Pentagon fireball

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, the witness stated the landing was put down after hitting the poles, so that would have been just a few hundred yards from the buiding.

Come on ULTIMA1, landing gear coming down between hitting light poles and Pentagon? You've said you've worked for the Airforce and beleive this witnesses account? I'm having a hard time with this "information" and its relavance to this thread.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Think about what you're saying ULTIMA1.

How long would it have taken the 757 to travel the distance between the first light pole and the Pentagon? About two seconds, roughly?

If the landing gear were deployed after the aircraft hit the light poles, that would leave about 1.5 seconds for them to deploy.

"Then the right wheel hit a light pole and the plane popped into a 45-degree angle.

Originally posted by Boone 870
How long would it have taken the 757 to travel the distance between the first light pole and the Pentagon? About two seconds, roughly?

Yes, thats why i stated that people farther away from the building might not have seen the landing gear.

Only he did because he was close by.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



In that case, I have to disagree. There were witnesses that stated that the aircraft was clean.

“The wheels were up and I knew that this plane was not heading for National Airport,”

Link. Bob Dubill

Originally posted by Boone 870
In that case, I have to disagree. There were witnesses that stated that the aircraft was clean.

And how far away from the poles were they ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Every morning for years Bob Dubill drove past the Pentagon on his way to work at USA Today. He was passing the building the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when he saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision

Originally posted by Boone 870
Every morning for years Bob Dubill drove past the Pentagon on his way to work at USA Today. He was passing the building the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when he saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision

But how close was he to the poles?

Was he close enough to see if the gear were down after the poles?

Okay, I'm just letting this thread stumble ahead, it's so off kilter it's funny. But this was so over-the -top I have to address it directly:

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Odessy
this might seem silly... but why does the video say sept 12?

not silly at all. it's proof that everything is not as it seems, in fact.

Yes! DoD video alteration rule 17, article 8, section 12:
"Wen altering a video to decieve the pulbic, alsways stamp the time of alteration To insert the time of the event your are faking would be dishonest."

I would guess it might be evidence that the video was tagged/processed (and perhaps altered, who knows?) at that time. Yeah, a day and a half late, but there were other pressing issues to deal with at the time, so cut some slack.

Okay, then a good question:

craig, awesome spirit. keep kicking lie butt.

caustic logic used "reality check" in an avatar name?
why have more than ONE web identity, unless you are trying to come off as several people?

Whoever really cares, I signed up as CL first but did so at the old forum so my process got jammed. No one was on-duty to fix it I guess, real late, and I was in a hurry to join and post. Found the new forum, wouldn't let me sign in as CL (account taken) or let me make a new CL account, so I picked that name because I was feeling cocky. It's a stupid name, but I don't think I can justchange it. I did go a couple days incognito to see if I was famous enough to warrant an 'outing.' Once Terral and SPreston nabbed me, I had a laugh at their victory, then added the sig
oops, I did change it, so it links to my blogs
but for a while it said 'Yes, I am Caustic Logic" and a spiel on disinfo
I'll have to put that 'admission' back in. Bacuase I am not trying to look like two people.

Also, I don't thik I actually lied anywhere.

Then the weird part:

caustic logic is MOST LIKELY the author of "debunking 911", aka commen sense, common sense, link to physorg membership list

these debunkers......ALWAYS with the army of SOCK PUPPETS on their side.

Uh, yeah. I hope you regret that now. I don't even know what that thing is.

p.s. for the record, i have openly associated my "billybob" name with my "newton" name at physorg. i chose "newton" for physorg because i just wanted to talk to physics oriented people about the physics of 911, and it's all about the relatively("einstein") SIMPLE newtonian laws of motion. i don't hide my "one man, one voice" behind puppets and proxies.

Ah, good. Sounds like a human enough approach not unlike mine. So are we on the same page?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

Think about what you're saying ULTIMA1.

How long would it have taken the 757 to travel the distance between the first light pole and the Pentagon? About two seconds, roughly?

More like one. 2 sec from just south of Citgo.

If the landing gear were deployed after the aircraft hit the light poles, that would leave about 1.5 seconds for them to deploy.

"Then the right wheel hit a light pole and the plane popped into a 45-degree angle.

*sarcasm alert for the sarcasm impaired*
OMG! Sepulveda's account is extraordinary! If we could get some corroboration that the plane put down its landig gear, snagged it on a wire, and that made the plane trip and go 45 degrees (had been about 5 degrees) which would put it nto the lawn almost instantly we'd have something way cooler than the PentaCon! Perhaps another witness could testify the 757 did the same thing but after slipping on a banan peel. Yet Sepulveda's account has the plane impacting the Pentagon and stopping to let a fireball fart pass OUT of the building, but really he was fooled by the flyover and complex pyrotechnics. Oh and he lied about the poles being hit, since his account of being physically knocked backwards doesn't add up, so that's proof the poles were planted, whichis proof of the flyover, which is proof of why Sepluveda is an obvious lying plant.
*end alert*

I have no idea why Sepulveda's accout is so odd, but it certainly can't be taken too literally.

so ... Ultima ... you are telling me that the landing gear of that plane pop out like a toy with springs? 1.5 second for gear to deploy is quit fast ... in fact, you cant even say one point five seconds in 1.5 seconds. Oh, and flying a plane into a building or being out of control of a plane, the first thing I think is, oh snap! I better put the landing gear down quick!

AND ... a wheel hitting a pole would flip the plane 45 degrees ... not rip the wheel off and the pole out first ... I have heard everything now. Next you will tell me that if my shoe hits a flower stalk, I will trip violently. Relative weight comparison


even if you agree with the plane melting ... where is 15+ tons of metal? Did it all turn to vapor? If it wasn't there intact, it would have had to been there as a solidified pool of metal ... since it was FIRE not PLASMA or a nuclear blast (no radiation right?)



So ... it is true, PROVE the THEORY of the official story ... quit debunking and PROVE the story you believe with all your heart. It leads to more respect from others when you put passion into what you believe in, rather than putting effort to follow someone around and rain on their hard works and efforts, even if you don't agree.

If you think you have a better idea, you work on it and show the world you are right. If I invented a better mouse trap, I would work on it and refine it ... then show it to the world ... not run around telling people how silly the current traps are. That is what an honest, intelligent, respectful individual would do ... if you consider yourself that ... then get to work ... if not, then carry on and keep pushing people away from your side ... because attitude and efforts speak louder than anything.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
so ... Ultima ... you are telling me that the landing gear of that plane pop out like a toy with springs? 1.5 second for gear to deploy is quit fast ... in fact, you cant even say one point five seconds in 1.5 seconds.

AND ... a wheel hitting a pole would flip the plane 45 degrees ... not rip the wheel off and the pole out first ... I have heard everything now. Next you will tell me that if my shoe hits a flower stalk, I will trip violently. Relative weight comparison

even if you agree with the plane melting ... where is 15+ tons of metal? Did it all turn to vapor? If it wasn't there intact, it would have had to been there as a solidified pool of metal ... since it was FIRE not PLASMA or a nuclear blast (no radiation right?)

I think you might want to read my post a little more. I never stated the landing gear would come down in 1.5 seconds.

You should read up about the lightpoles, they were designed to break away.

I never stated the plane melted. The witness stated their was a fireball that came out of the building and destroyed the airframe.

I also have been trying to find out why the FBI will not release all the videos, photos and reports for the Pentagon.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
so ... Ultima ... you are telling me that the landing gear of that plane pop out like a toy with springs? 1.5 second for gear to deploy is quit fast ... in fact, you cant even say one point five seconds in 1.5 seconds. Oh, and flying a plane into a building or being out of control of a plane, the first thing I think is, oh snap! I better put the landing gear down quick!

