Mr. Rumsfeld and his timeline

[medienanalyse]

Rumsfeld testified: "The day of September 11th, the morning, I was hosting a meeting for some members of Congress. And I remember stressing how important it was for our country to be prepared for the unexpected. Shortly thereafter, someone handed me a note saying a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers. Shortly thereafter, I was in my office with a CIA briefer and I was told that a second plane had hit the other tower. Shortly thereafter, at 9:38, the Pentagon shook with an explosion of then unknown origin. I went outside to determine what had happened. I was not there long because I was back in the Pentagon with a crisis action team shortly before or after 10:00 a.m. On my return from the crash site and before going to the executive support center, I had one or more calls in my office, one of which was with the president. I went to the National Military Command Center where General Myers, who was the vice chairman of the chiefs at that time, had just returned from Capitol Hill." (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CND-PTEX.html?pagewanted=66)
In fact he was sitting on his hands, see here (it is in English):
http://medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

[paulthompson]

1. Here's something I posted in the General forum

Personally I believe Clarke, that Rumsfeld was in communication even before the Pentagon crash, and that he lied about it, making up this helping the wounded story.

MA, have you found anything in the recent hearings about what the other guys below said they were doing? I haven't read their accounts yet.


Hi,
I've just started reading the Clarke book, and already I'm finding some remarkable things in the first chapter.

Basically, we're finding out that what many of the key officials say they were doing on 9/11 is a lie.

Dick Cheney:

In the Clarke book on page 2, he is about to be evacuated from his office to the White House basement as Clarke finishes talking to him. The timing isn't exact, but it appears to be about 9:05 to 9:10. Yet Cheney himself says he was evacuated after 9:30. Here's my timeline entry. Note that even Cheney's official photographer disputes his account:

(After 9:03 a.m.) Secret Service agents burst into Vice President Cheney's White House office. They carry him under his arms - nearly lifting him off the ground - and propel him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. ("Just after 9:00," ABC, 9/14/02 (B), around 9:06 when Bush is being told of the second WTC hit, New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), same time Bush is being told, Telegraph, 12/16/01, shortly after Bush's speech at 9:30, CBS, 9/11/02, 9:32, Washington Post, 1/27/02) At about the same time, National Security Adviser Rice is told to go to the bunker as well. (ABC News, 9/11/02) Accounts of when this happens vary widely, from around 9:03 to 9:32. But since ABC News claims Cheney is in the bunker when he is told Flight 77 is 50 miles away from Washington, accounts of this taking place after 9:27 appear to be incorrect (see (9:27 a.m.)). The one eyewitness account, David Bohrer, a White House photographer, says it takes place just after 9:00. (ABC, 9/14/02 (B)) Why doesn't this happen to Bush at the same time? Are reports of this happening to Cheney later spin meant to make Bush remaining in public seem less strange?

Richard Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff:

In the Clarke book, page 5, Myers is talking to Clarke and others at 9:28 for sure, and possibly earlier. Yet according to his own testimony in front of congress two days after 9/11, he says he didn't even know there was an emergency until after the Pentagon crash at about 9:38.

(After 8:48 a.m.) Air Force General Richard Myers, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sees the first WTC crash on television. Myers will be acting Chairman of the US military during the 9/11 crisis because Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Henry Shelton is flying in a plane across the Atlantic. He sees the TV in an outer office of Senator Max Cleland, but he says, "They thought it was a small plane or something like that," so he goes ahead and meets with Cleland. He says "nobody informed us" about the second WTC crash, and remains oblivious that there is an emergency, only leaving the meeting with Cleland right as the Pentagon explosion takes place at 9:38. (AFPS, 10/23/01, ABC News, 9/11/02) Yet, in testimony on September 13, 2001, he states, "after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft." (Myers Confirmation Testimony, 9/13/01) NORAD claims the first fighters are scrambled even before the first WTC hit. (NORAD, 9/18/01) Which of Myers' statements is the lie, or are both of them lies?

Note Myers even contradicted himself in that testimony. I assume Myers was under oath for his confirmation hearing. Can he be convicted of perjury for his lie then?

Donald Rumsfeld:

Minutes after the Pentagon is hit, and someone tells Clarke, "A plane just hit the Pentagon," Clarke replies, "I can still see Rumsfeld on the screen, so the whole building didn't get hit." A short time later, Rumsfeld says that smoke is getting into the Pentagon secure teleconferencing studio. Pages 7 and 8.

Yet Rumsfeld has always maintained that he went outside and helped load wounded into ambulances for the next hour! Timeline entry:

(9:38 a.m.) Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is in the Pentagon meeting with Representative Cox (R), and is apparently completely oblivious of the approaching Flight 77. As he watches TV coverage of the WTC, he says, "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us." Supposedly, "moments later, the plane hit." (Telegraph, 12/16/01) Rumsfeld is apparently psychic, because two minutes before the first WTC crash and supposedly completely ignorant of the hijackings, he predicted a terrorist attack upon the US (see 8:44 a.m.). Rumsfeld's office is on the fourth floor of the Pentagon, relatively near the impact. He later says that just after the explosion, "I went downstairs and went outside. And around the corner and of course, there it was." He claims he immediately began helping the wounded: "There was a, a young woman bleeding, sitting on the ground, and I think she said to me, she didn't know who I was, she said, she could see people holding, drips going into people, IV of some kind, and she said, something to the effect, if people would, if someone could bring that person over, I could hold it." (ABC News, 9/11/02) He helps load the wounded into ambulances until 10:30 (see 10:30 a.m.). (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/12/01)


From Clarke's wording, it seems likely Rumsfeld was already teleconferencing BEFORE the Pentagon was hit.

George Bush Jr.:

This isn't from the Clarke book, but from a Wall Street Journal article from the day before yesterday. Here's a quote:

The arrival of the presidential motorcade was marked by a cacophony of cellphones: staffers at the White House calling colleagues on the trip with news of the first plane crash into the World Trade Center. Within seconds, aides had informed the president. At the Dec. 4, 2001, town-hall meeting in Orlando, Mr. Bush said, "I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself, and I said, 'Well, there's one terrible pilot.' " Several weeks later, he said essentially the same thing at another public event in Ontario, Calif. Actually, no scenes of the first plane hitting the Trade Center were broadcast on television until late that night, when amateur video footage became available. The TV in the room where Mr. Bush waited wasn't even plugged in, according Ms. Rigell, the principal. "It's just a mistaken recollection" on the president's part, his spokesman, Mr. Bartlett, said in an interview. "There were lots of things going on fast at the time."


As we pointed out in the Interesting Day essay, there are no less than seven conflicting accounts of when Bush learned 9/11 was an emergency:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday...

In conclusion, we have four major players lying or being "mistaken" about what they were doing in key moments during the 9/11 attack. In every case, they claim they were more clueless or out of the loop than they really were.

I think this should be a major issue. Their official accounts always appeared absurd to me. For instance, Rumsfeld claiming to help the wounded but no actual photos of this ever appearing. Now with Clarke, these lies are exposed. I hope someone can forward this to the media, because I think this really needs to be reported on.

Here's the link to my Day of 9/11 timeline page where I take the above timeline entries from:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/dayof911.html

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Dang, Paul, this needs to be out there...

I'm posting a link at the blog. Do you have a link to this exact info (comparing Clarke's book to previous information concerning whereabouts) at the Complete 9/11 Timeline?

[paulthompson]

3. Yeah,

That's what I'm thinking too, that this should be noticed and get into the mainsteam media as some kind of article like "Clarke book reveals contradictions."

I don't have a blog or anything, though this will make it into the timeline by and by. I've sent this on to some people who are in good touch with journalists.

[medienanalyse]

16. Important correction of Paul Thompsons timeline

Quote: "Rumsfeld's office is on the fourth floor of the Pentagon, relatively near the impact. He later says that just after the explosion, "I went downstairs and went outside. And around the corner and of course, there it was ..."

Rumsfelds office is in the 4th floor (as the situation room is), Wolfowitz sits in the 3rd floor.But where in the Pentagon? Close to the main entrance. That is at the river with a wonderfull view over Arlington. The impact side is situated DIRECTLY opposite at the heli airport.

This is important because if I were a terrorists I would try to have a good view, a clear way (so across the river) and smash my machine because of that into that part of the building. If I would learn additionally that I could point into the offices of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz I would call out: Bingo!

But I am not a terrorist. And so I just wonder why they took a 270 degree turn with all the obstacles for flying low and then smash just in that part of the building with fireproof kevlar walls, with steel beams and blast-resistant windows. Why? Especially since the PENREN-Program to reinforce the Pentagon was under way since 1992 and not a secret. Only that wedge was renovated. Only the one directly opposite to the offices of Rumsfeld and the other hotties.

What a coincidence. Rumsfeld sits on his hands, hinders local commanders to scramble jets themselves, the Pentagon is well prepared to the blast by the exercises and everything happens with as little damage as possible.

[Abe Linkman]

17. Reminder of the 9-11 "DISinfo Line"

The Official Story Conspiracy Apologists say (or used to say): "9-11 happened because of negligence and incompetence".

[k-robjoe]

19. also

Also, coming in from this side, it would be facing the east, in other words, have the sun smack in your face (eyes).

Now, that wouldn´t matter if the plane approaching was not actually steered by man, but programmed in advance, where to go. And where to go was exactly to NOT hit Rumsfeld and the top brass, but the wing with no top brass in it, and with only few people in it.

( Could maybe also explain why it didn´t go just a little bit higher, to avoid those lampposts, as well...)

Also worth having a look at, is pilot Ralph Omholts judgement on this:

"I've flown the 757 into such "tight" airports as Orange County. It's a major effort to get a touchdown within 300 feet of the desired point - at 130 Knots; not 300-plus Knots! If everything dear to me was on the line, I couldn't put a 757 into the purported spot at the Pentagon - without dragging the engines through the dirt. I would expect the nose to hit first, as the lift at that speed - in 'ground-effect' - would be incredible, requiring a drastically lowered nose."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Red_Jihad/message/27

[k-robjoe]

21. possible connection

Why did the plane go so low, and hit so low?

A possible answer :

"As pointed out by Carol Valentine and Dick Eastman, the first floor of the western wedge of the Pentagon was occupied in part by the office of the "Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot", who had moved into their new offices (early) (...) Valentine noted that this Naval Intelligence office was responsible for breaking open the Jonathon Pollard affair, and Eastman speculated that had they survived, they might have had the responsibility to mount an independent investigation of all the events of 9-11 and its associated "intelligence failures".(...) Is it possible that some of the individuals who had just occupied these newly remodeled offices, (...) were specifically targeted by the perpetrators?" http://www.911-strike.com/siding-scam.htm


It would explain the otherwise very puzzling low and risky approach and low hit :

" A dive from above would not have worked as the concrete floors of the five story building would have limited dammage to people on the first floor -- the fireball going up from the upper floors and not down."

[medienanalyse]

22. damn. would you all once, only once be so kind to invest

about one percent of your valuable time of investigation and try to be aware that the PENREN programm meant not just simple painting of the wedge but

- steel beams
- kevlar on the walls
- blast resistant windows?

If you want the Pentagon being hit without damaging too much you hit exactly there. as low as possible.

If you want to do greater damage or to make it uncalculable you hit somewhere in the upper parts with the chance to spread damage all over all rings.

Why do you all just not accept that it was exactly the AA77 which did exactly what it should do? Why do you all not just take the facts to evaluate them?
Instead of that you take the waht-ifs to speculate about them?

I do not het it into my mind since two and a half year I see the conspiracies working in the minds like drugs. Yes like drugs.

Addicted to images and colours and pixels - instead of thinking.

[Abe Linkman]

23. There's just one little tiny problem with your unbecoming lecture.

There's no evidence to support your claim that FL 77 crashed ANYWHERE on 9-11, much less at the Pentagon. Hasn't anyone pointed that out to you before?

[medienanalyse]

24. the tiny little problem exist only in some heads

of those who are unwilling to accept that the body remains of the passengers of AA77 were recovered and identified in the Pentagon, that parts of the AA77 were seen in the rubble of the Pentagon, that there are witnesses of the flight, the plane, the fuel, the parts. That there is evidence enough constantly ignored by those who prefer to stick in "myteries" instead of doing a solid investigation.

[Abe Linkman]

25. Since you imply that you've done a "solid" investigation: wherdy MUSH?

What evidence have you found which proves WHERE body remains of FL 77 passengers were recovered from? Your side has promoted the following:

1.) Remains were vaporized.

2.) Remains were INside the Pentagon.

3.) Remains were OUTside the Pentagon.

4.) SOME remains were inside and others were outside.


Was there, in the immortal phrase of DD -- "Mush" as the result of the plane allegedly crashing:

1. Into the building, but exploding outside the building.

2. Into the building and burning up inside.

3. Crashed onto the lawn, then into the building.

4. A little of this and a little of that.


Which theory are you promoting?

[medienanalyse]

26. What do you mean by "my side"?

You should be aware that I am not at all supporting the Bushism and the bushist lies.
Concerning body remains: 1) is humbug, not my claim, contradicts evidence, logic and so on.
2), 3) and 4) are not contradictory, as the AA77 slammed through three rings which means it passed two areas inside the Pentagon area - but outside a building. I wonder why I must tell you simple logic.

The next four points are humbug too:
I do not know who official ever said that there was a crash before the building on the lawn. This bulls... was introduced by some conspiracy theorists. But the official explanation for the gravel on the lawn was clear, unmistakable and sufficient.

This inside-outside- humbug is queer. Who can ever expect that an explosion inside of a building which was damaged at the wall has no consequences in the outside?

And finally: why do you never answer to my points? Why do conspiracy theorists only want the others to discuss their "findings", pixels and so on but do not stick to the facts which are evident? As i.e. the timeline of Mr. Rumsfeld, the PENREN changes to the wedge which was hit? Never heard anything of the conspiracists about the ability of steel beams shreddering a aluminium foil. Never heard about the effect of colour and aluminium foil if participating in an explosion.

Better for conspiracy nuts to theorize about the brightness of the explosive colour as a result of TNT or whatever.

Sometimes the holes are too narrow, sometimes too wide.

To take the WTC down they need a missile in advance, then a plane which is not the official plane, and then additionally another demolition: three attacks onto the WTC in one.

Instead of taking the one which is clear and investigate that.

Idiots. Nuts. And part of the red herring game, willingly or unwillingly.

[DulceDecorum]

40. medienanalyse,

you have stated your belief and you have sneered at those of us who have actually gone and done research into the the events of September 11, 2001.
Very well, believe what you will.
But remember, that there is very much photographic evidence
and there are very many people who are telling stories that directly contradict you.

You call yourself medienanalyse,
and we have no problem with that.
But here at the Democratic Underground, we do not stop at analyzing the media's lurid lies.

You speak of Kevlar,
a synthetic material developed by DuPont, with about 5 times the tensile strength of steel by weight.
Kevlar has its limitations, just ask the soldiers who are coming back with head injuries.
Kevlar begins to disintegrate at about 500 degrees and it will not prevent a Boeing jet from going through a building.
Any attentive student of high school science can tell you that F=MA.
We know that several columns within the Pentagon were sheared off.
This proves that the kevlar was not all that effective.
The mylar film on the Penta-windows
was placed there primarily so as to interfere with electronic eavesdropping.
There is more, hence the multitude of Penta-threads on this forum.

If you listen to the stories we are told by the media
and then carefully compare them to actual military photographs
as well as to standard high school chemistry, biology, and physics, then even YOU will find yourself sitting between J. McMichael and DulceDecorum,
wondering how the Muslims managed to suspend the laws of physics and asking wherdy go.

[medienanalyse]

41. dear dulce -congratulations

for the first time you as one of the mystery-fans MENTION the kevlar. This is a real improvement. Although your statement is full of mistakes. I start with the first and the last sentence:

I have NOT statet my BELIEF. Tell me where, otherwise.

And so I am NOT

"wondering how the Muslims managed to suspend the laws of physics"

Because there is no evidence at all of muslims being the perpetrators. Half of my entire research was concerned with that issue: NO MUSLIMS. And you have not even noticed that.

So you did not notice anything about the blast resistant windows. You just state "to interfere with electronic eavesdropping" and find the solution in a mylar film. This only shows that you have not at all investigated not even a little bit in the nearly half a ton weighing special BLASTRESISTANT windows. But some of you "researchers" still are proud to present the finding, that most of the windows were not broken, as EVIDENCE for a smaller object than a Boeing.

And the "Kevlar has its limitations". Great. Did I ever argue with unlimited protection by Kevlar? No. But Kevlar can explain a lot of the "physics" that the conspiracy nuts use as "evidence" for the impact not being caused by the Boeing. But first you must take it in that there WAS Kevlar. You do it now. It is the first time that I see such a mentioning.

"We know that several columns within the Pentagon were sheared off.
This proves that the kevlar was not all that effective."

If you are able to find any link between these two sentences you are a great researcher. I do not get out any sense. And for sure none of these sentences have any connection to what I said or wrote.

The consequences of the now admitted steel beams you still do not seem to be aware of.

And now let us take the "attentive student". Any attentive student could get out that "medienanalyse" is part of the name of a website. Let us take i.e. www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschespuren.html.

There you find the pic of the Boeingwheel which is constantky ignored.

The ignorance and arrogance is - where?

[Abe Linkman]

42. Do you know this gentleman?

"RH"? Similar temperment, similar modesty, similar contempt.

[DulceDecorum]

49. medienanalyse, dahlink

You obviously have not been following the Penta-threads.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=405&mesg_id=405&page=

The fact of the matter is that the windows marketed by the clients of Cote & D'Ambrosio,
who are doing business under the umbrella of the Protecting People First Foundation,
do NOT work as advertised.



Please go to the Protecting People First website
http://www.protectingpeople.org/memberprofiles.shtml
and click on the link that says PHYSICAL SECURITY.

You will find yourself at the Masonry Arts website.
http://www.masonryarts.com/
http://www.americandefensesystems.us/blast.htm
Masonry Arts is the company that was working on the Penta-wall that was damaged, both before and after September 11, 2001.
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2001/09/10/daily15.html?jst=s_rs_hl
More importantly, Masonry Arts has been preparing the Sears Tower to meet its destiny.

Now,
Masonry Arts maintains close ties with American Defense Systems.
American Defense Systems Inc. (and A.J. Piscitelli & Associates, Inc.)
is a MOST FASCINATING COMPANY
who are currently completing projects for
Fox News Studio D
Metropolitan Police Department – Washington, DC

Central Police Headquarters Synchronized Operations Command Center. This unit is a multi-task force crisis center that is jointly owned and operated by the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the DC Metropolitan Police Department. The unit provides a joint task force OPS center that also brings the following brother agencies (Capitol Police, Federal Protective Services, Park Police, FBI Police, USSS Police, DEA, ATF, FEMA, FAA, State Department Police, MTA Police, Fire Dept., DOT, National Guard, Air National Guard, Coast Guard, US Marshals Service, CIA and DOD) together to handle any situation from Inaugural events to crisis management related to 11 September ’01. (This unit was built and made operational in less then 21 days from contract issue). The SOCC is made up of three areas of operations: the Joint Command Control Center, the Command Information Center and the Intel Operations Center. We provided the following security items furnished and installed:

US Marshals Service
NYC Dept. of Corrections
State of NJ
NYPD
and others:
http://www.americandefensesystems.us/progress.htm

And you simply MUST visit their links page!!!
http://www.americandefensesystems.us/links.htm
They have all the latest for the Iraq Occupation forces such as the Iraqi-Ambulance snipers
and our barbecue buddies from Blackwater and other goodies such as this:
FNH USA, Inc.
TACTICAL WEAPONS

Tactical Innovation
You'll notice the guns in this section don't look like anything you've ever seen before. That's because they aren't. They are revolutionary tools for solving modern tactical problems. They are not updates of old designs, but rather weapons systems that were designed from the ground up to address the needs of today's tactical operators
http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_home.htm

LESS LETHAL SYSTEMS
The primary effect of the projectile is trauma, which directly neutralizes the aggressor. In addition, secondary effects from the projectiles can be delivered via a chemical payload depending on mission requirements.
http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/ll_303.htm

And then we have:
Alexander Arms us a specialized company based in the high security area of US Army Radford Arsenal in South West Virginia. Normally associated with military and research, but have just started to release products for commercial applications.
"If you are going to make a hole, make it as big as possible".
<snip>
The only thing wound ballistics experts will agree.... "If you are going to make a hole, make it as big as possible" Biggest caliber (.50)* Biggest case volume* Biggest projectile (400 grains)* Nothing hits like .50 Beowulf™
http://www.impactguns.com/store/alexander_arms.html
Currently, there are plans to ban fifty caliber rifles,
however,
marinescoutsniper.com and others on the americandefensesystem.us links list
are doing what they can to protect your second amendment rights to fire your weapon
into living human flesh
and make a hole that will deeply embarrass the Boeing that allegedly crashed into the Penta-wall.

However,
before you can properly handle a weapon of this caliber, one does require some training.
Kelly McCann (a.k.a. as Jim Grover) founded his company, Crucible Security in 1990, offering national and international security related services in high-risk areas. Crucible offers asset protection including: employees, plant and property. Mr. McCann has literally trained thousands of operators in hard skill areas. Much of the training for the US Government includes concealed weapons courses, combative skill programs, street crime avoidance programs and counter-terrorist driving techniques.
Crucible was recently acquired by Kroll, Inc. and is now the Kroll Protective Services and Training Group at The Crucible. They consult to Fortune 500 companies for anti-abduction training and personal security. Crucible personnel remain operationally involved and providing training as a requisite for employment, ensuring recency and currency in some of the world's most hostile environments.
http://www.realfighting.com/issue6/mccann.html

But I digress.
The fact of the matter is that the Pentagon was allegedly equipped with Penta-windows which withstood the impact of the Boeing and held up the upper floors for about 35 minutes. And the reason behind the strength of the Penta-windows was THE KEVLAR - and other films which were applied to, or between the glass sheets. Of course, THE KEVLAR and other such films (and the hair of Louise Kurtz) withstood the incredible temperatures generated by the burning jet fuel.
Naturally, THE KEVLAR which physically held up the building for 35 minutes was forced at some point to give up doing so. It was only then that the Boeing continued on its journey into the building and sheared off the supporting columns.
Muslims did not use the powers by which they suspend the laws of physics. No flying carpet was seen supporting the upper floors. It was THE KEVLAR that done that deed.

medienanalyse, I had to take a moment to wipe my eyes after visiting your website.
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschespuren.html
where I found this:

Cindy Álvarez (NCIS)
Álvarez said she and her fellow workers sorted through debris from collapsed Pentagon walls and pieces of the hijacked airplane. They found the box cutters used by the hijackers to commandeer the plane, identification papers, money, jewelry, and body parts. "These pieces of bodies, we treated like precious treasure," Álvarez said. "We knew this was somebody's family member. We knew they were waiting for the bodies to be returned so they could bury them properly and begin the healing process." Álvarez said one of the disturbing aspects of her job was recovering the items of children who had been on board the plane. "It was upsetting to find children's shoes, their little suitcases and their stuffed animals," she said. She also recalled participating in the recovery of the body of a friend of hers. "I entered the Pentagon once. The one person we pulled out whose body was intact was a friend of mine. His uniform was perfect. His ribbons, his belt and his shoes were clean. I thought, 'How befitting a hero.' I said a prayer over him, and then they zipped up his body bag." Picking up body parts, and pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon, Álvarez said she would pray, "Help me Jesus. Please don't let me cry yet, because I will never stop, my mask will fog up and I have a lot of work to do here."
http://www.cathstan.org/news/09-05-02/3.shtml

It made me recall a very sad day
when I placed a treasured teddy bear within the dryer set at regular heat.
The fur melted in moments and the dearly beloved stuffed animal became unrecognizable.
It was truly traumatic to behold,
worse still,
trying to think up explanations that would be acceptable to a child.
I can only marvel that Cindy Alvarez was spared the sight
of burned sooty charred clothing and toys.
Pardon me for a moment - I feel another gust of derisive laughter coming on...

Now, I am going to be nice and refrain from asking about embarrassing medical questions about Lt. Kevin Schaeffer who is being presented as living proof that superheated smoke and toxic fumes do not damage lung tissue no matter what the anti-smoking lobby says.
Even so, some of the eyewitless statements are just too much!!

They found the box cutters used by the hijackers to commandeer the plane, identification papers, money, jewelry, and body parts!!!!

An AFCD EMS worker
Looking down at my feet was a body part. Parts of bodies, plane debris, and luggage littered the ground. Twisted, melted pieces of plane were evidence of the extreme heat and force that had been thrust into the building.
http://www.merwolf.com/remember/PE3_Pent.html
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschespuren.html

The discovery by a German metallurgist in 1911, that aluminium alloyed with copper could be made stronger than mild steel paved the way for aluminium framed and skinned aircraft. The use of these Duralumin alloys as they became known, enabled some of the aerodynamic forces to be carried by the stressed skin of the wings and fuselage. This resulted in very efficient airframes. Most of the aircraft in World War II were aluminium alloy stressed skin designs. Remarkably, the early aluminium alloys developed in the 1930s and 1940s are still used extensively today.
http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/Elements/issue2/robinson.html

Alloy 2024 is perhaps the best known and most widely used aircraft alloy.

Commonly used in the manufacture of truck wheels, aircraft structures, and screw machine products, scientific instruments, veterinary and orthopedic braces and equipment, and in rivets.
Melting Point (Deg F) 950
http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/2024.asp

Have another quick look:
Twisted, melted pieces of plane were evidence of the extreme heat and force that had been thrust into the building.
http://www.merwolf.com/remember/PE3_Pent.html

And then get a load of this quote from the same webpage:
The one person we pulled out whose body was intact was a friend of mine. His uniform was perfect. His ribbons, his belt and his shoes were clean. I thought, 'How befitting a hero.'
http://www.cathstan.org/news/09-05-02/3.shtml

What a load of BS!!!
It is too much for my aching ass!!

[medienanalyse]

52. what are you telling us by all that?

That the Titanic was unsinkable because it was designed to be?

Blast resistant windows do not withstand any blast. They were designed to withstand bullets and small missiles up to those used by terrorists. So it was a normal PENREN program without any miracle, suspicious circumstances and so on.

Your photo says nothing. We do not know if it shows one of the blast-resistant windows (only one wedge was equipped with them) and if: we do not know how far away from the impact point it was made.

I never claimed the Titanic is unsinkable. You insinuate that I did by uttering this:
"The fact of the matter is that the Pentagon was allegedly equipped with Penta-windows which withstood the impact of the Boeing ..."

It shows a unfair way of arguing.

I only told you all that there were these windows and that the fact was NOT taken into account when people argued: it was not a Boeing because you can see windows which were not broken.

There were broken ones and there were not broken ones. Steel beams stood and steel beams were chopped away. Kevlar held things together but not all. And the Titanic sank.

What do you expect BTW when the Pentagon deals with a contractor? A company led by the Chinese or Libyan son in law of the presidents of these countries? It might have been fun if you had found out that it was the bin Laden building company which did the PENREN. But the rest is nice to know but solves nothing.

In fact you seem to have a lot of time and to be not lazy (hope the admin does not take these words as being "talking about the messenger" - I want to lead to a discussion of qualifying the own arguments and I am not interested in offending Dulce). If you would öay back and think about how to resolve problems generally, what makes the sense of analysis, what is important and what not you might be a lot more successfull.

In a swamp of light arguments it is better to concentrated on the fixed places than on a sheer neverending mass of light debris of thinking.

What I say is: if you take the PENREN improvement into account alll the arguments against AAL77 get invalid. If you add the light construction of a plane, the miracle that the plane hit THAT wedge and not the easy to find one where Rumsfeld had his tea with Cox then it makes a nice thought. But you, Dilce, do not talk about the headline of this thread - which is the timeline.

You introduce again your physical questions here to keep us busy with them - or what for?

[DulceDecorum]

55. Re: Rumsfeld's titanic timeline

Rumsfeld is lying.
So what else is new,
apart from my unfair way of arguing?

[medienanalyse]

56. What is new is -

that one might get the impression, taking into account

- that Rumsfeld was WAITING for the impact and
- that the impact was into a girder of steel beams, anet of Kevlar and not at all in his office but just on the opposite wedge
- that he was responsiblöe for the stand down of the airdefense

that this head of defense KNEW what was coming, and that he KNEW exactly what was coming and that he KNEW exactly which wedge would be hit.

If this impression would be part of the knowledge of the American people, it might be slightly more important than WHAT exactly hit the Pentagon and what colours an explosion has.

But to discuss that scrap takes the attention away that Rumsfeld was part of the conspiracy. That he was a perpetrator.

[DulceDecorum]

58. So,

we are to surrender the laws of physics.
We are to forget that these people consistently claim to find the necessary evidence INTACT
and WITHOUT ANY soot, or smoke or water damage
despite
the extensive explosion and subsequent fires, not to mention the thousands of gallons poured on a jet-fuel blaze, by an incompetent fire department.
We are to abandon all recorded visual evidence.

We are to disavow logic and mathematics.
We are to cast off all the knowledge of the twentieth century
BECAUSE
we have something better,
something NEW.

medienanalyse says:
What is new is -
that one might get the impression, taking into account
- that Rumsfeld was WAITING for the impact ....
If this impression would be part of the knowledge of the American people, it might be slightly more important than WHAT exactly hit the Pentagon and what colours an explosion has.

THE IMPRESSION.
ONE MIGHT GET THE IMPRESSION.
Surely we can convict on THAT!!

[medienanalyse]

64. Please don´t do it! Do not abandon the law of physics!

No - please tell us how a Boeing wheel could be found where a cruise missile hit. Tell us more about the body remains which were transported in that cruise missile. About the jet fuel smell where we should expect the odour of dynamite.

But much better would be if you would be so kind to waste your time and gollow the issue of this thread: explain the timeline of Mr. Rumsfeld.

If your only impression is that he lied - then tell us WHERE and WHY.

[DulceDecorum]

70. Rumsfeldian physics

Why do you suppose that I have the wherewithal to to tell you the WHERE and the WHY of the Donald Rumsfeld?

Even the venerable Miss Cleo
cannot explain him.

You ask me to explain how a Boeing wheel could be found where a cruise missile hit.
Boeing makes many wheels.
Which make and model are you referring to?
Perhaps YOU
can tell us how that wheel survived when the black boxes did not.
And why the jet fuel did NOT burn the stuffed toys of the little children?
How did the man with the clean uniform die?
WHEN - for crying out loud - DID those "rescuers" perform their cyborgic deeds of derring do?
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq87-7a.htm

NE-TF1 Members Participation in the Pentagon
September 11, 2001
Shortly after 8:45 a.m. CENTRAL STANDARD TIME, September 11, the monthly meeting of the Lincoln Fire Department Deputy Chiefs was interrupted to inform those attending that an aircraft had just struck one of the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. During the television coverage, a second aircraft struck the second tower, and shortly after that a third aircraft crashed into the Pentagon in Washington D.C.
At 9:06 a.m.(CST), moments after the assault on the Pentagon, Deputy Chief John Huff received a page advising that the Red Incident Support Team (IST) had been activated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Members of the Red team were informed that the Pentagon incident would be their assignment. Huff advised Fire Chief Mike Spadt that his IST had been activated, and requested permission to begin preparations to respond. Chief Spadt and Huff agreed that traveling by aircraft might be unsafe and determined that John would respond with a Lincoln Fire & Rescue vehicle.
http://www.ci.lincoln.ne.us/city/fire/attack/ist.htm

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2001
Hundreds of firefighters are still working to extinguish the blaze in the Pentagon roof. Fire officials said the construction of the Pentagon has contributed to this "very stubborn blaze." The Pentagon's roof consists of a layer of masonry, topped by wood, topped by slate. The officials said the fire has been hard to control because it has ignited the wood and is traveling between the concrete and slate layers. Firefighters are bringing in experts and special equipment to deal with the blaze.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09122001_200109122.html

medienanalyse,
I am now becoming very worried about the state of the German education system.
But I am consoled by your initial statement
"Please don't do it! Do not abandon the law of physics!"

Rest assured, that we CANNOT.
Nor will we abandon
fact for conjecture,
actuality for perception,
or
science for fiction.

[k-robjoe]

27. What´s the matter with you?

Did I say anywhere in my post that it was not fl.77 that hit?
No, I did not.

