Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plane Crash in the Pentagon Lagoon?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 02:25 PM
Original message
Plane Crash in the Pentagon Lagoon?
I was just browsing through Ron Harvey's brillant compilation of Pentagon witnesses They saw the aircraft and stumbled over this statement. It was aired on CNN immediately after the attacks. The woman, "Barbara", was the wife of a friend of CNN correspondent David Ensor and tried to take the Memorial Bridge exit from Interstate 395 when:

"On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the too low, and the next thing we saw was it go down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that."

"It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it."


http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/witnesses/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/audio/witness.pentagon.barbara.wav

so you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?

"Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure.


Now look at this map:




You see the little dot near the Potomac bridge marked "10c"? This is exit "Memorial Bridge" of Interstate 395, and this is where Barbara was sitting in her car, looking towards downtown Washington.

So if a Boeing 757 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon, how the hell could she see that? Did she have eyes in her backhead? Don't tell me she saw it in the car mirror.

And what the hell did she see going down "below the side of the road"?

Her description is perfect if a plane crashed into the Pentagon Lagoon, the little Potomac branch east of the Pentagon. But it doesn't fit at all to a plane crash at the Pentagon's west side. I think she has neither eyes in her backhead, nor an X-ray view.

Maybe that's why she said:

"Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure."

Did Barbara witness a plane crashing into the Pentagon Lagoon?














Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Odd, I've been looking at Flight 93
and speculating that it went into Indian Lake which was right next to the decoy crash site.

There are at least a few reports of debris from the plane being found in that lake.

I didn't realize there was a sizable body of water right next to the Pentagon. How convenient. Any idea how deep it is? Was there any debris found there?

Keep digging.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The Pentagon Lagoon

is not a natural branch of the Potomac, it is a man-made pit. They used sand and gravel from there to build the Pentagon in the 40ties. So it may be deep enough to swallow the plane.

And, btw, I strongly support your Indian Lake theory and that the alleged crash site was a decoy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's really interesting, but if this happened, there's got to be other
people who saw it. Seems doubtful that this would go unreported in that area, which is highly media dense.

I guess this is why eye-witnesses are considered so unreliable and makes you wonder a lot about the people who claim they saw flight 77 go into the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Albert Hemphill
(from "They saw the aircraft" again)

Albert Hemphill, a BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) staff member watched from the Navy Annex:

As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. 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. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.
The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.


Route 110 is the Jefferson Davies highway in the map, it runs between the Pentagon and the lagoon. Hemphill was at the Navy Annex, west of the Pentagon. How is it possible that he saw the plane crossing Route 110 if the plane impacted on the Westside of the building?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al H Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
131. 9/11 and the Aircraft that hit the Pentagon
In the years since 9/11 I've seen many a posting that quotes my official statement to the FBI. Many times folks get it right and some get absolutely wrong. Generally, I don't answer or address these. However, this time I've chosen to respond. My statement from that day is as true now as it was then. An airplane impacted the Pentagon and I watched it all the way in. Your observation regarding Route 110 is correct...I should have said Columbia Pike the road that goes past the old helio port heading towards Rosslyn. Bottom line is that it hit the build square away.

After impact, we all initially were in the Cemetery adjacent to South Gate road. South Gate leads up the hill to the Navy Annex. The wing where I worked back then is now long gone; having been razed to make room for the new Air Force memorial.

On 9/11, a several of us left the Arlington National and head down the bridge were the triage was being performed. We helped to the extent we could. There were so many hurt and burned. Going underneath that bridge often reminds me of that day.

I don't know that my words will make you believe what I saw, experienced and lived that day; but that bottom line is that the plane didn't go into a lagoon or anything else. It hit the building and several of my friends died. I was one of the volunteers that helped in the clean up. I still have my white hard hat. It says "Patty" on the side in honor of my high school friend, Patty Dilliber, who was killed on the 2nd floor of the Pentagon. As I said, the aircraft hit the building...and I saw it. I hope this helps you somehow. Al Hemphill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. Thank you, Al
Your sincerity is obvious and appreciated.
One question, if you have the time: do you have any concerns about the official story we have been told about 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al H Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. Any Concerns with the Official Story
Motocicleta:
No, I can't think of anything that strikes me as "wrong" or "false" that I've ever read in the official record.

One thing that is not talked about are the many heroes. In my opinion I've never really seen some get credit for the tremendous job they did. In particular the local Arlington County Fire and Rescue guys. They responded so very quickly and immediately attacked the fire..and helped people. Additionally, the young enlisted Army medics - men and women from the Pentagon Clinic on the concourse. They set up the triage under the bridge and directed..."ordered"...senior military and civilians as to how to help the people that were hurt. They were heroes.

I don't know that the official record of the Pentagon truly describes the days after. I reported for duty the next day and volunteered as an "escort" for the "clean up" crews. The area around Corridors 3&4 over to Corridors 5&6 were in the "crush zone". If you aren't familiar with the Pentagon, it is organized by "Rings" (A through E) and Corridors 1-10 - kinda like the spokes of a wheel. The impact area was on the 2nd floor midway down the E Ring. The soot was everywhere and the water damage quite evident. I have always thought it looked like the building was crying when you looked at the long streaks of water through the soot on the olive drab and blue walls. I'll never forget the smell. Ash, soot and the smell of jet fuel. I saved my hard hat, my mask and a piece of plastic green tape that marked off part of the crush zone. To this day it smells of jet fuel and soot.

The thing that has bothered me about the Pentagon and 9/11 are the various people over the years who have said that it was missile or something like that. Well, it wasn't...and I saw what I saw. Amazingly enough, my brother in-law, who also works for DoD at the Pentagon also saw the aircraft hit. He was in South Parking walking in at about 9:30ish. He actual was cut by a piece of flying metal. Here's another irony for you. Immediately after we exited the Navy Annex and jumped the fence to go into the Arlington National Cemetery, I sat down next to a grave stone. My cell phone actually worked, but only for long distance calls. I successfully called Texas and started a relay of phone calls to let loved ones know they were alive. Here's the irony: the grave was of a Marine who died in 1944 defending our country. There he was, with his grave stone, still protecting me...and his country. It was from there that several of us walked down the hill to the bridge to try to help. As we walked, about 30 minutes or so after impact, we noted the roof of the Pentagon collapsed.

I don't know that the official record notes how many people, military, Federal worker and contractor alike, all reported for duty the next day. Like most people - I would have to been ordered to go home.

Over the years I have very rarely responded to the many folks that have said I was wrong, mistaken or lying. There was one site that even said they wanted to introduce me as a Lieutenant General! Now that's a laugh. I'm still just a civil servant... That's about it. All I can say is that I really do hope people will believe me when I say - it was an aircraft, nothing more, nothing less; I saw it hit and some great Americans died....and thank you for your kindness and interest.

Cheers
Al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. My name is Matt Ethridge
There is no need to address me with my screen name.

Thank you so much, Al. Your description of that day is priceless. It is amazing to me that the same democratizing technology that allows the unfettered space to question the official 9/11 record also serves as a way for me to communicate with someone who was there.

I have many problems with the official record, none of which are strong enough to cause me to believe that a conspiracy definitely occurred, but that in sum leave me uneasy. The idea of a missile hitting the Pentagon is not one of my problems. I did not believe it before today, and I especially don't believe it after reading your words.

My problems primarily relate to the difficulties FBI folks had in stopping the hijackers, specifically the fact that they couldn't track these guys down before 9/11 yet knew precisely afterwards, within a couple of days, who the hijackers were. My worldview does not naturally contain layer upon of incompetence in the FBI, so it becomes difficult to believe it when we are told that incompetence really led to the disaster. There are many other issues around 9/11 that leave me with a vague sense of unease. Some of this is, I am sure, attributable to the gulf that exists between we in the public and the people who were involved directly with the events. I am by nature mistrustful and suspicious; this lends itself to a general questioning of official accounts.

Many here are far more knowledgeable about the intricacies of 9/11 conspiracy talk than I; I will not presume to speak for them. For me, it is incredibly reassuring to read your words.

Take care, Al
Matt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al H Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #135
141. Thanks Matt
Regarding what should have happened security wise and what did happen...man I'm with you. I just returned from a trip yesterday and the security at Reagan National was less than stellar. TSA guys were half asleep.

As far the rest of who know what and when...your guess is as good as mine. All I saw was the aircraft hit the Pentagon...and I tried to help some folks that were hurt real bad. It was a tough day for everyone - NY, PA, VA...the whole nation. I think we all cried together.

I'm glad if I've helped...

Cheers
Al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. Al, in the years that have passed have you been able to reconcile
Edited on Thu Jun-22-06 10:39 PM by higher class
the math of it all - have you matched up all the measurements - the height of fuselage, tail, and the width of the fuselage and wing span to your satisfaction - including the absence of depth - into the ground or through and into the rings vs the speed? A combination of aeronautics involving crashes plus simple math? I struggle.

And have you wondered why you are allowed to speak and others are not allowed to (for example, employess in the hotel and gas station that housed the cameras and content that were swooped away (according to many stories/reports)?

Thanks for speaking out here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al H Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. Reconciling it all....
You know, I've heard the stories of people not being allowed to speak etc. That simply has not been the case, at least for myself and others that I know. Another witnesses, good friend of mine, by the name of Terry Morin; appeared on WJLA Tv (Washington Channel 7) about two years ago. (Checkout the witness list - you'll see Terry listed. He's retired Marine aviator and know aircraft) Just saw him the other day...we really don't speak about 9/11. All we have to do is just look at each other when others bring up the subject...and well, enough said. Anyway, WJLA did a story on what we saw from the Navy Annex. The Public Affairs officer from my agency called us both and asked if we felt comfortable do such an interview. We both said yes and the interview was conducted at the Navy Exchange Citgo station on the corner of Southgate Rd and Columbia Pike - just below the Navy Annex. It was no big deal and nobody told us what to say or what not to say.

With regard to the measurements: I've never engaged in any of that. All I can tell you is that I saw the aircraft fly into the Pentagon. I've got many hours in PA-28's and other aircraft and flew in the backseat of several AF high performance aircraft - T-38, T-37...and flew on board everything from the KC-135 to the C-141; thus I do know a little bit about aircraft. The thing hit "a ton" and simply pile drove itself into the side of the build. My personal opinion, given what I saw is that a large aircraft, moving at greater than 300knots impacting the building wasn't going to leave much behind. I've seen some the "accident photos" posted over the years. My opinion is that an aircraft configured for landing (ie. flaps down, gear down and speed down) that stalls or has some other mishap will leave lots of pieces e.g. the infamous tail section photos. However, you hit the ground with throttles forward, clean (ie no flaps) and no gear down; and you'll not leave much to find.

Bottom line is that there is no policy or anything the prohibits me or any other witness from speaking out. I've read many conspiracy sites over the years and been frustrated at being call a liar, or as one site put it, a "government controlled pawn". Well, on rare occasions - like this - I have responded. I flamed some fellow up in New York about the aircraft hitting the Pentagon. He never did respond to my email.

The absence of depth comment puzzles me. What I saw inside the Pentagon was a pretty massive crush zone and damage pretty much to the E-ring. Heck my old office - 5C465 was gone. Glad I didn't work in there anymore! That whole section was subject to the rehab project. The building is really different on the inside now...all the old short cuts are gone.

I also don't know about the "swooping away deal" either. I reported to my agency chief of staff that I had seen the aircraft hit from my office on the that Tuesday - 9/11/01. I volunteered as part of the clean up crew - doing escort duty and had to be pulled off to speak with investigators. On Wednesday the FBI called me requesting an interview. I met a female agent at our "access control" for the Navy Annex and she wanted to simply do the interview there in one of our 1st floor conference rooms. To which I said, "oh no, you need to come up to the 4th floor to my office to get the full effect." So, we went up stairs. When she entered my office and looked out of the window, she then appreciated my unique vantage point; and even remarked that "wow, you really could see the whole thing." That office in the 8th wing of the Navy Annex is now long gone. It was torn down to make way for the new (and rather ugly) Air Force memorial. Although intended to look like large "vapor trails to the sky", it actually resembles large McDonald french fries. Had it been in place on 9/11 - the aircraft that hit the building would have hit the new Air Force memorial. The aircraft was that low. The engine thrust literally blew the gravel off of the roof and it pelted the windows of wings 6 & 7 of the Navy Annex.

I appreciate your feelings and thoughts; and can only hope that my observations are helpful to you in someway. As I've said, bottom line is that I saw the aircraft hit the building.

Cheers
Al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #131
136. Thanks for the clarification, Al

but allow a question from someone who never was in Washington and lives thousands of miles away.

You read my original post with the statement of "Barbara". Did I pinpoint her position right, i.e. was she very close to the Potomac? And how do you interpret her saying the airplane went down "below the side of the road"? I mean, the Pentagon was in her back, the impact happened at the other side of the building, pretty far away - so how could she observe the plane "going down below the side of the road"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al H Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #136
142. Woody - and Barbara
Woody:
You know, I actually pondered your posting about Barbara today on the way to work. This will take a little "local explaining" with regard to the roads, but I think I might be able to explain it. I will at least offer you my opinion.

If you look at the map, you note that I-395 North goes right past the Pentagon. There is an exit for route 27, a left hand exit as it would have it, that takes you to Memorial Bridge. This road goes separates the Pentagon (on the impact side by the old heliport) and Arlington National Cemetery. If you don't take this exit and continue on I-395, you'll end up on the 14th Street Bridge.

From Shirlington on I-395, you hit a part of the road that has abit of "straight away" that rises to a small crest and an "S" turn. At the "S" turn there are a series of ramps and bridges eg the exits from the HOV lanes, the exit to Columbia pike etc. In the old days, this was known as the Pentagon Mixing Bowl.

Get out map and maybe you can follow my ramblings here. Anyway, if "Barbara" saw the plane "disappear below the road." She probably was on I-395 Northbound coming up on the "S" turn. The plane would have disappeared from her view as it went over the Navy Annex; because from the highway, you cannot see the Pentagon building until you've completed this "S" turn on I-395. So, she probably was just past the Army Navy Country club on her left and saw the aircraft as it came over the Sheraton and the Navy Annex. Okay...that is my GUESS as a daily commuter through that area. If that is were she was, she would have been about a mile from the 14th Street Bridge and the Potomac River. I-395 continues to wind its way around Pentagon South Parking on the left and Pentagon City Mall/Crystal City on the right.

If Barbara was at the Potomac river...either on the GW Parkway heading away from the Pentagon or on 27 heading for Rossyln....she'd have to been looking behind her to see it. If she'd been over by the 14th Street bridge on the Va side, she have had a clear view of the River Entrance and Metro entrance to the Pentagon and could have seen the plane go in. It would have disappeared below the Pentagon in her line of sight and she'd seen the huge cloud of black smoke.

Okay, all that said...this per speculation on my part. I didn't hear the Barbara interview and don't know anymore about her than you've told me. But that would be my "guess" based upon what your posting indicates.

To this day, at the Pentagon, Crystal City, Rosslyn or even downtown; you can run in to hundreds of "Barbaras" who got a glimse of the aircraft from some angle. My experience and my friend Terry Morin's was fairly unique, in as much as, we both saw it and saw impact. As I think back on it, one of the principle questions the FBI asked me was whether in my opinion it was "controlled flight." My flying experience, and Terry's Morin's for that matter, was important to them. Because I flew, I could tell them gear was up and he appeared to be clean; I heard the engines spool and saw rudder deflection.

Cheers
Al

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Yet every CT theory hinges on one or two "eyewitness" statements
Are they equally suspect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Look, hacky,
first, I presented already three eyewitnesses, and if you closely follow the pattern of my postings, you might guess that there are more to come.

The problem with the Pentagon eyewitnesses (gathered in "They saw the aircraft", f.e.) is that there are so many contradictions that you never will get a scenario which matches all of the statements. This is valid for the official theory, too.

But it gets interesting when some statements describe a consistent alternative scenario, in this case a crash into the Pentagon Lagoon. Then this scenario deserves increased attention.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. So many witnesses is bad, very few witnesses is good?
Edited on Tue Jun-07-05 02:37 PM by hack89
Interesting theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. A criminal investigation is no football match
Imagine a murder in a park. A man is stabbed in his back. Several people saw a suspicious person running away from the scene. When interviewed by the police, ten people say the person was tall and escaped northwards. Five people say the person was short and fat and was running away southwards.

So what does the police do? "Okay, that's 10:5 for the tall person/north escape version, so let's forget the other witnesses!" Will the police do that? No, they will investigate both traces, because they have to.

And that's the point here. The fact that the statements of several persons point to a different crash site than the Pentagon is sufficient to investigate this scenario further.

But the Lagoon hypothesis (and it's not more than a hypothesis yet) has a big advantage: it has the potential to solve the Pentagon mystery, i.e. the grotesque discrepancy between the many people observing a plane and the complete lack of debris at the crash site.

Solution: There was a plane, but it crossed the Pentagon and vanished in the lagoon while an explosion occurred simultaneously at the Pentagon. Because the plane needed only two seconds to cross the building, many people were duped and believed it hit the Pentagon.

Many people, but not all.

Look, hacky, I understand that you don't like the idea of the government being complicit in the attacks, but remember that the American revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment and rationalism. And these principles clearly suggest that no airliner hit the Pentagon.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. But wouldn't there have been an oil slick and other debris..
floating in the lagoon? If it crashed in the water, wouldn't that increase the likelihood of survivors? The lagoon is not the Challenger Deep - it is not going to swallow up an airliner without a trace.

And again - there is plenty of aircraft debris at the Pentagon. You are solving a non-existent problem.

