The Pentagon Thread: Part 5

[DulceDecorum]

The original thread on the original DU 9:11 Forum was called
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here.
It continued for nine threads each one containing a list of all the preceeding threads. This is the most recent:
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here.
Part 9!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5620&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

Then DU upgraded to a new server.
Hence,
The Pentagon Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=405&mesg_id=405

The Pentagon Thread: Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=708&mesg_id=708

The Pentagon Thread: Part 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=1167

The Pentagon Thread: Part 4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=2058&mesg_id=2058

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

2. The Pentagon Floor

We have heard much about the Incedible Penta-lawn.
We have heard more about the Penta-Windows and the Mother Of All Walls.
We have even heard of the prowess of the Penta-closets.
And now it is time to discuss the attributes of the marvelous Pent-floor.

Initially, the concrete portion of the project was to be more time consuming. The heat from the airplane severely burned and dented much of the concrete, and the original plans were to tear up the entire floor and start over. When Paul Scheidmantel, Ardex Sales Representative, saw the site, he made the recommendation that contractors use K-15 instead, saving the Pentagon both time and money. ARDEX K-15 technology fills in all of the gouges and cracks and uneven surfaces to produce an even, level floor that is ready just hours after installation.
Faccina Construction, the general constructor for concrete repairs, made using K-15 a requirement in the bidding process. Ardex pioneered the technology, and enjoys an unmatched performance track record in the construction world. Lew Rea, Ardex Sales Manager, said that this project is one of the highlights of Ardex's extraordinary history. "The job had to be done fast, it had to be done perfect, and it had to be permanent...and it had to be ARDEX K-15," he said. "We have the track record of providing that. This project really confirms our position in the industry," he said. The finished product is 35,000 square feet of American pride.
http://www.ardex.com/main-news-020718.htm

With today's construction industry driven primarily by renovation and alteration, access to quality floor repair can be critical to an owner or tenant's satisfaction. Since its inception in 1979, Levelcrafters has been committed to floor renovation and repair projects EXCLUSIVELY.
http://www.levelcrafters.com/aboutus.htm

Make a note of this sentence:
"The HEAT from the airplane severely burned and dented much of the concrete, and the original plans were to tear up the entire floor and start over."

Now, where did I get the impression that the actual BODY OF THE AIRCRAFT would cause more damage than the HEAT?

Impact damage on the first floor was extensive near the entry point of the aircraft. It is likely that the exterior first-floor columns from column line 10 to column line 14 were removed entirely by the impact and that the exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged. Most probably, many or most of the first-floor interior columns in the collapse area were heavily damaged by impact.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

The simulation suggests that the reinforced concrete column core will cut into the fuselage until the fuel depot reaches it, at which time the column is destroyed.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

Oh yes,
I must have thought that the fact that the columns were destroyed meant that the ground floor of the Pentagon was also badly damaged by the plane's fusilage and further harmed when all other the floors collapsed on top of that ground floor.
Silly me.
All they had to do was pour a layer of Ardex K-15 and they were good to go.
Isn't science wonderful?

[Old and In the Way]

3. Is it no-wax technology?

Does seem odd that the floor wouldn't have been cratered, but on the otherhand, there wasn't a very steep angle of entry, right?

[DulceDecorum]

4. Hani Hanjour was a very considerate man

He made sure that the plane did not bellyflop into the center courtyard and he minimized the damage to the Penta-floor so thoroughly that they were able to pour that stuff down and be done.

You would have thought that the columns might habe broken off in jagged clumps, or that they might have left stumps or column craters in the floor.
You might also wonder how they reconstructed the new columns.
I used to think that they would place the rebar or steel reinforcement, THROUGH the foundation.
Now I dunno.
But I do know that that Ardex K-15 is some nifty stuff.

SUBFLOOR PREPARATION
Gypsum, latex patches, asphalt, coal tar, and lightweight insulating concrete are not suitable substrates for the installation of ARDEX K-15.
Concrete floors: MUST BE SOLID, THOROUGHLY CLEAN, FREE OF OIL,WAX, GREASE, LATEX or gypsum patching compounds, curing and sealing compounds, OR ANY CONTAMINANT WHICH MAY ACT AS A BOND BREAKER before priming with ARDEX P-51 Primer. Overwatered, frozen or otherwise WEAK OR CONTAMINATED CONCRETE MUST BE MECHANICALLY CLEANED TO A SOUND SOLID SURFACE by shotblasting, scarifying or similar. Acid etching and the use of solvents are not acceptable means of cleaning the substrate. .......
THICKNESS OF INSTALLATION
ARDEX K-15 can be installed from a featheredge to 1 1/2" in a single application, and up to 5" with the addition of proper aggregate. For installations exceeding 5", contact the ARDEX Technical Service Department. ......
WEAR SURFACES
ARDEX K-15 is not to be used as a permanent wear surface, even if coated or sealed. ARDEX K-15 must be covered by a suitable floor covering material such as carpet, vinyl flooring, ceramic tile, etc. For resurfacing and leveling indoor concrete floors in warehouses, storage areas, hallways, or other areas where a wear surface is required, use ARDEX SD-T Self-Drying, Self-Leveling Concrete Topping.
http://www.ardex.com/prod-k15-inst.htm

1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Installation of ARDEX K-15 must be by an applicator using mixing equipment and tools approved by the manufacturer.
B. Underlayment shall be able to be installed from 1/8" to 1 ½" in one pour and up to 5" with the addition of aggregate. It may also be feathered to match existing elevations.
http://www.ardex.com/prod-k15-spec.htm

So,does that mean that the holes in the Penta-floor only started out a depth of 1/8 of an inch?
And after sandbasting down to solid undamaged concrete, they only had nicks less than 5 inches deep?

Boy, then that floor was hardly dented.
Like I said, Hani was one considerate guy.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

6. NO. Here.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[DulceDecorum]

7. So THAT'S where the "official scientists went to school

At 9:38 on the morning of September 11, 2001, as part of a terrorist action involving four hijacked aircraft, a commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into the Pentagon. One hundred eighty-nine people were killed and a portion of the building was damaged by the associated impact, deflagration, and fire. That afternoon, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) established a building performance study (BPS) team of volunteers who possess expertise in structural, fire, and forensic engineering to examine the performance of the structure in the crash and subsequent fire for the benefit of the building professions and the public. This study follows a similar examination of the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, and parallels a study of the September 11 World Trade Center terrorist attack. The Pentagon BPS team’s report—The Pentagon Building Performance Report—is scheduled for release on July 31 and is available from ASCE in book form. This article is an abridged version of the report and does not include discussion of every aspect of the BPS study.

The BPS team’s analysis of the Pentagon and the damage resulting from the attack was conducted between September 2001 and April 2002. Members of the team inspected the site as soon as was possible without interfering with the rescue and recovery operations. They reviewed the original plans, the renovation plans, and all available information on the material properties of the structure. They scrutinized aircraft data, eyewitness accounts, and fatality records; consulted with the urban search and rescue engineers, the chief renovation engineer, and the engineer in charge of the crash and site reconstruction; and examined the focused assessments of the disaster conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Pentagon Renovation Program staff.

From this information the BPS team concluded that the impact of the aircraft destroyed or significantly impaired approximately 50 structural columns. The ensuing fire weakened a number of other structural elements. However, only a very small segment of the affected structure collapsed, approximately half an hour after impact. The collapse, fatalities, and damage were mitigated by the Pentagon’s resilient structural system. Very few blast-resistant windows installed during the renovation of the structure that was begun in 1999 and scheduled for completion in 2010 broke during the impact and deflagration of aircraft fuel.

