[Moderated]Pentagon Struck By Tomahawk Missile 'AND' A PLANE

[1337m4n]

So, let me get this straight. A government, that has no remorse about killing 3000 of its own people, cares so much about the lives of Flight 77's 80-ish passengers that instead of simply crashing the plane into the Pentagon, they land it in some secret base, then shoot a missile (which no eyewitnesses saw or heard and for which there is no physical evidence) at the Pentagon. Then, to cover up the fact that they shot a missile into the Pentagon, they took ANOTHER plane, which they actually DID crash into the Pentagon, which wasn't an airliner even though every eyewitness at the scene thought it was and the plane parts at the Pentagon are that of an airliner.

So, uh, please enlighten us as to the point of sending a missile and a plane into the exact same spot.

[leftysergeant]

And I just realized that someone needs to pre-empt another common woo-woo theory concerning what the fire fighters are doing standing around with their nozzles in their hands, but not spraying anything down or approaching the foam blanket.

The nozzles in question are attached to airfield fire fighting apparatus, self contained units with an enormous, but not inexhaustable water tank and foam reservoirs. They had done the work of putting out any class B fires outside the building, and were doing over-watch against re-ignition of the class B fuels. They would have mostly been in the way of the crews of any structural fire fighting rigs, such as the red one off to the left of the yellow crash rigs. Stepping on the foam blanket would raise the possibility of a flashback if the fuel was still hot enough under it.

The idle fire fighters are often pointed out in arguments such as those presented by the French criminal Bunel as evidence that there was no great deal of class B fuel on the site, which is also vital to supporting the A-3 theory. Bunel ignores the fact that most of the jet fuel had been eitther flared off on impact or shoved inside the building with the majority of the aircraft parts. Inside a building, as I have been informed when working as a fire guard for a local fishing company, water fog is considered the best fire fighting tactic for class B fuels, in as much as there are irregular surfaces to cover and places where fuel can accumulate out of reach of foam.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Terral

I put too much effort in my work to have you just throw it away by people without a case for anything . . .

I resent that.

I wiped with it first.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I'm still trying to understand the "why" of it. It is like claiming that someone was stabbed 7 times with an icepick, and then 30 minutes later the killer came back and shot the person 7 times, hitting an icepick wound each time, to "cover up" the stabbing.

The whole thing is completely deranged.

I like this analogy. It clearly shows the stupidity in the original idea.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Nim:

Thank you for writing.

Yes! You win the award for using 14 words to convey an opinion apart from supporting anything with credible evidence. Just show us your pictures of Flight 77 crashed ANYWHERE and you win the prize. :0) GL, because none exist anywhere. A quick look up the thread show you guys chatting and all the pictures are posted by me. Here is a nice Page 1 Picture taken after the attacks and before the E-Ring wall collapsed:

Someone please point to your 100-Ton Jetliner or even a piece of paper on the lawn. Show us one of these ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...cnorthhole.jpg ) entry holes where the Jetliner crashed through.

GL,

Terral

Fantasy devoid of facts, devoid of reason, devoid of rational thought. How can you manufacture so much junk and avoid evidence and facts?

When will 9/11 truth find facts?
When will 9/11 truth stop making up lies about 9/11?

Never

[rcronk]

Terral - You ignored the questions that I restated in my post. Please answer them.

The post is here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=48

[Leftus]

A problem with this theory is that Tomahawk missiles don't work that way. To get it to do what you suppose it would take a total reworking of the programming for impact and guidence and changing of the warhead as well. There isn't a missile in the US inventory, or any other that I'm aware, that would make that kind of impact on that trajectory at the same time.

[1337m4n]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...sses/bart.html

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by Terral

Hi Nim:

Yes! You win the award for using 14 words to convey an opinion apart from supporting anything with credible evidence. Just show us your pictures of Flight 77 crashed ANYWHERE and you win the prize. :0) GL, because none exist anywhere.
GL,

Terral

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by Terral

. . . I put too much effort in my work to have you just throw it away by people without a case for anything . . .