Look, woodyy, I understand that you don't like the idea of the BFEE not being complicit in the attacks, but remember that the American revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment and rationalism. And these principles clearly suggest that no airliner landed in the Lagoon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. It should be pointed out that
whether or not the "BFEE" or any other faction within a branch of the U.S. government was complicit in the attack, and whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, are two entirely separate questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. not according to woody. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. This is getting downright silly
All this talk of the "lagoon". Do you even know what you are talking about? I run by that "lagoon" nearly every day. There is a marina in the "lagoon". Over 200 small boats are in that marina. Major highways and roads surround every side of the "lagoon". Do you really think that an airliner could have crashed into the "lagoon" at 9:40 am on a bright, clear Tuesday morning in Wasghington DC and nobody saw it?

Yes...definitely...question everything, but this thread/question should have died after one post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. It's impossible
A agree, I don't think this particular hypothesis is worthy of much further consideration. Thanks for the pic, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. You forget one thing:

It was NOT a normal bright clear Tuesday morning. America knew since 30 minutes that it was under attack by whoever.

This means:

Many people were looking TV (instead of fishing, for instance).

Many people were going home.

And be sure that access to the area around the Pentagon was blocked by security forces (how convenient they were already there because they expected the President coming back from his Florida trip at noon). I don't know if this was true for the marina, too, but it's at least possible that it was evacuated.

Concerning the people on the highways - I just presented witnesses whose description fits a crash in the lagoon very well - so don't tell me that nobody saw it. Don't forget, it happened very quickly.

I know this is a daring hypothesis, but I think it's the best one which is compatible to the witnesses and the crash aftermath. Or do you think an airliner crashed into the Pentagon?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Wrong.
People were not going home at that time. It was 9:40 in the freaking morning - why would people be "going home"? I worked in Crystal City at the time. Nobody was going home. There was no reason to go home. Were you going home at that time of day? Unless you worked in lower Manhattan I doubt anyone was.

And access to the Pentagon was not "blocked by security forces" (where do you get this stuff?). I have seen certain areas inside (where the President ends up going) being restricted when the President arrives, but this event was hours and hours and hours prior to anything he was scheduled to do. Security at the Pentagon pre-9/11 was rather light - hardly any outside security personnel and definitely no gates/access restrictions/road blocks.

Look again at that picture. Think about how many people would be around that lagoon at that time of day either driving, stuck in traffic, in the marina, just out for a walk, looking out the windows of the Pentagon or from some other location with a view. Working right next to that area I can tell you there are likely thousands that match all that criteria.

so don't tell me that nobody saw it.

Saw what? Quote me someone who said they "saw" a plane go down in that lagoon. Until you do that this is just hooey and doesn't contribute anything to the unknowns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Answers
People were not going home at that time. It was 9:40 in the freaking morning - why would people be "going home"? I worked in Crystal City at the time. Nobody was going home. There was no reason to go home. Were you going home at that time of day? Unless you worked in lower Manhattan I doubt anyone was.

Okay, not a good point, I admit. But many people turned on the TV, didn't they?

And access to the Pentagon was not "blocked by security forces" (where do you get this stuff?). I have seen certain areas inside (where the President ends up going) being restricted when the President arrives, but this event was hours and hours and hours prior to anything he was scheduled to do. Security at the Pentagon pre-9/11 was rather light - hardly any outside security personnel and definitely no gates/access restrictions/road blocks.

Where do I get this stuff? Did you bother to read my witness accounts? What about James Cissell (post #17)?

He usually cuts through the Pentagon parking lot to get to work, but was stuck on Interstate 110 because of extra security at the Pentagon following the attack on the World Trade Center.

So we know in general that there was extra security at the Pentagon due to the WTC attacks, and particularly at the parking lot (South, probably). This is not surprising, by the way, because there was word of a hijacked airliner coming from NY to Washington (General Myers).


Look again at that picture. Think about how many people would be around that lagoon at that time of day either driving, stuck in traffic, in the marina, just out for a walk, looking out the windows of the Pentagon or from some other location with a view. Working right next to that area I can tell you there are likely thousands that match all that criteria.

Nice picture, but I don't need it to know the potential number of witnesses. But don't forget that the plane needed only two seconds to cross the Pentagon and dive into the water, and that simultaneously an explosion occurred at the Pentagon. Enough to see there to confuse the people.

Look, I find it unbelievable, too, that this happened right in the middle of so many people. But what are the alternatives - and I repeat my question: Do you believe an airliner hit the Pentagon?


Saw what? Quote me someone who said they "saw" a plane go down in that lagoon. Until you do that this is just hooey and doesn't contribute anything to the unknowns.

That's an easy one. Barbara from post #1. Doesn't matter that she doesn't use the word "lagoon". It is in fact the place best matching her geographical description and the "below the side of I-395". Or take Don Scott, post #7. It is impossible that he described a plane on its way from the Navy Annex into the Pentagon. I'm sure he has no eyes in his backhead.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #36
114. I had just gotten home
my work sent everyone home.

I still don't buy the lagoon theory though - wouldn't the plane float for a bit before sinking? Also, the boats/marina would have been swamped with a massive wave from the impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. So it sank without a trace..
Not a single drop of fuel floated to the surface - not a single piece of luggage or a seat cushion floated to the surface either? In other words, is it your contention that the plane impacted the water at high speed and sank to the bottom completely intact where it remains undetected to this day? Give me a break - a plane hitting water at speed is like hitting concrete - there would be pieces scattered and floating everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. access to the area was prohibited after the attacks
They closed ALL exits from I-395 between the Pentagon and the bridge. Drivers had even to turn on the highway and go the wrong direction. There's a report of a surgeon from Washington, he saw the burning Pentagon and wanted to cross the 14th street bridge (walking, not by car) to help. He was wearing his working clothes. They didn't let him in.

The plane dived in the water at a steep angle, hitting it with minimum surface, like a kingfisher hunting for fishes. I don't think that in this case pieces would "scattering and floating" everywhere.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. How deep is the lagoon - how long is a 757?
Think about your steep angle for a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. See post #44

The steep angle is described by many witnesses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. You completely missed my point..
unless the lagoon is deeper than 155 feet, which it is not, your intact 757 would be sticking in the bottom like a lawn dart with its tail plainly visible. The lagoon is man made and shallow - a steep impact angle would result in a catastrophic explosion as the plane slammed into the bottom of the lagoon while much of it was above the water.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. No, I didn't miss your point, you missed my point
based on the huge amounts of sand and gravel they digged out, the lagoon must be pretty deep. How deep is hard to say because we only have rough data (it yielded 435000 cubic yards of concrete), and because the sand was also used for landscape building.

By the way, here's a topographic map:

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=38.8738&lon=-77.0507&datum=nad83

As you see, there IS something like a pit in the middle of the lagoon.

But it doesn't need to be 155 feet to swallow a plane diving at a 30 degree angle (that's still steep).

And even if the lagoon is not deep enough - I don't believe in Islamistic suicide pilots, do you? If I'm right with my hypothesis, then it must have been a prepared, unmanned plane. Easy to load it with explosives and let it explode in the right moment (when it hit the water, f.i.).

So the water depth argument is not usable for refuting the lagoon hypothesis, and that's the last I say about that.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. So if the planes in the lagoon - what hit the Pentagon? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. 680.000 tons of sand and gravel for the Pentagon

Here it is:

The building was constructed in the early years of World War II in the space of only 16 months, and was completed on January 15, 1943 at a cost of roughly $83 million. Its construction managed the consolidation of 17 buildings belonging to the War Department, and required 5.5 million cubic yards of earth, 41,492 concrete piles, as well the dredging of 680,000 tons of sand and gravel into 435,000 cubic yards of concrete.

...

The Pentagon Lagoon was created during construction of the building as a result of dredging sand and gravel for concrete, and to obtain fill for landscaping.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. So how deep is it? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
118. I had a date with a secretary at the Pentagon that night
It was obviously cancelled.

But she was walking with some papers through the hall when the building was hit. The place was not exactly on "high alert" according to her.

And it was a very typical weekday morning in DC. And that means that no one was going anywhere. They were all sitting in traffic or sitting in their office. Nothing really started getting evacuated until after the Pentagon attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
41. I'm angry at you, Sweet Pea

I'm not silly, and I know what I'm talking about. Right beside of me lies a map of Washington, used so often that it nearly falls apart.

Living in a global village now, it is possible to be in Cologne, Germany, and investigate a crime happening in Washington. I'm also quite familiar with the Cleveland Airport and its surrounding, for example, since I did my research for The Cleveland Airport Mystery. This article was written one year ago, has gotten over 80000 hits, still gets 50-100 hits daily, and is quoted by Mike Ruppert in his "Crossing the Rubicon" ("excellent research"). Do you know Mike Ruppert? So don't depict me as foolish. I have always emphasized that this thread has a hypothetical character.

And, by the way, why do you put "lagoon" in quotation marks? It is designated like that in all maps I know. How do you call this little lake in Washington and Arlington?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-05 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #41
60. I apologize
If you remain angry, but the concept of an aircraft craching into the Pentagon lagoon without a trace and without anyone seeing it is about the silliest notion I can think of.

You can look at your map all day as long as you want, but I live here. I work at the Pentagon. I pass by that area daily. I've lived here since 1999. I was a mile away when the Pentagon was hit. I drove past the lagoon within an hour after the attack. I've said it before - any notion that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon lagoon on the morning of Sept 11 is simply not possible.

As far as calling it a lagoon, that is the proper designation for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
33. One or two witnesses
Reading the compilation of witnesses Woody presented so far I think it's rather fair to say that theses are more than "one or two witnesses". And I agree that we can censor witnesses and if there are now a considerable amount of witnesses I think we should start to have an open and critical look towards this scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think it is possible she saw the plane hit the Pentagon if she was just
starting to get off 395-- the plane would have been to the left, slightly behind. I don't know how she would have seen it go below the side of the road though. It seems many other things would have obstructed her view first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes,

I was thinking this possibility, too, that she was driving and looking North already, but that's still no comfortable view, and the sentence "it went below the side of the road" makes no sense.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Don Scott
(from "They saw the aircraft")

Don Scott, a Prince William County school bus driver living in Woodbridge, was driving eastward past the Pentagon on his way to an appointment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center:

"I had just passed the Pentagon and was near the Macy's store in Crystal City when I noticed a plane making a sharp turn from north of the Pentagon. I had to look back at the road and then back to the plane as it sort of leveled off. I looked back at the road, and when I turned to look again, I felt and heard a terrible explosion. I looked back and saw flames shooting up and smoke starting to climb into the sky."

So the location of Don Scott is very easy to determine: He was on I-395, near Macy's, which is on South Hayes Street (look at the little map, near the Virginia Highlands Park).

Like "Barbara", he must have had eyes in his backhead to observe a plane approaching the Pentagon from Columbia Pike and crashing into the west side.

And what does he mean with "making a sharp turn from north of the Pentagon"? Did the plane overfly the Pentagon?

Did Don Scott witness a plane vanishing in the Pentagon Lagoon?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fll03 Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. The two witnesses names are known. Why hasn't someone followed up?
and clarified what they saw?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. People around here only ask questions...
the real work they leave to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. Excuse me
who exactly are the others?

And btw your confortable position is that in order to prove a CT theory beyound a shadow of a doubt you need to have a look at the proofs that are withheld. Simply black boxes, satellite images etc etc.
And if you care for people doing proofs then simply have a look at "UA 93: Official theory is a big hoax"...


And btw if I'm not mistaken Woody doesn't only asks questions but proposes an alternative scenario. Given the fact that the official scenario is everything but convincing thiss thread deserves a close look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Too bad that Hack89 let's these guys do the research for him!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
11. Complete CNN statement of "Barbara"
found through LexisNexis. Everyone may make up his mind.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, I'm in our bureau, but I have on the telephone with me Barbara, who is the wife a friend of mine and who is an eyewitness to exactly what happened at the *Pentagon.* Barbara, can you hear me all right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I can hear you.

ENSOR: Well, what exactly did you see? Let's look at the *Pentagon*
now, as you describe what exactly happened at the *Pentagon* this morning?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the too low, and the next thing we saw was a go-down below the side of the road, and we just saw thefire that came up after that.

ENSOR: How large was the explosion.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was large.

ENSOR: Was there a sound as well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We -- that I can't verify, because the windows were up in the vehicle.

ENSOR: Was it clear to you what had happened?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, definitely.

ENSOR: So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?*

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the *Pentagon,* where it was in relationship top where the plane went down. You know, but it was relatively close to one another. Whether it hit any of the *Pentagon,* I am not sure.

ENSOR: How low was the plane?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When it was coming down?

ENSOR: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it.

ENSOR: Were you able to see what kind of plane, or what airline it
belonged to?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I did not see what kind of an airline. I just assumed because we were so close to the airport, that it was coming in to land.

ENSOR: But it seemed awfully low to you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and fast.

ENSOR: How big was the fireball?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm spatially challenged at times, and it was
pretty big.

ENSOR: What did you think was happening?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that that hit the ground and exploded.

ENSOR: Were you frightened yourself?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, everybody stopped the cars, and we all got
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) and so forth.

ENSOR: All right, well, thank you very much. I appreciate you talking
to us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Definitely intriguing. But I can't see how they would cover-up a plane
crash like that in such a populated area. Although, they've covered up what hit the Pentagon rather well, so who knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yes,

I find it incredible, too, but...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meppie-meppie not Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. this Barbara stated
"No, I did not see what kind of an airline. I just assumed because we were so close to the airport, that it was coming in to land."

This is categorical perception at it's best. William James described this phenomenon of the brain almost a century ago "When we listen to a person speaking or read a page of print, much of what we see or hear is supplied from our memory". This fill-in perception is also highly influenced by suggestibility and stress both of which can augment the natural tendencies to jump to conclusions. The stress of that day and the media's non stop suggestibility of that day lead me to question the veracity of what she "saw" that day. JMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. This kind of statements

has IMHO much more credibility than people who saw "the faces of the passengers", like Jim R. Cissell, or who report details of the plane they impossibly could have regocnized in two seconds. Reports like these raise my suspicion.

Barbara's statement is authentic, live and fresh, spoken two hours after the attacks. You can even listen to it. I give Barbara a huge credibility.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
133. weird, I've never read that one.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. Interesting that she is wife of a friend
Now if I posted that some frind of my friend had dinner with Elvis..I would be laffed at

BUT she is a somebody cuz she knows CNN


Sounds like more MM lies...


"The woman, "Barbara", was the wife of a friend of CNN correspondent David Ensor and tried to take the Memorial Bridge exit from Interstate 395 when:"

She has zero credibility...

since when has CNN become honest???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. The witness who was at two places at the same time: James R. Cissell
For those who are not familiar with the Pentagon area, a short explanation:

The Pentagon is surrounded by three highways: Interstate 395 in the South, Route 110 (=Jefferson Davis Highway) in the East, and Route 27 (=Washington Boulevard) in the Northwest. Look at the map in the original post.

Route 27 was the only highway crossed by Flight 77 in its last seconds - according to the official story.

Now take a look at these astonishing statements of James R. Cissell

First he says, he was on Route 110:

He usually cuts through the Pentagon parking lot to get to work, but was stuck on Interstate 110 because of extra security at the Pentagon following the attack on the World Trade Center.

''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.

''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''


http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html

Two days later, he was on Route 27:

Sitting in his car on Washington Boulevard next to the Pentagon Tuesday morning, Jim R. Cissell saw the plane coming a couple of hundred yards to his left.

The Clifton native watched it cross over the road, then plow into the side of the Pentagon.


http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/09/14/loc_tristate_residents.html

Where have you been, Mr. Cissell?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. So one of two reporters screwed up Cissell's story?
I don't share you faith in the accuracy of the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
29. Local DC radio initially reports "crash at 14th street bridge"
- according to Dick Eastman (he thinks the plane flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport):

Initial reports on D.C.-area radio about a plane crashing at the 14th Street Bridge between the Pentagon and Reagan National and of the first fire call being made to Reagan National firetrucks regarding a crash at the northern end of the Reagan National runways (only one mile from the Pentagon) indicates that the Boeing overflew the crash and landed at Reagan only one mile beyond.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2004/05C1-06-12-04-attack-on-pentagon-inside-job.html

Anyone from DC here who can confirm this?

The Lagoon is in the immediate vicinity of the 14th street bridge...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. National Airport initially reported crash near the14th street bridge!
Now THIS is the source of the 14th street bridge crash! And a reliable one, with a brilliant overview.

No one knows the significance of EMS better than Sgt. Pilot Ron Galey, a United States Park Police helicopter pilot whose Bell 412, callsign "Eagle 1," was the first medevac helicopter on the scene at the Pentagon.

"I was on the crash phone for National Airport the day of the Pentagon attack," he recalls. "National Airport’s tower called and said, ‘We have a 757 down somewhere in the vicinity of the 14th Street bridge.’


http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=1101&file=1101ems.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
61. Wow! Great find!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KFC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
137. The pentagon is in the vicinity of the 14th street bridge
I don't see a controversy here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
30. Kat Gaines: Another witness from Route 110
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 02:39 PM by woody b
Gaines was on her way to a part-time job at Reagan National Airport the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, after working a 24-hour shift at Fire Station 16 in Clifton.

Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. She then heard the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon.


http://web.archive.org/web/20020613210921/http://www.fccc.org/News/valor.htm

So Kat Gaines was on Route 110 (=Jefferson Davis Highway), southbound, approaching the parking lots (South, probably). Which plane, and which telephone pole is she talking about? Surely not a plane approaching the Pentagon from the West, because the Pentagon itself blocked her view in this direction.

And, interestingly: she saw a low-flying jetliner, but she heard the plane plunge into the Pentagon.

So Kat saw a plane and heard the noise of a crash. Obviously the plane didn't belong to the crash - otherwise she would say she had seen the crash, wouldn't she?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Terry Morin: light pole down on Highway 110
He was in the Navy annex, west of the Pentagon. See also Albert Hemphill.

Route 110 definitively plays a role in the crash.

http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
35. The three versions of "Eagle 1"
I already presented the account of Mr. Galey, pilot of the helicopter "Eagle 1" who was alerted by the tower of Reagan Airport.