Study Team
The BPS team included specialists in structural, fire, and forensic engineering. The following six individuals constituted the core group and are the authors of this report:

Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., Lead
Technical Director
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Specialty: blast-resistant design; investigator, Murrah Federal Office Building study

Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Principal
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Arlington, Massachusetts
Specialty: blast effects and structural design

James R. Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal
J.R. Harris & Company
Denver, Colorado
Specialty: structural engineering

Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Washington, D.C.
Specialty: fire protection

Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Research Structural Engineer
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Maryland
Specialty: concrete structural and fire engineering

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana
Specialty: behavior of reinforced-concrete structures
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/


ENTRAILS OF DEAD ANIMALS, eh?
Surely you are confusing these guys with the outfit that conferred "engineering" credentials upon Lared.

And speaking of intimate knowledge of the entrails of dead animals,
here is one possible reason why you puke so much.

Scientists have discovered a one-celled protozoan parasite called Toxoplasma gondii that frequently lives in the brains of wild brown rats. It is a normally harmless parasite commonly found in most mammals, including man.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/orl-lklmud08090803sep08xx,0,2582578,print.column?coll=orl-news-print-asec

[Abe Linkman]

23. Great photograph

You are one very resourceful DUer with a fine eye for art.

I like the way it appears that "PsychiCat" takes on an extra glow just by putting a paw on the crystal ball.

Thanks for posting it.

[DulceDecorum]

21. Concrete and fire

Three buildings were attacked on September 11. All three were hit by "flying bombs" carrying large loads of explosive fuel, which instantly ignited into sizable high-challenge infernos. Two of those structures were reduced to "ground zero," while the other, the Pentagon, lost less than 4% of its total area of operation and is already being rebuilt. There are several reasons why the Pentagon survived, one of which is the aforementioned renovation, modernization, and beefed-up security improvement project begun only five years ago. Allow me to briefly touch on some other key points.
<snip>
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: Less steel and more concrete generally means more impediment to fire growth. The "fortresslike" concrete and limestone construction of the Pentagon is not conducive to the typical growth rate of a fire, which will geometrically double in intensity by the minute. The act of conveying heat is impeded. Concrete is actually used as a protective covering for other materials, such as steel. IN ADDITION A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF THE HEAT ENERGY OF A FIRE IS EXPENEDED IN VAPORIZING THE CONCRETE'S MOISTURE CONTENT. Thus, the structural integrity of a building will be more effectively maintained until the fire department can arrive on the scene.

FAST EMERGENCY RESPONSE EFFORTS: A commercial building does not come equipped with the exhaustive security and alarm measures that are present throughout those that are situated in a critical setting. This was the case evidenced by the quick response of numerous fire departments in and around the Capitol on September 11. The first responders to the emergency were the Arlington (Virginia) County firefighters, all of whom arrived on the scene immediately that morning. U.S. Air Force fighter planes were protecting the nation's Capitol 15 minutes after the attack.
Most of the Pentagon is sprinklered, including the area of impact, but the destroyed systems did little or nothing to fight the fire. THE CREDIT GOES TO THOSE FIREMEN WHO STRATEGICALLY CONTAINED THE BLAZE. With precious little margin for error, they managed to completely douse the blaze less than eight hours after the initial explosion, allowing key Pentagon officials to continue their crucial defensive work in other portions of the building. The fire was contained after spreading 50 feet to either side of the 100-foot impact area on the 921-foot exterior of the southwest fifth, not quite reaching the center courtyard, and spreading up to the third tier of the exposed clovened shell. The fire did keep rekindling for the next three days, as smoldering embers, insulation, and other building materials were exposed with the removal of rubble, but these small fires were easily extinguished. In Washington, luckily, there were no firefighter fatalities.
http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2732,69307,00.html

One of the absolutely MOST important points in firefighting is to know WHERE the fire is AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Dialogic Communications Corp
The system, called the Communicator, is installed at five command centers at the Pentagon and proved its usefulness on September 11, when a hijacked airliner struck the building. Thousands of people were instructed to evacuate the area via messages that the Communicator was programmed to send to individual pagers, cell phones, personal digital assistants and whatever other means of electronic communications were available.
“This system alerts everyone at the speed of light, so everyone knows where to go, what the problem is and what to do,” said Van Hipp, a defense industry consultant. He said that, a few days after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, government officials had the system installed at the White House.
The Communicator is used at 1,100 sites in 22 countries, said David Zadick, president of Dialogic Systems, the company that manufactures the system.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=630

Please do NOT ask me how the fire department knew about the impending attack when the Secertary of State has said that he did not.
And now a little commentary on a particularly interesting article:

It is entitled "ARFF Crews Respond to the Front Line at Pentagon" written by Stephen Murphy, the executive editor of the National Fire Protection Association Journal ("NFPA Journal"). The dateline states the article was published on November 1, 2001. Here is the opening paragraph:
"When a hijacked Boeing 757, skimming the street lights, smashed into the Pentagon on September 11, firefighters at nearby Reagan National Airport were the right responders in the right place with the right equipment."

Eerie. The prescient opening paragraph addressed the very points I was to raise seven months later in "Pentagon RESCUE? Open, Bloody Questions . . ."

Then, the next two paragraphs challenged everything the media led us to believe about the long-lasting fire at the Pentagon:
"Being among the first responding fire units, National's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF) crews were able to set up their apparatus directly in front of the gaping hole in the Pentagon. That was where their training in fighting aircraft fires and the capability of their foam units to extinguish jet fuel fires were put to the best use.

"The ARFF foam units knocked down the bulk of the fire in the first SEVEN MINUTES after their arrival . . ."

If that was so, what did we all watch on TV?
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa.html

Hmmm, it almost seems as if they are saying that the fire at the Pentagon was extinguished using foam in about seven or so minutes.
Well, that does go a LONG way to explaining why the Pentagon floor is practically intact and why Ed Plaugher stated that it was NOT hot inside the building and also why certain scalps are still graced with hair.
But that is too easy.
Isn't it?
So let's have a look at fire trucks.

The fire trucks that initially responded to the fire were not regular old fire trucks. They were specially equipped fire trucks, which is why they had foam on board for fighting a jet fuel fire.
These trucks were airport-fire-fighting trucks and as such, both the trucks and the firefighters, are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

But the city’s back-up rigs, three regular pumpers stationed in firehouses near the airport, don’t operate like the far more sophisticated airport fire trucks.
They can’t pump while moving and are not designed to operate in the intense heat of jet fuel fires. These are standard features of an airport fire truck, which allow it to chase flaming planes down a runway while spraying foam.
What’s more, the trucks that provide backup for the airport fire rigs carry a fire-extinguishing foam not approved for airport use by the FAA. In fact, the foam — used to smother car and fuel tanker fires — actually can counteract the one used at airports.
Even the foam’s manufacturer, Hazardous Control Technology of Georgia, warns against mixing the two.
“I don’t know of any fire department that would mix these foams,” said Rick Morley, the company’s regional sales manager. Firefighters at the airport’s primary back-up station, Engine 46 at Grace and Knodell, have even written a warning on their five-gallon buckets not to mix the two foams.
http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/obq-faa-detroit/

One of the major issues for response personnel at the Pentagon was that fire had spread into the roof of the structure. "The inner and outer rings of the building have gabled, slate roofs supported by timbers" said Chief Plaugher. "The wood timbers have been there for at least 60 years and were insulated with horse hair. WE SIMPLY COULD NOT PUT THE FIRE OUT."
http://www.nfpa.org/ProfessionalDev/EventsCalendar/FallEducationConference/Registration/MondayReport/MondayReport.asp

Oh dear,
I do hope that they did not mix the two types of foam together.
Because then THAT would explain the blaze that we all saw on TV and in numerous photographs ever since.

Anyhow, it is a jolly good thing that the special airport-fire truck was already prctically at the Pentagon was the proper time.
Why, you ask?
Because the things are more unstable than a drunk in high heels.

A number of high capacity, high centre of gravity airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) vehicles have rolled over. A list of known incidents is presented in Table 1. As far as is known, these all occurred during normal driving. Consequently, some airports have placed a low speed limit on these vehicles. Drivers may also be uncertain of the vehicles, so may not be prepared to use them to their full capability. Both of these may hamper emergency response.
http://cstt-ctts.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/en/course/course01.html

A truck of this type is supposed to able to spay dry chemicals (or foam) while driving down the runway beside a burning plane. I really do not think that they should be rolling over at the same time.
http://cstt-ctts.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/en/course/course01.html#Table%201.

So it is a jolly good thing that they really had no need to drive at high speed while engaged at the Pentagon. Thank God, they just so happened to be in the neighbourhood at the precise time there was a need for them to be in that precise neighbourhood.
And it is a good thing they brought all their gear with them.

TICs have also emerged as a viable tool in homeland defense applications: AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERMAL IMAGERS MAKE QUICK WORK OF SEARCHIING FOR VICTIMS, a capability that is of special value when looking for and rescuing mass casualties, as in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedies. First responders used thermal imaging cameras to locate survivors of both the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

The three-man crew of Rescue 104 (of the Arlington County Fire Department) spent 15 hours in full gear searching the rubble of the Pentagon for victims, leaving only to refill their SCBA units. Firefighters Fred Kawatsky and Bob Beer, and driver/firefighter Chad Stamp ARRIVED ON SCENE TWO MINUTES AFTER AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 CRASHED INTO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PENTAGON. “Without the technology,” says Kawatsky, “we would have been on our hands and knees crawling. Instead, we just walked through, and we had our bearings.
http://www.nfrmag.com/backissues/MayJun2002/feature2.asp

Huh, big deal.
In the Pentagon EVERYONE walks around in a roaring fire and almost everyone has their bearings. That is how they all rescue each other. What, you didn't watch an awards ceremony?
Besides which, it is not as if the floor ever gets really hot enough to actually spall or anything like that.

The "fortresslike" concrete and limestone construction of the Pentagon is not conducive to the typical growth rate of a fire, which will geometrically double in intensity by the minute. The act of conveying heat is impeded. Concrete is actually used as a protective covering for other materials, such as steel. In addition, a considerable amount of the heat energy of a fire is expended in vaporizing the concrete's moisture content.
http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2732,69307,00.html

Documented damage from exposure to the heat included the iron oxidation, desiccation cracking of the paste, and cracking of both the coarse and fine aggregate, a response to thermal shock. "In many cases, the heat of the fire drove out water attached to the cement hydrates, which literally disintegrated the paste and turned it into a fine powder," Wolter related. APS testing indicated temperatures exceeded 700 degrees Celsius.
http://www.amengtest.com/news/02summer/pentagon.htm

But that was just the columns and the walls.
The floor was just FINE.
That is why one coat of Ardex K-15 was MUCH MORE than enough to fill in the little nicks, dents and scatches.

What?
You want proof?
OK, here.
The place was a veritable steam bath.

The impact and explosion that occurred when terrorists crashed a hijacked airliner into the side of the building devastated a significant area on five floors of the world renowned US military headquarters. However, water damage--resulting from fire hoses, automatically activated sprinklers systems, and shattered water lines-- affected nearly 2.5 million square feet of space adjacent to the crash area that otherwise would have been left intact!
"Millions of gallons of water flowed throughout the building after the attack," said Joe Kelley, Munters district manager in the Washington DC area. In some places water was 18 inches deep on the floors."
http://www.muntersmcs.com/mcs/htm/pentagon/pentagon.htm

And on top of that water was the jet fuel
(and perhaps the two types of foam.)
But you can see for yourself that the floor remained VERY WELL HYDRATED and that is why the Ardex K-15 was all that they needed to make it shipshape again - once they drained off all that water and dehumidified the entire place.

[DulceDecorum]

66. Re: angle of entry

This, hopefully, will answer more questions than it raises.

It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77 involved in the Pentagon incident? This article presents an analysis of the physical aspects of the incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the issue of eyewitnesses.
http://thewebfairy.com/holmgren/

[RH]

77. Holmgren failed

even to begin to present "an analysis of the physical aspects of the incident". From the outset he presented nothing more than an analysis of his own warped imagining of what the incident was.

He failed even to get the most basic of all the facts right having fallen for one of the most unfortunately frequent of all the usual mistakes; seeing only a part of the outer ring collapse he supposed that the plane had only penetrated that far.

If his suppostion, i.e. "the depth of the hole. 65 ft." had thus happened to be true there would then perhaps be something to wonder about but he was just plain wrong about it, failing to realise that the ground floor level of the Pentagon extended all the way through three outer rings of the building before coming to an exterior wall, the plane therefore penetrating not to 65 feet but to nearly 300 feet (as many more intelligent observers had already ralised when first he flaunted his ignorance.

Now having got that wrong at the outset, how much was the rest of his 'analysis' ever going to be worth?

Having primed the pump, so to speak, I look forward with interest to DD's propensity for critical analysis to be applied to the rest of Holmgren's folly. There are more than enough errors to pick up on to keep going for quite some time. Or in the face of such a well established climate of bigotry would such a sense of balance be just a bit too much to hope for?

[DulceDecorum]

78. Who

are you calling a bigot?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acerbic]

8. The Amazing Penta-Floor still has HAIR!

How do you Bush-loving Official Version propagandists explain THAT? Huh? Wherdygo? Wherdygo?

:-)

[RH]

9. Proved by what?

Do you have a picture of the Pentafloor with hair?

Too much to ask for?

Just one pic?

The ASCE report said nothing about hair.

Of course not:

Pentagon to put troops on 'hair-trigger' alert

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/14/sprj.irq.military/

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

46. A bit too near the truth was it?

n/t

[RH]

47. Deleted mesages

Is one at least allowed to logical?

Given that one is not supposed to discuss a messenger (as opposed a message) and there was no reason to suppose that anybody turned up here with any particular intention to do so, is it then reasonable enough to ask, as had been done so many times over, what the particular point of a number of messages was supposed to be?

Discerning therefore, after a considerable period time, as if by an extended process of elimination, guesswork or intuition, that there was really no meaning to any of a series of messages, apart that is from any meaning that had not already been addresed many times over, and apart from 'I do not believe anything' a consequential discussion of that implication was only to be expected.

[Lithos]

62. You can always ask a question

But to bring the issue back as a reflection on the poster is not allowed. The posts which were deleted were definitely sarcastic personal comments about and towards the other poster.

If you have an issue, then please feel free to contact myself or UndergroundRailroad.

Lithos
FA Moderator
Democratic Underground

[crispy]

12. Idea

Let's talk about witnesses or trajectory or something FACTUAL not some bullshit baseless speculation about hair or other irrelevant crap. If you're going to make a post with some new idea 1) say what you are trying to prove, 2) say why it matters, and 3) provide supporting EVIDENCE. Speculation isn't investigation.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crispy]

15. Question to the B757 folks

Okay let's get some conversation going.

The no-757 people have cited a bunch of witnesses whose descriptions did not match how we would think people would describe a B757.

Then the 757 people say well there were lots of witnesses who did describe a large commercial jet with red and blue stripes down the side, windows, etc, asking how do you explain that in the no-plane or no-757 theories?

I just want to turn the tables for a minute. Assuming a B757 was what caused the damage to the Pentagon, how do you explain accounts like this? (I'm not saying there is no explanation, I just want to know what you think caused these people to say what they did.)


"I saw what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon." - Unidentified man interviewed on NBC News, 9/11/01

"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." - Lon Rains, 9/15/01

"It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities." - Former USMC aviator Terry Morin, 9/01

"Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, 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, Patterson said." - Washington Post, 9/11/01

"I hit redial and his number came up. "Something hit the Pentagon. It must have been a helicopter." I knew that wasn't true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only for a minute. "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?"" - "skarlet", 9/11/01

[Abe Linkman]

16. Only one of your quotes described a large airliner, and he is a

former Marine aviator (supposedly).

