In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11

www.combatreform.org...

Pentagon Witnesses Part 1.

Pentagon Witnesses Part 2.

Pentagon Witnesses Part 3.

As Jim says, 'Massive contradictions, inconsistencies, vagaries and outright disinformation'.
Sounds familiar, right? Pretty much like the rest of the 9/11 narrative.

Mike Sparks exposes the ridiculousness we are asked swallow regarding the whole
Pentagon 9/11 pantomime in an extended interview with Philosopher Dr. Jim Fetzer
on his podcast series The Real Deal.
Mike goes through witness backgrounds and testimony and uncovers an all too familiar
pattern; witness military and media connections, contradictory and altered testimonies,
outright lies and impossibilities.
Ultimately 90 witnesses are reduced down to a handful of vaguely credible individuals,
who all provide contradictory testimony.
This is compulsory stuff. Along with the rest of 'wreckage' anomalies (including the
lack of massive airplane debris), how can it not be clear that we are anything but the
victims of some massive hoax??
When will we wake up to the fact of exactly how faked and contrived the whole 9/11
extravaganza really was?

This is a brilliant presentation and a must for all truth seekers.
This not about stars or flags or even lengthy discussion.
Please take the time to judge for yourself.

reply to post by pshea38


I used to be skeptical of the official story that a plane hit the Pentagon until I saw the damage left in a truck from the right engine and some sort of cement garden thing by the left engine. They both left semi-circular damage just like it would look if an engine went through them. I don't see how that could be faked.

reply to post by pshea38


The first link references work done by CIT. Witness are disqualified because the person performing the analysis does not like them. The person performing the analysis also assumes that the plane flew North of Citgo and did not hit the Pentagon. This is definitely not an unbiased piece of research. It is trash. It is such bad work it does more to harm the Truth movement than anything else.

These analysts must be working for the government to throw people of the real trail.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You used to be skeptical of the official story until you witnessed something entirely different on a much smaller scale? I'm confused

The official story has many inconsistencies and the 9/11 Commission was a farce. The original investigator didn't even want to put his name of the report and he resigned over it.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by pshea38

 

I used to be skeptical of the official story that a plane hit the Pentagon until I saw the damage left in a truck from the right engine and some sort of cement garden thing by the left engine. They both left semi-circular damage just like it would look if an engine went through them. I don't see how that could be faked.

Exactly. And those "analyses" of witness testimony are done by amateurs unencumbered by the slightest academic expertise. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Corroboration with physical evidence is a must.

And what does the physical evidence show? That a plane hit the Pentagon. Only because there's no clear, sensational footage like that of UA 175, does so much pointless and ignorant speculation flourish.

It's been ten years, no evidence for no plane at the Pentagon has been presented. It's a disgrace this nonsense is still gaining traction in some quarters... then again, the fact that people who still don't get it after ten years, can't be convinced is hardly surprising. The remaining no planers and no plane crashers are an inevitable statistic, no more no less.

reply to post by pshea38


How about these witnesses

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."Source

Allan Wallace - Pentagon Fire Fighrt at the heliport

About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

"Runnnnn!" he yelled to a pal. There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble. He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid along the blacktop, sailing under it as though he were riding a luge. The van protected him against burning metal that was flying around.

A few seconds later he was sliding back out to check on his friend and then race back to the firetruck. He jumped in, threw it into gear, but the accelerator was dead. The entire back of the truck was destroyed, the cab on fire. He grabbed the radio headset and called the main station at Fort Myer to report the unimaginable.

Please read Alan Wallace's account: /p6gmm

Other firefighters saw the plane's impact:
Engine 101 actually saw the jetliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, “Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon. I made a quick U-turn and was on scene within a minute to a minute and a half of the initial impact

Longer account of Pentagon Firefighters

www.usmessageboard.com...

Burning fire truck - Foam 161



Several Pentagon firefighters, parked with their apparatus at heliport outside the Pentagon

On witnessing approach of plane, dove for cover - were sprayed with burning jet fuel . their fire truck damaged
by debris and set on fire

Is that enough for you ....?

I have trouble believing a large airliner was able to hit the bottom floor of the building without messing up the lawn or anything considering the power of those jet engines, and leaving a small hole in the 'brick wall' as dman puts it, yet 30 minutes earlier we're lead to believe the same kind of plane leaves a massive cut out in the steel columns of the world trade center the same size and shape of the plane that hit it!

reply to post by pshea38


Your OP is based on the "opinions" of Jim Fetzer.

Jim Fetzer is a so-called "no planer", in the parlance of 9/11 short hand.