"I was on the crash phone for National Airport the day of the Pentagon attack," he recalls. "National Airport’s tower called and said, ‘We have a 757 down somewhere in the vicinity of the 14th Street bridge.’

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=1101&file=1101ems.htm

Here's another account:

At approximately 9:40, the United States Park Police Aviation Unit received an emergency call from Reagan National Airport Tower notifying them that a plane had crashed in the vicinity of the Pentagon.

http://cox.house.gov/html/speeches.cfm?id=545

And here's a third one:

"'This is National Tower on Emergency Circuit and we have a 757 down on the north end of the airport." Those were the first words U.S. Park Police helicopter pilot Sgt. Ron Galey recalls of what became a day in which Americans will never forget and the beginning of efforts that U.S. Park Police and NPS Park Rangers continue today.

http://www.nps.gov/remembrance/dcarea/dc_press.html

So where did the plane go down? Let's try to make sense of the statements.

"vicinity of 14th street bridge"="north end of the airport"?

Okay, but this means it was NOT the Pentagon;

"vicinity of 14th street bridge"="vicinity of Pentagon"?

Okay, but "in the vicinity of the Pentagon" is not the same as "at the Pentagon"; the lagoon, however, fits both descriptions well;

"north end of the airport"="vicinity of Pentagon"?

Sorry, if the air controller in the tower mixes up these two locations, then he has the wrong job.

Sorry, it's my impression that somebody tries to blur the picture that the airport tower initially reported a crash near the 14th street bridge.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Ok...
Take a deep breath. I'm going to try and inject some logic here and hopefully we can put this ugly baby to sleep once and for all.

You claim...suggest...hint at...speculate....whatever...that an airliner crashed into either a) the lagoon situated alongside the Pentagon or b) somewhere around the "north end of the airport" or in the "vicinity of the Pentagon".



Fine. Where is it? Its been approximately 1,355 days since that event. 282,000 cars travel the 14th Street Bridge complex (above, center) EVERY WORK DAY, passing by your supposed crash site. A lesser yet similar number travel Boundry Channel Drive (near side of lagoon) or the Washington Memorial Parkway (far side of lagoon). Do you think that some of those approximately 282,846,000 cars and the associated drivers and passengers that have passed thru that area over these past 3 and 3/4 years might have seen some sort of recovery operation going on at some point? Do airliners crash at 500 knots into water (or even 400 or 300 or 200 knots) and not leave significant debris and wreckage? Would not SOMEONE have seen SOMETHING???????



Again, take a look at those images. At 9:40am at least 2 of those 3 roads would have been, if not jam packed, at least heavy with traffic. Look at the Pentagon parking so close to the lagoon. There would have been eyes everywhere.

There is just no way humanly possible that an aircraft, much less a full sized airliner, crashed in that vicinity without anyone noticing it. No. Way. Humanly. Possible. Drop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. crash at lagoon seems unlikely to me; but I think its possible that
some recovery work at the lagoon could be done without people knowing what was happening during some periods.
And how deep is the river or lagoon?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. As I said in another thread...

access to the area was restricted right after the attack. I don't know how long it happened, though.

The lagoon is pretty deep, deeper than the Potomac. I think I read somewhere that they used 5 millions cubic meters of sand and gravel for building the Pentagon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #44
54. Wrong again
Columbia Island Marina is the name of the marina located in the Pentagon lagoon. Just spoke with a nice lady there - the depth of the lagoon is only about 8' to 10' deep. True, it was the source of sand and dredgign material when they built the Pentagon, OVER 60 YEARS AGO, but it has become filled in by nature and by design over the years.

The channel coming into the place is a bit deeper - 13' to 18' deep, but that is cleared on a regular basis.

Hopefully that will put an end to this foolishness. There was no plane crash into the Pentagon lagoon. Impossible for a plane to crash int a 10 foot deep body of water and nobody see it.

Oh...if you don't believe me google "Columbia Island marina" and call the place yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. What did the lady say about the pit in the lagoon?
Sweet Pea, I like the way you add authenticity to this thread through interviewing local residents.

But I'm not sure if we can add this lady to the best informed people about the subject.

In post #51, I've already presented a topographic map of the water. Unfortunately for the lazy-bones, you have to click the URL to get the picture:

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=38.87162318&lon=-77.05506549&s=50&size=m

I also pointed out that there is something like a pit in the middle of the lagoon. Actually, it is in the Western part: an area encircled by a blue line with little spikes inside.

Being not very familiar with topographic maps, I clicked "HELP" to learn the meaning of this symbol. I didn't find the symbol. So I looked somewhere else and got this here:



The encircled area is a depression. This means the water is deeper there, and I seriously doubt it is only five foot deeper.

So if the lady knows the depth of the lagoon so exactly (after all, she knows the entrance is about 5 foot deeper), why didn't she mention the depression?

No, I don't say the lady is lying, probably she simply doesn't know about the pit. But then she's not the experienced witness you claim her to be. No problem for me - but for you, Sweet Pea. I think your post will not bury this thread.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Lagoon depth
No, I don't say the lady is lying, probably she simply doesn't know about the pit. But then she's not the experienced witness you claim her to be. No problem for me - but for you, Sweet Pea. I think your post will not bury this thread.

The lady works at the marina. One of the things she is charged with knowing is the depth of the water in the marina/lagoon for boat owners and those who inquire about bringing their boat in.

I'd say she is an ideal person to inquire as to how deep the water is in the lagoon.

She didn't say anything about the "pit" as you call it because that may very well be nothing there.

I think if someone asked (as I did) "How deep is the lagoon?" and the answer that came back was "8 to 10 feet", if there was a significant depression or "pit" that would make that specific part significantly deeper, you'd THINK she would have told me - "8 to 10 feet, with the exception of the "pit" which is 30 feet deep." She said nothing, and therefore I don't believe there is anything to that.

Either way, with the majority of the lagoon 8 to 10 feet deep, there is no way an airliner could have crashed there and not have any residual debris or piece-parts of a 155 foot long, 44 foot high and 124 foot wide aircraft flying at nearly 500 knots. To continue to argue for this wacked out idea just takes away more from legitimate questions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Sometimes aircraft disappear in soft soil...
like this here. Have you forgotten? Same day, 100 miles away.





Look, Sweet Pea, I don't know how deep the lagoon is, you have an uncorroborated source, i.e. this lady who says there is no pit, and I have the topographic map which clearly indicates a depression under water. I have also presented an historical explanation for this depression.

I don't know how deep the depression is, I doubt it is 150 ft, it might also be only 20 ft. But the depth issue still doesn't kill the "wacked out" idea of a lagoon crash, because there are several alternative explanations possible, like the plane exploding right when it hit the water, or a simultaneous explosion under water to loosen the ground.

But I will NOT discuss these alternatives now, we're not at letsroll911 here. I take the depth of the lagoon as a weak point, okay, but as long as you can't explain to me the witness statements which clearly point to a lagoon crash, the hypothesis is alive, and this thread will go on.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. But you are saying that the aircraft disappeared without a trace.
And that defies logic - high speed, steep angle and shallow water without a fuel tank or the cabin rupturing.

At some point you have to say it makes no sense. Besides- what is so special about these witnesses? Why do their statements count for something yet you do not hestitate to discount the many more witness who saw flt77 hit the Pentagon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. No
I've already said that access to the area was prohibited to the public after (and maybe before) the crash for hours, maybe days. Enough time to clean up.

The interesting thing with "my" witnesses is that they point to ONE particular crash site - but not the west side of the Pentagon. They're not describing a bunch of different places.

Concerning the "many more witnesses who saw flt77 hit the Pentagon": 1) there are many, many contradictions, and 2) a lot of witnesses distinguish between the disappearing plane and an explosion at the Pentagon.

Look at this statement here, from Christine Peterson. She was on Washington Boulevard, right in front of the crash site:

And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.

http://www.naualumni.com/News/News.cfm?ID=613&c=4

This is exactly what the lagoon hypothesis postulates: the plane overflew the Pentagon narrowly, and a simultaneous explosion occurred at the Pentagon wall. For many people, this looked like a plane crash, though they didn't trust their eyes.

Now let's confront Christine Peterson with CNN-Mike Walter (source: "They saw the aircraft"):

It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that's when it sped up." "...you could see chunks of the wreckage on the ground, pieces of the plane.... It literally disintegrated on impact. It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings.

This "shearing off" of the wings is reported by no other witness, and, as you maybe know, they were indeed missing after the crash. So do you think Mike Walter is credible? Or was he victim of an optical illusion?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Area was NOT prohibited
I've already said that access to the area was prohibited to the public after (and maybe before) the crash for hours, maybe days. Enough time to clean up.

I've said this before, access to the area was NOT prohibited to the public after. The Pentagon was OPEN with most of the 25,000 people working in it the next day, 12 Sept, as they did every day after. The parking lot next to that lagoon was OPEN, because much of the western part of south parking WAS closed due to the fact it was close to the impact point.



