9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by AgentSmith I keep telling myself to stop wasting time with pointless arguments, but I can't help coming on and reading to keep up, unable to stop chiming in when I spot a real blooper. I guess that's why I get annoyed because trying to keep off the whole thing allows you to take a more balanced view on things, otherwise you are effectively brainwashing yourself and it's easy to become a nervous wreck that suspects everyone and everything. It also means that evidence of extreme paranoia and illogical thinking stand out even more, but when you try and point this out you usually get a barrage of insults from some nervous twitch accusing one of being on some sort of payroll. It's actually quite pathetic.

Again, you're not referring to me here. Try to differentiate between myself and others who would call most anyone an 'agent' and mean it either literally or whatever.

The point is, most of these 'signs' can easily be applied to people for other reasons, and are by no means a sure indication of anything.

I'm aware of this, but as I've pointed out, the behavior itself is becoming of an agent whether or not he actually is one or not. Does that make sense? It's not something that has anything to do with YOU, because YOU don't display those types of posting habits. Everything YOU say is straightforward enough, though it may be sarcastic as hell or uneducated or etc.

Someone as intelligent as you should easily be able to see how and why it would be the case, unless it's getting to close for comfort?

If you seriously want to say I'm an agent then come out and say it. It'll be good for all of us. Sort of like group therapy, eh.

While everyone is arguing about things which are almost trivial to the grander scheme, proper attention is being diverted away from avenues which could provide real evidence one way or another.

Then maybe you can drop arguing with the likes of me and get to it, Mr. Smith.

Even if explosives were used then so what? No one will actually be any nearer to finding out who did it and why exactly than before. Meanwhile years have passed and it'll be too late to do anything.

I'm actually doing things, personally, for myself and those close to me, in relation/response to what's going on in the world right now. The whole purpose of bringing it up online is to try to get word out, or at least open up a route by which people can begin to see where the world is being driven by those with power if they care to. If they don't care to actually consider then I guess they can go die for all I care; I expect a lot of this to occur anyway, but of course I'm also crazy, and everyone knows that mass disease and death only occur in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. The point of explosives is either going to be totally obvious to someone, or there's going to be someone like you that will stick to everything the government says in these regards despite a lack of physical evidence to support them, and the fact that many credible claims in favor of demolition (such as momentum problems, and the lack of strength loss leading up to collapse) are still totally unexplained in your books. Your schema is telling you that demolition of those buildings is crazy. It doesn't make sense to you because the world you grew up learning in did not (and I suppose does not) expose you to such unsympathetic, self-centered behavior from those in power. It's always the enemy that is so vile and revolting. Comparatively, the schemas of Germans in the 1930s would be lacking this sort of exposure even moreso, as nothing as the Nazis would do had ever been done before to our recollection. But now we know that things like have happened, and that mankind does do vile things. So what exactly is objectively crazy about the idea that the buildings were demolished? In all sincerity, nothing man. You just put a lot of stock into the morality of those in power, and really can't base this on anything but how you've been raised to think. Right? It's not as if you can objectively prove their morality anyway; it's something you're simply taught to believe, and history shows again and again (especially within our present-day government) that these dudes lie and deceive and contribute to death. The actual physics of the situation is apparently confounding enough for you to suggest I might be a disinfo agent simply because of the argument I put forth. I don't know what to say to that except maybe you should reconsider your position. That doesn't mean change positions, but you can actually try to give a fair hearing to what people such as myself say to try to actually gauge why you really find arguing against me so confounding. If you applied the same difficult standards to the official story as you do to the demolition theory, I would swear to god that you wouldn't be so out-spoken in favor of it. But getting you to actually look at things step by step without any schema bias of "this couldn't possibly be true!" must be quite some challenge. But maybe it's my approach that confounds you, in which case I would have to ask for specific examples that differ from other posters. The major difference to me seems to be the evidence brought forth, because unlike others here, I actually respond directly to most all posts addressed to myself in a straightforward manner in much the same way as yourself (though again, with maybe a little less sarcasm, especially as of late... ).

So don't try and poo-poo the idea that if there was involvement from supposedly friendly entities, they would be the last people to propogate wild theories, because they would be amongst the first. As I said, people like you can easily be dis-information agents yourself, designed to keep people occupied. Of course you will deny it, but then you would, wouldn't you?

Let me suggest something to you, Smith, and maybe you can consider it. Someone that thinks that 9/11 was staged for war justification as has happened so many times throughout history, and doesn't do anything about it, is sure as hell not going to do anything about corporate corruption in general, which has been around for decades upon decades throughout the world without consequent. Regardless of whether or not you think I'm an agent, this stands to reason, does it not?

You and your colleagues quite often show traits common with the 'dis-information guide', so you either have to accept that it's crap, or you have to accept that you are as high on the suspect list as anyone else.

Matching traits is not the only thing I've taken into consideration, and I don't think you'll actually find us using many of those tactics anyway, since most disinfo tactics are offensive and misguiding in nature and not defensive of a particular view. The rest of your post I'm interpreting as a mockery, so I won't bother responding to it. [edit on 17-1-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by HowardRoark Why BSB, I'm flattered that you think so highly of me.

Although how you get that I am somehow dishonest because I misspelled the Vice President's name is beyond me.

Isn't just me buddy, and that example is probably the weakest, so I'm not surprised that you're trying to suggest that the whole suspicion is based upon that single point. This response of yours is even misleading. You do see that, right Howard? You have taken all the listed behaviors and picked the weakest one to equate the whole suggestion with? I'd like to see you address this for a change. In fact, Howard, I will drop all suggetions of you being an agent completely if you simply address your posting habits each time it is pointed out to you that you have posted something that is deliberately misleading. This includes your feigned misunderstanding of subjects you've been debating for months, and outright WRONG information, such as when you suggested the smoke coming from the WTC never darkened. That's fair, is it not?

Originally posted by bsbray11 What "dream" would come true for me with a disinfo agent coming here? What makes you think I ENJOY pointing out this kind of poo? I hope you're just on a bad trip from Merc, because that remark seriously pisses me off and I don't much appreciate it at all. I didn't say a single disrespectful thing to you in that post. I was simply pointing out that real agents aren't going to wander on the site in some drunken fashion without covering their tracks. You have one dancing in your face right now and can't tell the difference, and then start on how I would just *LOVE* to prove my crazy-assed theories right (what a dream for a loser like me!!), but am too damned stupid to!

Now, why did you have to say these things. I wasn't being rude to you. I stated exactly what I meant. There weren't any underlying meanings to anything. It confuses me how, when some one who dedicates most their time here to issues about the government being behind 9/11 and other unsavory acts, would want to dismiss the fact that a professed government agent came to this board. And that's what you've done more than once now. Big Whoop - what exactly is that for? To both you and merc, there's no WHOOP to it, the fact is, a government employee, who took the time to remove information on his past specialization prior to coming here and posting, came here and posted in (what most believe to be a fairly lame) attempt to refute what was said at the FEMA camp. Now, let's review what happened here in this thread. SO put up a link to the FEMA thread and pointed out that a government agent came to this board to post a rebuttal to that thread. SO called him a spook. (Doesn't matter if you or merc or anybody else agrees with the usage of that term in this instance - it is clear exactly what SO meant). merc decided to play petty word games - because he seems to be here to cause trouble more than discuss 9/11, and try to say SO called him a spook. I came and gave the link to the spook's thread again, and pointed out to the trouble-maker that the "spook" label wasn't at him....which a 5 year old could have figured out without help. With two links available now that point toward the "spook" SO was referring to in front of trouble-maker's face, he chose to, for a third time, act like English was a tertiary language for him...all to stay on the path of his trouble making. YOU jump in and decide to start a petty word-game about whether "spook" is the correct term to use here. And you and merc both start the WHOOP business and trying to insinuate some one's bragging, when, in fact, the point was - coming to this board and calling the members who post here disinformationists is contradictory to the record! I pointed out that I can't even begin to understand how you can spend most of your efforts on this board trying to prove the government is behind the 9/11 type deeds, and then turn around and trivialize a government agent coming here to try to refute an instance of them being caught in one of those same type acts! Which leads me for a second time to state exactly what I mean - You guys confuse the heck out me! Now, when was I disrespectful to you? when did i call you loser? Me not being able to understand your dichotomous nature is not being disrespectful...it's just not getting you at all.

Originally posted by bsbray11 This response of yours is even misleading. You do see that, right Howard? You have taken all the listed behaviors and picked the weakest one to equate the whole suggestion with? I'd like to see you address this for a change.

