) and the killer jet (as established by the videos, the damage and debris, the downed lamp posts, the hole in C-ring, the security camera video, the fired-missile evidence etc. -- and, which path is totally inconsistent with the path established by witnesses (hotel, annex, gas-station, "straight in" etc.)


I hope Sarah Roberts will join this discussion to give her history of these events.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Care to comment?

(1) Why wouldn't the Boeing that flew into RR airport show up on the security camera photo's?...or do you think that the plane had flown past before the 1st frame is shown?

(3) If it was an F-16, how'd the lightpoles get knocked down?

(2) Your positions on Hillary offing Barbara Olson have got a lot of us wondering about the credibility of your positions...care to explain how you figure Hillary Clinton's involvement in 9/11?

[QuietStorm]

36. Timing

One of the only reasons I tend to think there were two planes is because of the report of the crash on runway 1-19. Therefore a simple answer would be timing. The commercial liner coming in low parallel to the highway from the 14th street bridge crossed in the sky already passing before the time which the series of photos captured.

Personally I would prefer if any discussion of Hillary be done in another thread. I feel it would divert the discussion negatively. If it must be discussed perhaps it would be best to open a thread specific to it. Clearly it is contravercial and I would prefer to keep this thread productive. That discusion would be sure to off it.

[RH]

39. Uh?

The commercial liner coming in low parallel to the highway from the 14th street bridge crossed in the sky already passing before the time which the series of photos captured.???????????

:freak:

[RH]

40. Really?

"...hope Sarah Roberts will join this discussion..."

:wow:

Seriously?

:eyes::crazy:

For the best part of a whole year you try her patience (and despite her equally persistent objections to your ad hominem abuse) by continually smearing her with your pyschotic "disinformation agent" shit, and then you expect her to come back for more of the same when at long last she eventually manages to drag herself away to get on with the life she used to have?

- :grr: -

Think again!

[crispy]

43. OK

I'll read through your yahoo site and type up a response to some points, may take me awhile to get through it all.

By the way, did you get the letter I sent you in July? That was from me. Did any of the info in there help you? Could you answer any of the questions I asked? (I would've asked you this in a PM but I don't have enough posts to send a PM :eyes: )

[Dancing_Dave]

46. So where did Flight 77 go next....

The Pentagon is one of the most super-secretive places on Earth, and it often takes years to figure out the truth about anything that happens there. I think this multiple aircraft theory is the best we have now. But then 77 was on a path to Reagan National Airport (which is so close to the Pentagon), which then busy closing down it's regular commercial operations in compliance with an FAA order. But the military is able to some of the airports facilities independently of the commercial section. And there was a mysterious crash briefly reported at Reagan National, but then it was suspiciously "forgotten" and never featured in official accounts events. So far so good. But what what would really help now is a bit more evidence pointing towards 77 ending up right there. I realize we are dealing with a slick covert operation and they know how to get rid of a lot of the easiest evidence. That would explain why there was so quick DNA identication of almost everyone on the plane...or so we are told.

At the Peoples Investigation of 911 site, some researchers are studying conflicts between neo-cons and others at the Pentagon which clarify why the killer jet struck where it did, but the whole story would be much more satisfying if we had some clearer indications of just where 77 ended up, and how this was covered-up.

[QuietStorm]

47. why couldn't it have crashed at the airport?

based on the immediately amended report in the AAAR and the other article which I have not found yet, but have. I DO have it. there was so much mayhem, the way the media prompted some of the witness, there is nothing to say they just didn't keep our attention averted from any disturbance at RRNA. Also the report on the crash at RRNA was amended. Therefore one could speculate it crashed FIRST before the explosion at the pentagon. IF Flight 77 was in the sky and it was the liner scene from the highway (another article I am looking for which includes a call in interview). It was headed toward RRNA when seen, if I am remembering correctly. Therefore it could have crash landed first. Someone called it in. two minutes later the Pentagon explosion and which explains the amendment of crash site.

Of course none of this is worth anything without those articles I have in mind to support it. As soon as I find those I will attach both to this post.

I know some argue it landed on a military airstrip somewhere on the kentucky ohio border, but following that up IS REALLY THE X FILES and there would be no way of knowing.

[RH]

50. Check the facts.

According to the AAAR it was Captain McCoy who immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center (ECC) to report an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th Street Bridge or in Crystal City.

McCoy and the crew of ACFD Engine 101 were en route to a training session in Crystal City, heading north on Interstate 395.
c.f.
http://www.co.arlington.va.us/fire/edu/about/docs/Factsheet0723FINAL.doc

Study the geography. Engine 101 would therefore be somewhere to the south side of Crystal City, completely out of sight of the Pentagon, unable to locate the incident except by the fireball and the smoke.

McCoy's mistaken estimate of the location was immediately ammended by other reports received by emergency dispatchers.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support any other understanding of the matter.

[QuietStorm]

63. Yes well an unidentified woman interviewed by CNN was heading south

on I 345 just by the memorial street exit saw a commercial liner which she described as VERY BIG flying low crossing the hwy from left to right. She said she couldn't tell if it landed or crashed but said it seemed to be on course for a landing at RRNA.


From a transcipt of CNN coverage 9/11:

"The Justice Department is now being evacuated. The second attack on the Trade Center occurred about a half an hour or so after the first one. We have a report, CNN has been told, that an American Airlines 767 jet was hijacked out of Boston today. We don't know which of those two planes hit the tower the second time. Within the last 10 minutes or so, the south tower, or at least a portion of the south tower, has collapsed.

CNN's David Ensor joins us from Washington.

David, where in the Capitol are you now?

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, I'm in our bureau, but I have on the telephone with me Barbara, who is the wife a friend of mine and who is an eyewitness to exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

Barbara, can you hear me all right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I can hear you.

ENSOR: Well, what exactly did you see? Let's look at the Pentagon now, as you describe what exactly happened at the Pentagon this morning?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the too low, and the next thing we saw was a go-down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that.

ENSOR: How large was the explosion.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was large.

ENSOR: Was there a sound as well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We -- that I can't verify, because the windows were up in the vehicle.

ENSOR: Was it clear to you what had happened?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, definitely.

ENSOR: So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship top where the plane went down. You know, but it was relatively close to one another. Whether it hit any of the Pentagon, I am not sure.

ENSOR: How low was the plane?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When it was coming down?

ENSOR: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it.

ENSOR: Were you able to see what kind of plane, or what airline it belonged to?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I did not see what kind of an airline. I just assumed because we were so close to the airport, that it was coming in to land.

ENSOR: But it seemed awfully low to you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and fast.

ENSOR: How big was the fireball?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm spatially challenged at times, and it was pretty big.

ENSOR: What did you think was happening?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that that hit the ground and exploded.

ENSOR: Were you frightened yourself?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, everybody stopped the cars, and we all got (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and so forth.

ENSOR: All right, well, thank you very much. I appreciate you talking to us."

--------------

PLEASE NOTE ENSOR IS PROMPTING THIS CALLER WE DO NOT KNOW WHO SHE IS EITHER. I AM NOT SURE WE KNOW FROM WHERE SHE IS MAKING THE CALL AT THE TIME.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE. HE CALLS HER BARBARA AT THE TOP OF THE INTERVIEW. However within the interview she is named the UNIDENTIFED WOMAN.

Here were some of my comments back when I first read through the interview.

From jump this DAVID ENSOR sets it up BEFORE this unidentified woman speaks. DAVID ENSOR sets up the crash location for us...AS MADE VERY CLEAR FROM HIS OPENING STATEMENT...

__________

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, I'm in our bureau, but I have on the telephone with me Barbara, who is the wife a friend of mine and who is an eyewitness to exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

Barbara, can you hear me all right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I can hear you.

ENSOR: Well, what exactly did you see? Let's look at the Pentagon now, as you describe what exactly happened at the Pentagon this morning?

------

He sets up the viewer to believe that the witness is talking about the Pentagon. But it can be strongly argued that SHE ISN'T. The location that she seems to indicate is THE AIRPORT. And the plane is headed in that direction flying low to perhaps NOT be seen flying over the pentagon on its way to RRNA so as NOT to be picked up on the security camera.

This "spatially challenged" unidentified woman. Appears she is describing is a PLANE COMING IN FOR A CRASH LANDING AT THE AIRPORT. (how interesting that she provides us with this personal information about herself being "spatially challenged.")

As it can be strongly argued that David Esnor is not only misleading the viewers with his introductory set up, but he also seems to be prompting the "unidentified woman" as well. He suspiciously prepped the Pentagon as the crash site from jump.


--------

interesting he has the phone BARBARA who is the wife of a friend of his. YET she does not really comply with HIS PROMPTING does she. He states she is to tell us EXACTLY what happened at the pentagon? Funny that she didn't actually do that. Did she? She sticks to her assumption that the plane was headed for RRNA and that she says SHE REALLY COULD NOT TELL IF IT CRASHED AT THE PENTAGON.

It is flying from the NW I believe. the pentagon is SOUTH of the memorial street bridge. To have hit the pentagon it would have had to turn around. Isn't the wedge that was hit ont he southwest side of the Pentagon. THIS PLANE IS COMING IN FROM NORTH OF THE PENTAGON. She says: I know that that hit the ground and exploded. did the plane that hit the pentagon HIT THE GROUND AND EXPLODE? No it didn't the plane at the pentagon HIT THE PENTAGON.

I am still looking for the link. I haven't found it yet. It was cut in past in by another investigator on another forum.

[QuietStorm]

72. CORRECTION: barbara speaks of I395 NOT 345

THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THE ABOVE POST I TYPED IT WRONG.

THIS IS INCORRECT:

on I 345 just by the memorial street exit saw a commercial liner which she described as VERY BIG flying low crossing the hwy from left to right. She said she couldn't tell if it landed or crashed but said it seemed to be on course for a landing at RRNA.

SHOULD READ

on I 395 just by the memorial street exit saw a commercial liner which she described as VERY BIG flying low crossing the hwy from left to right. She said she couldn't tell if it landed or crashed but said it seemed to be on course for a landing at RRNA.

LOCATION COINCIDES WITH CAPTAIN MCCOY WHO WAS DRIVE NORTH ON 395

[RH]

74. heading north!

"into town on 395" = northwards, not south.

The memorial Bridge Exit, also known as the Cemetery Exit, is the exit that leads to Washington Boulevard, past the Pentagon.

Barbara was presumably to the south of that exit, seeing the plane go north to her left past the Navy Annex and then over the horizon formed by the elevated Interstate Highway, as did so many of the other witnesses on the same stretch of road.

Some of the Riskus photos show the view from that vicinity:
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html">Link



You can also see from these why it would not have been so easy for McCoy on Engine 101 to precisely locate the smoke.

[crispy]

79. Re: "Yes well an unidentified woman interviewed by CNN was heading south"

http://commemoratewtc.com/transcripts/tr-10-00.php

That's the link.


She said she was driving into town. She was probably referring to DC, making her head north. She also said that the plane went down below "us", so that means she was on the road and was seeing the Pentagon.

I doubt you can find any good evidence that backs up the idea that a plane crashed on the runway.

[QuietStorm]

82. and what GOOD evidence do you have that the killer plane

and a missile hit the pentagon is my point. I am extraordinarily stubborn and if I have to over time. Which we have much of because this is unknowable for the most part.

Is it that you have this thunderous theory which has it all figured out.

sorry until I see beyond a doublt that that initial report of a crash on runway 1-19 is nothing. I it is open for speculation...

but you have not been a real help all in all. but for pat answers to discourage the line of thinking (which hasn't discouraged it yet) or you have a wonderous proveable overall theory of your own which shoots it all out of the water.

SO LET'S SEE IT.

[Old and In the Way]

53. I am willing to consider almost anything with regards to what happened on

9/11.

But, come on, how would anyone cover up a crash at RR Airport? Please give us 1 little piece of corroborating evidence that 77 crashed there.

Given the level of national interest on that day, how could a crash like that be kept a secret? The flyover from the Pentagon into RR could be conceivable based on the flight path, but there is no evidence to offer other than a plane was reported to have crashed?

I know that would help explain the bodies and open up the whole F-16/missle theory....but I have seen absolutely nothing that can be considered evidence other than unsupported statements here.

[QuietStorm]

57. actually missiles don't have to be shot from F-16's exclusively

If you visit IP IOF is shooting air to land missile's from helicopters regularly. Based on that it hit me today. That helicopter that was seen swooping down behind that CRAFT (which if not FL 77 would have to have been destroyed almost completely as NO EVIDENCE could be left behind that the CRAFT was indeed NOT FL 77)

I will find the articles that also reference runway 1-19 as a crash site.

The bigger show in town was not runway 1-19, but the explosion at the pentagon. AGAIN for my hypthothesis to work TIMING is important. The AIRLINE seen (not from 14th street bridge) but from HWY 345 by the memorial bridge exit that is NE of the pentagan. RRNA is SW of that I believe. A commentator from CNN interviewed by phone someone on the HWY who saw what she described... wait I will get the interview. I found it last night, I just haven't found the link yet... It was cut and paste without the link.. but I have digressed.

The bigger show in town was not runway 1-19, but the explosion at the pentagon.

I agree it is mind bending but look at all the questions and better yet what! post 9/11 is NOT minding bending. If the media doesn't show the crash at the runway, with all of america glued to their tv's watching the trade center go down, and mayhem in D.C., no one sees a You find it difficult to believe their would be an oversight of a measally crash at RRNA.

Crispy asks me do I believe people at FIRE communications would be so sinister as to cover an initial call of a crash on runway 1-19. I find that kind of an absurd question for someone considering that a CRAFT painted up to look like BOEING.

We know there were simulated training sessions regarding a potential hit at the pentagon. That leads me to believe they had it all worked out. INcludeing a crash landing of flight 77 in the most obvious place no one would dare to consider it. THESE GUYS ARE HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT. Yes I would think a very HIGH AMOUNT OF SINISTERNESS goes along with this. It is till early. Let me find those other sources again.

The media diverts our attention away from anything happening anywhere but on site at the pentagon. It is that simple. We are conditioned folks.

RH says THINK LOGICALLY yeah RIGHT! what is so logical about a WEAPONS TEST AT THE PENTAGON. If this anything like Northwoords or Mongoose the masterminds are psychopaths. What constitutes LOGIC for that kind of mind?

I will find the sources. I am tired of talking from memory. I tried located that other womans theory anabella or whatever her name is via rense I could not find it. I want to read it too.

[RH]

60. WEAPONS TEST AT THE PENTAGON

Which weapons test at the Pentagon?

[QuietStorm]

64. It is called hypthosizing RH have you heard of it?

you mull through various scenarios you don't necessarily marry any. That is what investigative teams do they hash through things and offer scenarios.

[RH]

49. 77 was not on a path to Reagan National Airport

:eyes:

77 was nowhere near to any legitmate flight path, nor even was it headed towards DCA when it hit the Pentagon, nor (according to all but one of the witnesses who noticed) was the landing gear deployed.

Witnesses familiar with the airport's activities especially said that they noticed the plane because it was flying too low and not on any nornal flight path.

[Abe Linkman]

67. Those witnesses (not one of whom is a paid disinfo agent) knew...

they were observing AA FL 77, because on the side of "the plane" they were looking at, they could see the letters and flight number painted on "the plane." In official Amercian Airlines colors, too. And, it wasn't incipient. Nor was it foreshortened. One witness even reported seeing Barbara Olson holding a cell phone (it may have been a seatback phone, or some kind of walkie-talkie, but it was clearly her). And there is no evidence at all that it wasn't Barbara, and no reason to doubt the witness. In fact, the witness even told a neighbor about it. So, there are two people who knew the story (facts).

[QuietStorm]

69. wait a minute

is that the BARBARA in ENSOR'S CNN interview?

[QuietStorm]

70. Now IF rehash is in order.

what needs to happen is all witness accounts from NORTH of the pentagan need to be pulled. The people who saw AA logo to your recollection. Where were the eyewitnesses located? Were they NORTH of the Pentagon along what might be estimated as the flight path of this plane BARBARA describes for us coming NORTH from the memorial street exit? This plane perhaps headed for RRNA

I also have the comprehensive list of eyewitness somewhere. Is it worth getting it?

this will bring me to the defina articles which also describe an initial report of a crash on runway 1-19. Please answer the questions.

[Dancing_Dave]

80. It's hard to know who ISN'T a paid disinfo agent around the Pentagon

Such an ultra-secretive place where many people understand it is part of their job to conceal, and go along with official cover stories which are to say the least misleading...it tends to take historians many years to figure out what really happened there in any case!

I think that's why we aren't going to resolve this dispute just by bickering over what witnesses said. Moreover their are various universal processes of distortion which tend to affect peoples memories of ambiguous and disturbing events. So we can get some clues from putting the witnesses reports in place on some map, but then we have to go on and find some other ways to get at the hidden truth. And the truth about any such operation as this is always hidden, or it would not have been done.

[QuietStorm]

107. I agree with that

It is just I am not sure it has been done succintly the mapping of the witnesses. And the original list is BEST not the new list of people. I agree with your comments. Harveys first list will do.

DD-I am being stubborn about the crash on the runway. I felt Eastman's theory with the different planes explained things better. and if strengthened and more visually correlated with some of the stronger eye-wits. It could serve as a good exhibit.

Eyewitnes have to be assessed for prompting as well (because some of the more famous ones were being prompt as you can see by the ENSOR interview - he sets up crash site before he interviews the unidentified woman).

Anyway I have to now get the defina articles. Then I ALSO HAVE TO REVIEW all the info that is now here in this one place which I believe is now a climate which is more condusive to see what works about eastman's theory and perhaps what doesn't. Rather than that whole yuckman dickhead climate. That reads as purely diversion and no one gets anywhere. If some of the work of the other more comprehensive investigations need to be pulled in to solidify ONE STRONGE ALTERNATIVE there is nothing wrong with that.

I will draw up a list of questions that might help pierce the veil further as you are correct even with this it is mostly heresay and circumstantial by virtue of the fact that paths of planes are being designated by eyewitness.

some of this requires on the ground field work. Like answering for me that other question: WHO WAS THE ANONYMOUS RELAY TEAM THAT DROVE 30 HOURS STRAIGHT FROM TEXAS WITH MEDICAL SKIN REPLACEMENT.

Does not that seem weird to you? their is an excellent burn center/facility at Yale. I believe they provide medical skin replacement for the nation as well. WHY did they bring skin replacement from texas? WHY was the team ANONYMOUS. Or listed in the AAAR as anonymous?

knowing when this anonymous team got on the road could be telling. The AAAR came out 6 months after the event. If an anonymous relay team was already driving on 9/11 well what does that tell you? But we don't know when they got on the road from texas.

and what facility IS in texas BAYLOR? It would seem if the call went out at explosion time which was 9:38 am. They could have received or called for skin replacement much faster from Yale which is closer than from TEXAS. Don't you think? And also it would be center personnel carting the skin. WHY AN ANONYMOUS TEAM?

[QuietStorm]

68. Barbara sited a plane from I395 north of the Pentagon flying south

She could not comply with Ensor's insistance that she was talking about the Pentagon as it's final destination. The interview is above. RRNA is South of the Memorial street exit and southwest I believe of the pentagon. Barbara's testamony is useless for establishing flight path to the pentagon. However she does establish what she believes to be a commercial liner headed south toward RRNA. She does not seem to want to state what it's final destination was.

[QuietStorm]

71. Captain Steve McCoy's location and call in from the AAAR

there is also a map in the AAAR

According to the AAAR, Flight 77 was observed at 9:37am. It was in a steep descent, banking sharply to its right before it disappeared beyond the horizon, seemingly on a collision course with the pentagon. This observation was made by Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 enroute to a training session in Crystal City, traveling north on 395. One minute later at 9:38am Flight 77 is reported crashed. Apparently this is the official account as it so far has been repeated twice pretty much verbatim.

The second time this account is repeated, it continues on to say that shortly after the plane disappeared it was preceded by a tremendous explosion. However, Captain McCoy was, "unable to pinpoint the precise location". The Captain immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communication Center (ECC) "reporting an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th St Bridge or in Crystal City", and advised that the FBI should also be notified."
END QUOTES

This needs to be mapped along with our friend BARBARA. BARBARA alludes to the memorial street exit but there is something in that interview that tells me WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE SHE IS CALLING IN FROM... HMMMM... Anyone on board now where the 14th street bridge is in relation to the Memorial street exit? McCoy is on 395. BARABARA ALSO speaks of I395. MEMORIAL STREET AND 14TH STREET BRIDGE is this approximately in the close proximity?

[Dancing_Dave]

88. Reagan National Airport South by Southeast

The airport is more South-by-Southeast of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cementary and the photos we've seen of the Pentagon wall from the West. If a plane were traveling east over the Pentagon, it would have to make a sharp right turn to the South, and cross the expressway going south and fly over a small body of water before reaching the north edge of the runways. Mapquest map at: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?savedMap=1061930679 You can see the north end of the Ronald McDonald National Airport (OOPS!) runways in this map, just Zoom out if want the complex.

There's a behive of Boeings flying low all the time on the way too or from Reagan National Airport. With the FAA ordering down everything in the air, who knows how many might have been trying to make an emergency landing there? A Boeing flying very low over the Pentagon and going EAST would be a bit off course...it should be going more SOUTHWARD, and perhaps not be so low so soon. But you see, one the many planes that had been ordered down by the FAA could be that off in making an emergency landing. A sharp right turn would then be needed, or the plane could end up in Potomac river, or along it's banks.

You see why it's difficult to sort this mess of flying objects out!

[RH]

90. The correct designation for Reagan National Airport

is 'DCA'

[QuietStorm]

73. Eastman two things:

you say: Witness accounts establish the presence of the helicopter circling the Pentagon seconds before the hit. The pilot of the C-130 has given his account of how he flew through the smoke 30 seconds after the event and on-the-ground witnesses saw the C-130.

QUESTION is this the same c-130 seen coming up behind the killer plane? could it have shot a missile through the killer plane just as the killer plane impacts. In my mind it seems they would have had to be sure they destroyed this killer plane almost entirely. If they hadn't then pieces of that plane would have been sure to be spotted. So in my mind it seems to me the missile attack was timed to hit the killer plane UPON IMPACT insuring it would be destroyed almost entirely.

I do not know the potency of what kind of a missile they used I am aware of a collaborative weapon intercept program called THEL. I picked up the history on this program on JINSA (collaboration between Israel and US - tests have already been conducted). Could something along those lines have been shot from either the helicopter or from higher up in the air out of site. I can get the stats on THEL's if you like. I am not sure it fits here it just comes to mind is all.

I realize you say the copter pilot was interviewed. Any reason if he shot the missile he would tell the truth? That is if this is the c-130 that swooped up behind the killer jet. I am not sure it is. Is it?


YOU SAY:Then there was the photographed four engine plane making exhibitionistic dives over the Washington D.C. mall (capitol building, white house location) which was a four-engine plane (over illegal airspace -- so where is the fuss) -- and this plane diving was also shown on BBC (see offtakes from the TV screen made by Joe Vialls's vcr and shown at his site.

QUESTION: when was this plane sited and could it have been the killer plane? Is there a path on this plane? Was it sited or described by anyone else that stood within the proximity of the wedge of the Pentagon that was hit


YOU SAY: And of course there is the Boeing (as established by the witnesses)

QUESTION: Have you already pulled the eyewitness accounts of the witnesses that saw the BOEING or should I say those descriptions that appear to be most consistent with a boeing than the other eyewitness that seem to be describing a smaller plane. From the skim of your theory - it seemed to me eyewitness locations are paramount to which plane was where when. If this can be put together most concisely with projected paths of each plane plotted via witness locations it would be good. If you have already done this my apologies I read many things very quickly and I might have missed this. If this has not been done it should be. If it was done please direct me to that work. thanks.

To reiterate for clarity sake: Were the eyewits who describe what seems most to be the BOEING OR FLIGHT 77 in the location of Captain McCoy and that BARBARA that was interviewed by ENSOR...(memorial street exit I395 or anywhere along that path it was taking which BARBARA states she assumed was going in for a landing at RRNA - she also states "it hit the ground and then exploded". Why would she say that? Who sited BIG commerical liner flying low (I would assume not to be picked up by radar and to avoid perhaps being picked up by security videos at pentagon) and said to traveling in the direction of RRNA. I am thinking this is the BOEING or what was thought to be the BOEING that some eyewitnesses said they saw. Might be FL 77. It would explain perhaps this initial report of a crash on runway 1-19 IF IT WAS that is.

[Dancing_Dave]

76. What we really need here is a good map

That includes the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetary, Reagan National Airport, the Potomac River and so on...I'm having a little trouble finding one of the right scale, but I'll bring in the reference as soon as I can...

Now I've got something generated by Mapquest and I'll try to upload or link it...well, it doesn't seem possible to upload here, so here's a link to it
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?savedMap=1061930679

[QuietStorm]

84. link doesn't work

there is a very general one in the AAAR but if we are going to do maps i would be good if all worked off the same one.

[RH]

86. Good Map

http://magellan.co.arlington.va.us/

comprehensively provides all sorts of maps and aerial views at all sorts of scales

[crispy]

77. List of eyewits

> it seemed to me eyewitness locations are paramount to which plane was where when. If this can be put together most concisely
> with projected paths of each plane plotted via witness locations it would be good.

I am compiling a list of eyewitnesses who saw something in the air. I am including what the witness saw, where they saw it from, and the date on which the witness either gave the testimony or when the account was published. Maybe we could make this an open project, something we all help to create. I think it would be a very valuable resource from which we could analyze in depth and test the validity our theories of what happened. At the most, people could post all the information here and I could add it to the table in alphabetical order by witness name and then post it here when we have all the publicly available witness accounts. At the least, people could just post relevant links like witnesses who saw a helicopter, whatever. Would anyone be interested in this?

[QuietStorm]

83. There is a comprehensive one to my knowledge

I know where it is. You can use it for comparison to yours. I still have to get those two articles as well and run through the AAAR for personnel changes who was on the terrorist training operations conducted prior.

"Maybe we could make this an open project, something we all help to create."

Yes that is what a team often does. You must forgive me if I come across tersely. It is that ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN OUT THERE ALL THIS TIME.

FEW of us that i know of are compiling what isn't already out there. The point is that within the discussions that I have participated on there is always that handful that appear to be on the same page but are only there to IN FACT divert your attention... THE LAST THING THEY ARE GOING TO DO is connect the dots.. In fact the opposite is true... it is just a matter of knowing who THE DIVERTORS are. Sometimes it might be that ONE POSTER who only appears to be on the same page...

there are viable theories out here. Eastman has some important thoughts. as do some of the others... mentioned... I presume... it is a matter of pulling from menuA and menu B if need be.

Unless just ONE investigator is GREEDILY looking for a medal. HINT: there is no one in this administration who is giving one out. Not for thorough investigation of what REALLY DID happen at the pentagon. Of this I can assure you.

[RH]

89. The dots were long since connected.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The evidence to that effect is overwhelming.

[QuietStorm]

97. do you take requests RH

I don't like your song. The last couple of days I find I'd like more to hear... Donna Summers her hit from the 70's...

[RH]

100. You'd like more to hear... Donna Summers ?

:eyes:

Then start a Donna Summers thread.

It may perhaps be more popular than your crash on the runway fantasy.

:argh:

[Abe Linkman]

101. Vera Lynn: exceeded only by the vocal stylings of Ron Harvey

You want the truth? You want music from the 70's? Actually, she's about 84.

[QuietStorm]

106. LOL

this is not a popularity contest RH.

[Dancing_Dave]

91. We do need to help new people to get into this

I'm new to the sorting-out-what-was-in-the-air-around-the-pentagon investigation, and would like to see more clear summeries mapping where witnesses were when they say they saw various things. Because cover-up and cover-stories are just everyday buisiness for people working in or connected to the Pentagon, and because there is so much in air traffic around there related to Reagan National Airport, I don't think we're going to settle anything for sure by just mapping the witnesses. But it could prove useful in giving us more clues.

The photographic evidence from the crash site, as well as related physical calculations and so on, make it certain that no 757 just crashed into the Pentagon. THE ONLY WAY ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE OFFICIAL THEORY COULD BE TRUE IS IF THE 757 WAS BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS JUST PRIOR TO HITTING THE PENTAGON WALL. But this would be no ordinary bomb which would have left us with larger chunks. It would have to be some new U.S. experimental weapon being tested that day. After some of the strange things we have better record of happening at the World Trade Center, I wouldn't rule that out entirely.

But Rumsfeld once slipped and said "missle" instead "airplane" when describing what hit the Pentagon to a lady reporter who had him kinda riled up. I think the much more straightforward explanation is that some kind of small plane with a missle hit the Pentagon, and 77 ended up somewhere else. There have been a number of leaks suggesting gas and remote control were involved...indeed everyone on the plane may have been gassed before some military or intelligence unit recovered the plane WHEREVER. Could be a hanger at Reagan Airport, which they certainly had the authority to comandeer under such circumstances.

[RH]

93. We do need to help

So what would be Dancing Dave's explanation of the five fallen lamp poles? Did I miss that?

And "related physical calculations"? :shrug:

What would be Dancing Dave's explanation of the damage to the steam vault structure, the electricity generator and the tree behind it?

[RH]

87. Would anyone be interested in this?

Probably not.

I did all that last year, beginning with the version of They Saw the Aircraft still on the Riskus web site.

Most of the conspiracy nuts never even provided a link to it, steadfastly ignoring the effort, except of course again and again to come up with all the usual "paid disinformation agent" crap.

The list I have so far accumulated runs to about 200 witnesses.

I'd guess that there must be at least another 200 who saw the plane yet to be identified.

An official version of the history is also underway

Here below is a rough list of names etc. for anybody who wants to play with their search engines. It helps a lot to also have access to Lexis Nexis.


Ann Krug
Many Students playing outside Hoffman-Boston Elementary School
Susan Kindall-Lumpkin
Dennis Clem
Zinovy Pak
Chris Stephenson
Greta van Susteren
Allen Cleveland
Allen Cleveland's brother in-law
Meseidy Rodriguez
Susan Carroll
Joe Hurst
Joe Hurst's assistant
Stuart Artman
Patty Murray
Gus (a painter working across the Potomac)
Captain Joseph Candelario
Steve Snaman
Ken Ford
James S Robbins
Cmdr. Lesley Kelly,
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Illinois)
Albert Hemphill
Mr. Arnesdotter (Navy Annex worker)
James Mosley
Vice Adm. Darb Ryan
Steve Mondul
Jimmy Chu
Madelyn Zakhem
Sergeant Maurice L. Bease
Spec. Mike Ryan
Ian Wyatt
Scott Perry
Terry Morin
La Verne Le Grand
Dan Creed and two colleagues from Oracle software
Elizabeth Smiley
Jose Velasquez
Rick M. (on loop to get back to I-395)
Sgt. William Lagasse
”Nightlite” ||, a newsgroup contributor
Rob Schickler
Mrs. Deb Anlauf
Steven Gerard
Francisco Guerrero
Kim Dent
Ralph Banton
Michael Tinyk
Div Devlin's son John aged 12
Tom Trapasso
Linda Plaisted
Daniel and Cynthia McAdams
Carla Thompson
Michelle Miller
Steve Anderson
Don Wright
Dave Winslow
Eugenio Hernandez
'K.M.' a Pentagon City resident
Terrance Kean
D. S. Khavkin
Donald 'Tim' Timmerman
Steve Patterson
Marc Stauffer
Steve Storti
Somebody on the phone to Lt. Gen. James B. Peake
Lon Rains
Captain Steve McCoy aboard Engine 101
other firemen aboard Engine 101
Andrea Kaiser
Police Officers Barry Foust and Richard Cox
Col. Mitch Mitchell (retired)
Kristina Weldin
Henry Ticknor
Kat Gaines
Jim Sutherland
Eric M. Jones
Megan Johnson
Don Scott
Mary Lyman
Elaine McCusker
Pam Bradley
Kirk Milburn
David Marra
John O’Keefe
Christopher Munsey
Rick Renzi
Alfred S. Regnery
Steve Eiden
Mike Gerson
Robert A. Leonard
Barbara, wife of a friend of CNN correspondent David Ensor
Brig. Gen. Clyde A. Vaughn
Andy Ockershausen
Fred Hey
Jeffrey Taylor
Afework Hagos
James Ryan
Bobby Eberle
Fred Gaskins
Aydan Kizildrgli
Richard Benedetto
Professor James Mattingly
Phillip Thompson
Rodney Washington
"Newbie" (newsgroup contributor)
Steve Riskus
Vin Narayanan
Leslie Hortum
Mike Walter
Joel Sucherman
Daryl Donley
Mary Ann Owens
Michael James
Father Stephen McGraw
Christine Peterson
Michael James
Jim R. Cissell
Capt. G. T. Stanley
Joseph Royster
Donald R. Bouchoux
[e-mail] (message board contributor)
Gary Bauer
Penny Elgas
Bob Dubill
Philip Sheuerman
Captain Lincoln Leibner
Noel Sepulveda
Colonel Bruce Elliott
Joe Harrington
Cheryl Hammond
Shari Taylor
Kim Flyler
'Punk Princess' (website proprietor)
Levi Stephens
Angie Harden
Wayne T. Day
Mike Dobbs
David Battle
U.S. Marine Corps. Sgt. Oscar Martinez
Qawiy Sabre
Dennis Smith
Angela J. Williams
Wanda Ramey
Mark Bright
Omar Campo
William Middleton Sr.
An anonymous Arlington Cemetery worker
Ron Turner
George Clodfelter
Sean Boger and Spc. Jacqueline Kidd
Alan Wallace
Mark Skipper
James Keglovich
Frank Probst
A Pentagon Navy Admiral who declined to be named
Several employees of Storage Technology Corp standing on the lawn
Michael DiPaula
Lance Cpl. Chris Stuart
Capt. Dave Harden
Col. Steve O'Brien
Chris Plant
Bob Hunt talked to a number of average people in route
At least five people known to Prudence Paise
John Iler
Several people who phoned WMAL, on the air.
General Richardson
two people who clean Tedd D. Kelly's house
2_ people known to C J Adams
brother in law of 'C.G.'
'T Peters'
a friend of 'BLW'
A Kashmiri friend of an Indian correspondent
Linda Noyes' sister and brother-in-law
Sue Ellen, niece of 'Jack' Faifax, Va.
Tom Hovis
a friend of a young Army Major
Lt. Col. Alan Maitland
an Air Force major in a bus at the south parking bus stop
Flip MacDonald's son
a building worker on the north side
at least three of my coworkers of Phyllis M. Gilmore
several people known to 'D. Adams'
Friends of Chet McWhorter Sr who work in Crystal City
An IBM employee stuck in rush hour traffic
An Air Force Major in a building right beside the Pentagon.
A friend of [e-mail]
Somebody Ann Getty knows
Jose 'tiglath' Seoul
A high school chum of 'Uncle Al' [e-mail]
A colleague of [e-mail]
military man at Navy Annex, husband of a coworkers of [e-mail]


C130:

Scott P. Cook
Brian Kennedy

[Dancing_Dave]

92. It's easy as cake to get 200 Pentagon people to lie and cover-up!

Every day more and more people are becoming suspicious of all the official 9/11 cover-stories, and sites which realized the public's interest in the hidden truth of 9/11 are sky rocketing in popularity.
More and more people from every background and discipline are getting involved in the research. Who cares to hear the official myth that we've all heard hundreds of times yet again? What interests people around the world today is the hidden truth.

[demodewd]

94. No cake...sorry

I disagree with you there dancin_ dave. 200 people to give false witness?? This operation would have to be much tighter than that.

[RH]

95. What interests people around the world today is the hidden truth.

Sure.

So then they can all watch the X-files to get their rocks off.

In the mean time, do you have anything at all to contribute to a more intelligent effect, or at least perhaps, something a bit more original to add to the subject, like perhaps some hard evidence of some kind to a different effect, like perhaps just one witness or anybody close enough to see touch hear and smell the effect for themselves with the slightest doubt to express as to whether or not the B757 hit the building?

Just one?

Please.

We've waited such a long time for it.

Put up or shut up.

[QuietStorm]

108. RH have you ever heard of covert ops

or black ops. are you familiar with the black ops behind the bay of pigs. The CIA/Mafia crossovers the cuban training missions and the potential of the DOD in on the ops utilizing (what I believed remained contingency plans) mongoose - northwoods. You make it sound like all is always what it appears. It is most definitely not. Look at Iran contra. That was mostly covert operation because the CEO in charge Bush was aware it was going on. Black ops are when the CEO has is not aware a covert op is going on.

You are goofy. And I don't care if you think I am wrong on hunches. I might not have it all straight. I haven't done most of the work. I have just come in contact with the work of others. articles and one official response report that makes me question things. I do not believe Flight 77 hit the pentagon. I believe it was a let it happen IF not an orchestrated black op. This is what the investigations are about.

For those investigators that DO NOT BUY the offical line. You seem to buy it completely and that is your freedom. There are those that don't. It seems the investigation of those that don't deserve discussion. If the discussion is only and always coopted by those that BUY the official story that isn't fair really. A contructive debate and discussion is warranted of the alternative theories.

As I said perhaps it is some from alternative one with a bit from alternative two. BUT THE OFFICAL STORY JUST DOESN NOT FLY IN TOTALITY. TOO MANY LOSE ENDS.

[Abe Linkman]

109. LIHOP is impossible. No way, no how.

You said:
"I believe it was a let it happen IF not an orchestrated black op."

Please explain how the Government could have "let it happen" without doing anything ACTIVELY. Even if the caveman and his "boys" did it; they would have had to contend with long-standing U.S. policies of ACTIVELY intervening in hostile acts directed at U.S. interests. If those policies were ordered to stand down; then THAT is MIHOP in action.
Active assistance is MIHOP, my friend.

So, why do you say it may have been LIHOP? What's the basis for that?

[QuietStorm]

110. semantics

you really want to know what I feel. MIHOP self attack period. It is not the most popular. I get ridiculed regularly. I am the ignorant one. I don't care. And quite frankly I am not sure it is that popular even in progressive circles (whatever that means). I am a non conformist in most every sense of the word. Free thinker. Free thinkers are seriously in the minority. Probably why I am being so stubborn about that first reported crash on runaway 1-19.

I only say LIHOP, because I know for the status quo many more ARE willing to go that far. A VERY FEW WILL GO as far as to MIHOP. I have always felt it was MIHOP from day one. I said both to cover the basis. Not because I feel it is LIHOP. I feel much had to have been orchestrated for NORAD and the FAA to have performed so poorly. That is why I can believe there were key players even in Fire communications.

because I feel it was MIHOP. In fact the cornerstone for MIHOP IS the pentagon. We prove it is not FL 77 or a BOEING but a thrown in missile test of some sort... that basically proves MIHOP. Happy?

on edit

see post 108

[QuietStorm]

111. you are correct

this sentence "I believe it was a let it happen IF not an orchestrated black op." is misleading. in fact one cancels the other out.

MIHOP. that is my vote. you can not decide to spend all this time in ones life like an addict ON the pentagon if you don't believe it was MIHOP.

[QuietStorm]

98. that is the COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF EYEWITS DD

audio and visual... now it is a matter of sorting them by time and location and see if Eastman's theory flies in that regard.

RH ALSO HAS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF c-130 sightings as well. I know where that is as well.

ON EDIT: TO BE CLEAR THE COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF EYEWITS NAMED: They Saw the Aircraft... the new list not necessary that important but for tweaking. perhaps IF the locations DO line up with sightings of the TWO DIFFERENT PLANES. The two planes I AM TALKING ABOUT ARE:

the boeing as sighted coming along I395 from north to south west alleged or assumed to be headed to RRNA

AND THEN

the Killer plane. which until I am corrected I am assuming is the 4 prop.

the F-16 and the C-130 important for perhaps who shot the missile if it was not ejected by the 4 PROP PLANE. i would assume the 4 PROP PLANE was more for show to look like it was THE BOEING... I AM NOT SURE that would have shot the missile...

If that is the case the c-130 and the rh-16 is important ...

just off the of my head...

[RH]

99. C130

Desmoulins mirrored my C130 page on his web site:


But he seems to have neglected to upload supplementary pages such as the Steve O'Brien story.

:thumbsdown:

I was never quite convinced by O'Brien. What the C130 got up to may well have been the most fruitful line of research, but for the distraction of various other nonsenses.

"What's this about the C-130?" was the reply I once got from Steve Riskus when I raised the issue with him. Surely more people must have seen the second plane than were said in reports to have done so.

I was originally going to contact all the witnesses but the prospect eventually wore me out; far too many names were continually turning up and then I couldn't be bothered to have to defend against allegations of fabricating the reports when the links began to go defunct so I withdrew the effort, and for various reasons I have never since been inclined to change my mind about that.

[Abe Linkman]

102. They would have to have been fabricated, if you want us to believe...

they claim to have witnessed a B757 crash into the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

104. Watch it, Mr. Harvey

I almost hit the alert button, and I will if you continue with that kind of personal insult. (whether or not it will do any good is another matter, but I'll still report you)

[RH]

105. The truth hurts, does it?

personal insult?

:eyes:

That's pretty rich, isn't it, coming from the past master of the ad hominem fallacy.

[QuietStorm]

134. this link does not work

Desmoulins mirrored my C130 page on his web site:

[QuietStorm]

96. Yes RH that was exactly the comprehensive list I was talking about

saves me having to find it again. thanks

[crispy]

132. Re: "Would anyone be interested in this?"

Hey thanks for the list RH. I do have access to lexis-nexis and have been archiving the articles I've bought and I will put them on my website when it's up. I have seen your They saw the aircraft page and have gotten use out of it.

That official version of the history article is from December 2001, so methinks not much was done with it, at least to release to the public.

The reason I see for making a new list of witnesses when there are already so many is because having different columns for when the account was published and where the witness was standing makes patterns more visible while analyzing.

As it stands, the only thing that hasn't been ruled out (in my mind at least) is the idea of a plane of a wingspan of at least ~95 feet painted up to look like a Boeing fired a missile then crashing in itself. It couldn't have been a missile (plane parts) or F-16 or other small plane (light poles). If indeed witnesses were fooled by a plane designed to fool them, we would see certain patterns. If those patterns aren't there, I'll give up the theory.

I'll just work on the list myself (was going to do that anyway) and will just post a link to it here if anyone wants to see it.

[RH]

133. Ruled out.

For my own interest I have long since arranged the "They Saw the Aircraft" reports in a free form database format, with locations identified as best that may as yet be done so as to be used on a map page and an aerial view page.

Unfortunately this employs a home made Javascript program which will only work with Internet Explorer and I do not have the time nor the resources to finish the project well enough to present as a public service. I have thought to present a click-on page especially to link to some of the more meaningful reports; that would be easier but I have not got around to it.

I find that too much time is taken up by responding to idiotic nonsenses such as "the only thing that hasn't been ruled out ..."

As we stand, the idea of a plane of a wingspan of at least ~95 feet painted up to look like a Boeing is most definitely ruled out. The autopsy report positively identified the remains of 58 people aboard Flight 77. Those remains were found at the Pentagon. There was even a news report of child's hand being found.

If from that point it is your intention to presume as if by religious conviction but with no substantial evidence to support your malice, that interdispinary government agencies are guilty of fabricating evidence on a colossal scale, the net result will only be your own isolation from better advice.

"Tell me your version; I will then believe that you are lying" is simply not the best way to induce any sort of cooperation.

[QuietStorm]

112. CAP. DEFINA AND ARFF (ARTICLE)

ARFF Crews Respond to the Front Line at Pentagon
by Stephen Murphy

When a hijacked Boeing 757, skimming the street lights, smashed into the Pentagon on September 11, firefighters at nearby Reagan National Airport were the right responders in the right place with the right equipment.

Being among the first responding fire units, National's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF) crews were able to set up their apparatus directly in front of the gaping hole in the Pentagon. That was where their training in fighting aircraft fires and the capability of their foam units to extinguish jet fuel fires were put to the best use.

The ARFF foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first seven minutes after their arrival, said Captain Michael Defina, who was the shift commander that day at National.

"We applied the foam tactfully and kept the fire from spreading drastically," he said. "This allowed for self-evacuation of the Pentagon at a critical time, saving many lives, and eventually the building." Two Oshkosh T3000s spread approximately 600 gallons (2.2 kiloliters) of 6% AFFF with an initial fire flow of more than 3,000 gallons (11.3 kiloliters) per minute.

IN FRONT OF GROUND ZERO
How the National ARFF crews found themselves in front of ground zero on September 11 started with a motor vehicle accident on the upper level of the airport's Terminal B.

While Captain Defina and his crews were watching the World Trade Center attacks on television at the ARFF station, they were dispatched to the motor vehicle accident. Although the airport, located in Arlington, Virginia, was not on alert, Captain Defina said he had a feeling Washington, D.C., could be another terrorist target.

"Normally, the shift commander doesn't respond to motor vehicle accidents,'' he said. "But something didn't sound right about it."

Captain Defina was the shift commander that day because the battalion chief was across the river in Washington for a security briefing on an upcoming meeting. Defina responded to the vehicle accident in the battalion chief van, along with Rescue Engine 335, under the command of Captain John Durrer, and a medic unit.

Unknown to Captain Defina and his crews, hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, outbound from Washington Dulles International Airport with 64 people on board, was only minutes away from slamming at 0938 hours into the Pentagon, about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from National.

At the accident scene, where a driver with a diabetic reaction had struck several vehicles, the firefighters were working with their backs to the Pentagon.

"I heard a dull roar. The noise didn't belong with the noise you were used to hearing within the airport," Captain Defina said. "I turned and saw a smoke plume arise."

As he and Rescue Engine 335 responded toward the Pentagon, there was confusion from the control tower in an alert of a "missing 757." Initially, it was thought to be another crash, possibly at the end of the runway or on nearby George Washington Parkway. But it was quickly confirmed the crash was at the Pentagon, and Captain Defina ordered a response by one of National's crash rigs, Foam Unit 331, and SERV-329, the mass casualty/disaster unit, from the now-closed airport.

Arriving two to three minutes later at the Pentagon's south parking lot, Captain Defina saw heavy smoke and heavy fire to his left on the building's west side.

"I sat there for 15 seconds wondering what was coming next," he said. "I knew it wasn't an accident."

BURNING TITAN
One hundred fifty feet (45.7 meters) from the impact zone was a new heliport fire station, staffed by a three-person ARFF crew from nearby Fort Myer. Captain Defina saw that the Fort Myer crew was trying to fight the Pentagon fire with their disabled new E-One Titan. Its back end was on fire, having been parked against the building with the front end facing the heliport.

One of the Fort Myer firefighters had been inside the station watching the World Trade Center events on television and the other two were outside when they saw the 757 roaring toward them. Suffering minor burns and injuries as they dove for cover, they tried unsuccessfully to start their burning rig, which was soon a total loss. (The U.S. Army has since replaced it with a new Titan.)

Captain Defina drove onto the heliport and directed Foam Unit 331 to set up there, where Fort Myer Rescue Engine161 had established a hydrant water supply. The only other firefighting apparatus he saw on the west side was Arlington County's Engine and Truck 105 on the far north end. Their crews went into the building to conduct search and rescue.

While Foam Unit 331 hit the fire with foam from its roof and bumper turrets, Rescue Engine 335's four-person crew used hand lines in an attempt to control the fires from several vehicles and adjacent diesel fuel and propane tanks. A severely burned woman they helped out a door died several days later, one of the 124 Pentagon workers killed. Most Department of Defense workers escaped from the Pentagon without help or with the aid of coworkers.

While the Arlington County Fire Department's command post was swamped with coordinating the response, National's crews used their own radio frequency to call for more units, with eight arriving on scene in the early stages of the incident.

Prior to Foam Unit 331 running low on foam, National's Foam Unit 345 was called to respond. EMS Battalion Chief E. Glenn Butler, the initial treatment and transportation officer, requested that SERV-362, the mass casualty unit from Dulles Airport, in Chantilly, Virginia, respond. Captain Defina also called for a 1,000-gallon (3.7-kiloliter) foam trailer to respond from Dulles. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority operates both airports.

TRAINING PAID OFF
The 33-year-old Captain Defina had never before experienced a catastrophe in his 15 years at National. But he credited his training with knowing what to expect from the jet fuel inferno.

"The initial fire was extremely intense, but I expected the intensity," he said. As recently as 1999, National had conducted a mass casualty disaster drill with a live fire on an airplane simulator and the rescue of victims from a simulated fire in a terminal. And, Captain Defina had given a presentation on mass casualty incident response at the ARFF Working Group's 1999 annual conference.

Mass casualty units SERV-329 and SERV-362 are equipped to handle about 150 patients each.

"A lot of military medical personnel arrived and looked to our mass casualty units for direction," Captain Defina said. "It was the first time the military was dealing with our mass casualty units and it worked out to be a well-coordinated effort."

At 0952, the airport crews started an interior attack and search and rescue. Although National was not part of a pre-incident fire plan for the Pentagon, a few of the airport personnel were familiar with the building since National's medic unit often responds to calls at the Pentagon.

One of the world's largest office buildings, with 23,000 employees, the Pentagon has five concentric office rings, with "E" ring being the outermost. Each of the Pentagon's exterior walls are 924 feet (281.6 meters) long, with about 400 windows that are roughly 5 feet (1.8 meters) wide and 7 feet (2.1 meters) tall. The wall that the 757 hit was the first and only one so far to be reinforced and have blast-resistant windows installed after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Still, at 1005, Captain Defina "saw the classic signs of a collapse – buckling along the roof line and debris falling" around the 50-foot-wide (15.2-meter-wide) hole the jetliner had torn into the five-story building. He notified the Arlington fire command post, which sounded an evacuation tone several minutes before the collapse. No firefighters were injured.

UNIDENTIFIED AIRCRAFT SCARES
During the morning, National Airport's control tower radioed to ARFF crews on scene several reports of unidentified aircraft in the area. Captain Defina relayed these to the incident commander who ordered evacuations. The ARFF crews ran for about 100 yards to and across nearby Washington Boulevard, where they crouched behind Jersey barriers.

That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said.

While still on duty, the following morning he was able to sleep from 0200 to 0500 in a chair at National's ARFF station, which was crowded with all three ARFF shifts sleeping there in makeshift cots or working through the night in fire attack or search and rescue crews at the Pentagon.

STUBBORN ROOF FIRES
Back at the Pentagon on September 12, Captain Defina worked with airport firefighters on extinguishing the stubborn roof fires.

"It was very labor intensive," he said. "The work really beat on you. The roof is layers of slate shingles, sheet metal, wood, wood supports and concrete. You can only imagine what it took to get into that."

The most frustrating thing though was a false unidentified aircraft scare while they were on the roof. Several dozen firefighters had reached the roof through a window and up a step ladder.

"There was no way to have enough time to evacuate down that ladder,'' he said. "When the evacuation tone sounded, someone asked me why I wasn't leaving. I said I wasn't leaving until all of my crew was with me."

Later while still on the roof, he saw F16s fly by and knew everything would be okay from then on. Captain Defina had been told firefighters had to stop the fire from going any further because of Department of Defense security concerns, and they did the afternoon of September 12.

WELL PREPARED, WELL ORGANIZED
In hindsight, he wouldn't have done anything differently in fighting the fire.

"The ARFF crews were very well prepared, very well organized,'' he said. "Our training paid off."

Even the staffing was more than adequate. All 32 off-duty personnel reported for duty at National within two hours of the attack. ARFF headquarters staff, the assistant fire marshal, and the training officers came to the Pentagon. Eighteen airport units and more than 36 personnel responded to the Pentagon on September 11. Dulles Airport also moved two foam units to National.

Captain Defina and other ARFF personnel continued to work their regular 24-hour shifts at National and Dulles and then worked at the Pentagon 12 to 16 hours on their days off, doing anything that needed to be done until fire operations ended September 21.

He knew his response to the Pentagon was tough on his wife, son, daughter, and parents when he couldn't call them on September 11 because the cell phone system was overloaded.

"My family had no easy time; they were watching all this on TV," he said. "When I came home at 2200 hours on the 12th, my wife hugged me and cried. The kind of hugs you used to take for granted."

Stephen Murphy is executive editor of NFPA Journal and managing editor of ARFF News, a newsletter jointly published by the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Working Group and NFPA."

http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp

[QuietStorm]

113. 8 arlington county fire units that arrived to crash scene within 2 min?

In the above Steven Murphy article. "While the Arlington County Fire Department's command post was swamped with coordinating the response, National's crews used their own radio frequency to call for more units, with eight arriving on scene in the early stages of the incident.

these 8 units were mentioned in the AAAR:

In the AAAR they note a 911 call that came in reporting another fire in the area, and to my knowledge the only other fire reported (with the exception of the odd initial report of a boeing having crashe on runway 1-19).

Interesting that fire service units were dispatched to the street at the exact same time the alleged "commercial airliner" had already disappeared beyond the horizon. Remember, Captain McCoy noted the descent of the "commercial airliner time reported as being at 9:37am. And a minute later any further view of the airliner was occluded with the report noting crash time at 9:38am, with the exact location not having been pinpointed until Captain Gilroy called the location in at 9:38am.

I find it interesting than that at exactly 9:37am the ECC dispatched nine units in response to a 911 call regarding another fire reported "at 1003 wilson boulevard in Rosslyn". This 911 call coming in exactly "1 minute before the Pentagon crash."

Of course this means these 9 units that were dispatched would have had no view of the airliner in its descent and no knowledge of where alleged crash location was --- short of following the plume of dark smoke. It seems to me an interesting coincidence tucked nice and tidy into this report to explain why no other unit members saw this plane in descent.

Or - just a device to explain why so many units were on the street already and therefore responded and arrived so quickly to the "explosion" site. Was it a premediated device planted within the report to take care of any of the questions that might have arisen in regards to how come so many units were on explosion site within 2 minutes? This explosion or alleged crash was suppose to be such a surprise. IF such a surprise my my my how miraculous it was that many of the initial reponse units arrived at the pentagon 2 minutes after crash time. (NOTE I WILL VERIFY IF THIS TWO MINUTE ARRIVAL TIME OF THESE 8 UNITS IS QUOTED EXACTLY FROM THE AAAR)

Reading further...it gets even murkier. You see Nine different fire and medical service units were dispatched to the rosslyn adddress --- a fire called into 911 at 9:37am supposedly at a high rise apartment building (address above). The report states, "Engine 103 reached the Rosslyn scene first and radioed that the apartment fire was out."

The report does not state the time of Engine 103's call. Was it within one minute of the dispatch? Engine 103 states the fire was out. I wonder was there a fire there at all or did the team on Engine 103 put it out in record time?

It is hard to tell...considering the AAAR report DOES NOT STATE the time of Engine 103's call claiming the Rosslyn fire was out, but INSTEAD STATES that many of the fire service units arrived within 2 minutes of the crash. The report also DOES STATE that it was only "by sheer coincidence, there were a signficant number of units already on the road near the Pentagon at the time of the ATTACK."

Seems strange none of them seemed to have seen the plane in descent. And none of them knew the exact location of the plume. The report ALSO STATING that many of the units already on the street found the exact location of the "explosion" by following the dark plume of smoke that arose over the pentagon.

Within the report narrative concerning times is a bit vague, as is which response units were specifically or officially dispatched to scene by whom. I mean were all fire and medical services units merely following the dark plume in an effort to ascertain incident location? Or had any of them been official dispatched to incidence scene? At what time and by whom...much is left to conjecture. Even the time line included in the report is vague regarding these accounts.

-----------------

[QuietStorm]

114. more on defina (approx time of diabetic incident in terminal B)

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD THE WHOLE DIABETIC INCIDENT IS STRANGE TO ME


"Class was cancelled around 0915 HRS,after a second plane hit 2 World Trade. Minutes later, MWAA Rescue Engine 335 and Medic 325 responded to a multiple vehicle car crash at the upper level of Reagan National’s Terminal B. A diabetic driver in insulin shock had slammed into other cars dropping off travelers. Although the airport was not on general alert, Defina decided to respond to the vehicle crash.

The driver of the vehicle was unconscious with profoundly low blood sugar. The crews treating the patient had their backs to the Pentagon when the plane struck. “I heard a dull roar. The noise did not belong with the noise you were used to hearing within the air-port,” says Defina. “I turned and saw a smoke plume rise.” At 0939 HRS the National Airport control tower transmitted, “Crash! Crash! Crash!” over the MWAA frequency and activated an airport alert, but there was confusion about the exact location of the crash. At about the same time, the control tower also reported a missing inbound 757.

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Sept. 11, MWAA had 16 on-duty firefighters at Reagan National Air-port, just 0.6 miles from the Pentagon. Another dozen off-duty fire- Medic 325 trans-ported the unconscious driver to George Washington University hospital in Washington, D.C. and then responded to the Pentagon. Paramedic Mike Fetsko says it was the quickest patient transfer he’s ever experienced. “They were waiting for us outside the emergency department,” he recalls. “They immediately moved the patient onto a gurney and told us to go.”

-----------

Look at that last sentence. anyone else feel the diabetic incidence was staged?

It reminds me of the various conflicting stories on where Lee Harvey Oswald headed just after supposedly shooting Kennedy. Remember there was that bizarre conflict in story regarding that policeman that was shot just after the Kennedy shooting. There was confusion there as well. At one point, if I am remembering correctly, Oswald appears to be in two places at the same time. This diabetic incident here is as baffling to me.

All this confusion over the exact crash location and RRNA Tower's "missing 757". Somehow it appears to me the Airport runway at one point was "mistaken" as a crash site? The plane Barbara from the Ensor CNN transcript was seen flying low to the ground. The sound Defina heard in the airport which is 3 miles from the Pentagon.

FROM THE MURPHY ARTICLE

was only minutes away from slamming at 0938 hours into the Pentagon, about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from National.

At the accident scene, where a driver with a diabetic reaction had struck several vehicles, the firefighters were working with their backs to the Pentagon.

"I heard a dull roar. The noise didn't belong with the noise you were used to hearing within the airport," Captain Defina said. "I turned and saw a smoke plume arise."

END ARTICLE

( so according to time they had been in terminal B with diabetic for 18 minutes before the diabetic was transported to the hospital and what 3 minutes later Defina with crew arrive at the pentagon which would be 9:41 okay 9:45 to take into consideration the confusion in the TOWER and the INITIALLY INCORRECT report of the runway as a crash location)

MURPHY ARTICLE CONTINUES

As he and Rescue Engine 335 responded toward the Pentagon, there was confusion from the control tower in an alert of a "missing 757." Initially, it was thought to be another crash, possibly at the end of the runway or on nearby George Washington Parkway. But it was quickly confirmed the crash was at the Pentagon, and Captain Defina ordered a response by one of National's crash rigs, Foam Unit 331, and SERV-329, the mass casualty/disaster unit, from the now-closed airport.

"Arriving two to three minutes later at the Pentagon's south parking lot, Captain Defina saw heavy smoke and heavy fire to his left on the building's west side."

END QUOTE

SO WHAT? The full ARFF Crew with truck and INTERIM BATTALION CAPTAIN (remember the battalion Captain was at a meeting off site) is in Terminal B with a diabetic off duty guys transport diabetic to hostipal while the on duty guys SKID immediately off to pentagon arriving two to three minutes later at the pentagon's south parking lot?

It makes me wonder if this Diabetic story is a cover story of some sort. It feels like there is some kind of slight of hand going on here. As if there really was an incident at the airport, which throws a jackhammer into the whole thing. So they have to explain it while ignoring it at the exact same time. And this vague diabetic "motor vehicle incident is a cover to explain an incident yet not tell us anything specific. I mean did the motor vehicle incident create a fire. Or how many other vehicles were involved, etc. It is weird.

===================

my concern is timing from the incident in parking lot of terminal B at RRNA to scene at pentagon in which the murphy article states bulk of fire was put out in 7 minutes. here is the whole paragraph quoted from the AAAR.

here again is the blurb from the AAAR...

Meanwhile at the Metropolitan Washington Airports (MWAA) Fire Department at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Captain Michael Defina was investigating an incident at Terminal B when he heard the impact and saw the smoke rising in the distance. He called Fire Communications and was advised of a report of a Boeing 757 crash off the end of Runway 1-19. That was quickly amended, identifying the Pentagon as the crash site. The MWAA contacted the Arlington ECC and was directed to respond to the Pentagon. They did so with substantial resources: a rescue engine, two foam nits, two mass casualty units, a mini-pumper, and a command vehicle. Because MWAA has authority to respond automatically to an airplane crash within 5 miles of the airport, two heavy rescue units had already self dispatched to the Pentagon."

Where is runway 1-19 in relation to Terminal B?

====

ALSO MURPHY'S ARTICLE STATES "At 0952, the airport crews started an interior attack and search and rescue. Although National was not part of a pre-incident fire plan for the Pentagon, a few of the airport personnel were familiar with the building since National's medic unit often responds to calls at the Pentagon.

QUESTION if not a part of the pre-incident fire plan WELL why were they the first to arrive? There might be a simple answer for that question.

=====

another thing on time line....

FROM MURPHY'S ARTICLE

While the Arlington County Fire Department's command post was swamped with coordinating the response, National's crews used their own radio frequency to call for more units, with eight arriving on scene in the early stages of the incident.

===============

I assume these 8 units are the same units referred to in the AAAR. those responding to the fire in roslyn. they arrived at the scene in the early stage of the incident... I assume this means the early stages of the FIRE INCIDENT as in the BULK OF THE FIRE...

If this is so the 9 call came in to ECC re: roslyn fire at 9:37. explosion time is at 9:38 these 8 units arrive at pentagon within 2 minutes of crash that gets them there at 9:40. How is it Defina beat them there was already set up and fighting the fire? (especially since he was in a terminal parking lot three miles away haggling with the tower as to where crash site was, and considering and National was not part of a pre-incident fire plan for the Pentagon).

The AAAR also DOES NOT STATE those 8 crews received a direct call to the pentagon. THAT TIME OF CALL IS ABSENT FROM THE AAAR ( i will double check that).

I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE MORE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THE RRNA TOWER WHICH I HAVEN'T FOUND AGAIN YET, REGARDING TWO AGENTS PICKED UP AT THE RRNA TOWER. I remember reading that but I have yet to find that article again.

[Specterx]

115. Sorry to burst your bubble, but....

this particular theory seems over the top. Postulating that a September 11th "conspiracy" took place means you need to ask Who, Why and How. I can't imagine Bush, Cheney et al approving (or even conceiving of) something like this. No way. They may be moronic right-wing gluttons who do nothing but give handouts to their corporate buddies, but they're not insane. This is the sort of thing that would cause a revolution.

But, I can't resist a good argument:

- Notwithstanding the logistics involved with the "drone aircraft" theory, I can't imagine how a large number of normal people could so quickly come up with, plan, and execute such a monsterous scheme, and then cover it up so well. For those who want hard facts, we note that no drone aircraft of the type described, a "mini-airliner", are known to be in the U.S. arsenal, let alone stored in a ready-to-use state. Even B-52s during the height of the Cold War, armed and fueled on the tarmac with crews at the ready, were not expected to get airborne in under 15 minutes.

- With the attacks on the WTC (those planes were most certainly not "unmanned drones") why would the comparatively minor attack on the pentagon be necessary?

- The security camera footage is at best grainy and unclear, and at worst deceiving. I'd imagine anyone can "see" whatever they want to see, just like anyone can "see" whatever they want to see in all those JFK assassination photos. And, let's not forget that these are not high-speed cameras, and a plane racing by at 500mph+ would be more than a little distorted.

- If we suppose that an F16 is pictured in the security camera footage, it would have to have approached to within something like *50 feet* of the Pentagon wall before even beginning to pull up.

- That explosion sure looks like jet fuel to me. Missiles are not filled with gasoline like in the movies, indeed the Maverick (what other sort of missile could it have been?) has a shaped-charge warhead designed to destroy tanks, that would do almost nothing to a building, other than punch a small hole in it. I could MAYBE believe a tomahawk impact, but not something fired from an F-16. For a close comparison think of footage of TOW missiles striking their targets - there is a brief flash, but no huge explosion, and the damage is very localized.

I dispute here whether the author(s) really investigated their claims that the explosion could not have been jet fuel combusting. Watching footage of the WTC impacts, they look quite similar. I further question whether the author(s) have ever actually seen a missile impact, as they look absolutely nothing like what is shown in the camera footage.

- The "lateral spread" of the explosion is easily explained when we remember that aircraft have fuel tanks in their wings. Again, air-launched missiles that could be carried by an F-16 are designed to penetrate tank armor, not produce Hollywood-style fire effects.

- Re: The contradicting eyewitness reports of the aircraft's approach. Notwithstanding the notorious inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, anyone who has ever been to the Pentagon or driven on I-395 can verify that the geography of the area makes these seemingly contradictory accounts equally valid. The barracks complex at Ft. Meyer is on a hill just to the south of the Pentagon, visible in <|this photo> at the group of long buildings near the top of the image, just right of the highway. The hill is quite steep, a cliff really, and that combined with the height of the barracks buildings themselves (the plane came right over them) means that the aircraft would have been at a fairly high altitude on approach to the pentagon. As he cleared the annex and the pentagon came into view, the pilot would have angled downward and skimmed the ground for the last few hundred yards. Descrepancies between the precise location of the plane can be explained by viewer error. The cemetary is literally next to the route the plane must have taken, and an observer on the ground would probably not think too much about it.

- Eastman's comment that one of the alleged two aircraft was "in perfect low level flight that must have been established and stabilized well before the lamp posts were reached" is impossible given the geography of the area, unless "well before" is a matter of 2 seconds.

- The alleged "missile exhaust" plume: More likely either the wing hitting the ground and disintegrating (one of the links on Mr. Eastman's own site has a reporter noting that the plane clipped the ground before hitting the pentagon) or dirt and debris kicked up by the engines passing overheard at 5 feet.

- It would not have been a trivial matter for Flight 77 to "blend in with normal airport traffic". Anyone who lives in DC or near the river in Virginia (I live in north Arlington myself) knows that planes must follow a VERY strict pattern on approach and takeoff. All planes approaching to land must follow the Potomac River from a point to the west/NW of the airport all the way to the runway. Planes taking off climb have an equally restrictive set of rules. An aircraft flying at 500mph+ coming from the S/SW would, as is said in the article, cover the distance to the airport in only seconds. What would it do then? Buzz the tower? Since the plane couldn't possibly have landed immediately, it would have had to power up and either climb out in the corridor set for that purpose (meaning it would have had to fly over the airport itself - I'll bet nobody would have wondered what an airliner was doing racing over the tarmac at a hundred feet and 500mph) or continued flying over DC, an equally absurd proposition. Of course, this is after flying over several other buildings, I-395, and a river full of boats.

- The witness testimony is conflicting, inconsistent, and poorly studied. No obvious effort is made to "time" sightings. Of course the plane would have been at a high altitude at some point (and I think this is giving too much credit to the witnesses - things like altitude estimates, above all else, must be taken with a grain of salt, and the plane's altitude in any case changed very quickly). Those witnesses that are used to "indirectly" support the conclusions (i.e. they didn't specifically mention observing the plane hit the building) have stories that wildly differ from not only each other, but from the stories of the hundreds of witnesses who DID see Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

- Finally, and most damning of all, we do not actually see Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon at any point, in any film or photographic evidence, and even Mr. Eastman is not able to find someone who will tell him this is what they saw. This despite the fact that there would have been hundreds of witnesses, viewing from every angle and at widely varying elevations.

Sorry, folks. I think this is just your every-day terrorist hijacking, though if anyone has any evidence contrary to what I've said here....

[LARED]

116. Welcome to DU

There are a few 'rules' you must be aware of before you continue down this slippery slope you seem to be standing on. The overt use of rational thought is frowned upon. The continued use of these types of mental facilities is strictly forbidden. I can already assure you that your use of critical thinking skills in the above post has already exposed you to be a dis-info agent of the BFEE.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is in this forum.

[QuietStorm]

117. Oh that shouldn't discourage him Lared

it does seem disinformation agents and/or those peddling the same arguments and insult are at home here. the new poster will find he can purvey the official story quite unimpeded. perhaps he will be as amusing as Harvey.

[ramblin_dave]

118. Who, Why, How

You said:

this particular theory seems over the top. Postulating that a September 11th "conspiracy" took place means you need to ask Who, Why and How. I can't imagine Bush, Cheney et al approving (or even conceiving of) something like this. No way. They may be moronic right-wing gluttons who do nothing but give handouts to their corporate buddies, but they're not insane. This is the sort of thing that would cause a revolution.

This whole Pentagon theory does seem over the top and I have seen nothing that makes me believe it. Still I like to see the back and forth as people argue about it. I also look for signs that such theories may be deliberate diversions designed to discredit all speculation about a possible Bush involvement.

How easy would it have been for Bush, Cheney et al to have gotten wind of this terrorist plot and then to have decided to let it happen? Why would they do that? Well we know from the PNAC revelations that these guys wanted to establish US dominance in the middle east and had suggested that it might take a Pearl Harbor like event to motivate the American people to support such an agenda.

They could easily have rationalized that terrorists would eventually have hit us anyway. So why not let down our guard and let it happen now while they were in power and had the resolve to carry out a plan that they believed would solve the terrorist problem and save many more lives down the road?

All they needed to do was get the FBI and others to back off on looking at Saudi connections to terrorism, to not grant FISA warrants where such are routinely granted, to ignore and sidetrack alarms from FBI field offices about suspicious characters in flight schools, and so on.

Then when the atatcks were carried out, go full force with an already planned agenda while tarring as unpatriotic anyone who objects and stonewalling all meaningful investigations into how the attacks caught us off guard.

The who, why and how are easily established here. No Plane theories and such help keep us from seeing the truth.

[Abe Linkman]

119. ramblin_dave: STOP making sense

Your message presents a reasonable, rational, plausible scenario.

[QuietStorm]

120. I DON'T KNOW

what he states has been stated before. PROVOCATION was stated as necessary in the PNAC (as well as Mofaz's plan). Ramblin' dave speaks LIHOP which is an understatement. I personally do not see with just what is collected in this thread alone how DOTS which would connect up to VERY FOUL play seem ANY LESS convincing than the OFFICIAL STORY.

SAFE is what ramblin' dave's comment is to me SAFE!!

THE LOGIC he expresses has been stated and restated by many since 9/11/01.

[RH]

121. Bush, Cheney et al

The problem I have with this is the "et al".

Just how many would the "et al" include? B-)

The likelihood of the success of any criminal conspiracy will always tend to be inversely proportional to the number of persons knowingly involved. Furthermore it is hardly news that the CIA, NSA and FBI do not always operate as if with a single mind and with a single interest to pursue. Nor would the said entities always act as if with a single mind within themselves. One may also consider, for instance, that the interests of the Mossad may not always exacty coincide with those of the aforesaid.

So yes, it would indeed be foolish to rule out the possibility of some sort of insider knowledge, but the idea of many thousands of government agents all willfully and consciously colluding would be just as silly, if not a good deal more so.

For the time being then I'll tend to stick with the 'WKHTSWCG' theory (wouldn't know how to shit while chewing gum).

[ramblin_dave]

125. It wouldn't take many

No one is talking "many thousands of government agents" here. Indeed I believe most FBI, NSA, CIA etc are loyal and honest.

I can see this being less than 10 here in the US plus a few in Saudi Arabia and maybe Israel. This would not have to be thousands or even hundreds. A few dozen at most.

[RH]

128. So how many government agents

then would need to collude to suppose that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon if in fact it did not?

The entire investigation and a large number of news reports would have to be completely rigged, including the mortuary examination.

There would also surely have been a large number of people in the vicinity who should have realised the difference between the wreckage of airliner and the wreckage of something completely different. Various parts of the aircraft were scattered over a wide area, falling amidst the traffic on the roads.

How many then would would have to consciously collude? I have never yet seen a serious estimate on offer.

[Abe Linkman]

129. So how many Osama "boys"

then would need to collude to suppose that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon if in fact it did?

How many then would have to consciously collude? I have never yet seen a serious estimate on offer.

[RH]

131. "So how many Osama "boys""

:eyes:

None would have to collude to suppose.

The fact would be perfectly obvious, as of course it was.

[gandalf]

122. You should work harder

“I can't imagine Bush, Cheney et al approving (or even conceiving of) something like this. No way. … This is the sort of thing that would cause a revolution.”

I am afraid statements like “I believe” do not advance the discussion. With “I believe” you can put forward any absurd idea. Concerning revolution: You are right, IF (!) it would be detected AND perceived by the masses, and only then. Considering the efforts of the Bush Administration to block the investigations (e.g. in form of an independent commission), they are indeed trying to let come out nothing of whatever happened. It would be so simple to make public the images of a (second) camera, installed at a gasoline station, which was seized by the FBI very shortly after the Pentagon attack. That could quickly end all “conspiracy stuff”

“I can't imagine how a large number of normal people could so quickly come up with, plan”. What you can imagine is irrelevant, as long as you don’t have arguments that are a little bit more specific. Who told you that such a plan (if it exists) would have been devised quickly?

“let's not forget that these are not high-speed cameras” But there are two frames of different stages of the explosion, so the frequency would be higher than 1/s.

“That explosion sure looks like jet fuel to me.” Sorry again, that it looks to you like fuel really is no serious argument. What does fuel look like, compared to other possibilities? If you pretend to argue fact-based, you should be more elaborate and specific.

“either the wing hitting the ground and disintegrating “ Would then not marks on the lawn support this idea? There simply are no marks. No support for your hypotheses.

“The witness testimony is … poorly studied.” Not quite correct. Some accounts are carefully studied by Holmgren (published on Indymedia). Ron Harvey has quite an extensive list. However, many of Harvey’s witnesses do not state directly that they saw an AA Boeing hitting the Pentagon. Only saying “there were hundreds of witnesses for the official story” is not correct.

“Finally … we do not actually see Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon at any point, in any film or photographic evidence”. No. BUT the same holds for the official version (nobody can honestly claim that the published video is a proof of the official version).

[RH]

124. “there were hundreds of witnesses for the official story”

Is not something that I ever said.

Many witnesses did not actually see the plane hit the Pentagon wall, often because they were just over the hill on Columbia Pike or Interstate 395. Nevertheless, if a witness happens to see an airliner sink to a height of less than 80 feet, with a large fireball then to come up but with no sign of the plane coming up again, the normal conclusion thus to be reached would seem to me to be eminently reasonable.

The simple fact remains that hundreds of witnesses did see the plane for themselves; none of them saw an F16 or a missile.

Holgren's contrivance to cast aspersions was ignorant. He never bothered even to contact any of the witnesses he doubted nor did he bother to contact any of the joutrnalists whose reports he disputed.

He sought instead to suppose that witnesses did not exist when they clearly do exist. He considered a small number of the witnesses now known to have been there and his comprehesion of the local geography was lamentably poor. He had no idea for instance of the dispostion of the River House apartments.

[gandalf]

126. "The incident was abundantly witnessed"

That's what you said in "The Pentagon Thread".

It was however, not my intention to ascribe the citation to you in my last post (and, I did not do it). It was meant to paraphrase a class of argument I read sometimes hear.

[RH]

123. Trajectory

Having persistently recommended to others to respect the judgement of those best placed to judge, I have to be glad to see a contribution form somebody in situ, agreeing therefore with most of what Specterx has to say.

:toast:

I am somewhat perturbed though by comments with regard to the trajectory of the Boeing. I had thought that something like a perfect low level flight was indeed established well before the lamp posts were reached; the B757 was already flying low over Arlington Village, just to the south of Columbia Pike. From there it would probably have been be out of sight of the Pentagon, over the hill but in other respects from there on the course would indeed have been pretty much a straight line past the Navy Annex and on towards the Boulevard overpass.

This diagram approximates the thesis:




It is therefore unfortunate that the photo of the vicinity that Specterx referred to failed to appear. Futher information with regard to the barracks complex at Ft. Meyer would be of interest.

If the statement to the effect the plane came right over the barracks buildings alludes to a definite eye witness testimony, it would also be useful to see some further details of that.

The witness testimony is indeed poorly studied in that there was rarely any attempt to interview the individuals in depth, but on the other hand I have not especially found that their testimonies were so conflicting or inconsistent. The variance is rather in the way that commentators have chosen to interpret to suit their own particular purposes.

Nor would I take the witness estimates of altitude with so much of a grain of salt. Estimates were too often quoted definitely, in feet above the ground, or with reference to buildings and often thus by people whose backgrounds would not dispose them to be loose about it.

Having collected a large number of online eye witness reports I have never yet seen one from anybody on the "river full of boats", and the phtotos that I have seen of the river on that day would hardly appear to fit the desciption, but never mind. All in all I must concur. Too many of the eye witness statements to the effect that "The plane hit the Pentagon" are simply not open to such a great deal of interpretation.

with best wishes,

Ron Harvey

London, UK

author of
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[Specterx]

127. More stuff

EDITED: Sorry about the plaintext but the image URLs were
getting screwed up by the HTML parser.

Re: the trajectory. I didn't notice the photo didn't work
above but here's the URL:
www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/Pentagon_after.jpg <-
sat view. Note that this is cited on one of Eastman's pages as
a useful tool in investigating the event - indeed.

Other perpsectives can be seen in these pics:
www.airliners.net/open.file/075484/L/ and
members.aol.com/_ht_a/cdhaggard/aa.jpg . You can see how the
annex is located on a hill that slopes down towards the
Pentagon (offscreen in the last photo) and I395. Compare the
two photos - notice how the parking lot north of the annex
(below where Columbia Pike turns west in the overheard view)
is not visible in the second photo, as it's blocked by the
treetops and the slope. And, not only is it on a hill, but the
buildings themselves are 4 stories, and the hill contains
plenty of trees, buildings, and another obstructions. As the
pilots were not familiar with the area, there are numerous
tall buildings to the south of the Pentagon, and view of the
Pentagon would have been obstructed at too low a level, the
plane wouldve had to have been fairly high, like 500 feet or
so. The last photo looks to be taken at about 300-500 feet and
the corner of the Pentagon you see in the upper right gives
you an idea of what the pilot would have seen. Once clearing
the buildings the pilot would have gone into a short
"dive" and dropped 75-100 feet, leveling out over
where the downed lamposts are reported, and hit the Pentagon. 

If I had a digital camera I'd go take some pics from Columbia
Pike where it turns west.

Also, www.airliners.net/open.file/075484/L/ from above gives a
nice view of the airport, so you can see why landing
"immediately" would be impossible (use the annex and
395 for reference on where the impact was).

Gandalf:
"I am afraid statements like “I believe” do not advance
the discussion. With “I believe” you can put forward any
absurd idea." 
-- True, but which is more absurd, the idea that the President
ordered an airliner crashed into the Pentagon, or the idea
that he didn't? Not trying to play word games, but based on
history, one is simply more likely than the other. 

"What you can imagine is irrelevant, as long as you don’t
have arguments that are a little bit more specific. Who told
you that such a plan (if it exists) would have been devised
quickly?"
-- One of the other investigation sites linked to by Eastman
had a more comprehensive "backstory", whereby the
plane was hijacked by the terrorists, who were quickly
subdued, and the government then put the plan into action. The
site gave the impression that it was a spur-of-the-moment
thing. Either way, there are other problems... for one thing
they could have just let the terrorists "do their
job" if the end result was to be the same. 

"But there are two frames of different stages of the
explosion, so the frequency would be higher than 1/s."
-- By 'high speed' we're talking thousands of frames per
second, like the cameras that are used to capture bullets in
flight, and (more significantly) record aircraft and vehicle
tests. 

"Sorry again, that it looks to you like fuel really is no
serious argument. What does fuel look like, compared to other
possibilities? If you pretend to argue fact-based, you should
be more elaborate and specific."
--
www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2001/062201/raytheon_patriot2.jpg
<- maverick missile impact
That doesn't look anything like what we see here:
matt.dfstudios.com/quartermed.gif <- fuel explosion.

I will also point out that, as I suspected, Eastman doesn't
seem to know his missiles and bombs. At
www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm , near the bottom, he has a
picture of "air-to-ground missile" being fired by an
F-16. The weapon in the picture is in fact a unpowered
laser-guided bomb. Technically it is a "missile" but
it's irrelevant to what he's trying to prove. There are plenty
of better pics out there of F-16s firing rocket-powered
weapons, and he chose this one to aid the reader in seeing
what he wants them to see in the security camera frames.

Oh, and about the alleged F16. Go to
www.humanunderground.com/11september/s11-media/frame1.jpg ,
and then go to frame2, frame3 and frame4. Use your back and
forward buttons to move rapidly between frames 1 and 2/3/4.
Look carefully at the shape that is assumed to be the F16's
canopy, the "hump" just above the ticket dispenser.
It appears in every frame (in fact, both "humps"
do). 

"Would then not marks on the lawn support this idea?
There simply are no marks. No support for your
hypotheses."
-- I did propose another possibility. I'm not afraid to say I
don't know why it looks that way, and it's too far to jump
from "I don't know what it is" to "it's a
missile trail", especially when that conclusion isn't
supported by any other evidence. 

"Some accounts are carefully studied by Holmgren
(published on Indymedia). Ron Harvey has quite an extensive
list. However, many of Harvey’s witnesses do not state
directly that they saw an AA Boeing hitting the Pentagon"
-- Could you provide a link to Harvey's set of published
accounts? It is Eastman's position that because *some*
witnesses *did not explicitly state* that they saw a Boeing
757 connect with the Pentagon, it did not happen. The flaw
with this logic is obvious, all the more so when many
witnesses DID see that, while OTOH Eastman does not present
any witnesses for his alternate version of events. 

"No. BUT the same holds for the official version (nobody
can honestly claim that the published video is a proof of the
official version)."
-- Ah, but the "official version" has a large body
of other evidence to support it, while Eastman's version has
virtually none. His only other real evidence is the fuselage
fragment piece, which contains more than its share of
supposition and baseless assertions. His statement that the
fragment was "planted by an accomplice" is
laughable, since the area was crawling with motorists,
reporters (with cameras) and firefighters/rescue personnel
from the very beginning, yet again we have no photographic or
testimonial evidence that a bunch of men came with a truckload
of aluminum fragments and sprinkled them around the Pentagon
lawn.

[Abe Linkman]

130. The "Gerald Posner" school of debunking

" but which is more absurd, the idea that the
President ordered an airliner crashed into the Pentagon, or
the idea that he didn't? Not trying to play word games, but
based on history, one is simply more likely than the other."

I would go along with the "he didn't" crowd, myself.

Got any other red herrings or Straw men we can knock down?