What happened to the wreckage??

[Approaching Infinity]

Ark, I think that there is still a problem with the Global Hawk theory, and that is a Global Hawk has a single Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan on top of it, and no engines on the wings. How could the generator and ground structure be damaged without those engines?

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html

Perhaps the Global Hawk fired a missile that took out the fence, hit the generator, following the trajectory in the last picture on the above page. Could part of the Global Hawk, flying behind the already fired missile, have created the 'gouge', perhaps with part of its wing? Could there be some other way the generator was damaged, to produce a 'smoke screen'? It doesn't seem possible, based on the photos from the above analysis, that 77 could have produced all of the following damage: the fence poles, the 'gouge', and the main generator damage. If it was the fairing that made the gouge, why didn't the other fairing scrape, too?

 

[Ruth]

What about the holes?

We know those planes were Boeing 767 class, and left two plane-shaped holes in the WTC.

The WTC is not made of reinforced concrete, if that's what you are suggesting.

Sorry, my mistake, I just got you mixed up with this person:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4076
Perhaps the holes people should concentrate on are the holes in the Government's official story. Otherwise, just time wasting, distracting and debating whilst all the while avoiding the truth (that the government, or at least some part of it had a hand in 9/11 and the cover-up).

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

Ark, I think that there is still a problem with the Global Hawk theory, and that is a Global Hawk has a single Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan on top of it, and no engines on the wings. How could the generator and ground structure be damaged without those engines?

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html

Perhaps the Global Hawk fired a missile that took out the fence, hit the generator, following the trajectory in the last picture on the above page. Could part of the Global Hawk, flying behind the already fired missile, have created the 'gouge', perhaps with part of its wing? Could there be some other way the generator was damaged, to produce a 'smoke screen'? It doesn't seem possible, based on the photos from the above analysis, that 77 could have produced all of the following damage: the fence poles, the 'gouge', and the main generator damage. If it was the fairing that made the gouge, why didn't the other fairing scrape, too?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/generator/tgreargouge.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/generator/jpd_b757traj.jpg

Global Hawks can't carry missiles, they are reconnaissance aircraft.

 

[paulnotbilly]

Global Hawks can't carry missiles, they are reconnaissance aircraft.

Other UAVs do carry them, they are regarded as "reconnaissance aircraft" too.

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

Global Hawks can't carry missiles, they are reconnaissance aircraft.

Other UAVs do carry them, they are regarded as "reconnaissance aircraft" too.

We are discussing the Global Hawk. But I see your point, let's have a look at those missile carrying craft.

Heres a potential one, the J-UCAS Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle

From Wikipedia

The J-UCAS UCAV would use stealth technologies and carry precision-guided weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) or precision miniature munitions, such as the Small-Diameter Bomb to suppress enemy air defenses.

Now lets look at the kind of weapon it could have used, the Joint Direct Attack Munition, which can hold 500-2000 pounds (900kg) as a warhead. They can be fired in straight and level flight, and look something like this:

The main problem with the JDAM is the amount of damage it does, even at it's minimum weight of a 500 pound warhead, as seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGb3_3XHR7s

That explosion was too large, it would have destroyed the generator and probably caused damage to the surroundng area.

 

[Darren]

Global Hawks can't carry missiles, they are reconnaissance aircraft.

Or so we are told. Publicity details of the Global Hawk are just that: for public consumption.

But really, if they wanted to fit a missile to a Global Hawk they could.

 

[han]

When I look at this picture, I can see the ghost of a plane impressed into the Pentagon, with a neat gap, somewhat obscured by smoke left from the center of the picture, and a round damaged section of the wall at the right of the center. But, when I look at this picture, I am reminded of illusionists who can let you think you saw something that didn't, in fact, happen. I cannot see the plane. But my mind can make up for that, and construct an imagninary plane from the 'evidence' I can find in this picture.

So, let's pretend a plane, almost the height of the Pentagon, and a width that supersedes the size of the photograph, hit the Pentagon, and exploded with such vehemence that the plane almost completely vaporised. That's the only thing I can imagine; I can see no plane. But, the plane didn't completely vaporise.. one section of landing gear escaped becoming vapor and flew through five or six (because the plane vaporised on impact) walls of reinforced concrete, leaving nicely rounded holes, before stopped in it's track. Oh, and it flew exactly in at the place where I had imagined the nose impact. And, eh.. it was a very special explosion, very contained, because the cable spools (but not the generator, interestingly enough) escaped being exploded, as did some of the surrounding offices (and their windows) at the Pentagon itself. You see... in effect, in my imagination, the plane just.. vanished.

Well.. back to my old self again. ;) I can see the impression of a ghost of the plane... that means that the illusionist had to be well coordinated. I can see a damaged section of the wall where I had imagined an engine would have hit the Pentagon. I can see a dented and scraped generator, recovering from what seems to be an explosion. I can see fire in some of the offices. I can see that the construction of reinforced concrete (that had caused the plane to vaporise - or was it a plane bomb? I can't recall..), in the left side of the picture, seems to be failing and on the verge of collapse. Is it hard, when you coordinate something like this, to have a dented and scraped generator truck with a bomb implanted be placed at the scene some time before the actual strike event?

 

[anart]

You see... in effect, in my imagination, the plane just.. vanished.

In your imagination anything can happen. What does your imagination - or anyone's imagination - have to do with what really happened?

Perhaps I am missing your point, because you seem to be focusing on the idea that the plane vaporized. This would be the first case in the history of air travel that an airplane of any make, any where, vaporized on impact - at least any plane on record - in this third dimension world of ours, planes don't just 'vaporize'.

Of course, 'nothing is impossible' - but for the purposes of this particular incident, the idea that the plane vaporized is as likely as the idea that the plane morphed into a butterfly and fluttered away after impact. There are times when imagination has the power to drag one away from the point of the matter - FWIW.

 

[han]

Hi Anart,

Thanks for pointing out that my post was a bit unclear. When I thought about the ghost of a plane (a Boeing 757) impressed into the pentagon, I was reminded of optical illusions, like this one, where our minds try to make sense of the picture.
When I see this photograph of the Pentagon with a hole, a damaged piece of wall, and a dented generator, my mind might 'fill in the blanks' with a plane, as happening to other people. But, as everyone can see, there is no sight of the plane. Then I tried, through a poor attempt at "reductio ad absurdum," to show that the plane could not have been there..

After that, I took a leap in reasoning and forgot a few things to mention. I think that the 'evidence' of a damaged piece of wall and a dented generator, that contributed to 'filling the blanks' with a plane, was set up for aforementioned purposes by a hypothetical "illusionist" (like the Wizard of Oz). My initial reason to post was to mention that the generator truck (the subject to which the discussion was leading) could have been dented and put into place before the actual Pentagon strike. That would exclude the theory of a fired missile from the picture...

To answer you question, though, I think that imagination can aid in understanding concepts. Einstein, for instance, based most of his theorizing on thought experiments. It also can aid in considering possibilities, like in John Lennon's song "Imagine." But, in my case, it was just a figure of speech.

There are times when imagination has the power to drag one away from the point of the matter - FWIW.

Yeah, I can relate to that.. maybe one can call it "dreaming".. :)

 

[anart]

Thanks for the clarification, han, I see your point.

=)

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

Hi Anart,

Thanks for pointing out that my post was a bit unclear. When I thought about the ghost of a plane (a Boeing 757) impressed into the pentagon, I was reminded of optical illusions, like this one, where our minds try to make sense of the picture.
When I see this photograph of the Pentagon with a hole, a damaged piece of wall, and a dented generator, my mind might 'fill in the blanks' with a plane, as happening to other people. But, as everyone can see, there is no sight of the plane. Then I tried, through a poor attempt at "reductio ad absurdum," to show that the plane could not have been there..

After that, I took a leap in reasoning and forgot a few things to mention. I think that the 'evidence' of a damaged piece of wall and a dented generator, that contributed to 'filling the blanks' with a plane, was set up for aforementioned purposes by a hypothetical "illusionist" (like the Wizard of Oz). My initial reason to post was to mention that the generator truck (the subject to which the discussion was leading) could have been dented and put into place before the actual Pentagon strike. That would exclude the theory of a fired missile from the picture...

To answer you question, though, I think that imagination can aid in understanding concepts. Einstein, for instance, based most of his theorizing on thought experiments. It also can aid in considering possibilities, like in John Lennon's song "Imagine." But, in my case, it was just a figure of speech.

There are times when imagination has the power to drag one away from the point of the matter - FWIW.

Yeah, I can relate to that.. maybe one can call it "dreaming".. :)

The trouble with your damaged generator theory is that those generators have a purpose, so whatever the generator was powering before the damaged one was placed would not be working.

Also, the generator was burning afterwards, which means that, according to your theory, they could have just put a bomb in the undamaged generator and detonating on impact. This leads me to think that an elaborate set up for the generator would be wholly unnecessary if they were to fly the Global Hawk/Missile/Other aircraft a few metres to the left.

If the generator was staged, why weren't the spools? if they went to the trouble of taking a chunk out of a generator, ground structure, five light poles and a taxi, why miss the spools?

I think your theory is getting a little too complex, if you don't mind my saying. :)

 

[Ruth]

The trouble with your damaged generator theory is that those generators have a purpose, so whatever the generator was powering before the damaged one was placed would not be working.

There is a posibility that the generator was placed there simply to blow up and create a lot of mess (smoke). This makes a nice 'cover' and makes a 'crash' site look more real.

Also, the generator was burning afterwards, which means that, according to your theory, they could have just put a bomb in the undamaged generator and detonating on impact.

Yes, quite so! Lots of black smoke. Very useful and distracting.

This leads me to think that an elaborate set up for the generator would be wholly unnecessary if they were to fly the Global Hawk/Missile/Other aircraft a few metres to the left.

But how else are they going to get all that 'realistic' smoke necessary to make the whole thing 'look' more like a pretend 757 crash site? They need that generator to generate smoke.

If the generator was staged, why weren't the spools? if they went to the trouble of taking a chunk out of a generator, ground structure, five light poles and a taxi, why miss the spools?

Oops, they forgot the spools! Imagine that! It it had been a real 757 crashing into the Pentagon, there wouldn't be much left of anything and there certainly wouldn't be any spools or fences left intact close by to the impact site. This tends to suggest that there actually wasn't any 757 near the Pentagon, let alone one crashing into it. It was something else completely different. They forgot the spools as well as anything else that would have made it a lot more 'realistic' like actually crashing a 757 into the Pentagon. Can't have everything, I suppose. The whole thing ends up looking more like a surgical strike than a plane crash. In fact there is no evidence of a 757 plane at all.

I think your theory is getting a little too complex, if you don't mind my saying. :)

I think you may enjoy this artile by Joe
http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm
The Governments 'theory' has so many holes in it that is seems to be no more than a cover story.

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

That is a very interesting article, I can't say I read it word for word, but I got the idea of it.

Just a note here Ruth, what theory do you support

A)Global Hawk
B)Missile
C)No aircraft
D)757 (I'm guessing not this one!)

 

[ark]

That is a very interesting article, I can't say I read it word for word, but I got the idea of it.

Just a note here Ruth, what theory do you support

A)Global Hawk
B)Missile
C)No aircraft
D)757 (I'm guessing not this one!)

The answer is simple: we do not have enough data to choose one of these, or E), F), G) ..... But we have enough data to say: "Not 757. The government story is a lie".

 

[han]

The trouble with your damaged generator theory is that those generators have a purpose, so whatever the generator was powering before the damaged one was placed would not be working.

Also, the generator was burning afterwards, which means that, according to your theory, they could have just put a bomb in the undamaged generator and detonating on impact. This leads me to think that an elaborate set up for the generator would be wholly unnecessary if they were to fly the Global Hawk/Missile/Other aircraft a few metres to the left.

If the generator was staged, why weren't the spools? if they went to the trouble of taking a chunk out of a generator, ground structure, five light poles and a taxi, why miss the spools?

I think your theory is getting a little too complex, if you don't mind my saying. :)

Well, I don't think that complexity should be avoided in finding out what happened...

You ask a good question, IMO. Why would they miss the spools when they go through all this trouble to properly stage the Pentagon strike?

Let's take a look at the Pentagon Building Performance Report:

"Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30 A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers. He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 A.M. As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 9:38 a.m. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1. The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him. The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running. He noted only fire and smoke within the building at the point of impact. Security personnel herded him and others to the south, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building."

"Don Mason, 62, is a communications specialist who retired from the United States Air Force after 25 years of service. He has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1996. At the time of the crash he was stopped in traffic west of the building. The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing. The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing. As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the plane's impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground. Law enforcement personnel moved Mason's vehicle and other traffic on, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building."

Here we have two buddies, around the same old age, both ex-militairy and both working in the same profession at the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, who can back up each other's statement. One is stuck in traffic and spotting his colleague who was lying, approximately 100 yards away, on the ground next to the Pentagon. He sees how the plane flies over his colleague, tripping over some light poles in it's path, slamming into the generator with it's right wing, causing a small explosion, and 'entering' the Pentagon. Both 'witnesses' tell us explicitly how the plane had hit the generator, but there are some inconsistencies in their accounts. As Frank recovers from his near-death experience, he rans away and [after that] the generator explodes. But Don says he witnessed a small explosion as the aircraft struck the generator and at that time, Frank should be lying on the ground...
What are the odds however, when you are sitting in a car, stuck in traffic, to notice a plane at high speed at one side of your car tripping over lightpoles, maybe even the antenna on the car behind you(!), while coolly assessing at the same time that this plane flies towards a colleague of yours, whom you noticed lying on the ground a hundred yards away at the other side of your car?

So, what if these 'witness' claims are false? That will complexify the picture a bit, doesn't it? Think about the fact that, within minutes of the strike event, FBI agents came to confiscate the video tapes of different camera recordings from buildings around the Pentagon. It was as if they had been waiting on the doorstep, wasn't it? When looking at the pictures of 'tripped' lightpoles, I find it strange that these poles are behaving that way. They conveniently pop out of the ground and fall on the road it seems, when the aircraft roared over. [link] [link] Some of the poles were ripped out, and started lying crosswise over each other. [link]
Following both witness statements, you can see why the "illusionist" would go through all the trouble of staging these events. The generator is an important piece of 'evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon'. When looking at the damage of the generator more closely, I see how the front of the generator had almost completely exploded, leaving only - it seems - some of the left side plate intact. [link] (Source: http://www(dot)defenselink(dot)mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg)

I do not have enough data to back this up, but it seems to me that a kind of fiber coating is hanging over the side plate. This would suggest to me that the generator exploded heavily from inside out, leaving some of it's inner protective layer exposed.

Well, that would leave the scrape. I don't think that a single scrape would hurt the generator in the least, thus it wouldn't stop working if it was damaged that way. Also, considering the two buddy witnesses who conveniently work for the renovation program, how many more of these workers could be on the 'inside' of the Pentagon strike?

With all this in mind, let's return to your question. Why would they set up such stuff for this event, while missing out on the cable spools, which would be targeted later as evidence that a Boeing 757 couldn't have vaporised itself without damaging these spools? I don't know... do you? ;)