What hit the Pentagon and what caused the explosions?

[philb]

I noticed some new sites(at least to me)

CNN Report: No plane hit the Pentagon
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2005/250205noplane.htm


What caused this explosion at the Pentagon?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/undocumented.html
and this one? http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/dust.htm
and this one? http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/pentapoof.htm


Eyewitness Accounts Indicate the Pentagon Attack Involved Explosive Detonation
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/explosive.html
http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackWitnessesBlast.shtml
http://www.911-strike.com/siding-scam.htm

[philb]

1. Some other alternative theories and articles

The Missing Wings- A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh
http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash by Gerard Holmgren http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13

Photographic Evidence that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a smaller military 737 Sky Warrior, not a Boeing 757. http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html
(Schwarz has a new thread on this)

[spooked911]

2. This is one reason people think something besides a normal Boeing 757

hit the Pentagon.

There were at least two people who smelled explosives.

If anyone is interested, please read this post of mine on the possibility of a missile hitting the Pentagon:

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-hit-pentagon-on-911.html

The bottom line is that there are some very strange things about what happened at the Pentagon that are not explained by the official story.

[undeterred]

4. I'm in agreement with you most of the way

but I would still lean toward it being an A-3 (with explosives) rather than a missile that hit the Pentagon. The A-3 fits perfectly within the height and width damage caused to the Pentagon. Witnesses might have trouble distinguishing between types of planes, but not between a missile and a plane. I don't remember hearing of any witnesses who thought they saw a missile.

I think the cable spools are a problem no matter what hits the Pentagon- I have heard that these were telecommunications wire. What are these doing out on the lawn in the first place?! They are probably larger and heavier than we can imagine from seeing them in the picture, but I would think there would be ground effects from either a missile or a plane, even if it didn't hit these directly. They appear to be covered with soot but not damaged.

I'd like to hear that they just rolled off the roof when the plane hit and then we wouldn't have to worry about how they escaped being knocked over.

[spooked911]

5. The reason I lean against the A3 is that the hole in the fence is too big

for an A3 engine, and the hole is too small for an A3 body.

I totally agree the cable spools are a major problem for the 757 story:


From Jean-Pierre Desmoulins's Pentagon site. The left cross is supposedly where the port engine traveled and hit a cement curb, knocking a hole in it. The middle cross is where the fuselage is supposed to have gone and the right cross is supposedly where the starboard engine went.

However, one can clearly see the absurdity of this flight path. First, the hole in the curb is simply not the right dimensions for a 757 engine. Second, even if it was a 757 engine that knocked the hole in the curb, this means the plane's body would have to be only four feet off the ground. But you can see the six foot high cable spools were in the direct path of the fuselage and were not knocked down. So if you believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, you have to believe the plane magically passed over these cable spools. Nonetheless, for the damage pattern seen at the Pentagon, the only way a Boeing 757 could have come in is with its engines just inches off the ground. So this is a serious problem.

[Bismillah]

7. Those cable spools were surely movable...

So how can we be sure they weren't moved? (Do we have any photos of the crash scene immediately Before and After?)

[undeterred]

18. Re: spools

There were a series of pictures taken by an eyewitness and they are in the post I referenced below. Very good resolution on the pictures and they were apparently taken soon after the crash. If you look at the picture I have in 2. you can see the spools just under the tree foliage. That is the approximate location of the center of the crash and there they are.

They are reported to be telecommunications wire spools related to the construction that was going on at the Pentagon. They are 6 ft tall and presumably pretty heavy.

They're a mystery- they seem to interfere with every possible scenario. Why weren't they knocked over or damaged?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x45276#45314

Edit: The only "before" pictures I've seen are aerial photos from September 7 - the spools are too small to be seen if they are there and could have been moved around in 4 days.

[Kevin Fenton]

63. Cable Spools

"That is the approximate location of the center of the crash and there they are."
However, the plane hit at an oblique angle and the fuselage would not have passed over or hit the spools.

"They are reported to be telecommunications wire spools related to the construction that was going on at the Pentagon. They are 6 ft tall and presumably pretty heavy."
The ground in front of the Pentagon is not level, the spools seem to be standing in a slight dip in the terrain.

You can find an interesting discussion of the spools here:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/obstacles.html

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. 4 pics ...ah where the plane entered and before the building collaspe.....

see the hole the boeing made?







A Pentagon worker holds what is believed to be a piece of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.



and this looks like the remains of a Pepsi delivery truck

[pointless]

13. FYI

Those pictures are not of the point of impact. They are to the left of the impact point.

Check out this pic and use the tree in the ones you posted and in this one as a reference point.

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. HEY I GOT AN IDEA!!!

Someone try measuring the distance between where the stacks of 4"x4" are proping up the facade all the way over to where the black part of crane boom on the right crosses the ground floor in the above pic.

Anyone?

[pointless]

60. Pictures

The tree on the left of the collapse and the doorway just to the right of it are what the first three pictures were of. It shows a burnt out part of the building, not the impact point. The impact point is not shown in any of the original three pictures.

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. This pic

[doublethink]

9. Hey spooked911 .....

I'm sure you've seen pictures shot of whatever partial Engine parts they found at the scene. Has anyone ever theorized that maybe these engine parts were planted in the building .... beforehand? I mean before whatever hit it? I know the impact area where the 'plane' hit was under some kind of renovation at the time. Maybe under lock down? So .... well you seem to have studied this, just curious if anyone has covered this angle? peace.

on edit: I think the only pictures of the engine parts I've seen were smoldering somewhere within the building, or under the collapsed destruction?

[spooked911]

12. They found lots of parts in and out of the building that came from some

sort of aircraft. Some of the parts are consistent with a 757-- the landing gear is the best example of this-- but the documentation for these parts and pictures is not great.

If something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon, then someone planted these 757 parts or put out fake pictures of parts. It is hard to imagine someone planting the parts but I also have a lot of trouble with how a 757 struck the Pentagon in the manner that it had to for the damage pattern seen.

