This Is What Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11

[candycorn]

that pretty much proves Candys fantasys false that you have been debunked Terral.well done.Btw Candy is a dude though.

It doesn't prove anything at all. His opinion is that a shockwave knocked down lightpoles.

Absolutely no references to anything that would support such a bizarre theory (like why in the fuck were other lightpoles not knocked down--huh? Some were closer; just not in the flight path you dumb ass).

Here is the overview of the light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11 and the flight path of AA77 as it struck the building.

Okay. You'll notice the shadows of several light poles all over the place that were never touched by this shock wave.

Unlike the plane wings, you see simpleton, the shockwave makes no distinction about what it hits. It moves in a wave. So you'd have to wonder why those poles were not knocked down by this shockwave wouldn't you? Assuming you have congitive ability which you seem to lack in shockingly large amounts.

Heres another picture since you like looking at pretty pictures. Notice the orange dots of what was knocked down compared to the blue dots that represent what wasn't knocked down? Care to explain?

Check mate bitch.​

As for the wreckage found inside the Pentagon; thats easy.

Here is the rim found at the Pentagon:

Here is the picture of AA77 as it took off one day about a month before the tragic crash of AA77 into the Pentagon.

Thank you, thank you.

Anyway, the case is closed big time. Nothing other an a 757 hit the building. Shock waves played zero role in taking down the light poles.

I will give ferral points for creativity though. That took some real guts to put out something that stupid.

 

[eots]

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.

Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."



Major Jon I. Fox, U.S. Marine Corps – Former Marine Corps fighter pilot, including interceptor pilot. Retired commercial airline pilot, Continental Airlines. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, LearJet. 35-year commercial aviation career.
Statement to this website 6/3/08:

"Recent research proves that explosives were used at the World Trade Center. Flight paths and maneuvers of the aircraft involved at the Pentagon and Shanksville do not match NTSB released flight data recordings. Shouldn't there be a criminal investigation before more lives and trillions of dollars are wasted?"



Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying. I then began re-checking other evidence and found mostly more lies from the "official spokesmen". Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel. Structures do not collapse through themselves in free fall time with only gravity as the powering force." AE911Truth



Bogdan Dzakovic

Bogdan Dzakovic – Witness before the 9/11 Commission. 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks. Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program. Former Coast Guard officer.

Video transcript 8/21/05 : Regarding the 9/11 Commission "The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[candycorn]

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.

Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...

The investigation found that it was Flight 77. Logic tells you it was Flight 77.

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001,

A 757 is not a "wide body"

resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings,

The official total was something like 2,800-2,900

yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …

There was evidence presented in the Moussaui trial; in open court. From flight 77.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …

The hole in the ground, the destroyed tree line, the wreckage found, the physical remains, the personal effects, etc... I don't know from what crypt you pulled this guy out of but he's doing nothing to contradict the widely held and truthful opinion that the "twoofers" are a bunch of nutjobs.



[COLOR="darkred)"]Thank you, Thank you[/COLOR]

 

[Toro]

Witness to the Pentagon attack:

[youtube]7PTRsuRao7A[/youtube]

But he works for CNN and we all know they're in bed with the Bushes right?

Here are many, many more. Something like 130 witnesses who saw the plane slam into the Pentagon are listed in these links.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...at-the-pentagon-on-9-11-a-20.html#post1511545

 

[Gamolon]

Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying. I then began re-checking other evidence and found mostly more lies from the "official spokesmen". Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel. Structures do not collapse through themselves in free fall time with only gravity as the powering force." AE911Truth

Tell you what eots. Do a little research for me and find out the following.

1. At what temperature does steel BEGIN to lose its strength? Not melt, START TO LOSE IT'S STRENGTH.
2. What temperatures can office fires reach?

The term used above, "jet fuel fires", is bogus description. It was not just a "jet fuel fire". The jet fuel IGNITED the contents of the offices and floors thus creating an office fire.

If I poured gasoline onto a desk in an office within a 4 floor building and the entire floor burned up, would that be considered a "gasoline" fire or would it be stated that "gasoline' was used to START the fire?

 

[Terral]

Hi Candy:

It doesn't prove anything at all. His opinion is that a shockwave knocked down lightpoles.

No. A combination of the Painted-up A-3 'and' the Raytheon Missile Bow Shockwave took down the five light poles at 9:31:39 AM, as explained in my Blog entry here (link).

Absolutely no references to anything that would support such a bizarre theory (like why in the fuck were other lightpoles not knocked down--huh? Some were closer; just not in the flight path you dumb ass).

Candy Corn saying so is evidence for NOTHING AT ALL. We have the testimony of Terry Cohen, who was in a meeting inside one of those construction trailers, who ran to the impact hole in mere seconds:

From My Paper:

Terry Cohen WAS THERE!!!

Terry Cohen saw A HOLE with 'black smoke' coming out, which marks the spot where a MISSILE detonated. Donald Rumsfeld told Parade Magazine on 9/12 that 'a missile' struck this building!!

Look At The Evidence For Yourself!

Candy wants to believe George Bush and Dick Cheney in support of the Official Cover Story LIE, when the evidence says otherwise:

Look at the large cable spools blocking the way into the 18-feet 3-inch impact hole. Then look at the unbroken windows above and at the left saying that NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here. Period. The rear C-ring Wall is only 220 feet from this outer E-ring Wall (diagram), and . . .

. . . you see no sign of any 100-Ton Jetliner at all. NONE. The Official Cover Story says AA77 crashed into the Pentagon going 530 miles per hour, but Candy is proposing that the entire Jetliner vanished 'before' coming out the C-ring Wall only 220 feet away! The Jetliner is 155 feet long and has two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines that also never exited the C-ring Wall. Why? That is simple:

The photographic evidence says NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here, which agrees with the testimony of all these expert witnesses:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]All Of These People Agree With Me[/ame]

If you want to follow in Candy's obvious error, then go right ahead. This is reason #8 that The USA Will Be Destroyed (my Topic), so you guys are helping to make my point . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[candycorn]

Hi Candy:

It doesn't prove anything at all. His opinion is that a shockwave knocked down lightpoles.

No. A combination of the Painted-up A-3 'and' the Raytheon Missile Bow Shockwave took down the five light poles at 9:31:39 AM, as explained in my Blog entry here (link).

In the first place, where is any wreckage of a A-3 skywarrior? The only wreckage found was of AA77.

In the second place, the shockwave would have had a greater impact on the lightpoles closer to the source of impact than those further away. Some of the closer ones had zero damage. Ones further away were knocked down.

Using your own blog as reference material is funny and hilarious but certainly dubious in terms of proving anything.

Sceintifically, your theory is impossible due to no wreckage from this supposed plane and the mythical shockwave not taking out any of the nearer light poles.

By the way, if the alleged shockwave could take out lightpoles hundeds of feet away, why didn't it break the windows? Hmm? Well? LOL.

Check mate Bitch.

 

[DiveCon]

The photographic evidence says NO 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here, which agrees with the testimony of all these expert witnesses:



Terral

terral, you dumbass
that's not the entry point
so stop LYING

 

[eots]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”


“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”



“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[candycorn]

Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

I doubt they see it as important at all. Nobody died in it. The building has been rebuilt. The only people who care are folks like you who wear their tin foil hats a bit too tightly.

 

[Terral]

Hi Candy:

If you want to sit in the opposite debating corner and challenge my OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence and Conclusions, then 'quote >>' me and give us your best shot. However, if you want to use me as a source of information by asking question after question after question, then a definite attitude adjustment is required:

In the first place, where is any wreckage of a A-3 skywarrior? The only wreckage found was of AA77.

No. This is Candy's unsupported 'claim.'

These are the wing sections from the retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior being removed from the Pentagon lawn. The A-3 Imprint pic is here with some of the A-3 components listed. All of this is presented in the Opening Post (here), if you actually took the time to read through my work.

In the second place, the shockwave would have had a greater impact on the lightpoles closer to the source of impact than those further away. Some of the closer ones had zero damage. Ones further away were knocked down.

True. However. You are not taking the different elevations into account. AA77 would have knocked down ALL of the light poles if traveling just 5 feet off the ground . . .

Using your own blog as reference material is funny and hilarious but certainly dubious in terms of proving anything.

That is the location of 'my supported arguments.' Where can I find 'your' supported 911Truth Arguments on your Blog? :0)

Sceintifically, your theory is impossible due to no wreckage from this supposed plane and the mythical shockwave not taking out any of the nearer light poles.

No. Candy does not know enough about my thesis to even have an opinion.

This picture shows A-3 wreckage at the Pentagon in front of the E-Ring Wall.

These pictures show evidence of A-3 Fuselage scattered all over the Pentagon Lawn.

By the way, if the alleged shockwave could take out lightpoles hundeds of feet away, why didn't it break the windows? Hmm? Well? LOL.

Check mate Bitch.

The Raytheon Missile struck the Pentagon at Column Line 14 on this flight path:

The Missile passed only 10 feet from Light Pole #1:

Where you get the idea that hundreds of feet exist between the Missile Flight Path and these downed poles is beyond me:

To base your "AA77 Crashed Into The Pentagon" Thesis on "Light Poles" is really funny (pic) . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[eots]

Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

I doubt they see it as important at all. Nobody died in it. The building has been rebuilt. The only people who care are folks like you who wear their tin foil hats a bit too tightly.

and that is why you are not a respected NIST fire research investigator

 

[candycorn]

Hi Candy:

If you want to sit in the opposite debating corner and challenge my OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence and Conclusions, then 'quote >>' me and give us your best shot. However, if you want to use me as a source of information by asking question after question after question, then a definite attitude adjustment is required:

In the first place, where is any wreckage of a A-3 skywarrior? The only wreckage found was of AA77.

No. This is Candy's unsupported 'claim.'

These are the wing sections from the retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior being removed from the Pentagon lawn. The A-3 Imprint pic is here with some of the A-3 components listed. All of this is presented in the Opening Post (here), if you actually took the time to read through my work.

Retrofitted? Ahh, I see. in your pictures there is a jeep circled next to the ambiguous squares, rectangles and elipses. Was the skywarrior retrofitted with the jeep too?

You're circling nothing but anonymous wreckage--none of it looking like an American Airlines aircraft by the way. Where is the silver wings and painting on what you circled? Nowhere to be found...just like your intelligence.

I think you're sick.
I think you need help.

In the second place, the shockwave would have had a greater impact on the lightpoles closer to the source of impact than those further away. Some of the closer ones had zero damage. Ones further away were knocked down.

True. However. You are not taking the different elevations into account. However, AA77 would have knocked down ALL of the light poles if traveling just 5 feet off the ground . . .

As it did once it was on it's final approach in the actual flight path.

Different elevations? Bitch, there are something like six light poles right out side of the Pentagon that survived without any impact from this mythical shockwave that didn't even break a window. Puh-leeze.

Does anybody else get the feeling that Terral is a George Costanza wannabe? He seems like a real loser who simply lies to get attention.

 

[candycorn]

Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

I doubt they see it as important at all. Nobody died in it. The building has been rebuilt. The only people who care are folks like you who wear their tin foil hats a bit too tightly.

and that is why you are not a respected NIST fire research investigator

I'm sure the "respected ones" have much more pressing matters than trying to explain the obvious to the Tin-Foil-Hat-Society or TFHS. Say, whens you guys next meeting?

 

[Terral]

Hi Candy:

Retrofitted? Ahh, I see. in your pictures there is a jeep circled next to the ambiguous squares, rectangles and elipses. Was the skywarrior retrofitted with the jeep too?

Yes. We The Sheeple cuckoo 'are' really this STUPID (#8 = my Topic) . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[DiveCon]

Hi Candy:

Retrofitted? Ahh, I see. in your pictures there is a jeep circled next to the ambiguous squares, rectangles and elipses. Was the skywarrior retrofitted with the jeep too?

Yes. We The Sheeple cuckoo 'are' really this STUPID (#8 = my Topic) . . .

GL,

Terral

when are you gonna realize, those dogs are laughing at YOUR stupid ass

 

[eots]

I doubt they see it as important at all. Nobody died in it. The building has been rebuilt. The only people who care are folks like you who wear their tin foil hats a bit too tightly.

and that is why you are not a respected NIST fire research investigator

I'm sure the "respected ones" have much more pressing matters than trying to explain the obvious to the Tin-Foil-Hat-Society or TFHS. Say, whens you guys next meeting?

so you now doubt the credibility of NIST lead fire investigator because his science does not match the story bush told you....tinfoil hats.?..WTF ?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

off the topic for here a second.Just wanted to mention to you Terral that I wouldnt waste time with Pale Rider if I were you.I saw you post on his Obama thread.That guy is a rascist hypocrite who gives the human race a bad name.He makes all these multiple threads over Obamas birth certificate.Thats the ONLY thing he ever talks about here.He has an an irrational obsession over that.He makes all those threads about Obama only cause he is a rascist who hates Black people.

Proof of that is in the fact that I told him he needs to get over his stupid Obama birth certificate obsession and talk about OTHER conspiracys just as important like your swine flu thread and 9/11 being an inside job.Well he started insulting me talking shit like that unlike me,he has evidence to support his position that Obama is not a legal us citizen.That I have no evidence to support myself when i tell him he needs to be concered about 9/11 being an inside job and talk more about that as well.

Thats obvious proof there he is a racist who hates black people and a hypocrite.He whines about being insulted and called names but thats EXACTLY what he did with me just for telling him he neeeds to get over his Obama obsession and talk about 9/11. Here is MORE proof of what a hypocrite he is.

He has called Alex Jones a loon for saying 9/11 was an inside job many times before YET he uses Jones video The Obama Deception in his threads he uses.Somehow according to Pales logic,Jones is cluess and doesnt know what he is talking about when he says 9/11 was an inside job but to his aburd logic he has,Jones IS correct when talking about Obama.LOL.what an idiot.

Pale cant have it both ways that Jones has no idea what he is talking about when saying 9/11 was an inside job yet he usues Jones video The Obama Deception.LOL.Its got to be one or the other.Thats Jones is wrong about both or right about both.cant have it both ways the way he wants to that Jones is right about Obama but wrong about 9/11.LOL. ask him about that on his thread.he wont deny it.He'll admit it to you.LOl. you should confront him about that and see for yourself what he says.

 

[candycorn]

and that is why you are not a respected NIST fire research investigator

I'm sure the "respected ones" have much more pressing matters than trying to explain the obvious to the Tin-Foil-Hat-Society or TFHS. Say, whens you guys next meeting?

so you now doubt the credibility of NIST lead fire investigator because his science does not match the story bush told you....tinfoil hats.?..WTF ?

How so?

Anyway, any idea what knocked down the lightpoles since we've poven it wasn't a shockwave? I'd love to hear your version of events...and ridicule it for being so lame shortly thereafter.

 

[Terral]

Hi Candy:

Anyway, any idea what knocked down the lightpoles since we've poven it wasn't a shockwave? I'd love to hear your version of events...and ridicule it for being so lame shortly thereafter.

Candy has proven NOTHING. Period. You want to believe Official Cover Story LIES, so that is what appears in your posts. The five light poles were knocked down at 9:31:39 A.M. by a combination of the hypersonic missile bow shockwave (9:31:39 AM) 'and' the A-3 Jet (9:36:27 AM), as explained in the Opening Post and to Bill Veale and April Gallop here (link). Three 'bomblets' were used as components of the Raytheon Hypersonic Missile Attack, which created the holes in the 1st-floor concrete slab . . .

. . . and the rear C-Ring wall:

What happened at the Pentagon has NOTHING to do with any 100-ton Jetliner. ZERO.

GL,

Terral