Where are all of those people who described a B757. I know that the Defenders can come up with a list, but I believe Dick Eastman said that researchers have been unable to find any (or more than one) supposed eyewitness who described an airplane even close to what a B757 is.

[crispy]

17. Sort of

A 737 isn't a large airplane - it's got a wingspan a few feet shorter and a fuselage anywhere from 17 to 53 feet shorter than a 757-200 depending on the 737's model.

There are lots of witnesses who say they saw a 757. I want to know why there are so many people whose descriptions DON'T fit that description, but rather contradict it.

[Abe Linkman]

20. Wherdy 757 witnesses?

If there are "lots of witnesses who way they saw a 757", why didn't you cite any? And, how many 757s do you suppose were in the airspace near the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11-01? You do know that Reagan National Airport is very close to the Pentagon, don't you?

[crispy]

22. Re: "Wherdy 757 witnesses?"

> If there are "lots of witnesses who way they saw a 757", why didn't you cite any?

Because 1) I wasn't talking about 757s, I wanted an explanation of the 757 camp why there were blatantly not-757 accounts and 2) I figured the existence of witnesses who said they saw a 757 was well-established and didn't require substantiation. But here are a few:

"The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon." - Albert Hemphill, 9/11/01

"Well while listening to the radio reports of the World Trade Center problem, there was a sonic boom, and looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway. It was Route 110 on the west side of the Pentagon. The plane went west to east, hit the west side of the Pentagon." - Joel Sucherman, 9/11/01

"It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question." - Tim Timmerman, 9/11/01

"We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus." - Alan Wallace, 9/11/01


> And, how many 757s do you suppose were in the airspace near the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11-01? You do know that Reagan National Airport is very close to the Pentagon, don't you?

No one said, "I saw a 757 flying around," they said they saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon by taking the trajectory we know the killer plane took, southwest to northeast into the Pentagon's western wall.

[RH]

26. That's a very ignorant comment.

The landing route to DCA on the day was from the south, several miles away. A remarkable number of witnesses said that they noticed the aircraft especially because it was obviously not on a normal flight path. People who live near airports know the difference; overflying aircraft are a chronic noise nuisance.

Contrary to some of the more ridiculous versions doing the rounds the actual trajectory of the B757 as seen did not possibly lead to a runway.

[DulceDecorum]

18. A VERY good question

that I can only answer with another question.

crispy asked:
"I just want to turn the tables for a minute. Assuming a B757 was what caused the damage to the Pentagon, how do you explain accounts like this? (I'm not saying there is no explanation, I just want to know what you think caused these people to say what they did.)"

Let's go to New York for one moment.
I know LOTS and LOTS of people who live in New York and not one single person actually saw the second jet hit the second tower.
I let the first jet go because they were not looking at anything in particular at the time. But I am downright surprised that I do not actually know one single person who actually witnessed the second jet hit the second tower.

Every single last person who says that they saw this, actually only watched it on TV. No-one that I personally know actually witnessed the jet hit. Many of my friends personally saw the blaze and some saw the collapse in real life. But NOT ONE of them actually saw a plane crash into a tower on September 11, 2001, UNLESS they were watching TV.

Why do suppose that is so?

[crispy]

19. More off-topic unsubstantiated speculation

Please don't do that. Make a new thread if you want to talk about the WTC. And there are plenty of witnesses to the second WTC plane crash in real life, just do a google search. Let's talk about the Pentagon here, kk?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

24. Witnesses

This is the first that I have ever heard of the "20-passenger corporate jet" , from an "Unidentified man interviewed on NBC News, 9/11/01"

Do you have any more details to confirm this? Without knowing the circumstance it is difficult to comment. Some saw the plane from a few yards away, others from as much as a mile or two.

Lon Rains was not the only one who thought he'd heard a missile. His experience of what a plane shpuld sound like when flying at an unusually high speed and a mere 20 feet or so off the ground was presumably as limited as anybody ele's.

Terry Morin's account was one of the clearest from any witness. A 737 and a 757 are easily confused, especially when not seen from the side. Their fuselage diameters are identical.

Much has been made of the Steve Patterson account, It has been endlessly quoted, but few ever bothered to find out, let alone point out that the original story was hearsay. The reporter had never actually spoken to him. (he lives with a gay partner who works for the Washington Post) Since the event he has chosen not to show himself but to judge from his partner's messages to newsgroups he has harboured no doubts at all as to what hit the Pentagon.

The 'skarlet' quote is misleadingly selected. She also wrote “As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That's not strange. It's the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. The pilot didn't seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone.
A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. The smell seemed to singe the inside of my nose. The earth seemed to stop shaking for a second, but then sirens began and the ground seemed to shake again - this time from the incoming barrage of firetrucks, police cars. military vehicles.
”
Not too much doubt from that, I think, about the reality of the aircraft and what became of it.

[Abe Linkman]

25. Sounds like a H&K story - like the one about babies & incubators in Kuwait

"The 'skarlet' quote is misleadingly selected. She also wrote “As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That's not strange. It's the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. The pilot didn't seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone.
A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. The smell seemed to singe the inside of my nose. The earth seemed to stop shaking for a second, but then sirens began and the ground seemed to shake again - this time from the incoming barrage of firetrucks, police cars. military vehicles.
”
Not too much doubt from that, I think, about the reality of the aircraft and what became of it."

**********************************

Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious.

[RH]

28. Really?

Apart from your own particular prejudice, what exactly would the similarity consist of?

:shrug:

Have you seen her web site?

http://punkprincess.com/blog/

[NecessaryOnslaught]

31. So did a helicopter hit the building?

And whatever did become of those plane parts......



"It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. The smell seemed to singe the inside of my nose. The earth seemed to stop shaking for a second, but then sirens began and the ground seemed to shake again - this time from the incoming barrage of firetrucks, police cars. military vehicles.

People were pouring out of the building like ants. An MP checked on me. Made sure I hadn't been hurt. No burning debris in the car, just smoke. Just me. We had a conversation. I don't remember it. He showed me how to clean my windshield of dust and debris so I could drive. He tried to send me south, but traffic was pouring out of the city by now.

"Where do you work?"
I told him.
"Go there. Stay there."

He cleared me to leave the grounds and sent me on my way. I felt like I'd been hypnotized. The man told me to drive north, so I drove north. It was the stupidest possible thing to do.

I called my boss. I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. "Something hit the Pentagon. It must have been a helicopter." I knew that wasn't true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only for a minute.

"Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?" That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did."


http://punkprincess.com/archives/2001_09.html



:wtf:

[DulceDecorum]

32. Wherdy go?

We have been trying to figure that out for months.

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III, Air Force director of marketing, was able to get a look at the crash site.
“No one could believe the catastrophic damage — it was horrible. A whole “wedge” had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building. There wasn’t a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.”
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1101/terror.html
Are you calling this man a liar?

Levi Stephens, 23, a courier for the Armed Forces Information Service, spoke of the crash:
"I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere."
<snip>
People in the area were just bewildered by events, Stephens said.
"It looked surreal; like something out of a movie … everyone was in shock. Emergency personnel just stood in shock, no one was moving … Everything was in slow motion, nobody believed it at that point. Traffic just stopped. People froze; nobody ran," he said.
"You know, I thought, ‘Let me get out of here,’ so I called back to the office, I was hysterical I guess, and drove away, and you could see debris on the highway (Interstate 395, approximately ¼ mile from the site of the crash)."
Asked about his thoughts, Stephens said, "I immediately said ‘Thank you’ to God, because I was on my way into the Pentagon. If I hadn’t had to , I would’ve been in the building. I was supposed to be in the building."
http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/sep01/ed091201i.html
Or are you calling this man a liar?

Please identify the person you are insulting and state your reasons.
Thank you very much.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5103&forum=DCForumID43&archive=yes

[RH]

34. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl said

"the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building"

Are you calling this man a liar?

Or what?

This has all been gone over so many times before. As time goes on it only then gets that much harder to guess what your point is supposed to be.

[RH]

33. whatever did become of those plane parts......

What plane parts?

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

An aircraft that hits solid masonry at 500 knots is unfortunely prone to disintegrate. Metal confetti was seen to fall over a wide area around the Pentagon. Recognisable plane parts were also found. Those who prefer to suppose otherwise only show their ignorance.

For further information study the archives. This has all been gone over before, and at some considerable length.

[Abe Linkman]

35. Do you mean the F-16 or the missile? Or both?

"An aircraft that hits solid masonry at 500 knots is unfortunely prone to disintegrate."

[RH]

36. No F16 was involved

Nobody ever said that they saw one.

Nobody ever said that they found any physical trace of one.

Amen.

[Abe Linkman]

40. It disintegrated. That's why so little evidence of it was found.

That's what happens when plane meets masonry, you know.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

49. Not "so little" - NONE.

Other than a few pieces of planted, obviously fake AA parts and a few other aircraft parts that have never been found to have come from a B757, much less from AA FL 77; only someone with a cranial dysfunction (or sinister motive) would fail or refuse to acknowledge the reality.

There is no further need to keep repeating what hasn't been proven. Any lawyer would be thrown out of court for claiming the fact that "passenger body parts were identified" means anything. It has never been proven that any passenger body parts from FL 77 were FOUND at the Pentagon. In fact, it's never even been proven that any were taken there so they COULD be "found" there.

[crispy]

38. Re: "Do you mean the F-16 or the missile? Or both?"

I thought we established that an F-16 did not hit the Pentagon, as it has a wingspan of only 30-some feet and thus could not have knocked down all five light poles.

[crispy]

37. Re: "Witnesses"

Thanks for your explanations.

> This is the first that I have ever heard of the "20-passenger corporate jet" , from an "Unidentified man interviewed
> on NBC News, 9/11/01"
> Do you have any more details to confirm this?

It's from an NBC transcript pulled from Lexis-Nexis. I have a copy on my hard drive, and when I get my site put up it will be available for viewing. This is the heading of it if you wanted to buy it yourself:
Copyright 2001 National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
NBC News Transcripts

SHOW: NBC News Special Report: Attack on America (10:00 PM ET) - NBC

September 11, 2001 Tuesday

LENGTH: 10154 words

HEADLINE: Attack on America, 10:00 PM

ANCHORS: TOM BROKAW

I wish I knew where the man saw the plane from, but they don't reveal that. This is all the guy says:
> Unidentified Man #3: I saw what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow
> angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon. And then a huge fireball, perhaps five times the height of the
> Pentagon.


> Lon Rains was not the only one who thought he'd heard a missile. His experience of what a plane shpuld sound like when flying
> at an unusually high speed and a mere 20 feet or so off the ground was presumably as limited as anybody ele's.

Well I agree with you on this. Though I don't know if an airplane travelling at 450 MPH sounds differently enough from one going 100 MPH that the witness may have heard close to the ground before for the witness to say it "sounded nothing like an airplane". So I guess without that info, no one knows.


> Terry Morin's account was one of the clearest from any witness. A 737 and a 757 are easily confused, especially when not seen
> from the side. Their fuselage diameters are identical.

I agree that his account was one of the clearest, which makes it important. We don't definitely know that he didn't see it from the side. He said it came over his building, so if he was looking up at it I think he'd be able to tell that the long fuselage wasn't that of a 737. We don't really know. I may contact him eventually if I can find his info.


> Much has been made of the Steve Patterson account, It has been endlessly quoted, but few ever bothered to find out, let alone
> point out that the original story was hearsay. The reporter had never actually spoken to him. (he lives with a gay partner
> who works for the Washington Post) Since the event he has chosen not to show himself but to judge from his partner's messages to newsgroups he has harboured no doubts at all as to what
> hit the Pentagon.

I knew about claims of hearsay but not about the other stuff; can you say where you got this info or provide some links?


> The 'skarlet' quote is misleadingly selected.

I don't try to mislead. I know she said she saw "a huge jet." An explanation for her disbelief could just be caused by seeing a plane crash into a building and not that anything was anomalous. But you have to admit her testimony is kinda.. weird.

> There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between
> floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to
> make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane
> simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Inconclusive, really.


A bunch of people said they saw a big jet, and a number of people described a "small commercial aircraft" (D.S. Khavkin) or something like it.

I think seeing a huge jet fly into 2WTC on television over and over then looking out your window and seeing a plane with red and blue stripes would account for people saying it was a commercial aircraft. Because the plane would have been painted up and modified to look like a commercial jet, many people would have swallowed up the line that it was an AA B757. Yet a few people would still give descriptions not indicative of a 757, like Khavkin watching from an apartment building describing it as a small jet.

As time went on people's testimonies got more and more descriptive about seeing the 757, but looking just at accounts from 9/11/01 and the few days after it shows descriptions which aren't indicative of a 757. People might believe they saw a commercial Boeing airliner, but according to this theory they were SUPPOSED to think that. Looking at how the testimonies are worded shows they were fooled.

I'll have more on this later. Eventually I'll post my theory, after I flesh it out a bit more with the witness list I'm working on.

[Abe Linkman]

41. Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is near worthless.

Ask any trial lawyer. Or, any honest cop (if you can find one).

[crispy]

42. No.

> Keep in mind that eyewitness testimony is near worthless.

No, not really. Case in point: TWA 800.

If fooling eyewitnesses was part of the 9/11 plot, witness testimony is crucial.

[Abe Linkman]

43. YES

"If fooling eyewitnesses was part of the 9/11 plot, witness testimony is crucial."

I don't know what your point is, in the above; but if you don't know how unreliable eyewitness accounts are - you really should educate yourself on the subject before you place any more credence in their accounts.

They're worthless.

[crispy]

50. No.

> I don't know what your point is, in the above; but if you don't know how unreliable eyewitness accounts are - you really
> should educate yourself on the subject before you place any more credence in their accounts.
> They're worthless.

I know how unreliable witness accounts are. But that does not make them "worthless".

This isn't a trial. We aren't looking at three witness accounts, we're looking at over a hundred, the elements of which can be verified or impeached by evaluating them in context with what we know (or think) happened. Credence is not being placed in individual accounts, it is being placed in the aggregate sum of what everyone described and what everyone's descriptions are indicative of.

[Abe Linkman]

51. Wrong. The "aggregate sum of what everyone described" is worthless.

No one said this is a trial, but for many of us, it IS a search for the truth of what happened, and relying on eyewitnesses is only a good idea if you are trying to lend support to the Official Story Conspiracy.

Unless you are new here (and even if you are, if you've read much about the Pentagon witnesses), you should know that an in-depth research study was done on the alleged eyewitnesses (Pentagon attack), and many of the people couldn't be found, and the rest all did what eyewitnesses everywhere do: they gave incomplete, contradictory, vague, fantastical, generalized, seemingly (or in reality) made-up stories that contained some, none, or irrelevant details.

[LARED]

52. Huh?

and relying on eyewitnesses is only a good idea if you are trying to lend support to the Official Story Conspiracy.

So what's left?

Hearsay, speculation, suspect circumstantial evidence.

In a search for the truth it's always a good idea to ignore eyewitness testimony in favor of speculation. Right?

[Abe Linkman]

53. Sounds like you're coming around.

I'm surprised that you don't know the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, but I'm glad to know that you seem to be suggesting that a complete, objective, no-timelimited investigation into the events of 9-11, should be undertaken. I agree. Wouldn't you love to hear Ted Olson, under oath? The whole thing would come unraveled as he dissembles in an arrogant, blatant display of perjury.

An added benefit to having Ted be first under the lights is that we could then cut through a lot of the diversions used to coverup the truth.

Oh yes; don't you know the Clintons would savor the Karma of Ted being indicted for perjury and losing his cushy job as Solicitor General.

[crispy]

54. Says you.

Your opinion is that the eyewitness accounts are worthless. I don't give a shit. Nor am I going to try to convince you that one hundred different perspectives on the event in question form one of the best tools in discovering what happened. Because I don't give a shit what you think. If you believe the accounts yield nothing that adds to the investigation, then you either don't know how to analyze them correctly or are just not too bright.

[reorg]

55. well

maybe you should be more careful with your judgement ... for how many seconds do you believe were eyewitnesses able to observe this plane? One, or two?

Now take a look outside your window for one or two seconds and then try and describe what you could see there.

Eyewitness testimony is always a precarious matter (got that not only from crime novels but also from a close relative who was a judge for 35 years).

Google might also provide some clues, see for instance:

http://www.child-custody.com/eyewitness.htm:

"The eyewitness is clearly one of the most, if not the most, important players in the criminal justice system. Without eyewitness testimony, the great majority of criminals would evade prosecution. Therefore, the idea that eyewitnesses frequently provide erroneous testimony is jarring to the legal system. Despite the fact that eyewitness research represents psychology’s strongest area of research, and over 2000 studies, most extremely well designed, have been conducted in the past twenty years in this area, the courts have barred eyewitness testimony more frequently than any other category of testimony that psychologists might be asked to provide. To call into question the cornerstone of the prosecution’s strength in most of its cases might be expected to bring the criminal justice system to its knees. However, advances in DNA research have made it possible to obtain definitive information regarding the guilt of the accused and the convicted in a substantial number of cases, so that retrospectively, eyewitness testimony is seen to have been in error. Seventy-four convictions have been proven wrong by DNA testing since the late 1980s, and 81% of those cases had been successfully prosecuted on the basis of mistaken identification."

or: http://www.eyewitnessid.com/

[Abe Linkman]

56. Thanks, and there's plenty more for anyone not full of bullshift !

Some people act as tough as an old shoe whenever an inconvenient fact or idea is brought to their attention. "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts. It's just bullshift, if it doesn't fit my view."

[RH]

58. an inconvenient fact or idea

such as hundreds of eye witnesses having seen an object in question?

:eyes:

or such as the consumate lack of witness testimony or other evidence to support theories involving a missile or some other object that nobody saw?

With nobody to actually experience a fact, there is no such a thing as a fact in any case.

[RH]

95. Personal attacks

I thought it was against the rules to make personal attacks, but in looking at the messages in this thread, I see many subject lines that are pretty strong insults...although they don't name the intended victim in the subject line, itself. Maybe that's how they get away with it.

[DulceDecorum]

98. Do not plagiarize.

Don't post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

No credit given.
Out and out plagarism of

Post #91.
Personal attacks
Tue Sep-30-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #90

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

[RH]

99. The essence of copyright law

is that

"...the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation."

{BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)
Article 6bis)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html

In this context, how then would the principle pertinently apply?

[RH]

57. How many seconds

is easy enough to estimate, knowing the speed of the aircraft, and where the witnesses were. Some witnesses were specific about it, e.g. Terry Morin:

"Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds"

That's more than enough time to discern the nature of an aircraft and where it is heading to.

Some of the witnesses observing from a distance (e.g. from Rosslyn or from National Airport) would have been able to follow the object for maybe a mile or so of it's trajectory.

I happen to reside a similar distance from flight paths to and from the World's busiest airport. Seeing planes go past it hardly takes a second or so to tell the difference between for instance a B757 jumbo and a smaller two engined airliner. There would be no question of mistaking a fighter jet for an airliner and it makes no great difference if a plane (such as Concorde) happens to be flying at twice the speed of the usual fare; it only means that your eye has to move a bit faster to track it, or to catch it to begin with.

Uncorroborated eye witness testimony is of course notoriously dangerous when it comes to matters such as the identification of individual suspects but it is ridiculously stupid, if not deliberately disingenuous, to then attempt to suppose that the perception of an airliner flying very low overhead should be categorised as if the risk of mistake were similar, especially when you have, literally, hundreds of eye witnesses to whom to refer.

[crispy]

61. AMEN BROTHER n/t

n/t

[reorg]

63. "ridiculously stupid, if not deliberately disingenuous"

Well, I happen to have resided throughout my entire life close to Rhein-Main-Airport (with on average 1250 flight movements per day one of the world's busiest airports - in Europe only second to London Heathrow, which is not the world's, but Europe's busiest airport in terms of passenger numbers).

>Seeing planes go past it hardly takes a second or so to tell the difference between for instance a B757 jumbo and a smaller two engined airliner<

Sure - if you by and large know what to expect when taking a deliberate look, that is, and if you know how to discern features of planes, and if you are located very close, say a few hundred meters, to the landing plane (travelling at a speed of about / up to 150 knots at most). The further the distance, the harder to make out what you see, of course. From a distance of more than two miles you can make an educated guess but not a reliable observation, not in one or two seconds - even if the plane is just in normal landing mode instead of going three times that speed at ~400 mph.

However, the Pentagon eyewitnesses were taken by suprise, some of them specifically describe how they didn't hear or see anything until the plane was right above them, crossing their path with only a hundred meters or so left until it crashed (in probably less than 1 second). Some specifically mention that they felt shocked - as I would expect them to be - which certainly suggests that their estimates and impressions have to be taken with a grain of salt.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

Your witness Morin estimates the speed of the plane between 350 and 400 knots, which is supported by various observations of "full throttle" and "full speed" by other witnesses.
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

I have had the experience of a plane flying right over my head (50-100 feet) at very high speed only once - probably a fighter jet, flying over a mountain top at night while we were standing there, on top of a tower. We didn't hear or see that plane approach us, were then all of a sudden thrown to the floor, completely shocked not only by the powers of the air pressure but also by the immense, deafening noise. We just caught a split second glimpse of that arsehole immediately vanishing into the distance; later we agreed that it had to have been one of the military jets training in this area, even though it was impossible to judge just from our observations.


>... e.g. Terry Morin:

"Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds"

That's more than enough time to discern the nature of an aircraft ...<

Yes, if you are able to discern the nature of an aircraft from "hearing the initial noise" and seeing "the impact flash", and assuming his elapsed time estimate is correct. A not disingenuous or ridiculously stupid examination of his testimony, as you no doubt are intent on carrying out, will try and figure how long he actually SAW that plane (... initial noise ... seconds later the airliner came into my field of view ... believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure ... as the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe ...).

[Robb]

97. Not "worthless"

...Just problematic when it comes to aircraft.

There's a truism in the planespotting community, that you can't even estimate an object's size, speed, or distance, without knowing one of those quantities in advance.

The other truism is "it'll be gone before you get your lens cap off." :)

[RH]

45. That's an extraordinarily ignorant comment.

Without eye witness testimony a large proportion of criminal trials would never be possible.

[Abe Linkman]

48. Eyewitness testimony = false convictions

Anyone who knows anything about eyewitness testimony knows that it is the least reliable of all evidence. More people have been wrongfully convicted because of unreliable eyewitness testimony than any other cause...including police frame-ups, entrapment, and planted evidence.

[RH]

59. less reliable

than the indulgent imaginings of others who were nowhere near to an event?

Is that the proposition?

[DulceDecorum]

64. And speaking of those who were nowhere near

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III, Air Force director of marketing, was able to get a look at the crash site.
“No one could believe the catastrophic damage — it was horrible. A whole “wedge” had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building. There wasn’t a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.”
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1101/terror.html

That was the "testimony" of Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III.
please note that he states that despite the fact that:
"the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building. THERE WASN'T A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE."

Which is really rather amazing considering that
"the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five “rings” of the building."
And, as we all now know,
"Without eye witness testimony a large proportion of criminal trials would never be possible."

So the fact that Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III did NOT see a SINGLE PIECE of the jet ANYWHERE, probably means that there WASN'T A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE. Period.
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_5226.shtml
Pilots are known to have 20/20 vision and to be of sound mind.
Why would he lie?

Col. Diana Fleek, director of the Defense Department’s innovative readiness training, immediately sensed what had happened.
“We knew we had been hit. We didn’t know what it was — we just knew there was an explosion. We all felt it quite literally. The building shook, and the windows rattled. Thousands were evacuated. It was done very quickly and very orderly,” she said. “As we looked over our shoulders, all we could see was a huge black ball of smoke, moving eastward, coming at us. Then we heard the rumble of a jet above us and looked up to see an F-16 pass over the Pentagon.”
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_5226.shtml

Let's go over that first bit again.
"WE KNEW WE HAD BEEN HIT. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS — WE JUST KNEW THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION. We all felt it quite literally. The building shook, and the windows rattled. Thousands were evacuated. It was done very quickly and very orderly," she said.

Now if SHE does not know what it was,
and SHE WAS THERE,
then HOW can some of the posters on this board claim to know it all
when they are depending on the accounts of people such as her?
People who do NOT know what it was that hit the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001
when they themselves were inside it?

Furthermore,
and I am certain that since the Brig. General has a degree in mathematics, he will bear testimony to this,
MATTER IS NITHER CREATED NOR DESTROYED.
And that goes double for the Pentagon.
Therefore a plane which weighs over 100,000 lbs
MUST generate over 100,000 lbs of debris
and that DID NOT happen.

This is the reason why I keep asking Boloboffin where all the mush went. There were passengers on board the plane. The plane hit the wall at high speed. It appears to have then vanished.
RH says:
"An aircraft that hits solid masonry at 500 knots is unfortunely prone to disintegrate. Metal confetti was seen to fall over a wide area around the Pentagon. Recognisable plane parts were also found. Those who prefer to suppose otherwise only show their ignorance."

OK, let us take this at face value.
Metal confetti was seen to fall over a wide area around the Pentagon.
But what about the blood?

Nobody saw any blood spraying or flowing anywhere.
There are absolutely NO reports of blood being on or around the Pentagon.
None of the pictures show ANY blood AT ALL.
None whatsoever.
Not one drop.
Which is rather strange.
Human beings are capable of bleeding profusely and a pressure of 30g (or more) would have reduced the unfortunate passengers of Flight 77 into mush.

The debris that traveled the farthest traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft after entering the building. To come to rest at a point 310 ft from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30g.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

In an earlier thread, I remarked on this drag and that it appears to have been sustained for half an hour.
Mr. Eastman, and quite rightly so, took me to task.
Supposing that the plane did indeed impact the Pentagon, then which of these clocks is correct?
Each of them was stopped by the impact of the Flight 77.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546876.stm



http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19



http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon.html


So the way I figured it,
since EVERYONE at the Pentagon ALWAYS tells the truth,
The plane entered the building at the time registered on the first clock and stopped travelling at the time registered on the last clock.
So that means that it took the plane half an hour to come to a
complete halt
during which time, I guess
it helped support the upper floors.

For sure,
that messes with the equations being used,
but what the heck,
Muslims were involved and you know what that means.
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

Why, these Muslims even have the audacity to show themselves after these events.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

The poor scientists of the Christian faith are no match for them.
Observe:

The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

A study of the locations of fatalities also yields insight into the breakup of the aircraft and, therefore its influence on the structure. The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

In the simulation, the plane crashes into the building's concrete support columns, which were reinforced with steel bars. In this simulation the columns were ASSUMED to be "spirally reinforced," a technique popular in the 1940s in which steel bars were wound around columns in a helical shape. The coiled steel provided added strength to the columns and probably is responsible for saving many lives, Sozen said.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

This means, that despite the fact that plans of the Pentagon are said to have been posted in the internet, the Purdue scientists do not appear to have modeled thier simulation on the ACTUAL concrete columns within that section of the Pentagon.
They have assumed that steel was used abundantly.
They are wrong.

The shortages of materials required for war production raised many design and construction problems. The use of reinforced concrete in lieu of formed steel for the building made possible a saving of 43,000 tons of steel, more than enough to build a battleship. The use of concrete ramps rather than elevators further reduced steel requirements. Drainage pipes were concrete; ducts were fiber, interior doors were wood. An unusual wall design - concrete spandrells carried to window sill level - eliminated many miles of through-wall copper flashing. When Somervell was asked to make still more drastic reductions, he agreed to “striptease” the entire structure. Bronze doors, copper ornamentation, and metal partitions in rest rooms were among the first to go. The stripping process continued throughout construction.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm

That building was built on the cheap.
6-1. Concrete is strong in compression, but relatively weak in tension. The reverse is true for slender steel bars. When concrete and steel are used together, one makes up for the deficiency of the other.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/5-428/ch6.htm

Futhermore, concrete stuctures built that time and later are failing miserably.
http://aec.engr.wisc.edu/resources/rsrc07.html
And we know for a fact that the orginal construction of the Pentagon skimped severely on steel.
Therefore,
the Purdue model which ASSUMES the presence of spiral steel re-inforced concrete columns,
is based on fallacy.
Confidence is not restored by statements such as this:

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
Which directly contradicts this:
The test established that THE MAJOR IMPACT FORCE WAS FROM THE ENGINES. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

So where that does that leave us?
Nowhere.
As usual.
Very little of the official story stands up to scrutiny.

[RH]

70. When

did Brig. Gen. Arthur F. “Chip” Diehl III see the site, and from where?

The links supplied do not appear to be working.

The FBI organised a collection of remnants? They went around with paper bags to pick up the pieces.

[DulceDecorum]

80. Interrogate him yourself

Do let us know how it went.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
General John P. Abazaid, Commander
Colonel Cheryl L. Zadlo, Director
BRIGADIER GENERAL ARTHUR F. DIEHL III, Deputy Dir. of Engagement, J-5
Rep: Colonel Robert Tovado, J-1 Directorate: Manpower & Personnel
7701 Tampa Pointe Boulevard
Tenant of MacDill Air Force Base
MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5323
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Deputy Public Affairs Officer, Colonel Brian Hoey, [phone].
http://www.floridadefense.org/militarymembers.htm

[RH]

86. The point being...?

:shrug:

[DulceDecorum]

88. That there is none

in engaging you in discussion.

[RH]

71. Where

was Col. Diana Fleek?

The af.mil link supplied seems to be defunct.

A large number of those who had not actually seen what hit the building did not ommediately know what had hit the building.

So what? Is there supposed to somehow be some kind problem about that?

[DulceDecorum]

81. You go ask her where

she was.
And please stop by and share the answers.

Look under:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs (Readiness, Training
and Mobilization)
1500 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1500

Civil-Military Programs (Innovative Readiness Training Programs)
Colonel Diana Fleek [phone]

[RH]

87. The point being...?

:shrug:

[DulceDecorum]

89. The point is this

There is a cute little button that says IGNORE and that is what I am going to do with you.
:hi:

[RH]

72. Who weighed the debris?

MUST generate over 100,000 lbs of debris
and that DID NOT happen.

According to what?

[DulceDecorum]

82. Did you yourself

weigh the debris?
Do you have any information demonstrating ANYTHING about the amount of debris that was recovered from those paper bags?

I hereby refer you to Post #58
"With nobody to actually experience a fact, there is no such a thing as a fact in any case."

Until and unless we "experience" over 100,000 lbs worth of debris,
there is no debris in any case.

[RH]

84. No

Without an appropriate means it would not be possible to ascertain a weight in specific terms. That was the point.

[RH]

73. what about the blood?

The blood would of course be where the body parts were found, inside the building. I heard of no body parts being found outside the building.

The metal confetti would presumably have come mostly from the wing tips which did not get into the building.

[RH]

74. A stopped clock

will only indicate the correct time if whatever stopped it (or anything else) did not also disturb its accuracy. i.e. by the hands of the clock being moved. The minute hand and the second hand of an anlogue clock are usually easier to disturb than the hour hand.

Now before going any further are we seriously supposed to believe without a second thought that such a disturbance was not possible if not probable?

[DulceDecorum]

83. So the clocks were tampered with?

http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon.html

Are you saying that the timepieces are not telling the correct time of impact?
Who would tamper with them?
And why?

[RH]

85. No.

The term I used was "disturbance", not "tampering".

i.e.

disturbance: a disruption of public order and tranquillity; commotion.

tampering: to meddle so as to damage, alter, or render something ineffective or harmful.

There would of course have been some considerable disturbance from the two explosions and the subsequent fire, search and rescue operations, the first priority being to save lives.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

79. Fixed link

My apologies,people.
I posted the wrong URL.

Col. Diana Fleek, director of the Defense Department’s innovative readiness training, immediately sensed what had happened.
“We knew we had been hit. We didn’t know what it was — we just knew there was an explosion. We all felt it quite literally. The building shook, and the windows rattled. Thousands were evacuated. It was done very quickly and very orderly,” she said. “As we looked over our shoulders, all we could see was a huge black ball of smoke, moving eastward, coming at us. Then we heard the rumble of a jet above us and looked up to see an F-16 pass over the Pentagon.”
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1101/terror.html

[DulceDecorum]

67. To Kill a Mockingbird

I am just a poor boy
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-- Simon & Garfunkel

There are none so blind as will nazi
-- Betty Bowers

[LARED]

39. Dulce

Based on the last Pentagon thread I won't get involved with trying to explain why your theories are not realistic. Instead let me ask you this. If you believe that flt 77 could not have damaged the concrete in the way you perceive it should have been damaged, what could have caused the damage?

A missile?
A flying truck bomb?
Explosives?
None of the above as it all is a fake.
or something else.

Don't tell me you don't have an opinion. You clearly have the opinion that flt 77 did not cause the damage based on your experience with concrete, so you must have some guess as to how it got damaged.

[LARED]

60. Wheredy go?

Dulce that is?

[DulceDecorum]

65. What damage?

I am not sure that scratches ranging from one eighth of an inch to a "maximum" depth of five inches come under the heading DAMAGE.
http://www.ardex.com/prod-k15-spec.htm

And don't any of you DARE tell the Fab 5 about the condition of my garage floor.

[LARED]

68. Let try this again

Nice backpedal. Hopefully you're aware that the 1/8" to 5" inches is a manufacturing specification for applying the material. What that has to do with the actual extent of damage to the concrete in the Pentagon is a mystery only you can reveal.

So let try my question again.

If you believe that flt 77 could not have damaged the concrete in the way you perceive it should have been damaged, what could have caused the damage?

A missile?
A flying truck bomb?
Explosives?
None of the above as it all is a fake.
or something else.

Don't tell me you don't have an opinion. You clearly have the opinion that flt 77 did not cause the damage based on your experience with concrete, so you must have some guess as to how it got damaged.

[DulceDecorum]

69. I am not backpedalling

I am assuming that Levelcrafters obeyed the manufacturer's specs for installation
and I am also assuming that Facchina was knowledgable and diligent in their insistence that only Ardex K-15 be used in the restoration of the Pentagon floor.
Those are two big assumptions and I cannot really say what I have based them on.

You keep asking my what I think, or believe.
My beliefs and opinions are not really germane since they are, at best, only privately held individual beliefs and opinions which are malleagble and subject to change.

The only thing that matters is what really happened.
And to this very day,
we, the general public,
do not know what really happened.

As for the Pentagon floor,
I am still trying to figure out HOW there came to be eighteen inches of water on the floor.
Does that mean that the entire Wedge One and Wedge Two were flooded to that depth?
WATER SEEKS IT'S LEVEL.
Why didn't it flow out under the intact new-fangled fire-doors or out of the damaged walls?
The ground floor is supported by the incomplete basement-mezzanine floor which appears to have remained dry.
How?
Why didn't the water flow down the many stairwells and elevator shafts?
Did it?
And if it did flow down into the basement, does that mean that the basement was completely flooded all the way up to the ground floor?
Where did the mold come from?
How long was it BEFORE they allowed Munters on site?
Did anyone drown after passing out due to toxic fumes?
Did the intense fire heat the water into steam?
Did anyone suffer from steam burns?
How did the rescuers cope with all that water flowing in?
How high off the floors are the electrical outlets in the Pentagon?
Did the water cause anyone to be electrocuted?
Did they have to buy all new computers?
What did they do with the waterlogged ones?
How come we didn't see all this water pouring out onto the incredible Penta-lawn?
What did they do with all that jetfuel-polluted water?
Why did they use so much water?
What's all this about?

DU is also used as ballast in commercial and military planes. On Sept. 11, a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon. Dr. Janette Sherman, research associate with the Radiation and Public Health Project, had spoken a few days earlier at a Sept. 6 press conference in Hunters Point. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Sherman notified the Nuclear Information and Resource Service that she detected elevated levels of radiation in her home, located seven miles from the Pentagon. Dr. Sherman still had a gamma meter she had borrowed for her visit to Hunter's Point. The EPA, the FBI, and other federal agencies, including HMRU (Hazardous Materials Response Units), USAR teams, the local fire department and the Virginia HAZMAT were notified, and an investigation began at the Pentagon.
A pile of rubble from the crash was found to be radioactive, but EPA official Bill Bellinger of the agency's Region III Environmental Radiation Monitoring Office was unconcerned when contacted by Diane D'Arrigo from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Bellinger indicated that it was probably depleted uranium and mentioned that americium 241could also be scattered around the crash site. He was convinced that depleted uranium is not radiologically toxic, but commented that it is more of a hazard when aerosolized.
Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby did breathe the smoke and ash from the fire. The agencies that are supposed to be protecting us are not. There was no follow-up investigation.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.01/020117moret.htm

I have a lot of questions about the Pentagon floor Lared.
Can you answer any?

[DulceDecorum]

90. Hiatus

It appears that any and all messages I post at present pertaining to the Pentagon are subjecting me to barrage of personal attacks.
These attacks have made this thread almost not worth the time it takes to negotiate past the disruptors.
Therefore, I will be taking a short hiatus.
In the meantime, I strongly urge regulars to place offenders on their own personal ignore list so that when my newest Pentagon Thread appears we may be able to conduct our affairs without further harrassment and continuous disruption.

Be aware, that without me as lightening rod, YOU are next in line.
See you all soon.
DulceDecorum.

[Abe Linkman]

91. Personal attacks

I thought it was against the rules to make personal attacks, but in looking at the messages in this thread, I see many subject lines that are pretty strong insults...although they don't name the intended victim in the subject line, itself. Maybe that's how they get away with it.

In any event, we will miss you while you are on your hiatus. The way you handle the unfair attacks on you with such grace, style, and wit are a testimony to your intelligence and honor.

Hurry back.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

94. Oh I will be watching

and posting all right.
And here is a little something to tide you over.
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/buffett.html

[RH]

96. That's the most interesting page

that Killtown has yet come up with.

:toast:

I would expect a 'Buffet' thread to inspire a serious response.

Are the alleged facts correct? People with big money have big enemies.

[DulceDecorum]

100. NEW THREAD

Please post on this new thread.
It is called
The Pentagon Thread: Part 5.1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=3550

The reason for this designation is simple.
This thread,
The Pentagon Thread: Part 5
was THOROUGLY disrupted
to the point where much of it was deleted
for personal attacks.
These vicious and continuous attacks
made it very difficult to pinpoint the material of relevance
which is now resident
on the new and improved Pentagon Thread: Part 5.1.

Tha intensity and frequency of these attacks demonstrate that there is indeed material here that is abhorent to certain personages,
http://www.hypocrites.com/article14990.html
and their disciples who are easily identified
by their lack of civility
towards the Democratic and progressive
members of the Democratic Underground.