I took this picture 12 Sept as I was going to work. The contrail was from the only thing flying at altitude that day, an AWACS aircraft. The cars you see on the left are in the south-east side of the south parking. The place was OPEN...it was a matter of pride that they went back to work the very next day.

Besides...if you really think a Boeing 757 crash in a body of water 8-10 feet deep (or even 25 or 30 feet deep) could be cleaned up in "hours" or even "days", we got a real perception problem here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. Nice pictures...
...but basically you're not "injecting logic", but just repeating your argument with the millions of people around the lagoon who would have seen that.

So I'm repeating myself, too, there ARE people whose account points to a crash in the lagoon, and I have presented some of them.

And why does nobody mention the lagoon explicitly (or "branch of the Potomac" or "boundary channel")?

The first media reports were talking about an "explosion" at the Pentagon. But it took maybe 15 minutes to establish the claim that an airliner hit the Pentagon. People were shocked. Who would dare to oppose CNN, CBS, ABC... and shout: "No! No! No! Not the Pentagon, it was the lagoon!"

At least Barbara said: "Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure." I read these lines like that: "No, this plane didn't crash at the Pentagon, though it was relatively close." But I can understand Barbara. She was just carefully weighing her words.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
66. If you scramble the letters of Barbara's statement around..
you can spell lagoon so I guess the issues is resolved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
53. Injection of logic
Just to point this out:
Woody Box did in no way imply that "an aircraft, much less a full sized airliner, crashed in that vicinity without anyone noticing it".
I think he came up with several witnesses that did notice something ...
So, I don't really see your injection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #53
67. But not a single witness mentions the lagoon..
that is pure conjecture on the part of Woody based on some shaky logic.

Secondly, if Woody is arguing that flt 77 hit somewhere else other than the Pentagon, then yes he is implying that "an aircraft, much less a full sized airliner, crashed in that vicinity without anyone noticing it" since there is no physical evidence at all to support his claim. There are certainly no witnesses that categorically state that an airplane crashed in the lagoon and this is the biggest problem with this theory since there were potentially thousands of witnesses who would have seen it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Another version: George Washington Parkway
As he and Rescue Engine 335 responded toward the Pentagon, there was confusion from the control tower in an alert of a "missing 757." Initially, it was thought to be another crash, possibly at the end of the runway or on nearby George Washington Parkway.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=781&itemID=20904&URL=Publications/NFPA%20Journal

Okay, at least we know now that there was confusion about the crash and its location. That's something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
56. Not Ron/Veronica Harvey again!
Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 06:07 PM by Dancing_Dave
This book is written by a hired PR gun for the official story! This totally bogus character hasn't even been able to keep their story of their own gender consistent over time. I had the misfortune of encountering this disinfo agent on the web years ago. DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD IN A BOOK THIS CHARACTER WRITES!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Don't worry

I'm not talking about a book, just the webpage, and I really think it's a good compilation. Harvey doesn't do any comments, though he doesn't quote interesting statements completely sometimes. So he's a bit selective.

Just see it as a good source for witness links. This doesn't mean every witness is credible.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-24-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. This Ron/Veronica character told me they were doing a book
With pretty much the same name you mention...well, maybe then it was "They saw the plane".

Anyway, it only took a little checking for me to realize that this is some totally bogus PR hired gun with no real interest in 9/11 truth whatsoever. He/she just comes up with whatever shit they can to back up the official 9/11 myth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
68. What do 100 medical personnel do on the banks of the lagoon?

////Near the River entrance to the Pentagon, on the building’s eastern side, about 100 medical personnel gathered a few hundred yards away, on the banks of Boundary Channel (=Pentagon Lagoon). Suddenly one of them, a young woman, stood on a car and shouted to the crowd to move toward the Pentagon.

“They need blood! They need blood!” Medics and others surged back toward the building, many pushing trolleys full of medical supplies. Entering beneath the River entrance, each volunteer was handed a face mask.////


http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/911_1068266.html

Hmmmmm. 100 surgeons and nurses gathering on the banks of the lagoon minutes after the Pentagon explosion? What were they doing there? Making picknick or what?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Nowhere does it say "minutes" after the explosion..
The article is describing the rescue efforts after the explosion - it could have been a hour later for all you know. As for the location - it makes perfect sense as it is right next to the Pentagon.

BTW, since you feel this is credible source, can I accept their account of what happened?:

As American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, a ball of fire soared perhaps 150 feet over the building’s slate roof, and Maude and several others were consumed.

Hitting the Pentagon at several hundred miles per hour, the Boeing 757 carved a hole about 50 feet wide and five stories high in the Pentagon’s western facade, slicing through 24-inch-thick walls half-way between Corridors 4 and 5.

On the west lawn, small pieces of aircraft wreckage — none larger than a few feet across — were strewn on the grass and highway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. C'mon, inject some logic
This people at the lagoon hadn't noticed the smoking Pentagon yet, so it MUST be minutes after the attack, not hours. They didn't even know that there was an explosion, so why to gather on the wrong side of the building just to rush inside at once when they are informed?

“They need blood! They need blood!” Medics and others surged back toward the building, many pushing trolleys full of medical supplies. Entering beneath the River entrance, each volunteer was handed a face mask.


C'mon, hacky, you can do better.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. So you agree that they are a credible source?
and we can accept the entire story as true? I didn't realize we saw eye to eye on Flt 77!

Where does it say that they haven't noticed the smoking Pentagon yet? Where does it say they weren't aware of the explosion? As far as I can read, there is no way to determine exactly what time it was.

Your ability to stretch the meaning of words is Clintonesque.

It sounds exactly like a pre-planned assembly point for medical personal to assist in a mass casualty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. "Pre-planned assembly point for medical personell"
Edited on Wed Jun-29-05 03:38 PM by woody b
on the banks of the Pentagon Lagoon, a few hundred yards from the River entrance, on the opposed side of the building?

The medics are aware of the Pentagon explosion, but are taken by surprise by the girl on top of the car shouting: "They need blood! They need blood!"?

What do you think is the job of medical personnel in an emergency situation? To help as quick as possible. To gather one mile away from the site of a mass casualty does not really help to save lives.

Sorry, for this you deserve a :spank:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-29-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Good job of avoiding the main issue.
Do you accept the entire account of flt 77 as depicted in the story or are you cherry picking (and distorting) the only sentence that you feel supports your theory?

Where does it say they were taken by surprise?

You don't understand mass casualty drills - the emergency responders are the medical experts on the scene. Backup assets are positioned around the scene so as to not get in the way. These back units are called upon as necessary as the on scene commanders triage the wounded and decide how to handle them. Hence, the call from the scene for "they need blood! they need blood!" Mass casualty response are large, complex and involve a lot of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. This just gets better and better...
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. And the best is still to come...
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al H Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #72
143. Medical Personnel
Hi Woody:
As you know, I was not on the River Entrance side of the Pentagon. However, I did see triage and help underneath the bridge where Columbia Pike runs into South Parking. I don't know that it was a pre-planned "assembly Point". Could have been...but I don't know. There was a lot of confusion and I know they took the children from the Pentagon day care out in North Parking by the POAC (Pentagon Officers Athletic Club) down to TR Island. To this day you can see the chalk marks on the underside of the bridge where they marked "casualty groupings" ie. burns, cuts etc.

I never heard anything like "they need blood". I did see both the Army medics and the Arlington County guys starting IVs and using compression bandages.

I read through the rest of the "lagoon" story - sorry, not even close to being correct. I don't know much about what was going on over by the River Entrance. We did have a reserve Navy enlisted lady whose daughter was at the day care. She was obviously in a panic to get to her child. Arlington County PD and the Federal Protective Service (Pentagon Cops) blocked off route 27. One of the guys (Army LTC) that I work with took her and worked his way to North Parking through the Arlington Cemetery while several of us from the Annex headed down to the bridge to help. I only found out later that he did in fact get her to her child.

Just another insight.

Cheers
Al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. What's your problem with this account?

Please elaborate. I really don't know what you mean.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. I agree with their description of a 757 hitting the Pentagon
with wreckage strewn all over the lawn - the question is do you? You seem to feel they are a credible source so I was just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. They?
What you've quoted from the article is not an eyewitness account but a report of the journalist. And seriously:
On the west lawn, small pieces of aircraft wreckage — none larger than a few feet across — were strewn on the grass and highway.

Doesn't exactly prove that AA 77 hit the Pentagon does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Hmmm?
Here's your quote of the article:

As American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, a ball of fire soared perhaps 150 feet over the building’s slate roof, and Maude and several others were consumed.

Hitting the Pentagon at several hundred miles per hour, the Boeing 757 carved a hole about 50 feet wide and five stories high in the Pentagon’s western facade, slicing through 24-inch-thick walls half-way between Corridors 4 and 5.

On the west lawn, small pieces of aircraft wreckage — none larger than a few feet across — were strewn on the grass and highway.


And this is how you commented the quote

BTW, since you feel this is credible source, can I accept their account of what happened?

suggesting that you, you personally, can't accept "their" account.

Now you accept it. So what? Do you accept it now? Yes? Okay, so do we agree now there is no reason to challenge the credibility of the article?