Terral

The people who made "Revenge of the Sith" put a lot of effort into it, but it still sucks.

[Unsecured Coins]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

The people who made "Revenge of the Sith" put a lot of effort into it, but it still sucks.

you take that BACK. Yeah, the NOOOOO part was corny but the rest of it... ok, yeah, it sucked....

[LTC8K6]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...tos/index.html

Plenty of Flight 77 parts can be seen in many photos.

WARNING! There are photos of human remains on that page near the bottom.

[Metullus]

A member of this forum was at the Pentagon that day and laid his hands on pieces of the plane. I will take his word over any fourth-rate preschool level photo-analysis...

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by Smiledriver

It occurs to me that with most warheads delivered by the Tomahawk missle there would be alot less Pentagon left after it hit.

Well, they didn't actualy ARM the warheads...gosh...that would make it way too obvious :P

[negativ]

Quote:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...03/pentani.gif

I'd just like to point out for the 10 trillionth time that, despite what you see in Jerry Bruckheimer films, high explosives do not create billowing orange fireballs.

In fact, you know what substance special effects crews frequently use to create those visuals in the aforementioned movies? Kerosene.

Guess what kerosene is also used in?

Hint: it rhymes with "Fet Jewel".

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by negativ

Hint: it rhymes with "Fet Jewel".

One thing's for sure: It certainly isn't "Mets rule."

[beachnut]

tripe, just tripe left over from junk rejected by 9/11 truth

could the OP poster, or anyone, please pm me when there are some facts to support his tripe

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Hammer_of_Thor

I like this analogy. It clearly shows the stupidity in the original idea.

That's the thing: this whole nonsense isn't about evidence, it is about a fundamental (possibly intentional) misunderstanding about the way the world works. So, instead of debating evidence, which is completely beside the point, we need to get at the basic flawed thinking at the heart of the CT BS.

So, look at the OP. Why even pretend that evidence matters? What we need to get through to people is that their fundamental view of the situation is wrong and outrageously illogical.

[Pardalis]

Quote:

Last edited by Terral : Today at 02:20 PM. Reason: a to "as," fix spacing, reveal to 'review,' add 'see'

Yes, that made a world of difference.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Terral

We ‘do’ have documented evidence that the ‘initial’ attack on the Pentagon took place at exactly 9:31:39, because the Pentagon had battery operated Navy clocks very near this location that stopped suddenly from the electromagnetic pulse emitted by the missile at the moment of detonation.

...
Terral

So now it's a nuclear tipped Tomahawk?


That is so going in a comic!


Thanks!

[Pardalis]

I think you have found your new muse, Horatius. An inexhaustible source of ridicule.

[JoeEllison]

Again, what is the purpose of hitting a building with a missile, nuclear or otherwise, and then hitting it with a plane five minutes later? How does that make any sense at all, on any level, in any reasonable person's mind?

Forget the stupid interview with some cab driver, or the silly CT "evidence"... what sense does any of this crap make?

[Terral]

Hi Buka:

Thank you for writing.

Quote:

Buka >> Now the fun and games begin!! Can you clarify certain aspects in your theory: 1) How did the Tomahawk missile knock and buckle the lamp posts? Please provide valid scientific calculations proving this.

No sir. This is your opportunity to provide Buka’s proposals and evidence for what ‘you’ think . . .



. . . knocked down the 5 light poles on this flight path . . .



. . . connecting the dots between the poles, the E-Ring Entry Hole and the C-Ring Exit hole ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...gon-hole-l.jpg ). You already know my theory from the Opening Post and my defending arguments from Post #79. Please feel free to offer your rebuttals to anything. GL.

Quote:

Buka >> 2) Account for the witness testimony that saw a jet liner strike the pentagon.

My witnesses are quoted in the OP and Post #79. Please post your theories with any witnesses you wish.