Simple, I’ve grown tired of long posts requiring even longer replies. Therefore I conserve my energy and am content to pick out the most obvious and glaring flaws in the arguments presented. Usually this just involved pointing out that many of the assumptions that are made are based on flawed understandings of science and engineering or invalid comparisons. If you think that that is deliberately misleading, then too bad. That is the last I will post on this subject. If you have an issue, then U2U me.

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding:

You're proving that when the dream comes true - you can actually screw it up by both not paying attention, and then rejecting it when it happens - right in your own living room.

Emphasis mine. I found it rather offensive that a government employee coming to the board, and then such being proven, would be a "dream" for me. That's all it was. That struck me as the equivalent of someone saying I would have wet dreams on the thought of proven conspiracy, you know what I mean?

I pointed out that I can't even begin to understand how you can spend most of your efforts on this board trying to prove the government is behind the 9/11 type deeds, and then turn around and trivialize a government agent coming here to try to refute an instance of them being caught in one of those same type acts!

I trivialize because it honestly does seem rather trivial to me. You have to understand, I'm coming from a point of view where I see serious corruption and scandal on a daily basis and don't think much of it anymore. From what I've seen and still see, it's like 1984 in more ways than I would rather put up with. Watching Bush on TV anymore is surreal. Or any such leaders. When I saw the news on the morning of 7/7, I was glad that they own blew up as few people as they did. I saw an early precursor for the use of planes in false terrorist acts in the Northwoods Documents, but I don't remember ever thinking "wow" or "wtf!" or being very surprised. And if that actually happened, you should know as well as I that most people would be rejecting government involvement even more vehemently than the JFK assassination, and imagine the total lack of evidence there would be to link the feds to it. Some odd circumstantional stuff that doesn't quite add up, but just look around and realize how far that gets with anyone with a hard head. That really gets on my nerves. And is that not scary? Er, anyway, before I start rambling, let me clarify something else. By "spook" or "disinfo agent," etc., what really concerns me is the manipulative posting habits of those who make their living by playing your average Joe, with no visible ties whatsoever to any governing body or agency thereof. Those guys are a real pains in the ass, I think, and especially so because of how hard they are to pin down. That a government employee came here and lied about himself/herself, and tried to play down FEMA activities doesn't strike me as out-of-the-ordinary. Of course it's unusual in the sense that things like that rarely happen, where someone will join and be confirmably linked to government agencies. But I actually think it's humorous that the dude was such a hasu at it (in other words, he sucked). And of course the results of him posting here, I don't think, were much for his cause. Kind of novel I guess, but the reason I don't make a big deal of it, and seem to trivialize it instead, is because that dude wasn't really a problem for the ATS community (which in itself is, unfortunately, not of highest priority for me), whereas much worse seems to be the norm most everywhere else. I would be surprised if there weren't pro agents here, given the emphasis on psych ops and vile propoganda and the huge budgets the guys running the intelligence show have to work with. The internet is especially a problem for anyone that wants a filter on information, and this site is the biggest conspiracy site on the net. It can be expected, you know? All I want is to suggest that people become self-dependent and get off and out of the system as much as possible before the Wal-Mart down the street stops receiving shipments, and 9/11 is as good a means as any to try to open people up to the "wider reality," to use a clichéd new age term. I really see all the lies and constitutional breaches and bombings and wars and deaths and diseases and scandals and information control as to be expected from a dying world power. This is just honestly how I see things, and thus no big whoop from me regarding the "spook."

Originally posted by HowardRoark Simple, I’ve grown tired of long posts requiring even longer replies. Therefore I conserve my energy and am content to pick out the most obvious and glaring flaws in the arguments presented.

I just thought that I'd point out that, for Howard, this apparently includes making outright false statements (see bottom posts on smoke color) and altering demolition arguments to make them seem contradictory to new posters (the debris ejection/center of gravity). And for comparison, my very first posts on ATS were in relation to the changes of smoke color in the fires, and they were directly proposed to Howard (look them up with my "Find Posts" button and see for yourself!), so, again, he isn't unfamiliar with the material. He's lying. No point in U2U'ing him something that he already knows.

What you mean this bit:

Originally posted by HowardRoaek

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf and the resulting smoke from both fires burned black, suggesting a cooler fire than what is offically sanctioned,

A myth, not supported by facts. In any case, the amount of heat released by the fires, either from the burning fuel or the burning office and building components was enormous.

