|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: Pentagon - Overview |
  |
|
Reply to this topic with general evidence about the attack
on the Pentagon.
-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------
A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: Some excellent points... |
|
|
...I was reading about the fire-fighting efforts and the "rescue" at the Pentagon.
It seems that water was being poured into the Pentagon fire, when it was supposed to be a jet fuel fire, dooming anyone who may have survived the 'impact'.
Also, in the photos, all the firetrucks are civilian firetrucks, the whole time. Where are the military firemen, properly equipped with foam and cranes? There were many military bases nearby, but still thousands of able-bodied men just sat and watched it all unfold on TV.
Also, instead of removing the rubble vertically, with cranes, to try and safely get to any survivors in pockets of the rubble, they went in there in a matter of hours with a ball-and-chain!
People have been known to survive in earthquake collapses etc. for 9 days and more, but within 9 hours Rumsfeld was saying, "There can't possibly be any more survivors, no way."
And you know what - he was right.
Regards,
C.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkwind
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 686
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Interesting Video |
|
|
I don't necessarily agree (or need to) with all the conclusions of this video but, I think it is VERY important to see the photographs of bodies 'taken' at the Pentagon 'incident'. The most important thing to ask yourself is ... why are the 'alternative media' folks still claiming that there were NO bodies or plane wreckage at the site??? Yes these pictures could be doctored or they could be Pentagon employees (blah blah blah) but ... WTF??
Watch the whole thing before commenting ... please.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en
- Hawk
_________________
"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: Yeah... |
|
|
I posted about this video and the "Screw Loose Change" series of videos by 'MarkyX' an another thread in 9/11 Fakes, "Horrific video - Viewer Discretion Advised":
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=519
At the time I was referring to the ham-fisted, totally OTT tecniques that surely *anyone* can see used in all these 'hate-9/11 Truth' efforts. Like showing the girl with the slashed face over audio of Blood's ridicule of the idea of taking a plane full of passengers over with plastic cutlery. Total obvious, crappy, shlock.
The part where they are talking about there never having been found any bodies at the Pentagon with simultaneous video stills showing bodies, I initially thought - they're the photos used at the Moussy trial. When were they released? And when was that show recorded?
Because, I can't remember ever seeing any photos of bodies found at the Pentagon until I came across the Moussy government exhibits. We know that they said that they 'couldn't' release loads of stuff because of the Moussy trial, like the Pentagon video tapes for example. Maybe it's the same with these photos.
BTW, did anyone notice anything *odd* about these seemingly only body photos that exist? I think I'm going mad, here, but to me it looks like they're Gitmo orange jumpsuits a la Berg!
I thought that maybe they're helipad technicians, or something, but I don't know...
They're obviously not passengers - and speaking of passengers, I don't think that there's any photos of them, is there? The Gitmo bodies are pretty much in one piece, they just look like they've been white phosphorosed or something. The other pic is of what appears to be just an emaciated, charred torso. God knows who that's supposed to be, but surely they'd know by now, with all their PCR DNA wizardry...
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: Pentagon Honey Trap |
|
|
Yeah watched it all Hawk, and as Continuity says, it was pretty shlocky at times,
particularly towards the end. Nevertheless they did poke a few of holes in
the more flaky 'evidence' of 9/11 being an inside job. A hit piece.
As to the bodies, well that IS damm interesting.
The Pentagon is the honey-trap of the Op.
And I suppose we suspected that from the way it featured strongly in the
"In Plane Shite" movielet. So here's the scenario.
Any photos which do come out are deliberately ambiguous. They deliberately
release crappy security camera footage. They are behind the Hunt the
Boeing hoopla and the Plane Shite stunt. They foster and encourage all
questioning of the Pentagon.
Why?
Because the Pentagon is their strongest case. Not just by good fortune.
But by design. Actually, it's got to be good, because the scene is not like
the WTC --with masses of missing bodies, wholesale destruction of a vast
area, etc. The Pentagon is like any regular aircrash scene.
