The Pentagon Attack Papers -- Seven Hours in September: The Clocks that Broke the Lie

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

And then there are the Pentagon employees who smelled cordite instead of burning jet fuel and the firefighters who used water instead of the FAA-mandated foam on jet fuel fires.

But I'm sure you've got a convenient excuse for all this......sad.

Fire truck 345 from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Fire Department throws a stream of water into the collapsed point of impact as smoke billows from the Pentagon shortly after an airplane slammed into the west side of the building.

How about in new york was there just water being used on that too? Something else besides jet air craft brought down to large buildings in my country. I don't believe riveted metal just collapses. The pentagon destruction is crazy. My question is, is it that easy to destroy, and is it that easy to hijack a commercial aircraft? This is the reason I don't believe, except for pictures, that, that happened. I believe some of this was the result of explosives. Jet fuel is etheral, it only burns itself.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


If the time difference was 10 minutes or greater, I might be concerned. Our building probably has at least three dozen of those clocks in it. The ones in Operations all match each other (within a minute or two), the ones in the Maintenance offices all match each other, but when you compare the Operations time to the Maintenance time, its five minutes apart. NOW, our clocks that run off of satellite timing...all match. But the battery operated ones......

Not sure why you bring up firefighters using water instead of foam....rule is, you use what you have available. However, look closely at your pic and then google search some more...you will see this white stuff all over the...wreckage....thats called AFFF....Aqueas Film Forming FOAM.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

However, look closely at your pic and then google search some more...you will see this white stuff all over the...wreckage....thats called AFFF....Aqueas Film Forming FOAM.

That's correct, foam trucks were called in later after the perps realized that people might question why water was being used on an aviation fuel fire.

But it was too late. People already noticed.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Do you read what you type? You really think that someone said, "Oh crap, we need foam trucks here or else someone might think there is a dastardly plot in action"

Refer you back to other post, when it comes to fires, you use what you have available. EVERY aircraft fire I have fought, I have been lucky enough to be on a water hose team....foam teams get a hell of a lot closer to the flames.

Besides, the Pentagon fire was A, B, C and D when it comes to classes of fire. It wasnt just jet fuel, it was also paper, plastic, electric, metal etc....

High velocity fog time...

[edit] You're annoying, but I'll try to keep the personal rancor out of my posts.

Just tell me, is the use of foam on aviation fuel fires an FAA requirement or not?


[edit on 15-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


No, its not a requirement by the FAA.

So your position is, firefighters use whatever they have on hand to fight aviation fuel fires and the FAA does not mandate or regulate AFFF foam products? You seem to have some experience or expertise in this field, so are you misrepresenting the common usage of water in fighting hydrocarbon fires when foam is available? In stating that the FAA does not require using foam to fight aviation fires, are you attempting to enlighten or obfuscate?

Anyone who knows about firefighting or does some basic research will know if your goal is to deny ignorance or promote it.

Questions like this are important because they establish the credibility of posters.

Firefighting Products

Class B firefighting foams are the primary agent used for fighting aircraft fires. Foam is defined in NFPA Standard-11 as "a stable aggregation of small bubbles of lower density than oil or water, and shows tenacious qualities for covering horizontal surfaces." Foam is made up of air, a foaming agent and water. It is the air trapped in the bubbles that gives foam its cooling ability.

www.advancedrt.com...

Extinguishing agents

NFPA 403 also requires that ARFF vehicles carry foam to fight fires involving hydrocarbon fuels. Airports can choose either aqueous filmforming foam (AFFF), fluoroprotein foam (FP) or film-forming fluoroprotein foam (FFFP), or a protein foam (P). Dry chemicals or Halon 1211 or both must also be available as an auxiliary agent.

findarticles.com...

Foams and Firefighting: Do's and Dont's (FAA)

1. ARFF Foam Purchased After July 1, 2006 Must Meet Mil-F-24385

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) agents used in firefighting must meet the requirements of Mil-F-24385. Any AFFF purchased after July 1, 2006 by an airport operator certificated under Part 139 must meet the Mil Spec. There are several reasons for this requirement.

First of all, AFFF has to be compatible when mixed. AFFF manufactured by different manufacturers, although meeting the UL 162 standard, may not be compatible. AFFF meeting the Military Specification will always be compatible with other Military Specification AFFF no matter the manufacturer.

Second, AFFF meeting the military specification requires less agent than AFFF meeting UL 162 to extinguish the same size fire. Finally, the requirement to use Mil Spec is in concert with the National Fire Protection Association National Fire Code 403, paragraph 5.1.2.1.

2. Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) - less than 3% Concentration

AFFF in concentrations less than 3% is not acceptable to the FAA for use on airports. The 1% concentrate that is available should not be used in ARFF applications because of the difficulty in consistently providing an accurate mixture. Any attempt to use 1% foam would necessitate the installation of a computer-controlled system and each load would have to be checked carefully.

www.faa.gov...

Shall I point out the obvious? The Pentagon is not an airport, so its trucks are not REQUIRED by the FAA to carry foam. However, as I have pointed out, foam and water were both used......

It was a nice try though.

Its fun being as nitpicky as the toofers at times.

reply to post by rightwingnut

Is this guy serious? We wait till the smoke clears to get an official time? This is actually kind of MADDENING somebody would make such a GRRRR statement

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Watch the debunkers try to go after a Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School:

Already done:

www.floppingaces.net...

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Must be hard be a Truther these days if you're that desperate, GF, eh?

who runs the first site you linked?

the second site is ran by a janitor, adam larson.

Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School > adam larson, janitor

Several accounts reveal that some witnesses who were at the Pentagon when it was attacked on 9/11, and located close to where the building was struck, initially were quite sure a bomb--or bombs--had gone off. These accounts are particularly notable since these individuals were members of the armed forces, and therefore familiar with what explosives sounded and felt like. While they may not tell us anything conclusive, these reports raise questions about what actually happened at the Pentagon that morning:

John Thurman, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, was in a second floor office just above where the Pentagon was hit. He has described the attack: "To me it didn't seem like a plane." Although he was aware that aircraft had hit the World Trade Center, he has recalled: "[T]o me, it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me. ... [I]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time." He described what happened next: "[I]t just felt like this rolling earthquake going on underneath me. And in reflection, I realize that it was the plane that was actually underneath me. But at the time, again, I had thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten construction workers to come in and place explosives, and they had perhaps commanded--detonated them synchronous with what was going on in New York." [1]


Lieutenant Nancy McKeown ran a small meteorological unit in the Navy Command Center on the first floor of the Pentagon's D Ring--an area that was mostly destroyed when the building was hit. She described the attack: "[T]he building started to vibrate and things started to fall. And it initially felt like an earthquake. As the, as time progressed, the shaking of the building got violent. The noises got louder and louder." She added, "It sounded like a series of explosions going off." A colleague yelled out, and she "yelled back, bomb." When asked about the incident, "At that point you thought a bomb had gone off in the Pentagon?" McKeown replied: "That's correct. It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to like firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off. But they got very loud, very extensive." [2]


Army Major Craig Collier and his colleagues were in their second floor office, about 200 feet from where the Pentagon was hit. Collier described the moment of the attack: "[T]he building jolted and we heard a muffled boom, then a rumble. ... All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb." [3]

Considering these accounts, it is perhaps interesting to note the following description of the physical effects of the attack, which was given in the U.S. Department of Defense's book Pentagon 9/11: "The Jet A fuel atomized and quickly combusted, causing explosive bursts as the plane hurtled into the building. A detonation 150 feet inside the building resulted from a 'fuel-air' explosion after the Jet A tanks disintegrated on impact. Here, as elsewhere, there was no uniform pattern of death and destruction. The vagaries of the fuel-air explosions and freakish blast effects meant deaths occurred randomly inside the Pentagon, with the occupants of seemingly more secure interior offices sometimes suffering worse fates than those nearer the outside wall." [Emphasis added] [4]

While these accounts provide us with no clear answers, they do show, again, why we need a proper investigation of 9/11--one that will include a thorough and unrestrained examination of what happened at the Pentagon that day.

SOURCE

Ok so I still dont see a clear explanation for the clocks one way or another. Can someone explain it?

Also if you want to get in on a long running 9/11 - tons of back and forth - please visit www.topix.com...

You should see what is going on here.