But still it was enough to trigger your rage.
Your explanation for the low hit makes sense.
But:
It wouldn´t be necessary to "scrape" the ground (knocking down lamposts etc) in order to hit (exactly)the first floor (and not the second).
(Nor would it be necessary to hit it more or less horizontally, they could have done more of a dive.)
But if the specific target was on the first floor, then maybe it was. (But it´s just a theory.)

( Didn´t have much time to think this over as I´m off for the day, but my immediate impression is that you should calm down a bit...)

[Woody Box]

28. King medienanalyse

I'm not very involved in the pentagon/AA-77 stuff. But your intolerance towards the missile/small plane theory is not tolerable.

Basically what you say is: I'm right, I know the facts, I know how they did it, everything that doesn't fit into my thinking is wrong, everybody whose sight even slightly differs from my one is a conspiracy nut or a member of the fake opposition.

With all respect, this is a very self-centered approach.

I'm also not happy that too many people look only at the images and pixels, neglecting other important approaches. But that doesn't mean that the pictures are not important. The pictures ARE important, especially the pictures of the "UA 175" impact.

And by the way, my findings on the two departure gates of flight 11 don't point to your theory that the control of the original planes was taken over by a remote control system in order to drive them in their respective targets. The gate issue points to a plane swap scenario. The original planes were substituted by unmanned remote controlled flying objects.

[medienanalyse]

29. what the matter is in the kingdom

It is the repetition problem. K-robjoe, you make it cristalclear what I said before (btw I did not say that you in person deny AA77): I noticed the unwillingness to only ONCE understand, discuss, take into account that what happened happened intentionally, and that the PENREN improvements had a certain effect on what happened.

That is here in your last statement, k-robjoe: you introduce a theory and admit it is a theory. It is about the vertical ("more of a dive", specific target) instead of a horizontal approach of AA77. Now tell me, and I try to calm down, I really try it: why in heavens name must/shall/should I discuss with you what might have happened IF (if, in the case of) AA77 had hit the Pentagon in a different angle than it did? Why? To waste time which I need to investigate the facts?

And to make it more cristalclear: I told you about the steel beams. If I would follow your "theory" I would not talk anymore about the steel beams which are vertical too. The effect of the steel beams on what happened can be neglected. Isn`t it?

So in effect you ask me without even ONCE (what I asked you to do) mention and discuss the steel beams to leave this undeniable facts of horizontal approach and steel beams in order to discuss fairy tales.

I am very calm. I just described what your way of "discussion" is and what I have to suffer since about 2++ years and which I made no fuzz of untill now.

So about "tolerance", woody: do you call it "tolerance" when the fact of the PENREN is constantly ignored? Or when the Wheel of the Boeing clearly visible in the rubble of the Penatgon is constantly ignored?

I have no problems to follow theories which take into account ALL the facts. But when I see the ignorance since years on the one side, when I see the effect in the media, when I see how much it takes us away from discussing the facts - then I do not agree to tolerate that ANYMORE (I did it for more than two years). I speak out now.

A blunt insinuation is: "Basically what you say is: I'm right, I know the facts, I know how they did it, everything that doesn't fit into my thinking is wrong, everybody whose sight even slightly differs from my one is a conspiracy nut or a member of the fake opposition."

Take i.e. the insinuation "I know the facts" - partly okay (I do know facts but not all of them) which has a conterpart in the "sight even slightly differs". It is a fact that a flying object hit the Pentagon horizontally at about 9:40. More facts are: fuel, the Wheel, the hammering through three rings which can never be done by one explosion (of a cruise missile or what ever), the body remains. What differs "slightly"? Tell me, please. Just say the whel does not exist or that it is not a wheel of a Boeing or that cruise missiles nowadays have wheels. Or about the body remains: tell me that 60 or so families have only got ashes of a hoover or a burnt dog. Be aware that any of the families can open the coffins to make DNA tests.

And so on.

Tell me when and where my point is(was discussed about aluminium being disintegrated by the steel beams, giving a bright light and leaving only small pieces of debris. The nuts just ignore it!

And I shall be tolerant and discuss again and again pictures which bear nothing, interpret pixels which may have any origin - and to which avail? Since years.

now to your findings: these are facts. I noticed them, I am gratefull, the gates are the gates, the quotes and sources are okay. I do NOT ignore that. I can not put these informations in an order.

[medienanalyse]

30. to add for woody:

concerning your findings: these are facts. I noticed them, I am gratefull, the gates are the gates, the quotes and sources are okay. I do NOT ignore that. I can not put these informations in an order.

But "The gate issue points to a plane swap scenario. The original planes were substituted by unmanned remote controlled flying objects."
This conclusion is wrong. It CAN point to a plane swap. The second sentence is pure fiction. There is no evidence at all for a substitution, ad there is no sense in doing that, btw..
We just have the undeniable gate issue in combination with the FAa- N-numbers. Both can be explained in different ways. Just not having the explanations yet does not mean there are none. It is the same with so many other evidence: Photos, videos, fingerprints, witnesses and so on - there is missing everything which makes a criminal investigation. But this fact does not imply the freedom of us to fabulate.

[k-robjoe]

31. The theory

that started up your fury was this : Apparently there was a meeting of people from Naval Intelligence going on in the part of the Pentagon that was hit, and all the people in this meeting died.
Now, it seems to me clear that if you believe that the Pentagon crash was an inside job, then it follows that somebody decided that these people were dispensable. (Having them move into their new offices early.) And some people have wondered if maybe they weren´t just dispensable, but maybe somebody really wanted to be rid of them. That they were targeted on 911.

This is not contradicting what you say about the PENREN improvements in any way. The two theories are not contradicting eachother, they go together very well. ( And there is no fairytale involved.)

I hope this post will not be apprehended as another example of my terrible way of "discussion" and my "unwillingness to only ONCE understand (...) that what happened happened intentionally".

[medienanalyse]

32. Belief. Theory. And so on and so on.

"...if you believe that the Pentagon crash was an inside job" Maybe that I believe that. But it is completely out of discussion what I believe or not. So it is out of discussion what theries suit together.

I agree that facts suit together. Maybe that somebody who knew what would happen sent dispensable people to a place where he/she could get rid of them. Do you know it? Do you have any evidence for that? Do you have any way to get that evidence?

No? So why not stick to the facts ? Let us keep the possibility of an intention of some informed person inside in our minds for better days when we get out more. But NOW is NOW, TODAY is TODAY. And most of the people do not know anything about PENREN. They do not know that AA77 hit the wedge at the place in in the way which caused the least damage possible. They do not know that Mr. Rumsfeld sat on his hands knowing what was to come. That he was safe, prepared, not doing his job and so on.

They do not know about steel beams and kevlar and the effect of shreddering aluminium foil in an explosion and about the use of aluminium in fireworks. All these issues are FACTS and not theory. The allged intention to murder dispensable persons is pure theory (which might suit to the facts if ever proven).

But the difference between me and you is FACTS contra theory. And I plead for spreading and discussing the FACTS.

[Abe Linkman]

33. Don't be so modest - - do provide proof for what you say is FACT.

You say it is a fact that FL 77 "hit the wedge" -- but there is no proof of that, and the available evidence is inconsistent with your claim. Therefore, what you are calling a fact isn't an established fact at all.
What you are calling a fact is just a weak theory -- which you try and present (in an arrogant, dismissive tone) as Gospel Truth.

[medienanalyse]

36. the weak theory ...

again: when you once (ONCE) discuss the wheel of the Boeing in the rubble (and I do not believe you have not seen the photo series of the FEMA lady presented so many times here in DU) and tell us:
- it is not a wheel
- it is not a Boeing wheel
- it is plated evidence
- cruise missiles have wheels nowadays

something like that. Then I agree: my "theory" begins to get weak.

Or when you start to tell me: I know two or three of the victims families, they made a DNA testing of the bodies they got handed out as identified, and the DNA test said: NO, it is not him/her

then I begin to start to rethink my "weak theory".

When you present to us one living victim, the real plane, any witness for the substitution or something like that

then I begin to start to rethink my "weak theory".

When you ever find a bomb or cruise missile which penetrates at least 10 walls, exploding in each wall, digging through, then expoding in the next and so on, leaving nice round holes

then I begin to start to rethink my "weak theory".

Untill then the discussion with you is finished. I am angry with me that I did not use this "arrogant" tone from the beginning. It seems to wake people up, and so it is a good tone.

[k-robjoe]

34. At least this time

you´re not wallowing around in silly misreadings of what I´m saying, whilst all the time complaining about having to waste your time.

(My theory is that the FACTS show that it was an inside job. And the more I think about it, the more it seems that it follows from this that these guys were targeted.)

[Abe Linkman]

35. The logic behind your theory makes good sense.

Ruthless people do ruthless things. If, as you postulate, 9-11 was an inside job (and I agree with you 100%), then the idea of targeting a select group of people with "extreme prejudice" isn't a stretch at all. As you said: "it follows".

[k-robjoe]

37. post#34 continued

Just to elaborate a little bit on why I say that "it follows" :

Because I believe that if they had not been targeted, then the plane would have hit on the third floor, somewhat more to the right, and coming in at a straight angle (head on), and these guys would still be alive.

Like Medienanalyse I believe "that what happened happened intentionally".

And when you realize that these guys were targeted, then the strange approach of the plane makes sense.

But what is confusing the matter, is that all the way in this discussion, this question has been in the background : Is the story about this Naval Intelligence meeting factual?

What it says about this at the 9-11strike site (URL in post 21) is this : "(...)the first floor of the western wedge of the Pentagon was occupied in part by the office of the "Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot", who had moved into their new offices (early) and many were killed, as reported by the Washington Post, 1/20/2002 (quoted by Valentine, not independently confirmed by the authors.)"

If anyone reading this has the possibility to check out Washington Post 1/20/2002, that would be great. (Trying to improve my dealing with FACTS. I have simply assumed that it is factual.)

[medienanalyse]

38. you must not answer on #36. you must not discuss.

You can go on and let us know more of you prayer:

"Because I believe that if they had not been ..., then ... would have ...., somewhat more ..., and these guys would ...
Like .... I believe ...."

Go on to believe and to speculate, but please without using me as your witness.

"And when you realize that these guys were targeted, then the strange approach of the plane makes sense."

So you go on and ignore and ignore and ignore and ignore and even do not mention that the appoach makes sense even if these guys were not targeted.

The more or less sudden and unforeseen event of guys being in a room counts more to you than the ten years old PENREN planning with its details widely readable in the internet.

Go on and BELIEVE. But from day to day I see more how necessary it is to fraw a noticable line between these conspiracy theories and any sytematic and serious research. Yes, k-robjow, I draw a line, and I am sorry because of the necessity.

[k-robjoe]

39. "I belive..."

I believe I know your tactics. You´re just trying to provoke me, to make me investigate this stuff more thoroughly.

It´s not like your mind is so small that there ain´t room enough for both these theories. And it´s not like you don´t see that your own facts about the PENREN planning tell us that there was no coincidence who got those offices, and your silly remark, "The more or less sudden and unforeseen event of guys being in a room(..)", is just there to provoke me to work harder.

( A google search for "Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot" confirms the story.)

[k-robjoe]

43. My take on this

First I learned that the plane went around the building, to hit the part furthest away from the offices of the top brass and Rumsfeld.

Then I learned that it hit the only part that was just about empty.

Then I learned that it hit the only part that had been strengthened with kevlar walls, steel beams, and blast-resistant windows.

Then somebody "tells" me : Let´s have a look at who exactly, that was hit.

And I´m thinking, yes, that makes sense. It makes sense that they would hit some guys that were not quite "in line", so as to send a clear message to others of the same sort.

Now, I don´t know how anyone can come to the conclusion, that by looking into this, I "ignore,ignore,ignore" the things that first arose my suspicion...

( I think the answer to that, is that you were actually from the start arguing about a different matter (flight 77, or not), and I didn´t follow your "mindjump".)

So, is there something to it? Was the Naval Operations Intelligence Plot chosen for the hit because they were not quite in line?
(" Remember, it was Naval Intelligence that caught Pollard and Naval Intelligence that insisted the FBI arrest him. How many patriotic Naval Intelligence types had an attitude adjustment on September 11, 2001?")

(Or can there be anything to the rumours that somebody there was on to something? ("... but reportedly some were part of a Naval intelligence team threatening to blow the whistle on Cheney's crimes." ))

I don´t know. But it sure fits in with all the other pieces. Here is a piece by Carol Valentine, about the rescue work at the Pentagon, and it sure smells fishy from beginning to end. It sure backs up the theory that there was a target there.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-reports/2002-June/000294.h... ( This is a really long read.)

[medienanalyse]

44. your first three steps of learning are nearly okay

except that you still do not discuss the effect of the PENREN improvements to AAL77 and funny behaviour of the building: shreddering of the plane, bright flame of explosion, small hole and not-broken windows and so on. Which all in all explains a lot of the "miracles" which meyssan describes.

All that is long-term, well known and fits into a clear planning of the events of 9/11. NMCC-office are in the same place as ever, PENREN is during a long time, same as the preparations of 9/11.

So the above three points should be investigated together. And now this:
"Then somebody "tells" me : Let´s have a look at who exactly, that was hit.
And I´m thinking, yes, that makes sense. It makes sense that they would hit some guys that were not quite "in line", so as to send a clear message to others of the same sort."

For sure it makes sense to install these people just there where the plane will hit if you know that the plane will hit there.

but who is "you" in the sentence above, and how to prove the "if"?

The question is nearly in the beginning stopping into a dead end, without even a glimpse of a shine of a possibility of enlightenment.

Because: nobody will ever use more than 5 seconds to think about 9/11 being a cover-up of the murder of these naval guys. It is just one of the "accidents" of the day like the death of John O`Neill.

To solve the problem "who did it" the question is invaluable. We may keep it in mind - but with most of the people it only starts the rejection of any further discussion because of the linkage between the intention to murder and the intention to do the 9/11 terror attacks.

What do you want? Get the murderers and when you have got them and have asked them many questions then asks them your question in addition - or do you try to solve "what really happened" when the perpetrators are still in office an lie to the world ?

First things first. Stick to the facts. Stop uttering "beliefs". Take Rumsfelds timeline of that very morning and publish it widely. There is the key.

[k-robjoe]

45. Your posting is quite O.K.

And I don´t mind your being so self-assure and everything.
Your advice, "first things first" etc. is also quite O.K.
But you know, this discussion board can also be a place for people who allready know the "score" about the main facts of the Pentagon crash, to dig a bit deeper into the matter. All the messages here needn´t be perfectly suited for "propaganda" influence on newcomers.

And one thing about the "bright flame of explosion". You are totally mistaken here. You have two options : Either the surveillance camera images are faked. Or ; what hit the Pentagon was not flight 77.

I have referred to the sites that show this clearly in earlier postings.

( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=10744&mesg_id=10764&page=

&

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=9779&mesg_id=10078&page=

plus : Jean-Pierre Desmoulins discussion of this. )

[medienanalyse]

46. so we are okay - but where is the logic in this sentence:

"You are totally mistaken here. You have two options : Either the surveillance camera images are faked. Or ; what hit the Pentagon was not flight 77."

the cameras photos can be fakes including true parts.
the Cameras photos can be faking the explosion and its colour (why?)
what hit the Pentagon was AAL77
or was not AAL77

and these options can be combined in different ways. There are much more than two options.

But to discuss them - WHY?

The real evidence which is leading directly to the point is Mr. Rumsfeld and what he did (not). And so much more which is clear, cristalclear. There is no need to discuss mysteries.

[k-robjoe]

47. Very true

My two options were a bit simplistic.

But enough of that. Now I have come across a very interesting site. I´d be curious to hear your opinion on it.
(You may say that this is speculation about mysteries, (if so, I shall not ask of you to join in the speculation), but I think maybe you´ll find the ten minutes or so, looking into this, really worth while.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

The interesting parts are : "Uniformly elevated brightness" (1/2 way down)

And the parts "Shape of explosion" & "Missing shadow" (a bit further down).

[medienanalyse]

48. Where is the sense to discuss that?

If you go logically towards the issue of a fabrication of the photos you must admit:
IF fabricated, it may be fabricated in any way to suit any purpose

So - the color of the explosion might be fabricated and might be true

So the missing shaows may be fabrivated or may be the result of the fabrication of the colour of the explosion.

The whole photo may be - or not- or may indicate - or not.

I am tired to explain that every photo and every video may be fabricated and may serve a function.

IT IS SENSELESS FROM THE BEGINNING - if you ever admit that there may be people who are willing to hide something and who are putting red herrings everywhere.

SENSELESS. And so I do not discuss it.

I prefer the undozbted offiicial statements like those of Rumsfeld, Senator Cox and so on and to work with them:

if Bush knew "America is under attack" since 9.05 by Andy Card: why did Rumsfeld not act as if "America is under attack" for another one and a half hours. It is so simple and it means the electric chair. Or a lifelong sentence.

Spread this simple logic instead of wasting your time with evidence which is worth not even the dirt under your fingernails.

[DulceDecorum]

50. Senseless

medienanalyse says:
I am tired to explain that every photo and every video may be fabricated and may serve a function.

You have just explained how it was
that the cops involved in the videotaped beating of Rodney King,
escaped justice.

Spread this simple logic instead of wasting your time with evidence which is worth not even the dirt under your fingernails.

[medienanalyse]

51. I agree to you, Dulce

yes I have just explained that. And I am going to spread it.

If you do NOT understand that what I said is the simple truth you will never understand the difference between the two cases:

there is one video in the "King-case" which might be fabricated, but if we take that as the hypothesis the cideo would have been fabricated and made public by those who were accused afterwards, which is a logic nonsense.

In the "911-case" we find nowadays a lot of "evidence" which accuses JUST NOBODY in a time when questions AND ANSWERS are available which point cristalclearly into ONE direction.
All this photo- and videoevidence cannot have been distributed by the Osama weirds, the cavemen (not technically, not logically). They are distributed by unknown "critics", they just pop up to what purpose?

We learn that the WTC towers were destroyed at least three times:

- first by a missile
- then by a plane which was not the plane which it was said to be
- then by demolition

I am waiting for Marsians and some additional energybeams which were to be seen on some pixels. Or we might raise the question that the USA industry needed a surplus of steel to keep the prices low, which for sure was orchestrated by the jews who are in the steelmarket and want to control everything.

Instead of asking: who opened the gates of a highly controlled and completely ruled and organized airspace, and who is able to control a plabe against the will of pilots (except the alleged hijackers)? Who controls all evidence and does not release it?

My questions are pointed to solve the case, the "physical" questions lead into a nowhere, into no responsibility, into an everlasting "wholnows" - if they are ever directed to lead somewhere. L´art pour l´art - leading away from the Bushists.

[DulceDecorum]

59. Re: video

medienanalyse says:
there is one video in the "King-case" which might be fabricated, but if we take that as the hypothesis the cideo would have been fabricated and made public by those who were accused afterwards, which is a logic nonsense.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

He said: "We got a warning, saying the Military Police had found a video of people throwing prisoners off a bridge. It wasn't 'Don't do it' or 'Stop it'. It was 'Get rid of it.' "
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14199634&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=shame-of-abuse-by-brit-troops-name_page.html

http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040512&hn=8483

Since Abu Ghraib, the US Army has admitted to 27 custodial deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, 14 of which were probably murder.
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,9504948%255E950,00.html

WASHINGTON - Sen. Ben Nelson walked into a secure room in the Capitol on Wednesday to view hundreds of photos depicting what apparently was the torture of Iraqi prisoners of war by Americans. He emerged saying they were "disgusting."
"How could anybody do this to somebody else, even if ordered?" the Nebraska Democrat asked, recalling his thoughts as he viewed the images, which haven't been made public.
Nelson was among lawmakers allowed to view the photos and videos, some of which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned are more disturbing than the images made public so far.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1094259

medienanalyse says:
All this photo- and videoevidence cannot have been distributed by the Osama weirds, the cavemen (not technically, not logically). They are distributed by unknown "critics", they just pop up to what purpose?

http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/berg.htm
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000449.html

medienanalyse says:
My questions are pointed to solve the case, the "physical" questions lead into a nowhere, into no responsibility, into an everlasting "wholnows" - if they are ever directed to lead somewhere. L´art pour l´art - leading away from the Bushists.

"Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians."
-- Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1589194

[k-robjoe]

53. Why?

Why did I post that link yesterday? Because my first impression was that it gave strong evidence that the images are complete fakes, and so I wanted to have some feedback from others. (If we could establish that they are faked, it would clear up a lot of confusion.)

Now, where is the reason to go into a fit because of this?

[DulceDecorum]

54. Because

the psyops who run Commando Solo may have fabricated videotape and beamed it out wherever they wanted to.

Whenever you encounter a lot of sturm und drang
recall that we are embroiled in a high-stakes game of Marco Polo.

[k-robjoe]

57. One more argument for the target theory

This mystery :

"As the trajectory marked by the dotted line shows, this hole from the blast is after having gone through 3 consecutive rings of the Pentagon: 2 exterior brick and concrete walls, 10 rows of 40 cm. square steel-reinforced concrete load-bearing pillars, the poured concrete floor between the first and second story, and 84 m. of interior offices with perhaps 4 poured concrete walls. That's about 4 m. of reinforced concrete. The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing."

To really get the right impression of this mystery, one needs to have a look at the part about the Sugano experiment at http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm , and read about how "The fuselage of the F4 crashing into the concrete block wall, left an indentation 2cm deep, while the engines (...) left indentations 6cm deep."

Then one must consider that the plane that hit the Pentagon came in at an angle. But still it seems like it wasn´t diverted from its trajectory a tiniest bit, even if it crashed through six (?) walls at an angle (of almost 45 degrees).

Then one may wonder, how this could come about. Shaped charge? Depleted uranium?

(Maybe look for some answers at http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv2.html
or http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html )

[Abe Linkman]

60. Conspiracy of Silence, in response to k-robjoe

Well, bolo, lared, trogl, and company -- is your combined silence meant to convey that you agree with the powerful messages posted here by k-robjoe?

Interesting, eh?

[LARED]

61. Silence?

No silence, I have not followed this thread.


So tell me where the powerful message is located? As I seem to have missed it. If it is substantive message I will provide the best response I can muster.

I promise.

[Abe Linkman]

62. Try Message #57

No obfuscating, no dancing, no trying to be cute to avoid answering, and no saying it has been dealt with before. Over to you.

[LARED]

65. I read #57

What message is so powerful?

What is the specific question(s) you want me to substatively answer?

[Abe Linkman]

66. The hole, "lared", the hole.

"The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing."

[medienanalyse]

67. and if the hole ...

were caused by the last fart of a scalded ape and not by the whole machinery behind the fiberglass -

what does it change? What about an answer concerning #55? What about discussing the topic of this thread?

[LARED]

68. Abe, try and stay focused

What powerful message? And what is your question with regards to that message?

The only message I see in #57 is some strange equivalence being imagined between the impact at the pentagon and the impact on a crash test.

And

Do you have a question about the nose cone?

[Abe Linkman]

69. lared- What is it that you & yours are afraid of? STOP dodging & ducking

"The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing."

Now, will you kindly explain how that hole could have been made by FL 77. Thank you. Your dancing skills have been duly noted.

[LARED]

71. First things first

"The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing."

Says who? Or do you want me to provide a response to a another one of your myths?

[Abe Linkman]

72. How did the hole get there, lared?

Forget about myths. What made that hole? Forget what supporters of the "Hani flew the jet that crashed thru the building and whose noze exited and left a nice round hole" myth have claimed. YOU tell us the LARED version. Like you said you would.

[LARED]

73. What made that hole?

Pretty simple actually

Take around 100 tons of plane moving at somewhere around 400 feet per second and dissipate all the energy of the mass plus the energy of the explosion over a fraction of time and you will have holes all over the joint.

If you would like I could express that as equivalent pounds of dynamite if that will help you get a grasp of the magnitude of the event.

[demodewd]

74. re: simple

So where did the plane explode(disintegrate) lared? Right in front of the building? Pretty simple...huh? Better put your brains back in your cranium and give a well reasoned explanation. Something not so "simple".

[LARED]

75. It really is that simple

The plane disintegrated / exploded all the way from the moment it hit the wall to the moment it stopped.

Sorry this is difficult for you.

[demodewd]

76. Really?

Really? What would cause the plane to explode simultaneously as it hits the wall?

[LARED]

77. Do you mean that

the moment the nose touched the wall the plane exploded?

If yes, please provide substantive explanation why you beleive that's true.

[demodewd]

79. b.i.o.y.a.

b.i.o.y.a.

[LARED]

81. I'm afraid telling me to b.i.o.y.a.

doesn't qualify as a substantive explanation.

[demodewd]

86. Quite true.

Quite true. But in your regards it's the best we can do.

[LARED]

87. we ?

Quite true. But in your regards it's the best we can do.

Who is we?

[Abe Linkman]

78. You're a Comedian, Lared! No joke.

"The plane disintegrated / exploded all the way from the moment it hit the wall to the moment it stopped."

If the plane "disintegrated / exploded" how did it punch that hole out, Lared?

Really, I kinda sorta thought you would have done at least a little bit better than that. Maybe bolo or one of the others will come in and "rescue" you. You do need help. Or, were you TRYING to be funny?

[LARED]

82. Rescue me from what?

Your substantive argument? Now that's funny.

how did it punch that hole out?

Easy, as the plane was disintegrating / exploding, pieces of the plane / building impacted the wall, punching a hole in it.

Perhaps this would be easier if you explained, in a substantive way, why you are confused about this issue. Then I could address your concerns with specifics.

[Abe Linkman]

89. Nonsense. Sounds like something you'd hear from a disinfo agent

"Easy, as the plane was disintegrating / exploding, pieces of the plane / building impacted the wall, punching a hole in it."

I don't know where you're from, what kind of work you do, and who is paying your salary; but where I'm from, what you're saying is called BULLSHIFT. If someone is paying you to write this stuff, the taxpayers are getting ripped off.

[LARED]

90. Abe

I don't where you're from, but they obviously skipped teaching manners.

And somewhere along the line your BS detectors got out of calibration. That sometimes happens when a meter is in a saturated state. It no longer can function properly because it loses all reference points.

Also let me again point out you have not provided any thing substantive, only the same old disinfo crappolla. Don't you have another skit from your playbook.

[Abe Linkman]

91. "lared" -- Still dancing, ducking & distracting. Is ANY1 here surprised?

Just as some of us have known all along. I almost feel sorry for you.
As your "partner" would say: Thanks for playing.

[LARED]

92. Abe. can I put you down as

one of the those people that believe repeating the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

some how make it more believable?

[Abe Linkman]

93. Challenge: lared, let DUers decide who the real BS artist is: You - or Me

I think that most DUers will agree that your "answer" about what caused the exit hole in the Pentagon is nothing more than BULLSHIFT.
I'll go further and say that it only adds fuel to the notion that there are some people here to "sell" the totally bogus "Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory of what happened at the Pentagon.

[demodewd]

94. Ever notice

lared posts remind me of a pop up ad linked to spyware.

[LARED]

99. Abe,

Knock yourself out, have a poll. Shoot, have two or three.

Let me know how it turns out.

[Abe Linkman]

102. "lared" - Crazy, fact-free rationalizations don't help your cause

Trying to sell fantastical, convoluted Bullshift won't "fly" here. Saying the Pentagon exit hole was made by a plane which exploded & disintegrated upon impact with the outer wall...is just plain Cuckoo. How anyone could HONESTLY & SINCERELY support such nonsense is beyond me. Even if they're being PAID to peddle piffle.

[LARED]

104. Ok Abe

if you like the fantasy that Flt 77 disintegrated upon impact, it's OK by me. Do you think the plane just shoild have crumpled up againt the wall? Talk about nonsense. Geez whiz that takes the cake.

But I have to ask you one question. And I ask it in the hope that you can provide something other that your standard wacky cave man didn't do it hobbyhorse. If you want to be taken seriously you will one day have to propose some alternate theory to the "Official Theory." At least speculate. You can't even seem to do that.

What did make the hole? Please provide a substantive rational behind your speculation.

[k-robjoe]

80. Nosecone

The quote that says that "The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing", is kind of sarcastic.

But it´s not taken out of nowhere, (here´s four quotes):

1) "Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, ( said on Sept. 15 ): The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. " http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml

2) "Shaeffer stood on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."

3) Lt. Col. Victor Correa
"This time, according to Correa, he found out what caused the horrific attack he survived earlier that morning; he saw the nose cone and the landing gear of the airliner."

4) April, Pentagon employee
"The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper."


I´d be curious if anyone can remind me : What was the width of the WTC south tower again?

It would be interesting to compare how far flight 175 made it through WTC 2, and how far flight 77 made it through the Pentagon.

(Also considering that the Pentagon wall was much stronger (Three times as strong? Is that a fair estimate?), and that flight 175 was a 767, whilst flight 77 was a 757.)

[LARED]

83. Very Interesting

The quote that says that "The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing", is kind of sarcastic.

Some, including me, would use a different word than sarcastic -- like red herring. Perhaps intentional misrepresentation of the facts.


I´d be curious if anyone can remind me : What was the width of the WTC south tower again?

Roughly 200 feet.

It would be interesting to compare how far flight 175 made it through WTC 2, and how far flight 77 made it through the Pentagon.

This statement highlights a major blind spot inherent in the CT crowds. They automatically assume there is some sort of meaningful equivalence between the distances travel in the Pentagon and the WTC's. The thought process is that if a plane travels x distance in one it should travel x +/- some other distance in the other, and if it dosen't fit into this illogical presumption that one is related to the other it is evidence of a coverup.

(Also considering that the Pentagon wall was much stronger (Three times as strong? Is that a fair estimate?), and that flight 175 was a 767, whilst flight 77 was a 757.)

THe pentagon wall was stronger? Based on what? There are many ways to measure strength, how are you using the term?

[k-robjoe]

84. Just a quick reply

How do we know that the Pentagon wall was stronger?

Think about what happened to the wings. The wings of flight 175 just punched right through the wall. Whilst the wings of flight 77 hardly made a dent in the wall...

This should tell us something about what to expect when we compare the two...

[LARED]

85. Huh?

Whilst the wings of flight 77 hardly made a dent in the wall...

That's not true. Where did you get that from?

[k-robjoe]

88. Okay

Let´s put it this way. The part of the wing closest to the fuselage,
hardly made a dent in the beams. For the outer parts of the wings, it´s hard to tell where the wall was hit.

[k-robjoe]

95. So, what do we have?

We have :

Flight 175 ( A Boeing 767 ) : It crashed into the WTC 2. It punched through the outer wall, wings and all. ( All the way to the wingtips. ) Then, what did it hit, since almost all of the aircraft was halted so much in its track that it didn´t make it through the opposite wall? Did it hit the core colums of the WTC 2 ? No, for sure not. Only the outer part of the left wing would have hit the core colums. The fuselage itself would have hit no inside colums, but only (lightweight) office walls. Still it was halted.

Then there´s :

Flight 77 ( A Boeing 757 ) : It crashed into the Pentagon. Obviously it hit a much stronger wall. The wings did not cut through the vertical beams. ( With most of the beams, it seems they weren´t even close. ) With the outer parts of the wings, it´s hard to tell from the pictures, where they actually hit the wall, they left no obvious mark.
The fuselage punched through. What did the fuselage hit next? Apart from a few (lightweight) office walls, it hit quite a number of very strong pillars, strengthened with kevlar steel.
One would think that by the time the fuselage punched out the opposite side of the first ring, it was pretty much shredded to pieces. And so, what exited would be a huge fireball - like at the WTC - ( which then would vanish into the open air ), plus the shredded pieces of the fuselage, which would hardly be compact enough to punch through the wall of the next ring. ( It would not all hit in the same spot. )
But apparently they did punch through, not only the wall, but the whole ring, steel-strengthened pillars and all, and then they punched through a third ring, pillars and all. All the time going in a straight line, even if hitting the walls at an angle. ( See picture : http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDamage.shtml )

[k-robjoe]

96. P.S.

"At the Pentagon (...) the first / second floor slab acted as a strong structure which cut the plane in two parts (upper, lower),(...)"


Need to check this. But it is hard to see how it could not hit this slab, considering the height of the 757 compared to the height of the first floor. (It did go over those cable spools.)

[LARED]

97. WTC 2 first

You need to keep in mind that the WTC and the Pentagon were constructed in entirely different ways. Because of this any comparison between the two regarding how far the planes should have traveled and how much damage should have occurred really is quite pointless if you are staking the claim that differences point to some external source of energy.

So

It punched through the outer wall, wings and all ( All the way to the wingtips. ) Then, what did it hit, since almost all of the aircraft was halted so much in its track that it didn't make it through the opposite wall?

Well that's not exactly true.



Here's a picture of the wall opposite the entry side. Notice the amount of fire and debris exiting. For example, a landing gear from the aircraft that impacted WTC 2 crashed through the roof of a building located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church Streets.



A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5. Also if you lookup a video of the impact, you will see large amounts of debris exiting the adjacent wall of the impact.

Did it hit the core colums of the WTC 2 ? No, for sure not. Only the outer part of the left wing would have hit the core colums.

Well that is clearly not a settled issue. Having looked at the video perhaps a hundred times, I would say it hit the outer edge of the core. That one engine and chucks of the fuselage made it outside indicates the core structure surely took a large chuck of the impact.


So it seems quite a bit of the plane was not halted. What this mean in comparison to the Pentagon is a mystery still.

[LARED]

98. Now the Pentagon

Obviously it hit a much stronger wall. The wings did not cut through the vertical beams.

Again I ask how is it stronger? (BTW, vertical beams are called columns). Because of the different construction methods you are comparing apples to oranges when invoking the concept of strength.

With the outer parts of the wings, it´s hard to tell from the pictures, where they actually hit the wall, they left no obvious mark.

I think that largely because most of the walls that were hit were destroyed.

The fuselage punched through. What did the fuselage hit next?

Hey we agree. Although if you believe the fuselage remained intact all the way through. I'm not sure what happened. I would assume the fuselage was at least partially torn up as it passed the wall. I would assume the fuselage hit whatever was on the other side of the wall????????

Apart from a few (lightweight) office walls, it hit quite a number of very strong pillars, strengthened with kevlar steel.

There is no such thing as kevlar steel.

One would think that by the time the fuselage punched out the opposite side of the first ring, it was pretty much shredded to pieces.

That's a big assumption on your part. Also keep in mind that all that stuff inside the building doesn't just sit there as the plane goes by. It get lots of kinetic energy transferred to it is the form of velocity. How much damage can a desk flying at 200 mph do? Lots.


And so, what exited would be a huge fireball - like at the WTC - ( which then would vanish into the open air ), plus the shredded pieces of the fuselage, which would hardly be compact enough to punch through the wall of the next ring. ( It would not all hit in the same spot. )

Have you every fired a shotgun with a game load? Lots of little pieces traveling at high velocity can pack quite the punch.

But apparently they did punch through, not only the wall, but the whole ring, steel-strengthened pillars and all,

All concrete formed pillars are steel reinforced. And did it punch through a column or the much lighter wall? Big difference.

and then they punched through a third ring, pillars and all.

What pillars were destroyed in the third ring?

All the time going in a straight line, even if hitting the walls at an angle.

Did you expect the plane to bounce off the wall.



Again let me state this comparison really is futile on your part. You will gain no insight to bolster some tin foil theory if you stick with the facts.

[demodewd]

100. What facts?

Facts...what facts..that certain projectiles along with the nose gear blew through the C-Ring wall caused by the plane as it exploded somewhere during its entry into the building? Where did the plane explode?? Its all based upon speculation. Reasoned speculation perhaps but not based upon facts!Your summation is not FACTUAL. No summation is in regards to the Pentagon or the WTC. We have pictures...we have physical evidence...we have physical properties. We don't have facts.

[demodewd]

103. Examination of "punched out hole"

Shaped charges.... http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv2.html

One can see the "punched out hole" that was supposedly made by the nose of the plane. It is labelled N"3 in this picture. Pierre-Henri Bunel explains that is was more likely caused by a shaped charge jet stream. Hot plasma jet streams are designed to pierce concrete, they go far inside the building and end up in winds, smokes and heat.

Because a nose gear was supposedly found there, it was considered as a proof that the plane's nose made this hole. It is more likely that this gear wheel rim rolled there, pushed or drawn by the above jet streams.

In any case the wheel rim did not make such a big hole. Where are the plane parts that broke this wall ? These parts should be visible in the A-E drive and even damage the next wal : the B ring wall.

Nope. The next wall is intact. No damage. Only some smoke spot waiting to be washed. See it labelled :"smoke spot 3" in the picture below, it's in line with the plane's trajectory. See also these pictures for another view of the B ring wall and of smoke spot 3.

It appears that no solid matter made this hole. It was made by the forceful pressure of hot gases and smokes. This is much more consistent with shaped charge explosions.

[k-robjoe]

101. Pentagon, WTC

>"So it seems quite a bit of the plane was not halted."

But it´s all shredded into pieces. And they are not coming out like a game load from a shotgun.

> "Again I ask how is it stronger? (BTW, vertical beams are called columns). Because of the different construction methods you are comparing apples to oranges when invoking the concept of strength."

You can see with your own eyes that in the WTC crash the wingtips of the plane punched straight through the steel columns.
And you can see from the photos of the Pentagon wall - before it came down - that the outer part of the wings was not anywhere close to punching through the concrete. It is even hard to tell exactly where the wall was hit. And you can see from the same pictures, What impact any part of the wings had on the columns.
(This much comparison of the two crashes tells us a lot.)

> "That's a big assumption on your part."

It´s not a big assumption that the fuselage was shredded. The slap between the floors shredded it into two parts for a start. And that was just the start of it, (no, the wall was the start of it), next came the pillars.

> "Also keep in mind that all that stuff inside the building doesn't just sit there as the plane goes by. It get lots of kinetic energy transferred to it is the form of velocity. How much damage can a desk flying at 200 mph do? Lots."

You lose a lot of energy in that kind of transfer. The more desks you´d stuff into those rooms, the more energy would dissipate.

> "What pillars were destroyed in the third ring?"
> "Did you expect the plane to bounce off the wall."

What you mean to say is that no pillars were completely destroyed in the third ring. But then, what is to bounce off the wall is not a plane. And there is also a difference, in all those encounters with walls, between bouncing off, and being diverted from the straight line. Notice also the perfectly circular hole. Is this the work of small fuselage pieces?

[DulceDecorum]

4. The actual official Rumsfeld text

can be found at:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/mar2004/a032304f1.html

The Sydney Morning Herald is doing a very good job of keeping up with the hearings. They have the entire text of

Donald H Rumsfeld,
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939702817.html

Colin L. Powell,
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939700738.html?from=storyrhs

Madeleine K. Albright.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939700193.html?from=storyrhs

Below are some excerpts from Rumsfeld's testimony.
It is slightly different from the NYT-edited version.

But first, an excerpt of an article from the Telegraph:

Others were luckier. Some, such as Michael Petrovich, 32, an Army specialist, reacted swiftly. He threw a computer out of the window, then jumped though. He suffered second-degree burns. Paul Gonzalez, 46, a budget analyst, smashed a hole in the wall and crawled out. He was pulled to safety by Donald Rumsfeld who, although ordered by the secret service to leave the Pentagon, had refused.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/watt16.xml
For more on Paul Gonzales see:
http://news.bellinghamherald.com/special-pub/remember/109368.shtml
http://www.livejournal.com/users/gigglecam/1854702.html

And now,
in his "own" words,
Herr Rumsfuhrer.

........
First, I must say, I know of no intelligence during the roughly six plus months leading up to September 11th that indicated terrorists intended to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into the Pentagon or the World Trade Towers. If we had had such information, we could have acted on it -- as we did during the spike in intelligence chatter during the summer of 2001, when we had information that led us to move ships out of harbors in the Gulf region.

Further, I believe that the actions taken since September 11th in the global war on terror, and the international coalition assembled to fight that war, would have been impossible to achieve before the September 11th attacks. Think about it: after September 11th, the President made the decision not simply to launch cruise missile strikes as the U.S. had previously tried.

Rather, he decided to deal decisively with the terrorist network responsible for the attack -- and to hold not only the perpetrators to account, but also the regime that had harbored, aided, and supported them as they trained, planned, and executed their attacks.

The President rallied the world, and formed what is today a 90-nation coalition to wage the global war on terrorist networks. He sent U.S. and Coalition forces air, sea, and ground to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban regime, and destroy that al-Qaeda stronghold.

<snip>

Hardly a day goes by when the media doesnt carry a story that reveals classified information. This aids our enemies in significant ways. The harm done to the U.S. by spies and traitors the likes of Ames, Hansen, and Pollard is substantial.

The result has been that important features of our intelligence capabilities have been compromised. As part of our complicated world, adversaries of the U.S. have chosen terrorism as the preferred instrument to force free nations to submit to their agendas by inflicting death on their innocent citizens.

<snip>

Ironically, in the course of the conversation, I stressed how important it was for our country to be adequately prepared for the unexpected. Someone handed me a note that a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center Towers. Later, I was in my office with a CIA briefer when I was told a second plane had hit the other tower.

Shortly thereafter, at 9:38 AM, the Pentagon shook with an explosion of a then unknown origin. I went outside to determine what had happened. I was not there long, apparently, because I am told I was back in the Pentagon, with a crisis action team, by shortly before or after 10:00 AM.

Upon my return from the crash site and before going to the Executive Support Center (ESC), I had one or more calls in my office, one of which I believe was with the President. I left the ESC and went to the National Military Command Center where General Dick Myers, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had just returned from Capitol Hill.

<snip>

And I tried to put myself into the shoes of the pilots we were asking to be prepared to intercept civilian airliners, over American soil, filled with our neighbors, friends, and relatives -- and possibly having to shoot down those planes -- with row after row of their fellow Americans. It was clear they needed rules of engagement telling them what they should and should not do. They needed clarity. And there were no rules of engagement on the books for this first-time situation where civilian aircraft were seized and were being used as missiles.

Indeed, it may well be the first time in history that U.S. armed forces in peacetime, have been ordered to fire on fellow Americans going about their lawful business.

<snip>

First, I know of no actionable intelligence since January 20, 2001 that would have allowed the U.S. to attack and capture or kill Usama bin Laden. In the 2 years since September 11th, all the nations of the Coalition have focused a great deal of time, energy and resources on the task of finding him and capturing or killing him. Thus far none of us has succeeded. But we will.

It took ten months to capture Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Coalition forces had passed by the hole he was hiding in many times during those ten months. They were able to find him only after someone with specific knowledge told us where he was.

What that suggests is that it is exceedingly difficult to find a single individual who is determined to not be found. Second, even if bin Laden had been captured or killed in the weeks before 9/11, no one I know believes it would have prevented 9/11. Killing bin Laden would not have removed the al-Qaedas sanctuary in Afghanistan. Moreover, the sleeper cells that flew the aircraft into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon were already in the U.S. some months before the attacks.

Indeed, if the stars had aligned, actionable intelligence had appeared, which it did not, and if it had somehow been possible to successfully attack him, it would have been a good thing, to be sure, but, regrettably, 9/11 would likely still have happened.

And, ironically, much of the world in all likelihood would have blamed September 11th on the U.S. as an al-Qaeda retaliation for the U.S. provocation of capturing or killing Usama bin Laden. Some have asked whether there were there plans to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before 9/11 and, if so, why werent they implemented?
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/mar2004/a032304f1.html

[paulthompson]

5. Thanks

That find about Rumsfeld rescuing Paul Gonzalez is particularly rich. Not surprising that it's in the right wing Telegraph, which has been publishing some extremely absurd things lately.

[medienanalyse]

6. Thank you for all the material. Some more now:

About the "independent" commission:
"Ironically, in the course of the conversation, I stressed how important it was for our country to be adequately prepared for the unexpected. Someone handed me a note that a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center Towers. Later, I was in my office with a CIA briefer when I was told a second plane had hit the other tower."

These sentences are not interrupted or followed by a question. Remember: Bush was told !marica is under attack" - Rumsfeld as the defense secretary does not evaluate that? What kind of defense is that? Even in his own wording Rumsfeld showed that he did not do his job - with or without the lies about his better knowledge.

So why does no member of the commissin ask the obvious question? And this shows to the point, what kind of commission it is.

Same with Richard Clarke: he admits the already known facts and turns them into a huge criticism. In fact under the line it is all a deviation from Bushs bad standing in the Iraq situation.

Criricism, wherever it arises, is always shifted to other issues before it gets too deep and substantial.

Back to 9/11: So we know a littele bit more what Rumsfeld did in these minutes: help Mr. Gonzales. And run across the lawn in the Pentagon center holding the infusion besides a stretcher. It was videotaped, I`ve seen it once in these days but then never again. If we take into account that he had to move to the point of impact in the diameter of the Pentagon, that is at least 1.200 feet plus deviations, stairs and so on, we have an idea that he was really missing a long time.

Now let us remember Mineta who was sitting in the shelter of the White House together with Cheney who was "carried" there - and they counted the approach of (?)UAL93: we have a evidence by that that the approaches were monitored by NORAD and released too into the lines of the government. Except to Rumsfeld. Who only got notices (?)

There is no question anymore. There is EVIDENCE of crime - maybe not of MIHOP but at least of LIHOP. Al Capone was sentenced just because of tax fraud. When is Rumsfeld indicted?

[Abe Linkman]

7. They can live with "LIHOP" Lite (negligence...by scapegoats)

Richard Clarke has only "admitted" that "we failed you". He is either lying, covering up, ignorant, and acknowledging that he was unfit for the positions he's held in Government. After what, 20-30 years working at high levels of Government, he surely knows how to read between the lines, and he knows or should have known that 9-11 wasn't merely a "failure".

The U.S. Government should be very greatful to Richard Clarke for not revealing anything to the world that might lead more people to question the bogus 9-11 "Official Story Conspiracy".

The 9-11 Commission has the same DNA as the Warren Commission. It shares the same objective as the Warren Commission: covering-up a Government Conspiracy.

[DulceDecorum]

8. The Disinformation of Richard Clarke

by Scott Loughrey
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU403A.html

[DulceDecorum]

20. Dereliction of duty

Marr called Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, commander of the Continental U.S. Norad Region (Conar), at Tyndall AFB, Fla., told him about the suspected hijacked aircraft and suggested interceptors be scrambled. Arnold, who also heads the 1st Air Force for Air Combat Command, was in his Air Operations Center preparing for another day of the exercise.

"I told him to scramble; we'll get clearances later," Arnold said. His instincts to act first and get permission later were typical of U.S. and Canadian commanders that day. On Sept. 11, the normal scramble-approval procedure was for an FAA official to contact the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and request Pentagon air support. Someone in the NMCC would call Norad's command center and ask about availability of aircraft, THEN SEEK APPROVAL FROM THE DEFENSE SECRETARY--Donald H. Rumsfeld--TO LAUNCH FIGHTERS.
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/avi_stor.htm

WHAT EXACTLY DID THAT NOTE SAY?

Ironically, in the course of the conversation, I stressed how important it was for our country to be adequately prepared for the unexpected. SOMEONE HANDED ME A NOTE that a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center Towers. Later, I was in my office with a CIA briefer when I was told a second plane had hit the other tower.

[k-robjoe]

9. Help me out

There must be someting I miss here :

Clark writes:
"On the screens of the video centre I could see people rushing into studios around the city: Donald Rumsfeld at the Department of Defence (DOD); George Tenet at CIA; Rich Armitage, number two at the State Department. Air force General Dick Myers was filling in for the chairman of the joint chiefs, Hugh Shelton, who was over the Atlantic. (...)
I turned to the Pentagon screen. “JCS, JCS. I assume Norad has scrambled fighters and Awacs. How many? Where?” “Not a pretty picture.” Dick Myers, a former fighter pilot, knew the days when we had scores of fighters on strip alert had ended with the cold war. “Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now. The Awacs are at Tinker and not on alert.” "
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1648 (15th paragraph)(Before the Pentagon gets hit.)

This the same Myers?:

"Two days later Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACs, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked... That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck." " http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA112A.html

[gandalf]

10. stop asking questions

you conspiracy theorist

[DulceDecorum]

11. Yeah, no more questions

"It didn't really hit me until I got to the base and the guards were at the gates with their guns and checking the cars for bombs," said Publicover, 26, WHO HAS BEEN A PARAMEDIC FOR 10 YEARS, the last one here. "Then, I knew that it was really serious."

She later learned that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon and emergency medical teams were needed immediately.

Another Fort Belvoir paramedic, Robert Ickes, 22, enjoyed a day off Sept. 10. He recalls hearing a loud boom while at home in Pentagon City on the morning of Sept. 11, but at the time didn't pay too much attention to it. AT LEAST NOT UNTIL HE RECEIVED A CALL AROUND 9:30 a.m.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/DeWitts_EMS-team.html

"Initially when we arrived on the scene, I was struck and impressed with how well the building held up," he said. "BECAUSE WHEN WE FIRST GOT THERE THE BUILDING WAS STILL FULLY INTACT. I thought, 'this is pretty neat; you've got a pretty big mess here and the building is still standing.' A half an hour later, the impact section collapsed, but it was fairly localized and contained in that one area."
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Belvoir_firefighter_among_first_responders.html

Don't you DARE ask for a timeline from the EMTs.
The Constitution forbids them from testifying.

[k-robjoe]

12. is Clark

Is Clark covering up in the case of Myers? Is he just making up his story of what these people did on 911?

A quote:

"Secretary Rumsfeld also stated that he was giving a lecture to members of Congress, in the Pentagon, on the morning of 9-11 and warned them to expect the unexpected with future terrorist attacks. Shortly after that he was handed a note stating that the North Tower was struck. Shortly after that he was told the second tower was hit.
He then claims he continues with this lecture until the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. This makes absolutely no sense. If the Secretary of Defense was lecturing to Congressmen about surprise terrorist attacks when he is told two planes have hit both World Trade Towers, it is beyond belief that he continues this presentation without reacting to this ‘unexpected’ terrorist attack. The fact that not one member of the Commission chose to scrutinize this statement speaks volumes."
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KAN403A.html

While Clark writes :
"On the screens of the video centre I could see people rushing into studios around the city: Donald Rumsfeld at the Department of Defence (DOD);..."

And in his account this is before the Pentagon hit. Clarks book is a novel.

[DulceDecorum]

13. At what time was the Pentagon hit?

According to
Rumsfeld?
Clark?
Anyone else who has testified before the 9:11 Commission?

[k-robjoe]

14. They´ll probably

give the official time.

But here´s something to consider:

"There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings.
(...) these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense."

And they were changed in such a manner that :

"...it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act."
( See : http://www.rense.com/general50/fdd.htm )

Then consider the quote in post#12 about Rumsfeld holding a lecture when he learned about the towers having been hit, and...
"He then claims he continues with this lecture until the Pentagon was struck at 9:38."

Then consider what he did after that:

"So executives were staying safe in the Pentagon bunkers because they had to react to these attacks. People outside ran away because they were afraid of a second plane attack (Scott P. Cook, Phillip Thompson, Allen Cleveland). But the incredible Rumsfeld was neither afraid nor willing to deal with the national emergency, instead he made a half an hour show. He was the most alarmist few hours before, but few seconds after the attack he knew that the danger was over. He came out, helped the wounded and became a new American hero. He was the very first one to understand that it was a plane attack. Easy success ?)"
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/inv5.html

[DulceDecorum]

15. And then, he prayed.

Q: Mr. Secretary?

Rumsfeld: Yes, Bob?

Q: The casuality figure you referred to I assume is the 800 number that was provided by the Arlington County Fire Department.

Rumsfeld: It is.

Q: And you say it's considerably high. We've heard from the military --

Rumsfeld: I said I hope and pray that it is.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html


And then he prayed some more.

The coalition will prevail, he said, "with a minimal loss of life on
the part of the Iraqi people because it's not a war against the Iraqi
people, it's a war against the Iraqi regime, and they're going to be
gone."
Rumsfeld appeared on the ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos
and Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow.
"It is important that the people of Iraq be liberated," Rumsfeld said
on ABC's This Week. "It's also important that we can do it, I hope and
pray, with limited loss of innocent lives."
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/2003/march/032907.html

"The day of your liberation is near."
— President Bush, in an address to the nation, March 17, 2003.

"In the year that the Moshiach (Messiah) will be revealed, all the kings of the nations of the world will provoke each other. The king of Pras (the king ruling the area of Iraq) will provoke/attack the Arab king (i.e. Kuwait), and the Arab king will turn to Aram (or "Edom", the world’s Western superpower) for help. And the king of Iraq will return and destroy the whole world…
See: http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Society/currentevents/The_Kabbala_of_Basra.asp

March 30, 2004, 10:08AM
Like Christian booksellers across the country, Bob Fillingane is doing everything he can to prepare the way for Glorious Appearing, the climactic installment in the Left Behind series of apocalyptic thrillers that goes on sale today.
<snip>
Not that Glorious Appearing needs his help, Fillingane said.
"I really believe that there is a blessing on this series from the Lord," he said. "Just like with the Passion movie, it is all part of the warning we get before Christ returns." He added, "Many people have asked me, `Do you think they will finish the series before Christ comes?' "
<snip>
Glorious Appearing is the most anticipated and potentially most controversial Left Behind novel yet: It is the installment in which Jesus himself finally returns.
Secular stores like Books-a-Million, Barnes & Noble and Wal-Mart are planning major promotions as well. Wal-Mart has been giving away copies of the first chapter.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/entertainment/2473980

[k-robjoe]

18. Correction

I had a look at the transcript, and it seems that Rumsfeld did not word it the way Michael Kane (in my quote) reported it. Rumsfeld said:

"The day of September 11th, the morning, I was hosting a meeting for some members of Congress. And I remember stressing how important it was for our country to be prepared for the unexpected. Shortly thereafter, someone handed me a note saying a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers. Shortly thereafter, I was in my office with a CIA briefer and I was told that a second plane had hit the other tower. Shortly thereafter, at 9:38, the Pentagon shook with an explosion of then unknown origin."

[demodewd]

63. Evacuation

I've always wondered why the Pentagon wasn't evacuated.