So, given that they got to make this one look good anyway, they set
about making it look as BAD as possible to the conspiracy theorists.
They have a good reason to explain their not releasing verification which
would put the issue beyond doubt --the Moussaoui trial.
So they wait as the hunt the Boeing and Plane Shite ops are run to establish
that conspiracy theorists doubt the hit on the Pentagon.
And then they hit us. Bam!
Because they got the lot. They got plane bits and they got all the bodies.
They got photos. They got forensics. They have it sewn up.
What? But weren't they all substitute planes, remotely controlled?
Plane Bits! AND bodies!
Yep. Just a regular plane crash. They flew the plane in by wire.
It had passengers. It hit the Pentagon. It blew up.
And Rumsfeld let slip that it was a missile.
Think of it as his way of saying Hi to us.
It's a scenario.
Last edited by Fintan on Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathy
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Surfing The Waves
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting article on the Pentagon
| Quote: | Conclusion
The crash reconstitution here above is coherent as well with the witness accounts as with the laws of physics. The traces on the building, including the "apparently odd" bending direction of columns 9, 16 and 17 or "apparently too small hole" account for the "wings folding forward" effect that was described by some witnesses. The hypothesis which fits the best to the whole damage done by the attacking plane is that this plane had the size of a Boeing 757. It is logical and straightforward to conjecture that it was B 757 number 644 AA of American Airlines, fleet number 5 BP, which had taken off from Washington Dulles airport one hour before with sixty persons on board.
http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-traj.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: Yup... |
|
|
This is the classic, "Don't go near the Pentagon stuff, it's a Honeypot" scenario, a la Alex Jones and others.
And I think it's very plausible, even though I *still* have my many doubts that the Pentagon was a 'normal crash scene', that this will be used to attempt to implode a good fraction of the 'Truth Movement'.
For that reason, I wonder if we should really bother with the Pentagon all that much, because, haven't we all the evidence we need with the WTC buildings? That's enough, surely, without being lured into potential quicksand and ending up with egg on our faces?*
* And terribly mixed metaphors...
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | This is the classic, "Don't go near the Pentagon stuff, it's a Honeypot"
scenario, a la Alex Jones and others. |
Yeah, the Fakes need to generate some street cred. And it doesn't matter
if they have distanced themselves from it --the general smear will still
be run against all "conspiracy theorists".
I apprecate your trepidation, but we needn't go charging in. We can just
check it out, see where it goes, and call it as we see it. I appreciate your doubts also, it pays to keep a wary eye.
If we stay on the right side of the road, we won't run aground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: Pentagon Honey Trap |
|
|
| Fintan wrote: |
The Pentagon is the honey-trap of the Op. |
Just to be sure I understand the subtleties of the 'Honeytrap/Honeypot' concept I looked this up:
| Quote: |
A honey trap is a form of sting operation, in which wrong doers are lured into revealing themselves to a policing organization. Where a sting operation targets a known or suspected individual and attempts to trap them committing a specific case of crime, a honey trap establishes a general lure to attract unknown criminals.
So for example, the police might fit a bait car with hidden cameras and leave it in an area known for its problems with car crime as a honey trap. The expectation being that the car will eventually be stolen, recording the evidence in the process.
From: Honey trap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_trap#Espionage_usage |
The term 'Honey-pot' also has an interesting technical use:
| Quote: |
Honeypot (computing)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In computer terminology, a honeypot is a trap set to detect, deflect or in some manner counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems. Generally it consists of a computer, data or a network site that appears to be part of a network but which is actually isolated and protected, and which seems to contain information or a resource that would be of value to attackers. A honeypot that masquerades as an open proxy is known as a sugarcane.
[...]
Honeypots can carry risks to a network, and must be handled with care. If they are not properly walled off, an attacker can use them to actually break into a system.