Therefore, this discussion should be relegated to the 'Hoax!' Forum without a doubt.

reply to post by Insolubrious


What small hole in the Pentagon are you talking about, the punch-out hole in the inner ring? The engine of the airplane hit a large generator with enough force to move it. All evidence, except for made up crap by CIT and their ilk, point to AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

reply to post by Lapislazuli


I'm talking about the Pentagon specifically. I meant that I used to be skeptical that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon as we were told, but then I saw that there was damage caused by the engines of the airplane, which realistically couldn't be faked in any way I can imagine.

So where did those engines go?

Why wasn't there engines and wing parts all over the lawn?

They showed pics of a rotor hub, where are the other 24 hubs? Where are the rotor shafts, the shatterproof engine casings?

Not only that, if the nose of the aircraft could punch through then the engines should have also.

I mean this is supposed to be one engine from the plane that hit WTC and crashed to the ground...



What was so different at the pentacon? That engine supposedly went through the WTC steel facade, twice.
The engines at the pentacon only hit one concrete wall. At least one of those claims must be wrong.

The contradictions abound...

yeah but it didn't even mess up the lawn, there were no skid marks, to me the damage looked like a missile had hit it not a plane, like the punch out circular hole, and the flames kept burning which they had a tough time putting out, and it reignited the next day after all that spraying. I'd say that's pretty abnormal for a airplane crash considering the 24 hour attention it had from the firefighters.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
yeah but it didn't even mess up the lawn,

That's because the plane didn't hit the lawn.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
there were no skid marks,

That's because the plane didn't hit the lawn.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
to me the damage looked like a missile had hit it not a plane,

It could look to you like a flying banana hit the Pentagon, so what?

Originally posted by Insolubrious
like the punch out circular hole,

...which was caused by the plane...

Originally posted by Insolubrious
and the flames kept burning which they had a tough time putting out, and it reignited the next day after all that spraying. I'd say that's pretty abnormal for a airplane crash considering the 24 hour attention it had from the firefighters.

No it's not.

Ah thedman, you make it so easy. Maybe read what you post next time before you hit reply?

his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station

reply to post by thedman


So your brave witness was hopped in the firetruck and it was on fire and it wouldn't move?

You then include the photo of said firetruck outside?

How did it get from parked inside the fire station to outside the Pentagon on fire if it couldn't move as your "witness" says??

Originally posted by freedom12
Ah thedman, you make it so easy. Maybe read what you post next time before you hit reply?

his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station

reply to post by thedman

 

So your brave witness was hopped in the firetruck and it was on fire and it wouldn't move?

You then include the photo of said firetruck outside?

How did it get from parked inside the fire station to outside the Pentagon on fire if it couldn't move as your "witness" says??

edit on 21-1-2012 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2012 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)

There was a fire truck parked outside, and Alan Wallace didn't 'hop into it' to get away from the plane, he dove under a car. There was no use for the fire track because it was damaged and on fire. Alan did try to use a few extinguishers from it.

Anyways, you weren't there, your assessment of Alan Wallace is false, deceitful, baseless and irrelevant.

Originally posted by ANOK
So where did those engines go?

Why wasn't there engines and wing parts all over the lawn?

They showed pics of a rotor hub, where are the other 24 hubs? Where are the rotor shafts, the shatterproof engine casings?

Not only that, if the nose of the aircraft could punch through then the engines should have also.

I mean this is supposed to be one engine from the plane that hit WTC and crashed to the ground...



What was so different at the pentacon? That engine supposedly went through the WTC steel facade, twice.
The engines at the pentacon only hit one concrete wall. At least one of those claims must be wrong.

The contradictions abound...

I am sorry you have found bits of AA 77 missing. I can't imagine how that could have happened.

Still, there were engine parts recovered and they have been identified by aerospace engineers as from Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to AA 77, but not all Boeing 757s ;-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Btw, are you saying you cannot see any difference between the outer wall of the Pentagon and the WTC Towers ?

reply to post by Alfie1

I was just using the info thedman provided sir. Did his quoted material not say the fireman was working on the firetruck inside the station?

Did it not say he hopped in the firetruck but it would not move because it was on fire?

Did he not put a link of the picture of a firetruck on fire saying it's the same truck?

Just asking?

If people can't post accurate info, then why even post it?

reply to post by freedom12


You're responding to the wrong person. And if your criticisms didn't sarcastically prefix the word 'witness' with 'brave' as if to mock and discredit, they might have been worth considering.

We can clear that up right now, though.

Do you believe Alan Wallace?

reply to post by ANOK

So where did those engines go?

I would assume that they got turned into very small pieces of debris upon impact, along with the rest of the plane. There were many parts of the plane found in the debris, as can be seen in that thread I just linked. And look at the damage sustained by this generator caused by the right engine: How could that possibly have been faked?

reply to post by TupacShakur


One engine was found inside (Firefight, Creed & Newman, 2008) and we have a photograph of an engine remnant outside, coincidentally included in the link you provided. It was identified as belonging to a 757, probably an IP or HP compressor stage disc from an RB-211.