9/11 > The Pentagon Strike
The Pentagon on 911... a cruise missile struck the building!
Perceval:
--- Quote from: Kesdjan on June 20, 2009, 05:38:55 PM ---Looking over some of Joe Quinn's old articles on the Pentagon, particularly his reply to Hoffman, his outdated support of the missle theory is disconcerting.
Would it be possible to add a comment to some of the articles with more updated info? Maybe something like:
"Comment: Since this article was written, a great deal of evidence has been amassed that provides a much clearer picture of the attack on the Pentagon. While the evidence did not support our initial hypothesis that a missle hit the Pentagon, it does not support a Boeing 757 impact either. For the most up to date Pentatgon attack information, please see:
_http://pilotsfor911truth.org]pilotsfor911truth.org- A profesional organization of aircraft specialists and pilots who question the official story.
_http://citizeninvestigationteam.com - First-hand testimony of the Attack."
--- End quote ---
The theory put forward in 9/11 The Ultimate Truth was not that a missile hit the building but a modified Global Hawk-type drone aircraft equipped with a missle (with shaped charge war head) that was fired on "final approach"
Kesdjan:
--- Quote from: Perceval ---The theory put forward in 9/11 The Ultimate Truth was not that a missile hit the building but a modified Global Hawk-type drone aircraft equipped with a missle (with shaped charge war head) that was fired on "final approach"
--- End quote ---
"9/11: The Ultimate Truth" 2nd edition was published in 2006- new information that contradicts the theory has been discovered in the mean time.
I don't see how you can reconcile the "global hawk" theory with witness testimony. If the plane (which was reported as a "white commercial airliner", not a global hawk) was consistently reported on a trajectory that conflicts with the damage path, there is simply no way a missle can be involved at all.
Perceval:
--- Quote from: Kesdjan on June 20, 2009, 10:48:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: Perceval ---The theory put forward in 9/11 The Ultimate Truth was not that a missile hit the building but a modified Global Hawk-type drone aircraft equipped with a missle (with shaped charge war head) that was fired on "final approach"
--- End quote ---
"9/11: The Ultimate Truth" 2nd edition was published in 2006- new information that contradicts the theory has been discovered in the mean time.
I don't see how you can reconcile the "global hawk" theory with witness testimony. If the plane (which was reported as a "white commercial airliner", not a global hawk) was consistently reported on a trajectory that conflicts with the damage path, there is simply no way a missle can be involved at all.
--- End quote ---
several witnesses testified that they saw a small commerical jet-like aircraft. I understood that the CIT research proposed a decoy 757 that followed the path you described (banked right to the north of the Citgo station in front of the Pentagon)
Kesdjan:
--- Quote from: Perceval ---several witnesses testified that they saw a small commerical jet-like aircraft. I understood that the CIT research proposed a decoy 757 that followed the path you described (banked right to the north of the Citgo station in front of the Pentagon)
--- End quote ---
Well not necessarily a 757, but all of the witnesses report a "large commercial aircraft".
Let's examine all of the alleged "small aircraft" witnesses:
--- Quote from: Lon Rains ---In light traffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 oclock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment.
At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.
I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.
http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html
--- End quote ---
You referenced Lon Rains in another thread, but as you can see from his account, the only thing he actually saw was the fireball. One witness down...
--- Quote from: Don Chauncey ---Andrea: Don Chauncey, are you there?
Don: Yes I am.
Andrea: You witnessed what happened at the Pentagon. What did you see.
Don: From my office I was able to see ah A white jet, like a gulf-stream type commuter jet, I guess, just came at a high rate of speed, ah, I can see National Airport’s tower from our office, and it just increased its speed as it got closer to the Pentagon, and then I just saw the big yellow ball of fire.
Andrea: Don exactly where is your office? From where are you watching this?
Don: …ah, we’re, our, offices are off Brannon? and St. Barnabas? at the Beltway, so I overlook the Beltway from my office.
Mike: Could you tell Don, did the plane come out of National?
Don: (Emphatically) No, no, absolutely not! (Quickly) There was a, it appeared to be, a US Air commuter jet that went over the top of our building, which is a normal flight pattern, I guess for the commuters. And this looked like it was coming…from (pause) I’m guessing, coming down Columbia Pike in Arlington, down that way, and then just picked up a high rate of speed, I mean from my desk right now I can see the Pentagon, basically where the metro station is, and the buses, I can see that and to the right, but I can’t see the, I guess, the south parking area.
Mike: Right.
Andrea: Don what’s the reaction of others in your office? I mean watching the world trade center and then seeing this right, literally, in your own backyard
Don: Well myself and another coworker who sits beside me, both of us were actually on the phone looking out the window when it happened and we both dropped the phone, and we picked it back up, and said we got to go, it looks like somebody…there’s been a plane crash at either the airport or the Pentagon.
--- End quote ---
Here is his exact location:
Note that he is six miles from the Pentagon. Might he be reporting a small plane because it appeared small from 6 miles away? Could he even see a "small commuter plane" from six miles away.
--- Quote from: D. S. Khavkin ---"We were watching the events unfolding on TV in New York. Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle.
First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke."
--- End quote ---
A resident of Arlington made a few interesting discoveries about Khavkin's acount. For example:
--- Quote from: 22205 from CIT's forum ---she lives (or lived) on the 8th floor - which fits khavkin's account. plus - only on the top floor of an apartment building would the sound and the roar/vibrations of a large jet be most evident and most felt (especially on approach from the west). if she was lower than the top floor, she would be shielded from the sound by neighboring apartments ON TOP of hers. we know she wasnt on the west side of the building, or she would have ZERO view of the event, so she had to be on the east side, which faces the sheraton and the pentagon. so she was definitely shielded to some extent by sound from BEHIND (west of her) apartment due to other apartments, which means her reaction to the event would be delayed somewhat. this suggests that by the time she got to her window she was watching the plane making its way PAST overhead and somewhere between her and the SHERATON. but after the sheraton, she could NOT see what became of the event. this is a FACT.
--- End quote ---
As you can see, her view of the Pentagon, lightpoles, etc. is completely blocked by the Sheraton:
If she is embellishing these details, it seems likely that the "small commercial jet" is also an embellishment. It certainly isn't a corroborated claim.
--- Quote from: Steve Gerard ---"Out of the corner of my eye, I saw this plane coming down. I was talking on my cell phone to my wife about how close I was to the airport and then I saw the fireball."
--- End quote ---
In the tv interview he makes clear that it was "maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet". CIT interviewed Gerard:
--- Quote from: Craig Ranke ---We spoke with Steven Gerard, who WORKS FOR THE DoJ and describes the "20 passenger corporate jet no markings on the side". He was very evasive and very uncooperative. He said, "My story is it was it is. It's on the record"..."I don't want part in any conspiracy theory". We told him his account as the reason for a lot of conspiracy theories. We asked why he also told his story like this on 9/11/01 as well:
"Out of the corner of my eye, I saw this plane coming down. I was talking on my cell phone to my wife about how close I was to the airport and then I saw the fireball."
He really didn't have an answer, instead seemed to get defensive.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Steve Patterson ---Steve Patterson, 43, is a graphics artist who works at home in a 14th-floor apartment in
Pentagon City. While watching events unfold on TV he saw a silver commuter jet fly past
his window about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground,
He said it appeared to him that a commuter jet which appeared to hold about eight to 12
people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a
nonexistent runway.
The plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington
cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. "at a frightening rate ... just
slicing into that building." He saw bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
-Barbara Vobejda Washington Post Staff Writer/ Sept. 11, 4:59 PM
--- End quote ---
However, locating Patterson proved impossible.
--- Quote ---Joel Skousen reported that: "I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Pattersonin the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn't have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.
--- End quote ---
And those are essentially all of the "small commuter plane" witnesses. If we take out Rains for not witnessing anything, and Chauncey for being too far away too judge the size of the plane, we are left with three extremely dubious second-hand media accounts.
Also note that none of these accounts contradict the north side flight path. So even if the plane was a small commuter jet, it still wouldn't have been able to fire a missle and line up with the damage in the building.
See The Witness List Broken Down
Finally, there are some physical objections to the global hawk theory as well.
For example, in "Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757" you cite Sami Yli-karjanmaa's analysis of the ASCE report.
In the above picture from the analysis, the purple line is the 42 degree approach angle matching the damage to the building, the green line is the 31 degree angle matching the hole in the fence, the white stars are intact light poles, and the red stars are downed lightpoles.
In order for a missle to be shot at a 42 degree angle consistent with the physical damage to the building, it would have to travel at a 42 degree approach angle. As you can see, the light poles along this path are still intact, therefore no plane could have approached from 42 degrees, ruling out the global hawk-missle hypothesis.
The only explanation which fits all of the evidence is a flyover with staged damage.
Perceval:
Kesdjan, I have no problem with your theories, but you seem to be missing the point that there will never be any definitive proof that will close the case and see the perpetrators convicted. The only overall general proof that can be presented is for a conspiracy on 9/11 - that the official story is so clearly false. The details of the attacks that day have all been deliberately arranged to be confusing so that there will ALWAYS be different arguments on those finite details. By coming out strongly in support of a specific set of details you are lending you support to this confusion and distraction.
On the CIT web site it is stated:
"The missile theory has remained popular and the divisiveness it has nurtured caused many to shy away from the hard evidence CIT presents proving a deception in a much different way."
This statement does not make sense. The missile theory has not nurtured divisiveness in a way that a theory that explosives were planted and a decoy plane flew over would not! I mean, seriously, you need to get off your high horse on this one and start understanding the reality of the forces that were involved in carrying out 9/11.
Do you think that just because you can cite eyewitnesses to back up your theory that:
a) suddenly the public is going to say "oh! NOW I see! Why didn't you say so before!"
or
b) that all those involved in 9/11 research are suddenly going to stop pushing their OWN theories for their OWN selfish reasons and accept yours? Do you think that you are going to stop certain individuals from promoting the "TV fakery" nonsense?
Are you aware that for 40 years at least 80% of the American public did NOT believe the very obviously flawed official story about the murder of JFK - that a lone Oswald did it - ? And are you aware that the fact that 80% of the people did not believe it made NO difference whatsoever? That the mainstream media continued to promote the official story during those 40 years and still does so today?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version