From: Honeypot (computing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing) |
Hmm. That last sentence is encouraging.
And one that will undoubtedly earn you a 'Truth Movement' award for Zionist Reptoid Shill of the year.
It is, however, the only theory I've heard that accounts for some of the evidence supposedly recovered from the site, along with the orgy of 'No Plane!' evidence trumpeted by the fakes.
It also explains the coincidence of the plane hitting the recently reinforced section of the Pentagon. It was reinforced to withstand the impact of an airplane, or a missle.... imagine that.
It would also explain why long line of suit and tie wearing individuals were sweeping the area clear of debris immediately following the event. Is it even clear that they were only recovering debris?
| Quote: |
Any photos which do come out are deliberately ambiguous. They deliberately release crappy security camera footage. They are behind the Hunt the Boeing hoopla and the Plane Shite stunt. They foster and encourage all questioning of the Pentagon. |
Ok, I agree the available photo and video evidence is ambiguous, and that the security cam footage is an obvious ploy to create the impression that somebody is lying. Why the wrong date? I was just waiting for those frames to be debunked.
When the 'Pentagon Strike' video hit the internet, I paid close attention to the reactions in my social circle, as it was a well traded link.
It had the definite effect framing the entire issue of 911 skepticism as wild conspiracy theory. The scoffers would cite the 'friend of a friend' who worked at the Pentagon and pulled bodies from the plane wreckage, and the skeptics would immediately begin shouting, "Sheeple!".
Somehow, discussions about the Pentagon attack seemed to curiously turn into arguments about whether or not we landed on the moon, or if Paul McCartney had been replaced with an intel doppelganger in 1966. I guess Hufschmidt deserves some of the credit for that.
I actually clicked on the links that appear in the 'Pentagon Strike' video and found myself at Linda Knight-Jazyk's SOTT website. Ten minutes after that, I decided not to recommend the 'Pentagon Strike' video anymore.
My other consistently nagging feeling regarding the Pentagon was the fact that it was all based on what didn't happen, and what couldn't have happened. Possibilities of what did happen were rarely offered, conflicting, and largely glossed over as, "the Global Hawk or missile that hit..."
Not to mention, the constant comparisons with 'actual' plane crashes, which, as different as they do look, didn't encounter an impact resistant portion of the world's mightiest military headquarters, nor were the sites immediately scrubbed of evidence by government personnel.
Finally, the supposed videos at the gas station and the hotel. Many fakes consistently hold their entire body of research up against what's on those tapes - "Why doesn't the gov't just release the surveillance footage - then we'll see who the conspiracy theorist is..."
I'm also waiting for the people that work at that hotel to finally speak up about what they saw. They might not have been 'hushed' by the FBI because they didn't see a plane.
| Quote: |
Why?
Because the Pentagon is their strongest case. Not just by good fortune.
But by design. Actually, it's got to be good, because the scene is not like
the WTC --with masses of missing bodies, wholesale destruction of a vast
area, etc. The Pentagon is like any regular aircrash scene.
So, given that they got to make this one look good anyway, they set
about making it look as BAD as possible to the conspiracy theorists.
They have a good reason to explain their not releasing verification which
would put the issue beyond doubt --the Moussaoui trial. |
Ah yes... A non conspiratorial reason why they were so tight with the footage.
| Quote: |
So they wait as the hunt the Boeing and Plane Shite ops are run to establish that conspiracy theorists doubt the hit on the Pentagon. |
The Pentagon issue certainly separated the 'conspiracy theorists' from the skeptics. I watched it happen all around me.
| Quote: |
And then they hit us. Bam!
Because they got the lot. They got plane bits and they got all the bodies. They got photos. They got forensics. They have it sewn up.
|
Charlie Sheen is gonna be bummed.
Ok, there's still a number of issues I'd like to discuss after I've kicked this idea around a little more, like the light poles, the cars on the freeway, the damage pattern, engines etc.
