Pentagon first responder

anart

The Living Force
Yes, Ottershrew, I have to agree with Joe on this one. It seems that your 'pity program' may have been triggered by his initial post. It's understandable - it was quite the pity evoking post - but what you're likely to find is that, as usual, pity ploys are feeding mechanisms - as the C's say, "pity those who pity".

This, of course, doesn't mean one shouldn't be empathetic, but one must learn to discern between the two - empathy and pity - to avoid being fed upon. At least, this is my current understanding.
 

HonorGuard

A Disturbance in the Force
realitybasher said:
I was in the infantry unit that did the search and recovery mission in the pentagon. I was stationed on Ft. Meyer VA which if you google earth you will find is close enough to have the ground shake when the building was hit. I had friends that were in traffic on the freeway that the real commercial airliner flew over. I saw with my own eyes inside the pentagon intact sections of plane. People still frozen stiff in their seats. We removed and labeled not only every body but every part of plane. If you are stupid enough to think the government would have to pull a plane switch in order to pull off 911 you are retarded. The case for government complicity is strong enough without stawman arguments. lets focus on WTC 7, NORAD stand down, and prior knowledge.
I know this is waaaaay late, and could possibly be likened to someone whacking a hornet's nest with a stick, but I was also a first responder that day (I'm actually in the article, along with two of my other good friends and former soldiers) and can verify what RB has said this whole time. There WERE body parts that we had to recover. There WERE parts of the plane fuselage, etc (including several amazingly-still-intact plane windows), and there WERE NO pictures allowed inside the actual crime scene. I suppose at this point it doesn't matter, and I know pretty much what everyone might say (I need proof, blah blah blah) but the truth is the conflicting accounts can't be helped or changed. I stay in contact with nearly everyone I served with in The Old Guard (all of whom were with me through the whole recovery process at the Pentagon) and I can guarantee that EVERY single one of them would tell you the same thing. Anywho, just my two cents...
 

ScottD

Jedi
HonorGuard said:
I know this is waaaaay late, and could possibly be likened to someone whacking a hornet's nest with a stick, but I was also a first responder that day (I'm actually in the article, along with two of my other good friends and former soldiers) and can verify what RB has said this whole time. There WERE body parts that we had to recover. There WERE parts of the plane fuselage, etc (including several amazingly-still-intact plane windows), and there WERE NO pictures allowed inside the actual crime scene. I suppose at this point it doesn't matter, and I know pretty much what everyone might say (I need proof, blah blah blah) but the truth is the conflicting accounts can't be helped or changed. I stay in contact with nearly everyone I served with in The Old Guard (all of whom were with me through the whole recovery process at the Pentagon) and I can guarantee that EVERY single one of them would tell you the same thing. Anywho, just my two cents...
I don't think anyone could deny that there were parts of both human and mechanical devices recovered. I guess the question comes into play as to whether or not there was a 757. All indications from research done on this forum and other places have confirmed that it was not a 757. A craft of some sort? Certainly. A friend of mine, who at the time, was part of the personal security detail for the SecDef, was on-site with Rumsfeld on the opposite side of the building for a meeting. Had he not been there he would've likely been killed as his office was in the area hit. Coincidence? He was tasked with taking photos (by Rumsfeld himself) of the area immediately after things went down. I viewed some of the photos and he mentioned that paper bags littering the lawn were body parts and he showed me a photo of some wreckage. None of it could be clearly shown as part of a 757 and he himself would never say a "plane hit the pentagon", he would only state that an "aircraft" had hit; which could mean anything. He later was asked to remove the photos from his own website and soon after he was sent to Africa for a two year stint. To this day he will say very little about it and I no longer broach the subject as it is sensitive to him since he lost a lot of friends and co-workers.

My questions is, are you trained in identifying a 757 that's been blown to bits? If not, then corroboration of this story by RB doesn't really lend any credence to it. I'm certain that all involved in the gruesome recovery on that day will all have different tales to tell and some more accurate than others but recalling details during and after a traumatic event can be very subjective and does not lead to truth.

Another piece of the story that has always intrigued me was that yet another friend of mine was part of the architectural firm tasked with the renovations at the Pentagon. He worked there off an on for about a couple years prior to 9/11. They finished the renovations just shortly before September and how lucky it was that the craft hit that 1 out of 5 sides that was reinforced. Coincidence? Perhaps. That friend is still convinced that magic "turrists" with little flight training managed to do this contrary to overwhelming evidence debunking it. Sometimes I feel like I am living in the dark ages where all malfunctions and wrong doings are attributed to Gremlins and people wholeheartedly believe it.

HonorGuard, just curious, but why show up here just days before the 10th anniversary?
 

anart

The Living Force
I think it's important to remember that anyone can say they are anyone on the internet and that they've seen anything at all and swear to god and grandmother that it's true. The facts speak for themselves.
 

PerihelionX

Padawan Learner
RealityBasher strikes me as legitimate. I've dealt with military before and his tone and angle seem authentic.

Furthermore, it makes some sense for a plane to hit the pentagon. A plot involving some planes and some missiles is overly complex. Using all planes would be simpler. Part of the reason there was so little plane left is that it impacted the side of the pentagon that has been reinforced against missile strike.

I don't have any hard facts, just trying to think like a soldier and think like a conspirator and using my intuition.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Twelve years later, (thanks to C.A.'s bump, above) I found myself re-reading this fascinating thread. Some of the links have gone dark or have changed in the intervening years.

One of the most important to understanding the content and context here can now be found at the following address:

Jim Hoffman 9/11 Rebuttal

For anybody else dropping in, I highly recommend giving that link a thorough re-read. It is an editorial analysis by SOTT of one of the, at the time, leading stories from the side which wants people to believe that a real 757 did indeed strike the Pentagon. It tries to knock down, one by one, each of the standout issues with the available evidence, (and fails dramatically on all the important items). And then you get down to my favorite assertion:

An alternative explanation for the incorrect impact imprint consistent with the crash of a 757 was proposed by French researcher Eric Bart. He suggests that the jetliner was progressively shredded by explosives starting just as its nose was beginning to impact the wall. This theory explains the lack of impact impressions of the jetliner's extremities, since they would have been reduced to confetti before impact. It also accounts for the large punctures in the facade, since the remains of the plane's heaviest portions could have retained enough momentum to breach the walls and enter the building.
Again, the strength of the evidence that Hoffman is attempting to refute requires that he resort to increasingly outlandish theories to make his point.
The supposed serviceman who began this thread, "Realitybasher", does indeed sound like infantry guys I've known. It sounds like he may have even really been on site, but fell into the same group-reinforced, flag-first delirium the illusion was originally designed to invest witnesses with. It's easy to add a few lies to a story you are already dedicated to believing for added impact; (people often naturally feel the urge to exaggerate and inflate claims even when they don't have to). And this would be especially so when you clearly have difficulty with emotional impulse control, i.e., "Retards!". When you love your tribe, you're going to have little resistance to bending your own perceptions to fit with the tribal mythology, even when walking around a crash scene in person. There may have even been a command at some point from a senior officer to relate the events to the public with a specific leaning.

The psyche programming of soldiers into group loyalty and hardened belief in the nation is one of the primary tasks undertaken by the military during training. I suspect the unit picked for on-site work at the Pentagon would have been chosen carefully for being well-groomed.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom