Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

I think it's time to now review also ULTIMA1's post :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That guy must have the most creative imagination of the whole USAF.
And it got him two medals.
From a Chief of Staff who doesn't care much about the truth nether, obviously.

Well of course his eyewitness account is a bunch of BS. And that fabrication of the truth got him a couple of medals. Not to mention a scratched up motorcycle from the hologram shrapnel.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by etshrtslr


Yes I doubt the guys whole testimony.

Do you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon?

Its not about what I believe its all about the evidence as you have been so fond of pointing out on this thread.

OK, do you believe the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon?

So please show me the evidence to support your witnesses testimony that the wing drug along the ground as he states in his testimony.

I have no reason to doubt he saw AA77 hit the Pentagon. That's what all the evidence points to. Neither do I doubt this guy either:

Mickey Bell : The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast. Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened. During Bell´s close call, other Singleton workers, including sub-foreman Greg Cobaugh, were doing other work on the first and third floors. The blast wasn´t very loud to them. They were talking about reports that two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York - not considering the noise they heard could be a similar attack.
www.necanet.org...

Originally posted by LaBTop
That guy must have the most creative imagination of the whole USAF.
And it got him two medals.
From a Chief of Staff who doesn't care much about the truth nether, obviously.

Couple of interesting things.

1. Why would a pilot put down the landing gear at that speed?

2. What type of fireball came out the building and destryed the tail section of the aircraft?

3. Why did he say it seemed like the pilot was trying to gain control and pull it out?


[edit on 16-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Mickey Bell : The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he heard a loud noise

while this may or may not be true, it directly contradicts the video released by the pentagon.

one of them is wrong.

1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS.

It is hearsay; not evidence.

2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect.

3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.

You just lost another one.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS.

It is hearsay; not evidence.

2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect.

3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.

You just lost another one.

Craig, it' sure taking you a long time for you to address the question of what wreckage was seen and/or brought out by the many hundreds of recovery workers, rescue workers, and others represented by these groups who were at the Pentagon in the hours and days after AA77 hit the Pentagon:

The Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
The Arlington County Fire Department
The Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
The Arlington, VA Police Department
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
The Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
The Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
The Fort Myer Fire Department
The Arlington County SWAT Team
The Virginia State Police
The FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams
The National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
The HHS National Medical Response Team
The DOD Honor Guard
The Pentagon Medical Unit
The Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
The FBI Hazmat Team
The EPA Hazmat Team
The FEMA Incident Support Team
The FEMA Emergency Response Team
The FEMA Disaster Field Office
The FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
The US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County
The National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management
The U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
TheU.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
The U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
The American Red Cross

It's strange that you haven't yet produced the accounts of those people, Craig. Surely, you must know what wreckage these people recovered, no?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS.

It is hearsay; not evidence.

2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect.

3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.

You just lost another one.

So if your a contractor at the Pentagon your in on it too? What research has been done into the MANY contractors that have been working the years prior to 911 and the contractors that have been hired since the attacks?

Captain, you decline to address the issue i have with it? that is that it (his testimony) directly contradicts the video.

reply to post by jprophet420


I have an issue with Craig implicating someone without proof.

reply to post by CaptainObvious

yes, and i asked because either the video is wrong or the testimony is wrong. i believe the video to be right and therefore the implication is valid (to anyone who accepts the video). If you agree with the testimony i would like to hear you say why you dont believe the video anymore (I am pretty sure you supported its authenticity in the past). Thanks and I look forward to your reply.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS.

It is hearsay; not evidence.

Yes, and Bell was unable to remember the event (trauma?). His truck is said to have had plane rivets imbedded in it.

2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect.

Well damn, we ain't gonna get many reliable witnesses at this rate. They're almost all either PenRen people or Pentagon cops. Shady folks.

3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.

Flat wrong. Bank is also known as roll, where the wings tilt. The official story and impact pattern has the plane banking left wing down, as you well know.

You just lost another one.

So sez you, and you would say that wouldn't you?

Originally posted by jprophet420
Captain, you decline to address the issue i have with it? that is that it (his testimony) directly contradicts the video.

Please, which video and what is the inconsistency? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS.

It is hearsay; not evidence.

Yes, and Bell was unable to remember the event (trauma?). His truck is said to have had plane rivets imbedded in it.

If he was unable to remember it then how was his boss able to tell the story for him?

Where is the proof of these "rivets"?

As I said.....hearsay, NOT evidence.

2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect.

Well damn, we ain't gonna get many reliable witnesses at this rate. They're almost all either PenRen people or Pentagon cops. Shady folks.

Huh? Almost all? Do you spout incorrect nonsense like this to get your post done faster and pretend like you have an answer when you don't or are you really this ignorant in regards to the facts?

This is completely untrue.

However.....regardless of their position....ALL previously published accounts are automatically suspect.

Does that mean they are all liars? Nope. But clearly some are so the only way to figure out which is by confirmation and investigation.

And of course by seeking out previously unknown witnesses to get the real truth. How come you haven't commented on our new presentation yet?

As it stands PenRen workers like Frank Probst and Don Mason have some of the most dubious testimony which is likely why they are the only witnesses featured in the ASCE report.

Same can't be said for the police witnesses though who the report specifically ignored.

Figures you would try to lump them in the same category and deceptively suggest they make up virtually the entire witness pool.

3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.

Flat wrong. Bank is also known as roll, where the wings tilt. The official story and impact pattern has the plane banking left wing down, as you well know.

Ahh..you mean the one that would cause the left engine to burrow into the foundation since the damage was limited to the bottom two floors?

Excuse me for getting the facts that fatally contradict the official story mixed up.

There are so many these days that it's hard to keep track.

reply to post by Caustic Logic

the video released by the pentagon marked 9-12. I cant imagine that you don't know of it or that I was referencing it, but there it is for clarification.

the image in that video is traveling parallel to the ground.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Caustic Logic

 

the video released by the pentagon marked 9-12. I cant imagine that you don't know of it or that I was referencing it, but there it is for clarification.

the image in that video is traveling parallel to the ground.

Indeed it is, at least as far as we can tell. I'd estimate it had a slight nose-down pitch of 2-3 degrees to hit the poles and building, which from that far away would look level.

Mickey Bell : The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell [...] was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him.

I don't see the part where it says it wasn't effectively level. Mentions nothing about pitch at all. 'Left bank' here means wing tilt, which has nothing to do with overall levelness, if that's what you mean. The video is nowhere near clear enough to say whether it contradicts on such a minor point.

reply to post by Caustic Logic

however, if the plane was banking while traveling 6 feet off the ground, the wing would scrape the ground. this did not happen.

reply to post by jprophet420


It would certainly at least cause the left engine to burrow into the foundation as the ASCE reports but fatal contradictions like this in the physical evidence are simply dismissed as "inconclusive" by our 757 impact conspiracy theorist friend CL who insists on dogmatically sticking to his faith regardless of the evidence.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I agree, it would cause the engine to go into the ground, or if you were very lucky skim it, since the wing itself, while the aircraft is banked could be horizontal since there is a slight upward curve to it.


I'm not sure of the particulars, but on impact of the engine, it could have come off from the wing. Of course, since it would have hit the building before having a chance to move very far from it, it is fairly inconsequential, but since this could force it upwards, it would address your questions later on, since it would be above the ground. Unfortunately, unless it were pushed upwards around the wing by it's impact with the building, it would still leave foundation/grass damage at the start of the impact.

Originally posted by seanm
Surely, you must know what wreckage these people recovered, no?

No, there are no official FBI or NTSB reports about any parts found that day (at any of the crime scenes) matching any of the 9/11 planes.