I am intrigued by this scenario, because I have always felt suspicious about the degree of hype surrounding the 'no plane' theories, and the 'official-ness' of those scoffing Pentagon conspiracists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkwind
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 686
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: New Information? Updated! |
|
|
Haven't investigated this fully but it is well worth looking at ... seems to be created from the NTSB black box data for flight 77 ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0
Web Site: http://pilotsfor911truth.bravehost.com/pentagon.html
Could be another "Scholars" ruse ...
Added:
These "pilots" hang around on the "Loose Change Forum" and the lead "pilot" called "johndoex" is a shill for team8plus ... Nico's old stomping ground ... something stinks and its not Mona this time ... :roll:
- Hawk
_________________
"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2848
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, this data - supposedly from the NTSB - both contradicts some earlier reports and displays a curious bit of info. Firstly, it depicts the plane making it's starboard-turn before the Pentagon, not behind and to the NE of the building, as originally depicted in the originally released radar track.
Secondly, the final second of data (as per the usual embedded oddness of everything 9/11, the tape ends a few seconds before impact... ooooOOOoooooo....) places the plane at a minimum of 180' above highway 395. Nowhere near low enough altitude to clip the 5 light poles that were displaced that morning.
Can we at least get our tax dollars back for those defective light poles?
There is an interesting aspect to this data, and the fact that it ends where it ends - it would perfectly conform into a very early supposition by some 9/11 investigators who postulated that Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon, as a missile struck the building. This data here would allow for that scenario, and perhaps there is a reason for allowing that to resurface. Possibly just to re-instigate long-abandoned theories, to throw on the growing pile.
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
heiho1
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent interview with David Ray Griffin going over the three versions of the official story from the Pentagon:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=163
It appears that the new flight data implies a *fourth* official story...more "evidence" to keep everyone guessing, no doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rump wrote: | | Secondly, the final second of data (as per the usual embedded oddness of everything 9/11, the tape ends a few seconds before impact... ooooOOOoooooo....) places the plane at a minimum of 180' above highway 395. Nowhere near low enough altitude to clip the 5 light poles that were displaced that morning. |
Well, there is a 'potentially justifiable' related force that could account for the pristine condition of the fallen poles. Keep in mind these are 'breakaway' poles designed to 'pop out' in a effort to lessen collision injury. (Which means they probably fall over and kill the innocent passerby but...)
| Quote: |
Wake-Vortex Hazard
Background
When an aircraft wing generates lift, it also produces horizontal, tornado-like vortices that create a potential wake-vortex hazard problem for other aircraft trailing. The powerful, high-velocity airflows contained in the wake behind the generating aircraft are long-lived, invisible, and a serious threat to aircraft encountering the system, especially small general aviation aircraft. Immediately behind the wake-generating aircraft is a region of wake turbulence known as the roll-up region, where the character of the wake that is shed from individual components (wingtips, flaps, landing gear, etc.) is changing rapidly with distance because of self-induced distortions. Farther away from the generating aircraft is an area of the wake known as the plateau region, where the vortices have merged and/or attained a nearly constant structure. Even farther downstream from the generating aircraft is a wake area known as the decay region, where substantial diffusion and decay of the vortices occur due to viscous and turbulence effects. Depending on the relative flight path of a trailing aircraft in the wake-vortex system, extreme excursions in rolling motion, rate of climb, or even structural load factors may be experienced during an encounter with the wake. If the encounter occurs at low altitudes, especially during the landing approach, loss of control and ground impact may occur.
From: Concept to Reality
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wake_vortex.html |
As many of the most important events of the day, the available evidence is in some way impacted by esoteric knowledge of construction, aviation, whatever, that dramatically changes the possible conclusions.
There is the 'common sense' conclusion, and then there is the 'educated' conclusion. In the case of 911, it appears that these two consistently have nothing to do with each other.
If a theory appears to be false, then it is either due to analytical error or deliberate intent to mislead. If you're not right, you're either mistaken or lying, right?
If a theory appears to be false, then evidence supporting that theory is being incorrectly analyzed. This suggests that either the evidence was subject to conditions beyond the scope of 'common sense' interpretation, or else the causal assumption for the existence of the evidence is in error. Meaning the evidence appears to be a result of the impact at the pentagon, but actually got there some other way. (Yes, I realize there's usually only one way for false evidence to accidentally appear at a crime scene, but I don't want to get sidetracked yet - the point is, just because evidence is found at a crime scene, doesn't necessarily prove it was a result of the crime.)
In addition to esoteric scientific knowledge potentially clouding our 'common sense' interpretation of the evidence, there is the possibility of something having hit the pentagon that was designed 'look' like a plane, but provide evidence inconsistent with a commercial jetliner.
By this, I'm obviously referring to the theory that flight 77 was switched with a prototype jetliner made of angel food cake. Upon impact, the plane exploded into thousands of bite sized snacks, which peckish pentagon employees scurried after immediately following the impact. (From: Angels Don't Eat This Cake - a history of the International Baking Conspiracy and the CIA's secret Eclair Munchie Control Program)
In order to examine the evidence in light of the possibilities, I first have to organize the possibilities in a meaningful way in order to apply the mind numbingly boring process of critical thinking. In terms of looking at the evidence, I come up with this - by 'inconsistent evidence' will stick to meaning 'inconsistent with the official story' or it gets real confusing. 'Inconsistent evidence' means evidence that 'supports' conspiracy theory.
• If a (767-type) plane hit the pentagon then inconsistent evidence is either inadequately analyzed (esoteric science), or not causally related (planted or 'coincidence').
• If a plane did not hit the pentagon, then evidence consistent with a plane is either inadequately analyzed or it isn't actually causally related.
• If a 'plane-like' decoy hit the pentagon, then the evidence could be both consistent and inconsistent at the same time when used to support either of the false premises. Unfortunately, consistent enough for the official story, but not enough for you, me, or Thierry.
That's where I'm at - by examining the evidence against the first two premises, I'm hoping the scales will either tip, or lead to an examination of the third premise, which I sincerely hope to avoid, but can't ignore.
I hoped to get further, but this was harder than I thought, took longer, and between my post and Fintan's audio, I keep daydreaming about cake and doughnuts so...soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2848
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A quick comment about the light poles: they were mounted on 28" high concrete slabs. There is no advantage to a pole being designed to breakaway upon impact in that scenario - the damage to a vehicle would be done by the slab, and the only thing a toppling pole would do is wreak more havoc when it came down.
I doubt they were breakaways (by design).
Honestly, I think this release just shows that it's not an accurate radar track at all. The shills on the other boards are already spinning it - this is from one guy that I suspect gets his marching orders directly from the DIA: "Obviously, they were pushing the plane to it's limits, and the data was being transferred out of sync." Hence the backstory a few months ago about the plane "exceeding it's software limits", which was eagerly seized upon by truthers as proof it "couldn't have been flown that way", it must have been a drone.
That'll be the built-in excuse - the data ends because the plane crashed at that moment, with the data stream a few seconds behind it. I.e., the positioning data is off, making it appear to have crossed in front of the Pentagon, and crashing before the building, and the altitude data was trailing even more so. Therefore, the plane is shown too high for it's end of flight, and still a few hundred yards from the building when it stops. The altitude is from when it was a mile or so out yet, and the lat-long data is relatively correct, but askew by a mile or so to the West.
This is the built-in excuse for not having to show the impact. And now, guess what - the truther sites can start arguing about whether or not the data could and/or would come in like that. They'll let it fly for a while that "it's impossible", then eventually some "expert" on FDR's will come out saying it's "highly likely", show some pre-arranged charts and diagrams (that were used to backwardly construct this data), and the truthers will look like fools. Again.
I can't wait.
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