AND ... a wheel hitting a pole would flip the plane 45 degrees ... not rip the wheel off and the pole out first ... I have heard everything now. Next you will tell me that if my shoe hits a flower stalk, I will trip violently. Relative weight comparison

That's what I was getting at. And I meant to say he didn't see the fly-under, not over, since that 45 pitch he saw puts it in an then under the ground, but he was tricked into thinking it impacted. However, FTE, you have badly misread ultima's position relative to mine. I'm the OCT debunker type (on this issue) and Ultima just raises a few silly questions about missing reports and cites screwy witness accounts and stuff to cast faint doubt on what happened.

even if you agree with the plane melting ... where is 15+ tons of metal? Did it all turn to vapor? If it wasn't there intact, it would have had to been there as a solidified pool of metal ... since it was FIRE not PLASMA or a nuclear blast (no radiation right?)

Correct, if it had melted it would be liquid. Hovever only very little if any of it probably melted after impact. No 'official story' has ever said this. what it says and what happened IMO is it broke into pieces and scattered mostly deep inside the building. We have not seen photos 100 tons (or so) of debris yet, but then again this is inside perhaps themost secure building in the US and they've been secretive about this whole thing. so I figure we're lucky to see anything - I'd say between big and small scraps I've seen about 10% of the plane's parts, including some doozies to plant.

So ... it is true, PROVE the THEORY of the official story ... quit debunking and PROVE the story you believe with all your heart. It leads to more respect from others when you put passion into what you believe in, rather than putting effort to follow someone around and rain on their hard works and efforts, even if you don't agree.

So that would better fit me, but I've already put plenty of passion into it elsewhere. Dig aroud. And dangit! I'm not letting this stumble! Wasting too much time on the forums again!

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Odessy
this might seem silly... but why does the video say sept 12?

not silly at all. it's proof that everything is not as it seems, in fact.

With all the high tech gizmos by the U.S. govt. you think they could change the date to the 11 to maintain the so called deception? Or maybe it must be the camera that thinks its a day ahead of the rest of the world. Wouldn't be the first camera to do that. And cameras ain't the only ones.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
and Ultima just raises a few silly questions about missing reports and cites screwy witness accounts and stuff to cast faint doubt on what happened.

No 'official story' has ever said this. what it says and what happened IMO is it broke into pieces and scattered mostly deep inside the building.

1. So your stating the FBI reports are not important, when they are the lead investigating agency?

Also my witness is not as screwy as any of the other witness that admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757.

2. So how do you know whats in the building if there are not photos since its the most secure building?

What about all the camera on the outside of the Pentagon and on the nearby buildings?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well I'm certain it doesnt show a plane going in No I'm pretty sure that's a missile check out the little shadow. they stuffed up releasing this one.

while watching that animation again, something occurred to me which i don't recall being mentioned before... if the explosive force was great enough to shake the fixed box containing the camera, (as is evident in the corners of the pictures), why did the light traffic cones remain where they were? can someone work out the weight of the average us traffic cone is and whether they should have been blown over or at very least moved slightly (and what force was needed to shake a fixed box behind them)

if the explotion was real, i wonder all this could have realy happened.

reply to post by justyc


The traffic cone thing bothered me also! It's good to see I'm not the only one wondering why a 200,000 ton impact 100 meters away doesn't effect traffic cones.



[edit on 12/10/2007 by infinityoreilly]

reply to post by justyc


Hey Justy! I dunno about this point - I'm no expert, but aren't traffic cones weighted at the bottom so they don't tip over? They are made to be in traffic, which means getting bumped sometimes.

if the explotion was real, i wonder all this could have realy happened.

Eyewitnesses, burn pattern, internal fire pattern, expected deflection angle from official path impact, and the video all seem to agree on the nature of the fireball. It would seem it either happened via the crash or was another point faked, like the light poles, generator, facade damage, column damage, plane parts, the 'illusion of impact' that fooled every witness from every angle... Your pick.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


You know Caustic you seem to insinuate that questioning the non movement of the traffic cones is baseless. I don't believe they would have fallen over just jumped or moved a little bit. And being so close to the camera they're clearly visible. Someone earlier said they noticed the camera jiggled(I've personally not noticed that) when "the plane" impacted, what kind of impact would it take in your mind to jiggle the cones?

PS my 200,000 tons in my previous post should probably have been 200,000 lbs, or as nefomore figuered 9000+ tons of force released apon impact.


[edit on 12/11/2007 by infinityoreilly]