Quote:

Buka >> 3) Account for the aircraft debris seen on the crash site.

http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/Pen...3wreckage1.htm



You are looking at the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine wreckage from the retrofitted ( http://web.archive.org/web/200702210...5/318250.shtml ) A-3 Skywarrior used in the 9:37 AM Pentagon attack sitting at Column Line 9.



This is a slightly different view of the same heavily damaged JT8D engine.

Quote:

Buka >> 4) Account for the human remains from the passengers in the aircraft, found on the crash site.

Do you see one word about any human remains in the OP of this thread? No. I am here to defend ‘my’ missile/plane thesis with the ‘claims’ and ‘conclusions’ supported by the ‘evidence’ you see in ‘this’ thread. I have many Pentagon thesis papers you can read on many 911Truth Boards. Try the Pentagon Room over at Loose Change for starters ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showforum=12 ). Dylan and Russell run a good 911Truth Board over there. :0) That answer appears on one of my many threads. GL.

Quote:

Buka >> 5) Prove that the fireman you see in the photograph are suppose to be fighting the fire (you annotate your photograph saying Nobody is fighting the fire - what are you implying here). Is it not plausible that their job is to provide logistical support outside the building? Could they be relief fireman? Im sure YCHTT will provide an insight to this.

I have a “The Dod Manipulated Fire And Firemen On 9/11” Thread on the Loose Change Board ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=15882 ). I am still testing the waters here to see if the mods are going to continue tossing my work into the Garbage Can. If so, my time here will be very brief . . .

Thus far the Loose Change Board is about a 9 on a scale of 10 and this place is about a 2 with little sign of improving . . . My favorite mod is writing insults and calling me "Dude" like some juvenile delinquent saying I would be banned from the LC Board. :0) I know those guys and Richard Gage and Bill at AE911Truth.org and Janice and Mike at 911Truth.org and many key players in the 911Truth Movement, but nobody insults me like the mods here. Wonder why? :0)

Thank you for writing,

Terral

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Terral

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Smiledriver

It occurs to me that with most warheads delivered by the Tomahawk missle there would be alot less Pentagon left after it hit.

Details...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Terral

. . . knocked down the 5 light poles on this flight path . . .

A missile with a 9 foot wingspan manages to knock down light poles 40 feet apart!

<-------- you're killing my laughing dog Terral!

[JamesB]

Terral, just answer me this one question. When you watched the Lord of the Rings, did you really think that Elijah Wood was only 4 feet tall?

[funk de fino]

He still has not answered the subsonic Tomahawk questions yet

Or why if they were subsonic exactly how they would create a bow shock wave strong enough to bring down poles

This a special type of truther we have here

Just perfect for lurkers out there who may be reading and realising the stupidity that can be sen in the TM

I thought the lies were the worst part of this one but it is the fact he believes what he has posted as well as being a liar

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by WildCat

<-------- you're killing my laughing dog Terral!

It's like he's trying to add another level of stupid to the already idiotic fly over theory.

[funk de fino]

terral when were A3 Skyhawk retired by the Navy?

[timhau]

OK. I'm convinced.



And I'm not saying of what, since we were specifically asked to abide by forum rules.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually, Terral is almost right. A Tomahawk missile did hit the Pentagon before the plane did. What he forgot to mention was the Palestinian who threw a rock at the Pentagon before even that.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Terral

We ‘do’ have documented evidence that the ‘initial’ attack on the Pentagon took place at exactly 9:31:39, because the Pentagon had battery operated Navy clocks very near this location that stopped suddenly from the electromagnetic pulse emitted by the missile at the moment of detonation.

1. Are you saying all these clocks were radio-synchronized to official time, rather than ordinary office wall clocks? Yes or no.
2. Are you claiming that a nuclear warhead was used on the Pentagon? Yes or no.

[rcronk]

Terral - So, let me get this straight. You have cherry picked some evidence and come up with a theory that doesn't make sense. The people here dare to bring pieces of evidence to the table that challenge your theory and you dismiss it saying, "I am here to defend ‘my’ missile/plane thesis with the ‘claims’ and ‘conclusions’ supported by the ‘evidence’ you see in ‘this’ thread."

That's like taking the following evidence:

1. There are presents under my tree Christmas morning.
2. I didn't see anyone put them there.

And coming up with the following theory:

Santa Clause put it there on a hypersonic sleigh.

And then someone here saying:

But I don't have a fireplace and so he couldn't have come down the chimney, and it would probably take him longer than .004 microseconds per house to put the presents down, etc.

And then you say:

Sorry, I'm not going to deal with any evidence that I didn't bring to the table at the beginning, you have to prove me wrong only using my cherry picked evidence.

Your argument is ridiculous. Your theory is dumb and is only based on partial evidence and lay man knowledge. Your method of debate is useless in finding truth - its only use is to protect your cherished belief underneath it all - whatever that belief is.

You are wasting everyone's time here because you seem to be too afraid to deal with any evidence that challenges your theory.

[DGM]

Terral:

Quote:

You are looking at the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine wreckage from the retrofitted ( http://web.archive.org/web/200702210...5/318250.shtml ) A-3 Skywarrior used in the 9:37 AM Pentagon attack sitting at Column Line 9.

Why are you claiming a Pratt & Whitney engine when both engines found were Rolls-Royce?

[Terral]

Hi Funk De Fino:

Quote:

Funk >> Terral as long as you do not lie again i will continue 1. why did none of the witness see the Tomahawk?

There are no lies in any of my words, Funk, and you know it. I make a few mistakes here and there, but that is why we have you to keep us on the straight and narrow. :0) BTW, I appreciate you pointing out my error on the Boeing Engines, even if that thread is in the garbage can.

Quote:

Funk >> 2. why did they see a large jetliner?

Who is ‘they?’ The 9:32 AM Decoy Flyover Plane was apparently a C-130 ( http://kohm.org/blog/wp-content/uplo...7/03/c-130.JPG ), but that is going around over at the Loose Change Board. The make and model to me is irrelevant for this missile/plane thesis paper, which is why you see no specific Plane mentioned as the “Decoy Flyover Plane.”

Quote:

Funk >> 3. when were the A-3 Skyhawk retired?

Does anyone around here do one bit of research on these topics? The right question is when were a group of retired A-3 Skywarrior (heh) retrofitted and given remote-control capabilities?

http://web.archive.org/web/200702210...5/318250.shtml

That link was spy-botted out of existence for a while, but the archive link appears to be working now. The bad guys used a retrofitted retired model to eliminate the paper trail in case anyone got wise. :0)

GL,

Terral

[leftysergeant]

You are doing a remarkable job of demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about time-keeping, explosive ordnance, or the sorts of debris one should expect to see in an aircraft crash.

Originally Posted by Terral

We ‘do’ have documented evidence that the ‘initial’ attack on the Pentagon took place at exactly 9:31:39, because the Pentagon had battery operated Navy clocks very near this location that stopped suddenly from the electromagnetic pulse emitted by the missile at the moment of detonation.

http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480

Electromagnetic pulse? WTF? How was this electromagnetic pulse generated and why on earth would one deliberately use it at the Pentagon? Are you saying they NUKED the place?

Quote:

“Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995−present), the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university.” Her work details the events surrounding the 9:31:39 AM initial attack here [my emphasis and notes]:

http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_H..._September.pdf

She also has a reputation as a bit of a flake, and no training in fire fighting or aircraft incident investigations. I have more training in both of those areas than she has and I see no sign of anything anomolous in any of thr photos. What I do see more supports the official narrative, like aircraft parts, insulation, wing prints on the building and that sort of stuff.

Quote:

The overwhelming evidence says the ‘initial’ Pentagon attack took place just seconds before 9:32 AM on 9/11, because Navy clocks ‘do not lie’ like the sons of men.

What sort of clocks does the Navy cite? A clock in an isolated operations center of the wall clocks in the area of the impact? If you cite the things hanging on the wall, you are displaying ghastly ignorance of the quality of instruments used.