I've seen already pictures of small aircraft wreckage, so what? It's okay. The article doesn't say how many.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
80. self-deleted
Edited on Mon Jul-04-05 01:12 PM by woody b

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. You're not deleting/retracting the whole post are you?
Edited on Mon Jul-04-05 01:26 PM by spooked911
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-04-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. sorry

it was just a test with images, I wanted to preview, but pressed wrongly the "post message" button. And it didn't work. Nothing important. Nothing to see here, move on...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
83. crash at 14th street bridge? where compared to Lagoon? overflight? foreig
The first reports on Washington D.C. radio spoke of a crash of an airliner on the 14th street bridge. And the first call for fire trucks was to a crash on the northern end of Reagan National Airport. This indicates that an airliner was seen east of the Pentagon, over the 14th street bridge and over Reagan National.

But all the Boeing would have to do after it overflew the Pentagon hidden from most witnesses who saw its approach by first the flash and then the rising mass rising smoke and flame was to put down its wheels, bank to the right (while over the 14th street bridge, and then land at Reagan National which has a runway that ends only one mile southeast of the crash point -- in three seconds the Boeing would be closer to the airport than to the Pentagon, it could blend into Reagan traffic (and of course Reagan Airport, one mile from the Pentagon would be full of DoD and CIA operatives under Rumsfeld and Tenet etc. anyway) where the plane could land and taxi to a hanger and be broken down for parts, or given new numbers and a paint job while the airport was shut down and evidence cleaned up -- Reagan National was the last airport to open, yet it already had the most security of any non-military airport in the US.

But most interesting is that, according to multiple mainstream media, 97 foreigners were holding ILLEGAL top secret clearances at both Dulles (where Flight 77 took off) and Reagan National (where it most likely landed) -- and these persons were all deported to their home countries (UK?, Israel? -- never disclosed -- certainly not to Guantanamo, Cuba) with no charges brought against them, by order of John Ashcroft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. THAT'S what I'M talkin' about!
Yeah! Here's a scenario I can buy off on! All I have to do is ignore those who did indeed see the 757 impact the Pentagon. And believe that NOBODY saw a 757 "overfly" the Pentagon (including me, who saw the initial fireball from the impact from my 10th floor office window in Crystal City and didn't see a 757 fly by on its way to "blend in", much less anyone of the thousands of commuters to/from DC on the 14th Street bridge complex at that time of day.) And ignore the fact that an aircraft doesn't simply "blend" into a landing pattern at a major national airport, especially one situated where Reagan National is.

Aside from all that, it's the perfect answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #84
88. You ignore the documented facts regarding the airport findings
Edited on Sat Aug-27-05 08:53 AM by philb
You are playing games, not providing info that contradicts
the info I snipped. Do you have any such info? If not, why not admit it? I'd be interested in seeing an explanation.

It should be clear the witness statements weren't very conclusive.
Among the credible statements that have been checked out, there were as many supporting other than 757 as surporting 757.
Thats been gone through before in large degree.


Why did this come up again? Is there any new info. Seems to me some aren't being responsive to the questions raised.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-05 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #83
91. on issue - landing speed
if that airplane was doing 500m/h, could it reduce speed quick enough for safe landing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
85. kick

before this thread disappears in the DU archive: I'm not finished yet. Update comiong soon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. I can't wait to hear more
:) :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Me too...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Hi Sweet Pea!

:hi:

Where have you been? I missed you! Ah - I understand - usually you just take a daily quick look at this forum without posting something. But if someone dares to spread absurd pentagon scenarios, you take it as your duty to fight against this crap.

Is it like that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Well....
you just about nailed it with your "absurd pentagon scenarios" comment. There are alot of thinsg I won't comment on here because I either don't have the necessary warm-and-fuzzy on the facts or simply don't feel comfortable with my level of knowledge on an issue. This cockamamie idea of the aircraft overflying the Pentagon and crashing into the lagoon, however, fits your "absurd pentagon scenario" catagory. I've posted how I actually spoke to employees of the marina in the lagoon in question, asking how deep that specific body of water is and then related here how it would have been impossible (not "unlikely" or "improbable", but impossible) for an aircraft to crash there and not be seen by thousands of commuters less than a hundred feet away from the site, but you choose to ignore such investigative information.

As I said in my last post, though, I eagerly await your new information regarding this scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #85
102. Waiting.....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-01-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Patience, please...the timing of the update is my decision nT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cylinder Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-05 03:24 AM
Response to Original message
92. Understanding topographic maps
The image in the earlier post confused me for a minute. I realize now that's a sample image.



Let's examine your sample to understand reading contour intervals on topographic maps. First find the contour line (the circular lines on the map) that is labeled 5400. Follow that line around the map. Everything on that line is exactly 5400 feet above sea level. (That's what led to my initial confusion - DC is a bit lower than 5400 feet.)

Inside the 5400 line is one labeled 5300. Everything that falls on that line is at 5300 feet. The X in the middle of your depression is 522? feet. That's the lowest elevation point in that circle.

If you count the number of contour lines between 5400 and 5300 you find 10 different lines. That means the contour interval for this map is 10 feet (100/10=10). Each concentric circle represents a 10-foot difference in elevation. If you count the contour lines between 5300 and the X you find there are 7 lines.

5300 - 70 = 5230

The X was surveyed to be somewhere below 5230. Since the last digit was truncated, we do not know the exact elevation, other than the fact that it is above 5220 feet (no new contour line) and below 5230, since it is not on that line. Surveyors use an X to mark those spots and sometimes leave a physical marker at that point on the Earth's surface.

Smaller-scale maps generally use larger contour intervals, since the same area of the map represents a larger area of the Earth's surface. The contour interval can be found in the map's legend or worked out by hand (as we did) if the legend is not available.

Now to the lagoon.

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4304707.00003035&e=322232.999976083&datum=nad83

I've scaled the map to 1:24,000 and centered it on the lagoon. The shoreline of the lagoon marks sea level. On the north shore to the immediate right of the marina you see the first contour line which is at 10 feet. This establishes a 10-foot contour interval.

Looking inside the lagoon from the same point you notice the first contour line very close to the shoreline (~10 meters) which marks 10 feet below sea level and indicates a steep drop from sea level to 10 feet. This is followed by a fairly level shelf that runs SW around 150 meters to the next contour line that marks 20 feet below sea level. That's the deepest part of the lagoon other than the 30-foot deep channel that runs under the Mt. Vernon Memorial Highway Bridge. I'm not familiar enough with DC to know the local name - that's what it's labeled on the map.

From examining the map provided, I estimate the water depth surrounding the marina to range from ~ 0-15 feet. The "pit" is in ~20 feet of water.

I did not estimate the depth of Lake Turdfloatin (the sewage treatment plant to the north of the lagoon).

Hope this helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cylinder Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-05 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. Topo hash marks
The hash marks (the perpendicular ticks) on the contour lines indicate the direction of the downward slope. Steep terrain can get very confusing when trying to tell which way is up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. Good explanation
Note that the contour line inside this lagoon is not "pure", but with these hash marks. This indicates that the area inside the line is clear deeper than the line's level (why would they use the hash marks otherwise?).

As I've already written in this thread:

I don't know how deep the depression is, I doubt it is 150 ft, it might also be only 20 ft. But the depth issue still doesn't kill the "wacked out" idea of a lagoon crash, because there are several alternative explanations possible, like the plane exploding right when it hit the water, or a simultaneous explosion under water to loosen the ground.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonny Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
94. Pentagon Lagoon Depth
2 articles with the same information.

Page 220—Paragraph 211, lines 2 to 9; read:
Pentagon Lagoon. In February 2000, the controlling depth
was 7.5 feet in the entrance channel, thence depths of 5 to 8
feet were at the marina on the north side of the lagoon.
Depths of about 2 to 7 feet are available in the rest of the
lagoon. The fixed bridge over the entrance is a stone arch,
100 feet between the piers, with a clearance of 18 feet over
the middle 41 feet. Complete berthing facilities, gasoline and
some supplies are available at the marina. Hull and engine
repairs can be made; marine railway, 30 feet. Boundary
Channel, which extends ...
(BP 177350; CL 603/02) 14/03

http://pollux.nss.nima.mil/NAV_PUBS/UNTM/200314/Nav_Pub_Cor.pdf

___________________________________________

Directly across the river from the Tidal Basin is the Pentagon Lagoon. In February 2000, the controlling depth was 7.5 feet in the entrance channel, thence depths of 5 to 8 feet were at the marina on the north side of the lagoon. Depths of about 2 to 7 feet are available in the rest of the lagoon. The fixed bridge over the entrance is a stone arch, 100 feet between the piers, with a clearance of 18 feet over the middle 41 feet. Complete berthing facilities, gasoline and some supplies are available at the marina. Hull and engine repairs can be made; marine railway, 30 feet. Boundary Channel, which extends northward from the lagoon between Columbia Island and the Virginia shore, is shallow and is crossed by several fixed bridges.

http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/nsd/CP3/CP3-38ed-Ch12_3.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. These sorts of facts don't seem to matter to some here
A 757 aircraft with a tail that is nearly 44' tall crashing into a lagoon with an average depth around 8'.

And not seen by anyone.

Either in the process of crashing.

Or after the crash. In an 8' deep lagoon. With a 44' tall tail.

I suppose, though, in all fairness it could have sunk in 44' of mud.

Instantaneously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. I know this article
but without better confirmation, I still believe there is a depression with unknown depth in the western part, as shown in the topographic map. Forget Sweet Pea's 8 ft. As I have written in this thread already:

I don't know how deep the depression is, I doubt it is 150 ft, it might also be only 20 ft. But the depth issue still doesn't kill the "wacked out" idea of a lagoon crash, because there are several alternative explanations possible, like the plane exploding right when it hit the water, or a simultaneous explosion under water to loosen the ground.

But I will NOT discuss these alternatives now, we're not at letsroll911 here. I take the depth of the lagoon as a weak point, okay, but as long as you can't explain to me the witness statements which clearly point to a lagoon crash, the hypothesis is alive, and this thread will go on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonny Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
96. Aren't we all working toward the truth here?
How will we ever find out the truth --- if different scenarios are tested out?
Aren't we all working toward the truth here?
I think that the challenging tone in this forum can result in people not wanting to express their ideas -- for fear of setting someone off.


Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. Thank you, nonny,
and despite the challenging tone of some I will continue to express my ideas.

I have always stressed that I'm presenting a hypothesis. Why some attack this hypothesis so vehemently ("downright silly") instead of calmly making their point, is beyond my comprehension.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. Of course!
But I draw the line at scenarios that are so absurd on the surface and from the git-go that all they do is detract from other important issues that need to be discussed. I'll throw the bullshit flag in a heartbeat if I think there is sufficent reason. This "Plane crash in the Pentagon lagoon" is such a scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Can an airliner hit a building without leaving huge debris?

What's about this idea? Does it belong to the scenarios "so absurd on the surface", too?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
104. kick

for opportunity

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Opportunity to beat a dead horse?
Why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. An almost-5-month-dead horse, by my calculations...
Whack that thing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. This is...
worse than Michael Myers and his hockey mask in Halloween. Where is Jamie Lee Curtis when you need her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-16-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. Oh Sweet Pea, back again?

Where have you been?

After all of your lengthy efforts to disprove the lagoon hypothesis - where's the need for Jamie Lee Curtis right now? Does she know the depth of the water?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-16-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. The usual suspects are gathering...

so the horse is apparently alive...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-14-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
108. Hmm, another witness with a media connection...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-16-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
111. A solution for the "depth" problem

I always have admitted that the shallowness of the lagoon is a big snag for the hypothesis.

The various statements that the lagoon's depth is not bigger than 10 ft, however, are countered by the topographic map which clearly shows a depression and the fact that the pentagon was indeed built with sand and gravel dug out from the lagoon - this created the pit shown in the topo map.

Yet it's hard to believe that the pit was deep enough to hide a 757 with its 155 ft.

However, let's just drop the assumption that it was a 757 that crossed the Pentagon. Maybe it was a smaller plane.

How convenient that some people have indeed reported to have seen a commuter plane:

Don Wright

Steve Patterson

And I remember a witness from Loose Change who also described a commuter plane for 12-20 passengers.

This seems to make sense. Let's say the commuter plane was 50 ft long. So a 50 ft deep depression would be sufficient to swallow the plane.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
112. kick

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-13-06 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
113. FWIW - this really sounds like distraction disinfo to me
At best some kind of weird conjecture. Can a jet hit a building and not leave "large" pieces of debris? I would say yes, in fact, watch this video. They were testing a computer modeling sim for the concrete protection on nuke facilities. The damn thing nearly vaporizes against a concrete wall. What happens to this jet would likely happen, perhaps to a lesser or greater degree, to the one that hit the Pentagon. Remember, they were hardening, and revamping that side of the Pentagon.

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #113
115. Yup, I agree.
Releasing the wild geese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. I realize that this is an old thread recently revived but does woody
Edited on Tue May-16-06 03:46 AM by Jazz2006
still assert (or purport to believe) that flight 77 crashed into the lagoon? Or has he abandoned that?

I got the impression from what I've read here and elsewhere, that he was a "no plane" CTer these days.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. No-planer?


Your impression is clearly wrong. In fact, woody is a double planer.


TWO Flight 11 at Boston Airport

http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/TwinFlight.html

TWO Delta 1989 at Cleveland Airport

http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/clevelandmystery.html

TWO Flight 93 in Pennsylvania Airspace

http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/pennsylvania.html



And where the hell did you read that woody asserts or believes that FLight 77 crashed into the lagoon???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-19-06 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #119
122. Semantic difference....
"No planer" to me means someone who thinks that the planes didn't hit the buildings or crash into the field in Shanksville.

"And where the hell did you read that woody asserts or believes that FLight 77 crashed into the lagoon???"

I thought that was clear from my prior post. That impression stems from this newly revived thread starting at post #1 and following.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. Semantic subtleties

Your impression is wrong, unfortunately. Nowhere I assert or claim that Flight 77 crashed into the lagoon. Did a plane crash there - that's what I'm asking.

This difference is important, as you see in my next post - answer to sgsmith.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-18-06 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #116
120. It's a good idea to read the archives
before jumping to conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. Such a mature response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #126
139. As I said a long time ago....
the response was more than your post deserved.

Interesting, though, that more than a month later, the tinhat brigade suddenly found it necessary to whine about my post enough to get it deleted.

Knock yourselves out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. I'm just gathering accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the plane

and some - not all - of them lead to the lagoon as the only possible geographical point where the plane went down.

How can this method be called disinfo? :shrug:

A conjecture, surely, but not a weird one.











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgsmith Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-18-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. Deep water retrieval
For the non-aviation buffs, you probably don't remember the crash of Swiss Air 111 near Halifax Nova Scotia. That aircraft impacted the water, totally destroying the airframe.

The Canadian authorities were able to dredge just about the entire airplane from a depth of 180 feet. The main debris field for the MD-11 was approximately 400 by 300 feet wide.

Face it, the lagoon isn't deep enough or big enough to swallow the entire plane. Plus, I've not seen any report of damage to boats that are moored in the basin.

http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_12_01.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-20-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. Which plane?

Look, sgsmith, I'm not married with the lagoon hypothesis, and will not fall into desperation if it is disproved.

But your post hardly adds substantial material to disprove it, as I've already stated that the plane in question doesn't have to be a big airliner like Flight 77 and probably was not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=41380&mesg_id=71254

Maybe you can help me with a crash report of a commuter plane for max. 20 passengers?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgsmith Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #124
128. 21 passenger
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA06MA010&rpt=p

This is the only accident that I could find in the NTSB database meeting your criteria of a 20 +/- passenger commuter plane. I'm sure that you'll point out the following discrepancies:
1. Not a jet
2. Low speed impact
3. Inflight breakup

However, the accident airplane was fully recovered, and in fairly large pieces - like the wing and the fuselage. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10534159/

Similarities include:
1. You wanted a 20 passenger crash. You got it.
2. Recovered from water. In this case 35 feet deep.

Now my challenge to you is - find me ANY report of ANY damage to a boat moored in the basin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Wow...very interesting

Divers were searching for the wreckage. This means the plane was swallowed completely by the water and left no visible trail (smoke or something), making it necessary to search for it.

So 35 ft deep water is obviously sufficient to hide a 20-passenger commuter jet.

Topographic maps show that there is a pit in the western part of the lagoon (I mentioned this already). A depth of 35 ft is a reasonable assumption for this pit. So if such a commuter plane overflew the Pentagon and crashed into the lagoon, it probably left no visible trail.

The recovery of the Miami Beach aircraft proves nothing. Don't you know that after the attack, the area between the Pentagon and Potomac River was closed for the public (at least 9/11, and probably for some days more)?

Maybe the wreckage of the commuter plane is still sleeping on the ground of the pit in the Pentagon Lagoon...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgsmith Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-21-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. Woody, woody, woody
That's some serious mis-interpretation of the CNN article there.

You say:
Divers were searching for the wreckage.

CNN says:
After divers searched the wreckage 35 feet underwater, a salvage crane on a barge raised a wing from the aircraft Tuesday afternoon.

Your implication is that divers had to look for the wreckage, when the reality is that the divers were on the wreckage, and were most likely trying to recover bodies.

So, 35 feet ISN'T deep enough to hide wreckage.

No, the area around the Pentagon and the Potomac wasn't closed for any amount of time. I happened to be driving into D.C. from Gaithersburg, MD after ending a business engagement on the morning of 9/11. I stayed in Gaithersburg for several days afterward, and in fact went sightseeing on the Mall on 9/15.

Go re-read several of the posts in this thread.
94 - Maximum depth of the lagoon is 8 feet.
65 - Area wasn't closed on 9/12

My challenge to you still stands: find me ANY report of ANY damage to a boat moored in the basin. I think it's fair to say that anyone who has money in a boat would report any damage that could have remotely been related to the Pentagon attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 14th 2025, 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC