Those Damn Inconvenient Witnesses
This just continues to mystify me how people can believe that something other than a commercial jetliner hit the Pentagon. I am amazed at the mental contortions they have to go to in order to ignore the evidence. Are all these witnesses CIA\PNAC\Illuminati\Israeli plants?
Regarding that lack of airplane wreckage:
Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says.
Remember those light poles?
Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office, when he heard a muffled explosion—construction, he thought. Then his radio started squawking news of a plane crash at the Pentagon. “I grabbed my radio, ran to my car and pulled on my bulletproof vest and headed toward the thick, black smoke billowing out of the sky,” he said. “Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”
posted by James B. @ 9:42 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
No, I really think these people saw something that resembled an AA aircraft. But weather it was the actual plane is a completely different question.
On the light posts, we are told this airplane was loaded with jet fuel and that is what it vaporized leaving no trace. Fuel tanks are located on the wings of airplanes and if it clipped as many light poles and didn't ignite, then obviously, these wings didn't have fuel and would account for the little debris left because it was not an authentic airliner.
I really have a hard time believing that search and rescue found bodies at the sight. How did the engines vaporize yet the passengers remain intact? There is even one account of a passenger still strapped to their seat. Someone is lying. It all doesn't fit.
You guys crack me up, you are the only ones claiming the plane vaporized, and then you use that claim to back up your theory. Great circular logic.
you are the only ones claiming the plane vaporized
Not really.
Little wreckage was found from the airliner within this impact zone or inside the building. Most of the fiberglass and other flammable materials were almost certainly vaporized by the fireball which resulted from the explosion of jet fuel upon impact and the resulting fire, which also would have placed a strain on metallic materials.
Source.
Oh my God, you are too stupid to even read your own sources.
Most of the fiberglass and other flammable materials were almost certainly vaporized by the fireball which resulted from the explosion of jet fuel upon impact and the resulting fire, which also would have placed a strain on metallic materials.
So, in your expert opinion, do they build jet engines out of "fiberglass and other flammable materials"?
So, in your expert opinion, do they build jet engines out of "fiberglass and other flammable materials"?
Key word in that piece, VAPORIZED. They don't talk about the engines but say the "plane" vaporized echoing what was commonly reported in the "news." CT'ers aren't the only ones saying VAPORIZED as you accused. That's all I'm pointing out.
I'm on the fence. But the eyewitness testimony on both sides is fairly worthless, given the context.
Hey there! Although I feel it could well have been some mock-up plane, we really aren't being allowed to see all the evidence. The government is stonewalling for some reason and maybe it is indeed to fuel the debate and then later come back with conclusive proof to shut down the 9/11 truth movement.
Read THIS interesting piece on how and why this might be accomplished. Although I don't agree with the author's points on the light pole the wings supposedly clipped, the rest of his argument seems quite plausible.
The problem I have with the light poles is that when a wing is ruptured, jet fuel spills and usually ignites. If the wings clipped the light poles then there should have been a trail of jet fuel that would have ignited from the blast point down to the highway.
So in that sense, what I'm going to have to see to convince me is the rest of the picture inside the pentagon and what emerged from the other side of the neatly rounded hole the plane supposedly made.
Flying much slower, with probably 5-10 seconds of 'awareness' of its presence, and not more than 300 feet off the ground, I couldn't identify the type, any markings, and would have no idea whatsoever of the landing flaps.
Dude, you were at a Roger Waters show. With all the pot smoke you probably wouldn't have been able to recognize your own mother.
I kown this comment is not specifically related to this post. Please allow as I think it's fair to focus on the big picture about what really happened on 9/11 as well as particular angles.....
I would place this on the top blog entry, but it's been closed for comment.
Here's an interesting new vid:
How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
"A plane traveling 500 miles per hour 20 feet off the ground would look like...what?"
Depends on how far away you are. To someone very close you couldn't tell much, but the farther you go the more obvious it's a plane.
"I couldn't identify the type, any markings, and would have no idea whatsoever of the landing flaps. "
That's because you're stupid. I got buzzed by a supersonic b-2 bomber once, meaning it was going well over 700 mph, and I had no problem identifying it, thanks. I've also been underneath some pretty fast moving C-130's, C-17's, 747's, 767's, etc. No problem differentiating any of them. Only someone who is being deliberately obtuse would claim that it's impossible to ID an aircraft which flies by at 500mph.
When I was a kid, maybe 8 or 9, I lived out in the middle of nowhere and an F-4 came in screaming over our house at probably 400-500 MPH, maybe 500 feet off the ground. I had no trouble identifying it as an F-4, I could even see the US Navy markings. I did not mistake it for a cruise missile or a 747. If a kid can do it, I think half of Washington DC could manage. To pretend otherwise is self delusional.
As I brought up earlier, if it is so impossible to see fast moving objects, why do you people go watch the Blue Angels?
"Also, how would, for example, WW2 anti-aircraft gunners on ships be able to target the incoming enemy bombers?"
Obviously, it's all a lie. I mean everything coming into an airport looks like a cruise missle, right? Or a helicopter? The only witnessess who are reliable are the two or three out of hundreds who saw something other than a jumbo jet.
It's true that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but only in cases where it's a few individuals and they all see differing things. One person will say a blue car, another green. But if hundreds of people on a city street say it was a blue car, and two say it was a black motorcycle, it's safe to say it was a fucking blue car.
"Geez, if you're upset about ignoring witnesses, you gotta read up on the way the 9/11 Commission ignored anyone who heard and felt explosions in the Twin Towers."
Not mentioning witnesses hearing explosions, A COMMON OCCURENCE IN NEARLY EVERY LARGE FIRE, is deliberate ignoring? Maybe they should've included witnesses saying when fire touched an object, that object too caught fire.
Have you even the goddamn document?
read the*
You people need to stop parroting things that don't help your case, and don't even call the "official" story into question.
When I was in college I lived in a dorm and one night I heard a huge explosion. It rattled the windows on the 9th floor I was living in. Being in the Army I have been around stuff that blows up, claymores, grenades, LAWs etc. and I thought this was a car bomb or something.
The fire department showed up, it was an electical transformer exploding. But I guess based on your logic it must have been some plot to demolish the building.
I really have a hard time believing that search and rescue found bodies at the sight.
Hey nesnyc:
GO
FUCK
YOURSELF
A shitload of other evidence that was used in the trial can be found here.
Shit, I had never seen the dead of 9/11 before.
Check out this story on PrisonPlanet today:
Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly
Contradicts facts of previous story about Flight 77 knocking cars off Pentagon highway
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 23 2006
Following the publication of our article questioning claims that wake turbulence or jet blast could have thrown cars around the highway as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a reported altitude of 20 feet, a former pilot and aeronautical engineer contacted us to refute the arguments presented in the piece.
It is our intention to explore both sides of the argument and leave the reader to decide for themselves if the Pentagon Flight 77 issue is a genuine smoking gun of 9/11 or an attempt by the government to bait us into a honey pot trap by later releasing crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. At no turn do we doubt the validity of the overwhelming body of evidence proving 9/11 as an inside job. The 9/11 truth movement is currently enjoying its widest exposure ever, and a new Zogby poll which shows half of Americans nationwide (not just New York) want a new independent investigation into 9/11 is proof that this issue is evergreen and growing in popularity.
The pilot, who wishes to remain anonymous, stated that the photos carried showing planes coming in to land at St. Maarten-Princess Juliana Int'l Airport in the Netherlands, and the apparent lack of wake turbulence or jet blast as a result of their low altitude over people on a beach, were misleading. The photos depict slow moving planes at speeds of no more than 100 knots, not 400 knots as reported with Flight 77.
He said that it was key to point out the difference between jet blast and wake turbulence. Wake turbulence is defined as a ,"turbulent air condition caused by small, tornado-like horizontal whirlwinds training an aircraft's wingtips (wingtip vortices)." In contrast, jet blast is described as, "phenomena resulting from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere. The term includes vortices, thrust stream turbulence, jet blast, jet wash, propeller wash, and rotor wash both on the ground and in the air."
While the Boeing website points out that the direction of the entire envelope of wake turbulence can be directed upwards, sideways or downwards depending on wind conditions, no such deviation is possible with jet blast and that the sheer force of power from the jet blast of a plane traveling at 530 miles per hour would not have been altered whatsoever by wind patterns.
Therefore the pilot states unequivocally that jet blast would have tossed people and cars around like rag dolls if they were 20 feet or less below a Boeing 757, as is claimed by eyewitness reports.
Regarding the eyewitness report of Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer Frank Probst, who claimed that the plane flew so low past him that the engine was six feet away, our source exclaimed that this was a ridiculous impossibility.
The pilot said that Probst would have been sucked into the engine like a bird in a giant vacuum and that he had personally been in the cockpit and seen birds from 100 feet away that almost immediately get sucked into the engines.
Similar devastation would have been wrought on cars 20 feet below the plane according to the pilot, contradicting eyewitness reports describing only light shaking of vehicles.
The pilot also entertained the notion that eyewitnesses had grossly overestimated the altitude of the plane and that it was higher than the reported 20 feet but he was still adamant that those who claimed to have seen the faces of the passengers in the window were living in a fantasy land because the speed of the plane would have meant it appeared as a blur and akin to a bullet flying over their heads.
Our source, having had direct and extensive personal flying experience at low altitudes, also completely dismissed the feasibility that a Boeing 757 could be flown for any significant distance at just 20 feet above ground. He also cited other pilots of large commercial aircraft who concurred.
A phenomenon called 'ground effect' describes the energized cushion of air between the wings and the ground which increases in energy the faster the plane flies. Flight 77 is reported to have whisked up the highway and into the Pentagon at breakneck acceleration, even increasing in speed before it hit, a maneuver described as impossible by the pilot at 20 feet above the ground, due to the reaction of the energized ground effect layer which would simply not have allowed it, even if the pilot was furiously pulling back the throttle which was not the case.
The pilot and aeronautical expert said that the evidence suggests a Global Hawk was used to attack the Pentagon, citing alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour's complete lack of flight skills and the incredulous story that he and four other conspirators overpowered two burly 185lbs aircraft veterans and pulled off military class flight maneuvers to attack what was virtually an invisible target.
Despite this, the pilot, who first approached Flight 77 questions in an effort to disprove them, was adamant that the government would soon release a "fantastic clear shot of Flight 77 coming in and close the book." He points out that modern technology and computer generated graphics can accurately forge any event and make it appear completely seamless and fears the entire Pentagon issue is a trap to distract researchers and eventually will be used to discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement.
Our source pleads with people to focus on the real hardcore smoking guns of 9/11, in particular the unexplained collapse of Building 7 and clear evidence that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. As an experienced aeronautical engineer, the pilot was stunned that he too bought the official version of events at first glance and believed that a giant modern day steel building could completely collapse from limited fire damage. Our source is now working behind the scenes to aid others in the 9/11 truth movement help educate the world on the reality behind the monumental scam perpetrated on September 11 2001.
Where is the smoke trails if it was a missile?
Missiles leave smoke trail.
It's on the first video from the parking lot security camera and the original 5 frames released by DoD.
Post a Comment
<< Home