Quote:

Frame 0 Shows the 9:31:39 explosion creating the electromagnetic pulse that stopped all the clocks (and wristwatches) within a certain radius of impact.

No, there was no blast capable of producing an electromagnetic piulse. There was no flash of light that blinded people looking at the building, and the cameras still functioned after the blast. No nukes, no EMP device. A little military experinece would have helped you tremendously in analysing this stuff.

Quote:

Note the white features of the explosion and the very noticeable white vapor trail common to missiles flying at low altitudes near sea level.

Not a bit of it. You have watched too many 1930s-vintage sci-fi movies with primitive special effects. Missle exhaust doe not form undulating, curling waves along the ground. Vapors or sprays of some sort, such as from a damaged engine under the wings of a very large, fast-moving aircraft do.

This marks the point in our exercise where we connect Lloyd’s events to these images. Remember Lloyd saw the PLANE that ‘he thought’ knocked the light pole down on his taxi, but in reality he saw a Decoy Flyover Plane running diversion for this missile strike. This is the reason we have so many conflicting stories among the Pentagon witness, because ‘some’ saw this 9:32 AM Decoy Plane and ‘others’ saw the 9:37 AM A-3 Skywarrior actually hit the Pentagon. However, ‘both’ attacks created damage with fire and smoke. Therefore, by the time frame 9 is taken by this video camera, Lloyd stopped the vehicle and is sitting in his taxi in complete shock as to what just happened. The fire in this first attack is GONE in just about 8 seconds and all eyes were on the ‘Decoy Flyover’ Plane, so MANY never even saw the fire/smoke plume passing over the Pentagon wall. Remember the hand is quicker than the eye and the DoD made every attempt to fool everyone with this ‘two attack’ strategy. However, they did not realize the missile would create such a powerful bow shockwave that knocked these 5 light poles down revealing their ‘south’ flight path ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/020.jpg ). The bow shockwave from this missile needed extend only 25 feet off the nose to create equal force to a VW Rabbit going just 20 miles per hour ( http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html ). Many people simply do not realize these poles lay almost in a straight line and point directly into the E-Ring entry hole AND directly through the C-Ring exit hole:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...Trajectory.jpg

Quote:

The Tomahawk Missile detonated just inside the E-Ring wall at 9:31:39 AM,

So where is the construction debris blown out into the lawn area?

Quote:

which caused the warhead in the ‘central’ section to detonate and propel the still-intact nose section forward. This nose section was propelled through the rear E-Ring wall to impact on the D-Ring slab shown here in orange ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...03/columns.jpg = Slab deflected upward ), before exiting the C-Ring wall like a shotgun blast.

Like a shotgun blast that tapers down after leaving the muzzle. Yeah, right! You here demonstrate even less understanding of firearms than you do of aircraft.

ANY explosive charge is going to spread debris over an EXPANDING path, not a narrowing path.

Quote:

Lord-Have-Mercy! Where did all this fire come?

Uh....jet fuel driven inside the building.

Bear in mind that at the moment of impact, the aircraft became a hyperbaric bomb. The fine mist of jet fuel deflagrated rapidly, over-pressurizing a wide area and depriving the area of oxygen. Ity took a while for the small fires started inside on impact to work their way back out to the fuel in the front of the impacted area.

Quote:

Obviously many JREF members ignore the ‘attack the argument and not the arguer’ mantra part of the COC guidelines. I wonder how our Moderators would react if my side of this debate was posting NO EVIDENCE and calling everyone ‘stupid.’ :0) How many think they would put a sock in my mouth? In fact, they already threw my Flight 93 Thread in the garbage can AND locked the thread for good measure, even though my debating adversaries were flaming me and I was being nice to everyone. How do you wield so much power and authority and misuse that so blatantly in front of all these witnesses? If you want to get rid of me and never see Terral again, then move one more of my threads for some stupid reason.

That you post gibberish and untruths and insist that we put our responses in the context of that blather is not exactly civil conduct on your part. Maybe you didn't understand that we have all come here on the assumpption that this is a place to discuss evidence with one's brain fully-engaged.

Quote:

If 'your' explanation cannot withstand the test of a 'real' debate, then maybe the time has come to begin shaping your theories around 'the evidence' . . . I put too much effort in my work to have you just throw it away without having a case for anything . ..

Well, maybe if you actually bropught some evidence that stands up to basic fire fighting, aviation or legal theories, you might get some respect.

[BenBurch]

Terral,

Are you real?

Or is this some bizarre performance art macabre humor? Because if thats the case your collection of postings makes a sort of tasteless sense.

But if you really believe this stuff, you have achieved the legendary state of Woovana.

-Ben

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Terral

<snip>

The Department of Defense has been running a cover up operation from the very beginning in a case literally filled to the brim with carefully planted disinformation to throw 911Truth investigators off the track.

In order for the case to be "literally filled to the brim," the case would have to be a cup or other container for liquid.

Originally Posted by Terral

<snip>

The Fort Meyer "on station Foam 161" appears to be in position at 9:37 AM with firemen "outside the vehicle" (ACAAC Page 26 = A-4*) when the remote-controlled A-3 Skywarrior entered Pentagon airspace for the ‘second’ attack. The only way I can place Fort Meyer "Foam 161" on the scene near the entry hole to be hit in the A-3 Skywarrior attack is for them to be "outside the vehicle" responding to the ‘earlier’ 9:32 AM attack.

The reason Foam 161 was already at the Pentagon when the aircraft struck the building is that the unit is assigned to the Pentagon heliport. The reason the foam truck was outside the fire station was that President Bush was expected later in the day, and his motorcade vehicles sometimes obstructed the apparatus door. The reason two firefighters were outside the station is that they were working on the foam truck at the time of the attack.


From an account by Foam 161 firefighter Allan Wallace:

Quote:

. . . we were expecting President Bush about Noon . . . In such situations, one of the problems I see at the heliport is that there are too many people there. Plus, there are many vehicles . . . some of these vehicles even park in front of the fire station apparatus door, blocking the fire truck from exiting the building! That is why I wanted the crash truck out of the station and parked in a good location, for easy access to the heliport in case of an emergency. . . .

We both began to work around the crash truck and were talking about the events in New York. About 0920, Chief Charlie Campbell called the Pentagon fire station to inform us of the attacks on the WTC in New York. . . . He also said Washington D.C. could very well be a target and if that happened, our fire truck could be dispatched to an incident. . . .

Mark and I continued to mess around the fire truck. The last minute or two before the plane hit the Pentagon, Mark and I were working in the right rear compartment where the foam metering valves are located. . . . We had walked past the right front corner of the crash truck (Foam 161) and were maybe 10-15 feet in front of the truck when I looked up towards my left side. I saw a large frame commercial airliner crossing Washington Blvd., heading towards the Pentagon! The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground and only about 200 YARDS from our location. I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees. The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines. [emphasis added]

Originally Posted by Terral

These frames show how the missile approached and detonated:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...03/pentani.gif

No. These frames show a Boing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. Mike J. Wilson has created 3-D models and animation that explain what we are seeing far better than your frankly laughable attempts at photogrammetry. Here is the YouTube version of his video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

He used to have a higher-resolution version available on his web site--if you'd prefer that I can upload it to my school web page. Note that I use Solidworks in my job--I've downloaded all the models used to create the animation, and I've checked them--all the important measurements and object locations are correct.


Furthermore, a cruise missile could not possibly have created such a huge fireball; it simply does not carry enough fuel or payload. Here is a YouTube video of several cruise missile detonations.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Originally Posted by Terral

This fire is limited to the direct area surrounding the 18-feet diameter entry hole that Foam 161 was preparing to knocked down. However, this picture shows evidence of a much wider attack running far north of the E-ring entry hole.

The hole was much larger that 18 feet.

Originally Posted by Terral

he Foam 161 crewmen ("Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace"*) were reported to be in a state of "shock" after the 9:37 AM A-3 Skywarrior attack, so I am not even sure if they realize today the reason they were standing outside the truck in time to be almost killed.

See previous quote from Alan Wallace.

Originally Posted by Terral

<snip>

Examine the original large photo to realize there is no foam yet sprayed on anything. The time of this picture must be between 9:32 AM and the period 'before' Foam Unit #331 ( http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa-article/ ) showed up later to put down foam. The important detail to note is our fire is raging at least forty feet to the left (north) of the SUV, which seems a highly unlikely location for any fire from the original missile attack directly over the cable spools . . .

Begging the question that a cruise missile hit before the aircraft did. However, even granting that for the sake of argument, the lack of foam proves nothing--how do you know the picture wasn't taken after the aircraft crashed but before any foam was applied? The photo doesn't prove anything even under your assumptions.

Originally Posted by Terral

<snip>

A close up shot reveals our tall green undamaged SUV with mystery debris littering the area south (right) of Column Line 7. The white Nissan is parked in front of Column Line 6, which is 80 feet north of the center (Line 14) of our E-Ring entry hole. That means the fire burning to the north of our Nissan is at least 120 feet from the original impact crater, which appears highly unlikely from the damage recorded in the original missile strike.

Again begging the questions of both an original missile strike and the timing of the photograph.

Originally Posted by Terral

While we do not have nearly enough damage to the E-Ring limestone wall to support the Official Flight 77 cover story . . .

The American Society of Civil Engineers members virtually to a person think that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. How is it that they don't agree with you that the damage doesn't support this??

Originally Posted by Terral

. . . we appear to have plenty of evidence to support a second attack from a remote-controlled A-3 Skywarrior. Here is News footage of my eyewitnesses to a small plane striking the Pentagon. Don Wright testifies to seeing a 'twin-engine' plane crashing into the Pentagon fitting the description perfectly.

A 757 is a "twin-engine plane." And Wright was about 1 1/2 miles from the Pentagon. Further, what of all the witnesses (including Alan Wallace and Sean Boger, the Pentagon heliport's senior air traffic controller) who were much closer and said they saw a 757-like aircraft??

Originally Posted by Terral

<snip>

However, this NF #2-5 11:55 AM entry on my timeline shows our SUV is now much shorter and has become white AND is now located in front of Column Line 4. :0) This picture appears to be a fake. :0) These two vehicles change colors often and appear on fire in many of the pictures, because the photoshop artist used the smoke to cover his mistakes. Therefore, my Sundial measurements can very well off, if the two merged pictures are from 9/11 and 9/12 or beyond.

The SUV looks white because cars often turn white when they burn. And it got "shorter" because its tires burned away. See here.

Originally Posted by Terral

Whoever doctored these images is definitely hiding evidence between Column Lines 5 and 13 where I now believe the A-3 Skywarrior Jet attack occurred at 9:37 AM.

Sorry, the photos aren't doctored. Your "evidence" that they have been has been conclusively refuted.

Originally Posted by Terral

The Department of Defense has manipulated practically all the Pentagon data to fabricate a fictitious timeline in support of their Official Flight 77 Cover Story. This explains why so many 911Truthers have contradictory explanations for what really happened at the Pentagon, because there were two attacks (missile and plane) all along.

Darn (with apologies to beachnut). All of your evidence has been refuted. Darn. You don't have any real evidence. Darn. Your theory is a complete crock.

[Terral]

Hi DGM:

Quote:

DGM >> Why are you claiming a Pratt & Whitney engine when both engines found were Rolls-Royce?

Surely you jest! The engine components found at the Pentagon are from a Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine.

http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm

http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm

Rense.com has done some wonderful work in the engine department. That second link has the most data. I would offer my commentary on all the evidence, but your side of this debate cannot place one piece of a real Rolls-Royce engine anywhere near the Pentagon. :0)

Please try to prove me wrong.

GL,

Terral