[philb]

90. How did the engine get out of the building? And where is mall p.a. located

And does anyone have a picture of this engine? if not, why not?
If so, what does it appear to be from?


One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army's deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010917/aw48.htm

And what was the loud secondary explosion 10 minutes later?

[undeterred]

10. I don't know about the fence but I thought the A-3 body fit:

A-3 dimensions
Length: 76 ft. 4 in
Wingspan: 72 ft. 6 in
Height: 22 ft. 9.5 in

Actual maximal impact damage:
Width of broken-away walls at ground level 90'
Maximum height of broken-away walls 26'

[spooked911]

11. Yeah, that fits-- but we also have to assume that the ends of the wings

could punch through reinforced concrete, which I don't buy.

I think the hole in the fence, the damaged generator and the cable spools are important evidence. The damage to the generator does not quite fit an A3 either, IMO.

[undeterred]

15. Nila Sagedevan said it could not have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon

and it had to be a "small, highly wing loaded plane" such as the Global Hawk. I don't know if that means a plane with more weight in the wings than a standard commerical plane.

I've seen in other posts on this forum that both the nose and the wings of most planes are fairly light and designed for aerodynamics not for withstanding a crash. I wonder if the A-3 is a "wing loaded plane" and if that would mean the wings are much stronger than a 757.

[hack89]

30. Global Hawk has a 113 foot wing span..

and it is not a "small, highly wing loaded plane". It is a lightly wing loaded aircraft optimized for high altitude flight. A high wing loading is desirable for low level flight and refers to the air pressure per square inch applied to the wing surface.

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

[demodewd]

16. re: A-3

How do you explain the sliced light poles with an A-3? Is the wingspan long enough?

[undeterred]

17. The A-3 has a 72 ft 6 in wingspan

I don't know if that's long enough to account for the sliced light poles.

757 has a 125 ft. wingspan.

[hack89]

28. Why?

There are plenty of mothballed airliners lying around - why use an obsolete military aircraft that would certainly be recognized by the large number of active and retired military personnel who work in DC?

[Kevin Fenton]

14. Questions and answers

These are the questions from your website with my answers:

1) the squads of soldiers and FBI agents who picked up pieces of debris very rapidly after the crash were merely collecting evidence and were not trying to hide anything
A: If they were really trying to hide something, I think they would have got rid of those pesky photographers and wouldn't have let people into the Pentagon at all - even one of John Judge's friends got to take a look inside a couple of days later.

2) the Pentagon security camera video of the crash is really the best set of pictures they had and it was not altered and key frames were not cut out
A. These pictures are obvious fakes. The explosion is coming out of the roof in the later frames, but the roof was undamaged by the initial impact. See http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
for more details. It's in the Explosion at the Pentagon section, just over half way down.

3) the FBI really has a good reason for not releasing the videos they confiscated from the gas station and nearby hotel
A: There is a cover up on 9/11, it does not involve the Penatgon impact (except the number and names of the hijackers and maybe the lack of air defense). Keeping the videos secret encourages pointless speculation and stops the "9-11 truth movement" focusing on more important issues.

4) a Boeing 757 can travel over 500 mph only inches off the ground on essentially a level path without being affected by the ground effect and without crashing on the ground.
A: I don't think anybody knows for sure exactly how fast it was travelling, I've seen figures ranging from 350 to 500m mph. I guess the pilot was real good.

5) that even though the fuselage of the plane clearly blew up spewing debris on the Pentagon lawn, and the passengers of the plane were in the back section (according to Barbara Olson's call), not one human remain was blown out onto the Pentagon lawn by the huge explosion the plane made as it hit the building
A: I'm not certain it was the explosion that caused the debris on the lawn, it could have been when the plane ripped apart after hitting the wall. The bottom section of the fuselage is tougher than the top, the seats are fixed to the bottom, the passengers are sitting in the seats. Therefore the passengers should go with the bottom section of the fuselage, not the top section.

6) a Boeing 757, with its engines only inches off the ground (since one engine apparently knocked a ground level hole in the chain link fence), and thus with the plane's belly only four feet off the ground, can pass over six foot tall cable spools without knocking them down. This picture illustrates my point very well, actually:

From Jean-Pierre Desmoulins's Pentagon site. The left cross is supposedly where the port engine traveled and hit a cement curb, knocking a hole in it. The middle cross is where the fuselage is supposed to have gone and the right cross is supposedly where the starboard engine went. Posted by Hello
However, one can clearly see the absurdity of this flight path. First, the hole in the curb is simply not the right dimensions for a 757 engine. Second, even if it was a 757 engine that knocked the hole in the curb, this means the plane's body would have to be only four feet off the ground. But you can see the six foot high cable spools were in the direct path of the fuselage and were not knocked down. So if you believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, you have to believe the plane magically passed over these cable spools. But in fact, for the damage pattern seen at the Pentagon, the only way a Boeing 757 could have come in is with its engines just inches off the ground. So this is a serious problem.
A: Unless I'm very much mistaken, planes can go up as well as down. If the pilot hit something, could he not have gone up a touch? Also, you're forgetting that the lawn is not level and that it dips where the cable spools are. For a fuller discussion of the cable spools see here: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/obstacles.html

7) a Boeing 757, which is not built to penetrate walls, can go through the three foot thick reinforced concrete wall of the Pentagon and pass completely through without leaving significant debris outside. Not only this, but the plane is so tough it can penetrate the wall by hitting at an oblique (52 degree) angle-- thus wasting much of its forward momentum on a force vector that is parallel and not perpendicular to the wall
A: Concrete? Wasn't it limestone?

8) the engine of a Boeing 757 can strike a 10,000 pound generator some one hundred feet from the pentagon wall, and either not break off the wing or break off and keep traveling in the direction of the plane and disappear into the Pentagon.
A: I guess it depends on the type of strike. It seems that the engine and flap canoe (whatever that is) just gouged the top of the generator, rather than hitting it full on. I imagine that engines are fastened to wings rather tightly, which is the reason it didn't fall off.

[spooked911]

20. The Pentagon wall

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Outer wall

I don't think there was any concrete in the outer wall. There was plenty of concrete in the Pentagon, but I think it was elsewhere.

I found this:
"Fromboluti, the architect, was part of this team. "When we rebuilt Wedge 1, the original wall was masonry with a limestone façade. We reinforced that wall with steel.""
here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/attack/masonry_rising.html

[spooked911]

22. I don't know if we can rule out concrete-- Pentagonresearch.com,

where I got that diagram from, has a picture of the damaged wall showing a limestone exterior, brick then concrete.

http://pentagonresearch.com/047.html

This is interesting-- from your article:

"We took down approximately 2,400 pieces of stone, a lot of which had melted aluminum from the plane embedded in it."

I wonder exactly which pieces that would be? Where on the exterior wall did aluminum melt into the stone?

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Don't get it

I had no idea there was any concrete in the outer wall at all, thanks for the piccie.

The text under your picture says:
"The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete."
The way I read this is that there are concrete floors and ceilings and that there are concrete columns (the "concrete frame"), but that on the outer wall of E-rings the space between the columns is filled by bricks.

The picture does show that there is concrete there, but I can't really tell whether it goes all the way around the wedge.

I don't really know about the aluminium. Certainly, there was aluminium in the plane and jet fuel can (just) burn hot enough to melt it, but I had rather assumed that it did not catch fire, because I don't think it at the WTC. Surely, if aluminium melts, then it becomes a liquid, so how could it them be embedded anywhere? Perhaps he means charred aluminium or something like that.

[spooked911]

25. the melted aluminum is weird-- I could see shreds or small pieces

of aluminum embedded in the stone, but I wouldn't think that melted aluminum was flying around outside the wall-- particularly in such a way as to get embedded in the wall.

I could some pieces of molten aluminum being blown out from the entry hole, but it seems like they would be blown away from the wall.

[MercutioATC]

49. Why is it weird?

Aluminum fragments get embedded in the limestone facing and the subsequent fire melts them...seems logical to me.

[Kevin Fenton]

62. Melted aluminium

Shreds of aluminium could be embedded in ths stone when the plane hit it - that actually seems quite likely to me. I don't really how how the pieces can be metled - surely this would mean they were liquid, rather than solid and therefore not identifiable as specific aluminium pieces? Perhaps the guy just means charred, or fire-damaged, but not completely melted. However, I think a jet fuel fire can just about get hot enough to melt aluminium.
As for the stone with the aluminium pieces embedded, some of the stone removed may have come from walls which were still standing, some may have actually been knocked inside by the plane and, given the section of the Pentagon which took the main force of the hit collapsed, it may have been impossible to tell where the stone actually was before the collapse.

[pointless]

67. pentagon structure

http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html

[undeterred]

3. Thanks for all the links!

My reading is cut out for me. :tinfoilhat: :-)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. unseen CNN video of Pentagon damage...where is the effing plane???

http://mistakesweremade.com/vid/pentagon.damage.asf

[spooked911]

19. Definitely hadn't seen that before. Thanks.

Interesting vodeo, though of course the plane could be INSIDE the building

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. There is no effing way an incoming aircraft would NOT have been

intercepted long before it hit the Pentagon. That airspace is highly defended. I really don't see any wiggle room in saying this is clear evidence of an inside job, wheher the plane was really the one it was said to be or not.

[spooked911]

26. You would think that, wouldn't you?

But somehow the lack of air defense over DC was just another thing that happened on 9/11 that doesn't need explaining.

Actually, the lack of air defense over DC I think is one of the biggest holes in the official 9/11 story and the wretched 9/11 commission attempts to blame it all on the FAA-- when really the military fucked up.

[Nothing Without Hope]

27. David Ray Griffin really nailed this aspect (and many others) in his

historic Madison lecture.

For readers who have not seen or heard it, you MUST. Online video and audio files are available as well as VHS tapes and DVDs from CSPAN. Links to these and more in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x39690
Thread title: David Ray Griffin evidence Bush admin complicit in 9/11 - update & links

I think this lecture is the best place to start for a person who is ready to take the black pill and open their minds to the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were LIHOP or MIHOP.

[spooked911]

29. Yes. I am also reading Griffin's book on the 9/11 commission and

he nails them hard on how the commission distorts the record to protect the military.

[philb]

72. Does anyone know if he is planned to be on C-Span again or

if there is anything new with him??

[hack89]

31. Why do you assume the air space was highly defended?

From a military perspective, prior to 9/11, what could have threatened Washington DC short of ICBMs?

Secondly, the airspace over the Pentagon can't be heavily defended seeing how it is right next to the landing pattern of a major urban airport with hundreds of aircraft flying within hundreds of yards of the building every day. The potential for a mistake killing hundreds of civilians was way too high to ever contemplate aggressively defending the Pentagon from unidentified aircraft.

[philb]

32. You should be aware they had lots of prior warnings about 9/11 &

you're suggestion that the capital isn't well defended and they might not shoot down a commercial airplane aimed at a capital complex building after the first two hit the WTC buildings borders on silly, imo. It should be obvious to anyone that they were well aware of the threat of airliners to capital complex buildings. And in the 9/11 time period.
http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html

Its known they have surface to air missiles, shoulder launced anti-aircraft equipment, jets on alert nearby, lots of radar, likely other protective means at the capital complex.

and were aware the plane was coming:
http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html

[undeterred]

33. I wonder if they were testing the strength of the new exterior wall

at great expense.

[MercutioATC]

35. Hack89's suggestion is far from "silly".

In fact, it's right on the money.

The airspace over DC was too heavily traveled by commercial and private aircraft to be well-defended.

[BeFree]

36. Yes indeed

Why it is so lacking they let a Cessna within miles of the White House a couple of weeks ago before the jet fighters intercepted it and forced it down, eh?

:sarcasm:

Ya know, I kinda trust that the ATC'ers recognize every UFO that comes into DC airspace, just like they did with that little ol' Cessna.


How come some here continue to presume that ATC'ers let AA77 sneak right in to DC without a warning? Why do some hate those on our front lines?

[hack89]

37. You are talking post 9/11...

I was talking pre 9/11 - perhaps there have been a few changes, don't you think?

[BeFree]

38. Do I think?

Yes. But the only changes were who receives the warnings from the ATC'ers. On 9/11 the warning was given but was halted by those in charge so that no attempt would be made at intercepting whatever it was that hit the pentagon.

Do you really think that the pentagon was never expected to be attacked? If you do think they never considered it, then one must surmise that you have no faith whatsoever in our military, wouldn't one?

[hack89]

39. There have been enough military debacles in my life time..

to question the judgment of the US military.

Secondly, short of ICBMs, what military threat was there against the Pentagon? With the end of the cold war, there was no conventional air threat to defend against. Hijacking was deemed a criminal issue.

The biggest threat against the Pentagon was a large truck bomb - which the Pentagon was prepared for. The hardening of the Pentagon facade and the installation of blast proof windows during the Pentagon upgrade is proof of this.

[BeFree]

50. Consider this:

The pentagon had planned for an aircraft type of attack on the place.
They had not been caught unaware, they knew it could happen.

They knew it could happen, so the higher ups let it happen. Why it would surprise you so, or, that you would dismiss the possibility is incongrous to your argument. Of course, I am not surprised some would take both sides in an attempt to misinform.

[MercutioATC]

42. You seem to be operating under a gross misconception.

The biggest post-9/11 change to ATC wasn't procedure, but awareness. Cessnas flew off course all of the time in the DC area pre-9/11 and the conventional wisdom was that private pilots in small planes frequently have very little experience so it was no big deal. Even professional pilots in commercial airliners occasionally miss a frequency change or stray off course (when you're working over 3 million planes a year as my facility does, even a very small percentage of errors creates a significant number of individual incidents).

We used to treat those incidents as very low-priority items because we'd seen them hundreds of times before with no adverse effects. Obviously, since 9/11, that's changed.

THAT'S the change...not who we "warn" (which, incidentally, hasn't changed).

[BeFree]

51. Private pilots in small planes...

...are NOT what you say hit the pentagon, so nothing has changed, except that on 9/11 the warning that a very large commercial jet was 'lost' did not make it very far from the ATC'ers.

And that 'loss' is what is most disconcerting. Now then, what happened was a collossal screwup and the responsibility for that lies not with ATC, as you describe, but with the receiving end of the alert, so my advice would be to quit blaming ATC for 9/11.

Remember, ATC did a wonderful job on Payne Stewart's plane (a small private craft) and when they passed the info on it was acted upon post haste. What was different about 9/11 was that the ATC alert was ignored that day. Just like the real info on WMD was ignored, eh?

[hack89]

52. Post haste?

and how many minutes did it take to get an airplane to intercept Payne Stewart's plane?

[BeFree]

53. You don't know?

Well, I guess you need to do some research, eh?

BTW, it was within minutes that an interception took place on Mr. Stewart's small private aircraft which was nowhere near DC.

[hack89]

58. Post haste = 1 hour 23 minutes

per the NTSB:

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

[MercutioATC]

57. You want me to "quit blaming ATC for 9/11"?

That's certainly not my intent.

You DO know what I do for a living, right?

[Silverhair]

86. Don't you remember the light plane that tried to hit the WH in the 90's

Clinton was POTUS at the time. The guy missed the WH. I think he hit a tree. Pre 9-11, that airspace was NOT heavily defended. Of course, since CTers need for it to have been defended to bolster their theories, they will assert that it was, regardless of any facts.

[MercutioATC]

93. Of COURSE it's not heavily defended...it's too close to Reagan airport.

A commercial jet could be on short final to Reagan, "miss" approach, and be at the Pentagon in about 60 seconds.

There's absolutely NO way to defend against that.

[philb]

46. So the capital is open for anyone to destroy the W.H or Pentagon anytime

they want, in your opinion?? There's no point in trying to defend it and they don't even bother to try?

I don't think so, and as I noted its known that they have defenses and would use them.

[MercutioATC]

48. Yes, pretty much, especially pre-9/11.

The Pentagon is a little over a mile from Reagan Airport. That's about 20 seconds of flight time for a jet - less than a minute for a small Cessna. Bolling AFB is close, but it still takes longer than a minute to launch fighters.

[Sweet Pea]

54. Bolling AFB has no aircraft, runway or flight capabilities.

Flight operations ceased there in 1962. Andrews is the closest jet base.

[MercutioATC]

56. Hehe...I'm obviously not controlling D.C. airspace.

Thanks for the info :)

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. Do you have any clue as

to what "defenses" "they" have?

[Kevin Fenton]

47. Heavily defended

I think heavily defended here means that there were several fighters stationed nearby that could be launched at short notice (whether they were officially on strip alert or not). That seems to be the case. I really don't see what the large number of commercial and private aircraft over Washington have to do with this.

Surely, the military response was obviously poor. I think the main question is whether the military was honestly caught with its pants down or whether somebody was hampering the response.

[Nothing Without Hope]

40. I suggest you listen to David Ray Griffin's report on this aspect, which

he goes through in his Madison lecture. An unapproved aircraft would be challenged very quickly, especially so near the Pentagon, but somehow it was NOT stopped. For the information on interception protocols and on the changing story given out by the military to explain why they were so blatantly bypassed, listen to Griffin's description first. If you want more info, it abounds.

Here's a thread with links to Griffin's lecture;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x39690
Thread title: David Ray Griffin evidence Bush admin complicit in 9/11 - update & links

[hack89]

41. A simple challenge..

if there were protocols in place for the routine interception of unidentified aircraft over US land (not the over water approaches to US air space) there must be records of such intercepts. Show me a single instance other then the Payne Stewart incident where US military aircraft conducted interceptions over the US mainland in the past 20 years.

Griffin is the same guy who states that there is an automated air defense system at the Pentagon. Think about that for a second and then tell me he knows what he is talking about.

[petgoat]

55. defense of the pentagon

hack, you've raised an important question. Dr. Griffin, John Judge,
and Nicholas Levis (1) have all stated that the Pentagon was defended by
surface to air missiles.

The source cited by Dr. Griffin for this belief is the Meyssan book.
What is Meyssan's source?


Dr. Griffin points out that if an automated defense system was
inactivated, complicity is proven right there and we needn't worry any
more about the missile/757 issue.

As to the video, I believe that reluctance of the Pentagon to release
into public (and enemy) hands video of a successful attack on their
HQ would explain the withholding of the tapes. Of course if they were
released now it would be difficult to authenticate them anyway.


1. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147

[hack89]

59. They can state anything they want .. they still need to prove it!

Griffin's statement

"the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder"

is nonsense on many levels. First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport whose airplanes fly within hundreds of yards of the Pentagon hundreds of times daily. These airliners do not have military transponders - how come the automated defense system hasn't shot down one of these planes? Surely over the years at least one has strayed off course and passed over the Pentagon. Secondly, Griffin has no understanding of surface to air missiles. A missile big enough to destroy an airliner is a big missile - a Patriot would be the best example. A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars, missile launchers and control facilities. How do you hide them in such a crowded metropolitan area as Arlington? I challenge you to show me any evidence of missile sites around the Pentagon. Patriot missiles are also long range missiles - they have a significant minimum range inside of which it can't intercept a target. In order for Patriots to protect the Pentagon, they would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development. If Patriot missiles are remove from the equation, you are left with short range, shoulder launched Stinger missiles that could be fired from the roof of the Pentagon. The problem here is that the Stinger has a 7 pound warhead. This tiny warhead will not stop a 757 heading at you at full speed. There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their bases. Such missiles will protect the Pentagon from a Piper Cub but not from a 757.

[petgoat]

104. they need to prove it

Well that's why I'm here. I'm looking for proof. I want to trust Dr.
Griffin, but I question him on this.

**First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport**

Immunity to accidental firing on friendly commercial craft could be
achieved through analysis of their courses. Obviously the planes will
be on stereotyped courses climbing away from or descending toward the
runways. Exempting such craft from hostile engagement does not
require exempting all craft from hostile engagement.

**A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars,
missile launchers and control facilities**

These needn't all be in the same place. Here's a picture of a stinger
battery mounted on a humvee that the Pentagon will admit to deploying
AFTER 9/11.



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/

If this wasn't worth doing, why are they doing it?

* would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development.*

Suburban is more like it. Sorry, you're just not very convincing.

[philb]

34. Radar shows Flight 77(the original one) could not have hit the Pentagon

http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.htm

There has been other support for this previously posted, and the 9/11 Commission Hearing had a map that even supports this.

[libertypirate]

44. My brother who is in the Army saw that video and had two things to say...

It looked like an explosion from inside the building; something like C4. Also he asked if that was the only video of the pentagon when I said yes he quickly replied to me bull shit.

[MrSammo1]

45. your brother is right!

There where no less 40 video cameras on the Pentagon.

[Zynx]

84. You're either lying or your brother has never seen explosives

C4 = High explosive. Very powerful, burns very, very fast, cannot be watched on conventional film because of how fast it burns. High explosives are commonly used in AT missiles and in roadside bombs in Iraq. Watch videos of some of these. The impulse is very, very short.

Jet fuel = Low explosive. Not as powerful, burns much more slowly, can be watched easily on film. Expanding gas balls are commonly used in Hollywood movies to show all sorts of explosives - because real explosives are not very photogentic.

The explosion at the Pentagon is most certainly an expanding gas ball. If it was a high explosive (either a missile or something inside the building), you wouldn't see anything because the explosive goes off literally between frames. You certainly wouldn't see several seconds worth of expansion.

[MrSammo1]

95. White hot

indicates a high explosive.

Jet fuel doesn't burn white hot!

[vincent_vega_lives]

98. Lot of fuel in that blast but no HE

Note the lack of significant debris. If that was a High explosive blast the damage to the pentagon would have been much greater.
Film overexposure can show any bright light as "white hot". Notice the debris, and how quickly the explosion expands. This was a high speed camera. The camera at the Pentagon was very slow.

[philb]

61. Conclusion of Good Comprehensive Analysis concludes Explosions & ...

Flight 77 Pentagon Boeing 757 (Evidence of Explosives in Pentagon Attack)
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/index.html

Cover-up http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/missing.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

Implications of the Part of the Pentagon Struck on September 11th http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/location.html

Pentagon Videos Obvious Fakes to Cause Confusion, but fire color(white & red) not consistent with gasoline fire http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

Pentagon Photos http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html

Pentagon Conclusions:
• An aircraft similar to or being a Boeing 757 approached the Pentagon and exploded at or in front of it.
• Several witnesses described a 737 as the plane hitting the Pentagon
• If the aircraft was a 757, portions of it were destroyed before impact.
• The attack involved an explosive detonation not explainable by jet fuel combustion.

[philb]

64. As many witnesses named 737 as 757 at Pentagon; dimensions of 737; how do

these dimensions match the physical evidence?

Boeing 737
Wing Span 112 feet 7 inches
Length 138 feet 2 inches
Tail Height 41 feet 2 inches
interior cabin 11 feet 7 inches

Is there any significant difference in 737 vs 757?

Given that FAA radar apparently shows Flight 77 plane could not have hit the Pentagon, the question becomes what did hit the Pentagon?


And why the Flight Recorder information for Fl 77 hasn't been made public?
What possible national security issue could warrent keeping the information secret?
And who all would have been able to see it?

[hack89]

65. Could you please share some of the witness statements? n/t

[philb]

66. Here are a few; my info was from Eric Bart

Dobbs, Mike Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. "It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running. They evacuated everybody around us." http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_dcscene.shtml

Morin, Terry Terry Morin, a former USMC aviator, Program Manager for SPARTA, Inc was working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex. Having just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) # 2. He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling" One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn't be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110).
Jim Sutherland, a mortgage broker, was driving near the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. when he saw a 737 airplane 50 feet over Interstate 395 heading in a straight line into the side of the Pentagon. The fireball explosion that followed rocked his car. Drivers began pulling over to the side - some taking pictures - not quite believing what they were seeing.
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_dcscene.shtml

[philb]

68. According to 9/11 Comm. Report, the autopilot was flying Fl 77 until 9:29

At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon. 59 * 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1.1


So who was piloting the plane and who turned on the autopilot and if the hijackers how did they know how to set it to end up at the Pentagon? What else does the Comm. know about the flight, which supposedly was only known to authorities 2 minutes before the crash.

How did the 9/11 Comm. know the autopilot had been on and was turned off at 9:29?

Was the flight taken over by another form of Remote control at the 9:29 point to continue the flight? By the C130 perhaps which followed the plane to the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[philb]

70. Indestructible Pentagon lamp poles survived Boeing crash?

Indestructible Pentagon lamp poles survived Boeing crash?

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate45.htm


from German Engineers site

[pointless]

73. that site

is complete and total BS. The guys are not engineers and some of the things they claim are so outrageous it's not even funny. I really wish people wouldn't use that site as a reference. If you believe in a conspiracy at least back it up with valid information and avoid sites like that one that just spread false information.

[philb]

74. What evidence do you have that the authors aren't Engineers

I've seen the site. I'm an Engineer, and I find a lot of info there
and evidence some of the authors do have a background in Engineering.
I would have preferred they list their names, credentials,etc. but its possible they want to remain anonamous. I emailed them asking about some info about themselves. but whats important is the evidence, not who the authors of the site are.

I might note that their information about the explosions responsible for the damage at the Pentagon is consistent with the evidence and is supported by the majority of evidence that I seen and other credible sites and references.
Pentagon workers in the area of the explosions said the explosions were by military cordite explosives, which they were familiar with. And the color of the flames was consistent with explosives, not with kerosene fires.
(Evidence of Explosives in Pentagon Attack)
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/index.html
Cover-up http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/missing.html

The Pentagon workers said the explosions were cordite. How do you explain that?? They said they were familiar with such. Do you think they are wrong? If not, what really caused the damage at the Pentagon. I think the evidence supports that the German Engineers statement about the collapse is correct. Do you disagree?

Are you saying the the picture involved here about the poles is a fake? That the German Engineers site has fake information and pictures on it?

Your post isn't useful or responsive. I posted a picture of poles at the Pentagon that appear to be in the flight path of the plane that would have hit the Pentagon.
Are you saying that the picture is a fake or that the picture is not a problem?

[pointless]

75. yes

I do not believe they are engineers because of the complete and total lack of information regarding their background or schooling in the field. Plus they don't understand physics and engineering concepts.

Pentagon workers know it was a cordite explosion? That's reaching considering all of them were inside the building and those close enough to see the flames of the explosion wouldn't be saying, hmmm, that looked like a cordite explosion. They'd be running their arses off.

An airplane hit the pentagon, no missiles, no bombs, no explosives.

The pictures are not fake but the claims they make about them are so out there you gotta be living on pluto to believe them. The pole pictures are taken from an angle not consistant with the flight path of the plane. You can MSpaint in a plane anywhere you want. The photos chosen to use for this also show a strange distance perspective between the poles and the building. It was perfect to use in the way they did on that site. To spread false information.

My post was useful. Me and many others find that site to be a complete joke. More than any other conspiracy site I've ever seen. I do not care for the use of it's information as fact because it is not fact and the author of it claims to be an engineer but doesn't even bother to provide any kind of credentials.

[philb]

103. The Pentagon workers said they smelled cordite; and were familiar with it

http://www.flcv.com/pentexpl.html

[philb]

71. Was the Pentagon collapse caused by cutting charges??

Was the Pentagon collapse caused by cutting charges??

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate46.htm

from German Engineers 9/11 site

[philb]

76. Cordite explosives caused damage at Pentagon & Fl 77 didn't hit it

And there has been a huge cover-up.
Here is the documentation I base this on.
www.flcv.com/pentagon.html

Anyone disagree? Why?

[hack89]

77. I suggest you research cordite first...

Cordite is flashless - it is a propellant used in firearms and is not a high explosive. It could not have caused the explosion seen at the Pentagon.

http://www.ordnance.org/corditen.htm


Do you ever question anything you read or will you parrot without critical thought anything that agrees with your theories?

[philb]

78. Pentagon workers are quoted by the Media saying they were

aware of cordite explosives. Are these used for cutting as the site I posted suggested happened to cause the collapse?

I posted the URLs for the witnesses who said they were familiar with cordite and that is what they smelled.

What are you suggesting as the explanation. I'm just quoting the Pentagon witnesses. Who were the closest to the action of anyone I know.


But thanks for the info. Here is what I find:

Cordite is a smokeless propellent explosive made by combining two high explosives: nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. It is commonly used in firearms since the early 20th Century. It has also been used in solid fuel rockets.


What else is cordite typically used for? Is it used in any common missiles?

what type of rockets is it used for? Why would the Pentagon people have smelled cordite?

[hack89]

79. Cordite is a smokeless gunpowder -

Used in everything from rifles up to artillery. It is slow burning and flashless (a useful property when shooting at night). While it is explosive if burned in a sealed container, it is not a high explosive like C4 or RDX and does not generate the high pressure shock wave needed to shear steel or shatter concrete.

[philb]

80. cordite/ missiles/ witnesses/ bombs/ 2 plane theory at Pentagon

I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast – it sounded nothing like an airplane.” Don Parkal said, “A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.” Tom Seibert said, “We heard what sounded like a missile.”
• It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War - a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit"Phillip Thompson
• "For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off"Terry Morin
• "A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere"Don Perkal
• "Most people knew it was a bomb"John Bowman
• "It smelled like cordite, or gun smoke"Gilah Goldsmith
• "I knew it was a bomb or something"Mike Slater
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html
Dick Eastman makes the case for a 757 overflight and a killer jet with a missile, noting 2 separate flight paths and planes based on witness testimony:

We see a white-hot explosion rising 200 feet in the air. This blast of released energy is the chemical explosion of a missile warhead. Only high-explosives can make this kind of blinding flash. (And yes, some Pentagon witnesses heard a missile, others smelled cordite, rather than burning flesh, after the explosion.) This blast is consistent with an ATG missile, not with aluminum, plastic and flesh etc. hitting concrete, wood, glass and walling
http://bedoper.com/eastman/rumsfeld.htm

Sea Slug was a Royal Navy surface-to-air missile system built by Hawker Siddeley, which came into service in the 1950s and was still in use at the time of the Falklands War. The missile had four boosters which separated after launch, the main cordite motor then powered it to its target.

[philb]

81. Eastman 757 overflight and strange stuff at airports involved with Fl 77

The first reports on Washington D.C. radio spoke of a crash of an airliner on the 14th street bridge. And the first call for fire trucks was to a crash on the northern end of Reagan National Airport. This indicates that an airliner was seen east of the Pentagon, over the 14th street bridge and over Reagan National. But all the Boeing would have to do after it overflew the Pentagon hidden from most witnesses who saw its approach by first the flash and then the rising mass rising smoke and flame was to put down its wheels, bank to the right (while over the 14th street bridge, and then land at Reagan National which has a runway that ends only one mile southeast of the crash point -- in three seconds the Boeing would be closer to the airport than to the Pentagon, it could blend into Reagan traffic (and of course Reagan Airport, one mile from the Pentagon would be full of DoD and CIA operatives under Rumsfeld and Tenet etc. anyway) where the plane could land and taxi to a hanger and be broken down for parts, or given new numbers and a paint job while the airport was shut down and evidence cleaned up -- Reagan National was the last airport to open, yet it already had the most security of any non-military airport in the US. But most interesting is that, according to multiple mainstream media, 97 foreigners were holding ILLEGAL top secret clearances at both Dulles (where Flight 77 took off) and Reagan National (where it most likely landed) -- and these persons were all deported to their home countries (UK?, Israel? -- never disclosed -- certainly not to Guantanamo, Cuba) with no charges brought against them, by order of John Ashcroft.
http://bedoper.com/eastman/rumsfeld.htm

[MercutioATC]

97. Akkk! An Eastman reference!

Eastman is, to be kind, less than knowledgeable (or truthful) on many subjects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=16587#16638

[Zynx]

85. That guy can say whatever he wants - physics and chemistry don't lie

And the comment about their being a blinding white flash like a normal missile is rediculious. There is video of the Pentagon hit - and it's an expanding gas ball.

I hate conspiracy theories that completely ignore science.

[philb]

88. Seems you haven't done your science homework lately

what caused the silvery flash and brilliant ball of fire outside the building, http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv4.html

and the huge shock wave?

The blast
A forceful gust of wind :
• "It shot me back in my chair. There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of it" Marc Abshire
• "Sheraton Hotel , the whole hotel shook, I could feel it moving" Deb & Jeff Anlauf
• "The blast lifted Beans off the floor" Michael Beans
• "Garofola's desk literally rose straight up several inches then slammed down" Peter M. Murphy
• "The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit" Donald R. Bouchoux
• "The shock wave threw me against the wall" Lisa Burgess
• "The employee "was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air" Wayne T. Day
• "A strange sucking, whirring sound, like a loud vacuum cleaner" Dan Fraunfelter
• "It blew me 10 feet" Peggy Mencl
• "heard a whoosh and a whistle and she wondered where all this air was coming from" Sheila Moody
• "less than one mile from the Pentagon ... I heard a tremendously loud crash and books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor" Plaisted
• "One mile away from the Pentagon ... The house shook, the windows were vibrating" Rob Schickler
• "It threw him backward over 100 feet" Noel Sepulveda
• "felt a giant gush of air" William Sinclair

These are consistent only with high explosives

[philb]

89. The visible explosion was not due to kerosene explosion

Inside the fireball, the blast is viewed as huge wind of fire coming in and out quickly and setting fire around :
• "I saw flames coming over the walls, and then retreat back. And immediately the room was filled with smoke and the like" John Thurman

• "Then a blast of fire that left as fast as it came. She looked down and saw her hands aflame" Sheila Moody

• "He saw flame and felt engulfed ... The only light came from a series of small fires burning around the room" Robert Snyder
what explains these incidents?

The huge visible explosion was clearly outside the building. So what caused the very short lived brilliant explosion? I think its pretty clearly high explosives. Where is the kerosene considered to have exploded? Outside or inside the building? If inside, then the outside explosion couldn't have been related since there were concrete floors to restrain it. If outside, what caused the section of Pentagon to collapse. It doesn't appear to have been due to fire based on the photos.

And remember that the Pentagon employees smelled and experienced explosives and said they were familiar with such.

[vincent_vega_lives]

99. Ah no

They are consistant with explosions. An explosion is rapidly expanding gas that displaces air.

Where are the giant chunks of Pentagon tossed into the air? If that was a High Explosive Warhead the damage would have been much greater. The size of the fireball and lack of apparrent damage says fuel explosion.

[philb]

100. Eric Bart suggests the explosives were shaped charges; and

are you suggesting that a kerasene explosion would produce the brilliant white blast and shock wave documented at the Pentagon.

How do you explain the failure of airplane parts to break out windows
and witness testimony of pentagon survivors that there were bombs and explosions and smell of explosives?


Eric Bart(engineer & pilot) looked at all the witness info and concluded the Pentagon was hit by a big plane loaded with shaped charges which exploded just before the plane hit the wall- producing the white blast and red fireball outside the Pentagon, and destroying the wing and tail sections which thus caused little damage. http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv4.html

[vincent_vega_lives]

101. "Shaped Charges"

Shaped charges are small, designed to blast through metal, and don't make a hole much wider than their own diameter as most of the force of the explosion is directed.

"are you suggesting that a kerasene explosion would produce the brilliant white blast and shock wave documented at the Pentagon."

Yes. "Brilliant" is a relative term.

"How do you explain the failure of airplane parts to break out windows and witness testimony of pentagon survivors that there were bombs and explosions and smell of explosives?"

How do you explain the failure of explosives to break out windows. The fact that the damage to the facade was limited to the shape of the aircraft is telling. How do you explain eyewitness testimony of an airliner hitting the Pentagon?

"Eric Bart(engineer & pilot) looked at all the witness info and concluded the Pentagon was hit by a big plane loaded with shaped charges which exploded just before the plane hit the wall- producing the white blast and red fireball outside the Pentagon, and destroying the wing and tail sections which thus caused little damage."

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. "loaded" with shaped charges? Shaped charges rely on focusing their blast in a pencil thin jet.

"Pierre-Henri Bunel thinks that the Pentagon attack was made with an anti-bunker missile. An anti-bunker missile contains both a shapped charge and a bomb. It first used the shaped-charge to pierce the wall and then dropped a bomb inside the bunker."

No "anti-bunker misile" contains both a "shapped" charge and a bomb. Large Bunker buster bombs use kinetic energy to penetrate concrete and then detonate their non "shapped" charge warhead. Only anti-tank missiles contain multi-shaped charge warheads. Mounted in tandem, they are designed to defeat reactive armor, and still are only 6" in diameter.

[philb]

102. What you say about shaped charges agrees with what Eric Bart said

Eric was looking at the evidence of damage as per the official ASCE report and considering what could have caused the damage.

Desmoulins and Bart and Bunel are all engineers or weapons experts and have general agreement about what the evidence shows. Have you looked at Desmoulins site or Barts and find something specific to disagree with.

Where did you get that I disputed that a plane hit the Pentagon? I haven't said that. Desmoulins and Bart agree that a big plane hit the Pentagon, but provide evidence that there was a bomb or bombs involved and DU that contaminated some areas of the Pentagon with radiation. That is, there was a conspiracy and cover-up.

Desmoulins also agrees with the commercial and military pilots at the pilots symposium on 9/11 and other pilots on record that all conclude that the plane was flown by remote control.
Perhaps by the C130 Electronics Warfare plane that followed the plane in at the Pentagon and flew through the smoke.

[reprehensor]

82. DU at the Pentagon crash site?

Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective

MORET: I’ll tell you what I did when 9/11 happened.

I called all the doctors with Radiation And Public Health Project, and I said, “Get out of town, and don’t come back until it has rained three times.” One lived 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon. She went out on her balcony with her geiger counter. I said, “Get that geiger counter out of your purse.” We had just done a press conference in San Francisco, and I knew she had it in her purse. Well, the radiation levels were 8-10 times higher than background.

We called the EPA, HAZMAT, FBI, and said, “Get all those emergency response workers suited up. They need to be protected.” Two days after 9/11, the EPA radiation expert for that region called back and said, “Yup, the Pentagon crash rubble was radioactive, and we believe it’s depleted uranium, but we’re not worried about that. It’s only harmful if it’s inhaled.”

He said, “We’re worried about the lead solder in the plane.” Well, you know what’s in Tomahawk missiles? They have depleted uranium warheads. The radioactive crash rubble contaminated with DU is evidence of a DU warhead.

[philb]

83. Is there support that the EPA guy really said that?

The remark about DU being dangerous only if inhaled is ludicrous.
I have a hard time thinking a real EPA guy said that.
How to check?

Though I've seen other dumb things said by officials.
************
There are a lot of witness statements and evidence consistent with explosions, smell of cordite, blast with huge shockwave and silvery flash consistent with high explosives, not kerosine fire or explosives

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/explosive.html#detonation
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/explosive.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/explosion.html
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackWitnessesBlast

and also a lot of witness statements consistent with Eastman's 2 plane theory. But more work is needed to sort out the huge volume of information, statements, etc.

But it would also help if officials would release some of the suppressed evidence such as the videos, plane part info, radiation readings(surely they made some tests)etc.

[philb]

87. What caused the major fires on the 2 top floors far north of the impact ?

What caused the major fires on the 2 top floors far north of the impact area?

Its my understanding that this is where most of the Naval Intelligence workers were killed and the Auditors that found the $2 trillion missing in recent years from Pentagon budget. Is that correct?

[reprehensor]

94. A small commuter plane, obviously.

Video: Eyewitness (Don Wright) says that he saw a small commuter plane hit the Pentagon:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon3/911.pentagon.eyewitness.don.wright.wmv

[philb]

96. But there are also reports it was a 737 and reports o 757 and reports of a

missile and reports of no plane(CNN Reporter). So you have to deal with all of the reports and decide which ones were confused and which ones were plants and etc.

Eastman looked at all of the witness reports and developed the 2 plane theory to match the 2 types of reports: big plane(he assumes overflight) and small plane with missile
http://bedoper.com/eastman/index.html

Eric Bart(engineer & pilot) looked at all the witness info and concluded the Pentagon was hit by a big plane loaded with shaped charges which exploded just before the plane hit the wall- producing the white blast and red fireball outside the Pentagon, and destroying the wing and tail sections which thus caused little damage. http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv4.html

Desmoulins(engineer, professor, pilot) looked at the evidence and concluded that a big plane hit the Pentagon controlled by remote control. Perhaps controlled by the C130-H electronics warfare plane that followed the plane in and flew through the smoke after the Pentagon was hit. All of the pilots at the 9/11 Pilots Symposium aggreed with Desmoulins that the planes were piloted by remote control- along with another pilot/aeronautical engineer interviewed by Alex Jones.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/cen-scnpl.html



But its not clear how any of these could have caused the fires in the area that my question is about? since that area wasn't hit by the plane and is separated from the area hit by concrete floors and walls. So what could have caused the fires and deaths in that area?