Personally I thought he was talking about the cooler fire aspect, looking at at least one of the responses in the mentioned thread I'm not the only one. I doubt he would be denying that there was darker smoke later on, I think you're just misunderstanding what he meant.. It is an easy mistake to make. But as it's open to interpretation, it can hardly be used as evidence of lying. [edit on 17-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Ah, I guess he could have been referring to the heat output. His claim would still be wrong, as the particular situation at the WTC necessitated that there were no additions to the fuel sources when the smoke turned black, and thus, based only on what was already there, the fires began combusting hydrocarbons less efficiently. And again, this has been discussed plenty of times and he should know the material by now. If one were to dig I'm sure one could find another example to relieve that one to the benefit of a doubt.

is it my imagination or is there a dark aircraft in this picture, I also see something else but I will wait to see if anyone else has the same idea. it can be seen better in the blow up. external image Click the thumbnail for a 1237X636 image

ED/SP [edit on 18/1/2006 by Sauron]

The pictures crap, it doesn't show anything (I'm not having a go - I actually find the poor quality irritating). As a lot of people point out this is probably no accident, and until we do see something clearer (if we're so lucky) we'll probably never know for sure. It reminds me of those things you stare at and you have to say what you see, like an inkblot test.. Maybe one of those things where you can see a 3D picture if you keep looking! LOL I also don't know how accurate colour representation would be when something large like that only covers a small number of pixels.

hey i just realised another 'oops'. funny how obvious things can be staring you in the face forever, and you can be all of us. the 'punchout' was on the second floor! that whatever it was, had to bounce around under three rings, and then bounce UP to punchthrough on the roof.

WTF? are you serious? If so, please prove this.

Originally posted by Sauron is it my imagination or is there a dark aircraft in this picture, I also see something else but I will wait to see if anyone else has the same idea. it can be seen better in the blow up.

let me take a guess: the plane looks like an F16 while launching a missile and there's already a (dark) explosion cloud rising... if i'm hallucinating, bear with me, but if nobody tries nobody's going to confirm anything. bye,LL

Originally posted by HowardRoark WTF? are you serious? If so, please prove this.

hey dude, YOU'RE the one who convinced me that the first floor was a continuous space. i have since realised that the corridor in the b-ring has a 'roof' which starts at the second floor, but the c- ring is at ground level. quit trying to confuse me. it's starting to work, lol. shall i link to the posts where you claim it is a roof and not the ground, or will you just admit that you were mistaken before, and have since seen the error of your ways? the punchout is at ground level.

Originally posted by billybob the 'punchout' was on the second floor! that whatever it was, had to bounce around under three rings, and then bounce UP to punchthrough on the roof.

Originally posted by billybob the punchout is at ground level.

Eh? Am I missing something here. I'm a bit pissed so I probably am..

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by billybob the 'punchout' was on the second floor!

Originally posted by billybob the punchout is at ground level.

Eh? Am I missing something here. I'm a bit pissed so I probably am..

i guess. howard convinced me earlier in this thread(i think it's this thread) that the first floor was a continuous space, and the rings only started at the second floor. someone at physorg pointed out that the punchout is clearly at ground level, and so i retract that it is on the roof between the c and d rings. it is at ground level between the c and d rings.

The Pentagon Pre-Explosion(s) and Reports of a Truck Bomb/Helicopter explosion Former DOD employee and staff member to Ronald Reagan, Barbara Honneger, brought some interesting information to the Citizen's Grand Jury in Los Angeles. She went into how she had witnesses, Pentagon employees, willing to come forward regarding bombs in the Pentagon being detonated before the plane impacted. One, said he had talked about 'walking over bodies' in the A ring. An area not hit by the supposed craft. And from the article by Joe Quinn. He describes the possible explanation for the damaged generator outside the Pentagon:

"In the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, the Associated Press reported that a truck bomb had exploded at the Pentagon. There were other reports that a helicopter had exploded. It certainly seems likely then that something exploded in the vicinity of the Pentagon before the main impact."

CNN PLANT (LIVE): Well, and speaking to people here at the Pentagon, as they're being evacuated from the building. I'm told by several people that there was, in fact, an explosion. I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is -- excuse me -- and he then saw fireball go into the sky. . . . It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnessess I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion. That's about all I have from here.

At 9:39 a.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, the crew of Foam Tender 161 was at ``Ground Zero,’’ on the banks of the Potomac River, across from Washington, D.C. arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com...

This is the firehouse at the Pentagon heliport. That is awful quick for them to get their gear on, drive that red fire engine out, and start the firefighting. If the plane just hit at 9:38.

From a message board... "2001-09-11 09:40:04 AM Just reported: possible explosion at the Pentagon..." "2001-09-11 09:42:24 AM anyone heard anything about a fire at the pentagon? CNN has a breaking news bar about it at the bottom, but isn't reporting on it..." "2001-09-11 09:42:54 AM US Army just reported a large explosion in the heliport at the Pentagon" "2001-09-11 09:43:45 AM pentagon just got hit" "2001-09-11 09:44:09 AM One radio station just reported the pentagon is in flames. Part of it anyhow" "2001-09-11 09:46:42 AM CNN says there's a fire on the Mall (the main road headed up to the White House)." "2001-09-11 09:47:58 AM Third plane crashed near defence dept. apparently." "2001-09-11 09:50:36 AM Pentagon is on fire... hit by plane" "2001-09-11 09:50:42 AM Apparantly a 737 crashed into the Penatgon" "2001-09-11 09:53:53 AM ABC says it was definitely plane vs. pentagon. CNN says one of the planes that hit the WTC was definitely hijacked in the air, en route. All flights grounded across the US." "2001-09-11 09:55:39 AM third hi jacked plane hit the pentagon"

8:41(9:41) NBC cuts to correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, who reports from the Pentagon that the building just shook and he sees construction workers scattering from the area. “It appears to be a small blast. Windows rattled. The building shook.” He promises more details as soon as he can gather them. “Please be careful,” urges Katie Couric. 8:42 ABC’s Clair Shipman reports smoke coming from behind the Old Executive Office Building. There is video of the smoke, from a camera position near Lafayette Park. No definitive word on what we are seeing. NBC’s Miklaszewski is back with word that the Pentagon is being cleared. “This appears to be a highly sophisticated, coordinated attack.” CBS reports from the Pentagon that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine has claimed responsibility for the acts. 8:44 ABC reports a fire at the Pentagon and evacuation of personnel. CBS reports all airports, tunnels, and bridges in New York are closed. NBC’s “Mik” reports pandemonium in the hallways at the Pentagon. CBS says the Pentagon bombing was a plane attack. Fox reports that the Pentagon incident involved another large airliner, perhaps hijacked. www.poynter.org...

Also as a possible diversion, to make the Pentagon bombs look like a false report, there were multiple reports of car bombs at the State Department. Probably an agent or agents at (a) pay phone(s) calling in false reports to throw everybody off the pre-detonation at the Pentagon...

"It ran on the crawler on the TV that a car bomb had exploded outside the State Department," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said. "I went out and looked with diplomatic security and didn't see anything, called my colleagues around town and, on the video conference screen, told them there was nothing to it." abcnews.go.com...

"At 9.43 the plane smashed into the Pentagon." www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2001/09/16/watt16.xml

Explosion, smoke at Pentagon September 12, 2001 Posted: 1:54 AM EDT (0554 GMT) The 9:45 a.m. attack on the Pentagon appeared to take place on the Army side of the building, said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme commander of NATO. archives.cnn.com...

I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument. I heard the scream of a jet engine and, turning to look, saw my driver’s side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner.--Phillip Thomas

The official reported impact time of Flight 77 is 9:38 am:

--9:37 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 is lost from radar screens. --9:38 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 strikes the Pentagon. archives.cnn.com...

At 9:37:46 (9:38am), American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed. www.9-11commission.gov...

Then why did this Pentagon clock fall and stop working at 9:31?!?!?!?! BBC: A clock in the Pentagon - stopped at 0931 news.bbc.co.uk...

News of the plane crashes at the World Trade Center had caused a stir, but by 9:30 a.m., most in Room 1C535 were settling back to business in the windowless, classified rectangular space filled with cubicles and small offices. Gonzales, a retired Navy commander from Annandale, got up from his desk, picking up a piece of paper to deliver to Patty Mickley, one of his budget analysts. On the way to her desk, he spied her talking in the office of Chuck Sabin, another supervisor. "She gave me a nice, big beautiful smile," Gonzales said. He decided not to bother her and kept walking, laying the paper on her desk. Before he could turn around, he heard a sound. "Things started to go flying by me, there was a wind, and I started to fly with it," Gonzales said. He felt an incredible heat -- like an oven. Facing the blast, Aaron Cooper saw two streams of fire roar through the room. "If you can imagine a fire-breathing dragon, that's what it looked like," said Cooper, 46, of Upper Marlboro. In a nearby cubicle, Dave Lanagan thought he was having another heart attack. "Every ounce of breath was being sucked out of me," said Lanagan, 49, of Dale City. On the floor, Gonzales was surprised to find himself alive. He looked at his hands. The skin was peeled back across both palms, curled like carrot peels from a vegetable scraper. Then he heard screaming. Burning ceiling tiles had fallen on Kathy Cordero's head. "They were almost like a hat on her, and it was on fire," Gonzales said. "She kept hitting it with her arm, and all it would do is rock back." Gonzales crawled over and batted the burning tiles away with the back of his hand. He and Cordero crawled forward and found Lanagan, Pague and Christine Morrison clustered on the floor. "We'd gone as far as we could," said Lanagan. "We were trapped." The room was unrecognizable. All of the fire exits were blocked by furniture and rubble. Smoke was building, lowering the ceiling of air and visibility closer and closer to the ground. [...] Then they heard Gonzales's voice, coming like a foghorn through the thick smoke: "There's a hole." Cordero followed his voice, the others crawling behind. They kept crawling until they reached a corridor. Pague came out last, dragging her purse. Gonzales, gasping for breath, led them to the Pentagon's interior courtyard, where he collapsed. www.dia.mil...

I think this is the guy Barabara Honneger has as a witness. I remembered it was a hispanic sounding name. I could be wrong. But two things are apparent. 1. It happened at around 9:30 (9:31?) 2. He crawled from the C ring to a corridor leading to the Pentagon's courtyard. So it is possible this is the guy Barbara Honneger was referring to. They were trying to set off the bombs in individual rooms and areas. Presumably to get the people responsible for investigationg the missing trillions of dollars, thanks to Dov Zakheim.

Associated Press 9:30 a.m.: The south side of the Pentagon burns after it took a direct, devastating hit from American Airlines Flight 77 Tuesday morning, Sept. 11, 2001, in Arlington, Va. www.chron.com...

Alleged Terrorist Airliner Attack Targets Pentagon By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2001 -- The Pentagon was a target today of an alleged terrorist attack, which followed other alleged attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Workers inside the Defense Department headquarters in Arlington, Va., estimated that a blast occurred around 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, which shook the building and produced a billowing gray-black smoke plume that could be seen for miles. www.defenselink.mil...

Jeez, you think that every clock in the building, and with each witness, is set to the same exact time? You think that maybe some of these people just rounded it off to the nearest quarter hour mark, like 0945? Some people are perhaps checking on their car clocks which, everyone knows, never seem to be able to keep proper time. Some are just remembering it incorrectly. Maybe that clock from the Pentagon was running slow… Can you show that this clock hadn’t died at 21:31 September 10, 2001 and building maintenance did not have time to fix it yet?

I might be wrong but I thought clocks in government building, especialy buildings like the pentagoon, were conected electricly to a standard so they all read the same?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc This is the firehouse at the Pentagon heliport. That is awful quick for them to get their gear on, drive that red fire engine out, and start the firefighting. If the plane just hit at 9:38.

This proves you haven't even read all the eye-witness accounts. For the third time I'm going to give you a link www.oilempire.us... that had you bothered to read, would answer the above.

Wallace Alan Wallace and Skipper, firemen, were walking along the right side of the truck when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away. Both men ran. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He saw Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." His boots were on fire. There was trash and debris everywhere. The trees were on fire.

original source msnbc.msn.com...

Alan Wallace usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon’s heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning. After a quick breakfast, the 55-year-old firefighter moved the station’s firetruck out of the firehouse. President Bush had used the heliport the day before: he’d motorcaded to the Pentagon, then flown to Andrews Air Force Base for a trip to Florida. Bush was scheduled to return to the Pentagon helipad later on Tuesday, Wallace says. So Wallace wanted the firetruck out of the station before Secret Service vehicles arrived and blocked its way. He parked it perpendicular to the west wall of the Pentagon. Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck (Young was in the station) when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away—the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. “Let’s go,” Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace ran back toward the west side of the station, toward a nine-passenger Ford van. “My plans were to run until I caught on fire,” he says. He didn’t know how long he’d have or whether he could outrun the oncoming plane. Skipper ran north into an open field. Wallace hadn’t gotten far when the plane hit. “I hadn’t even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast,” he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. “I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat,” he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. “Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire,” Wallace recalls. “There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire.” Wallace ran over to Skipper, who said he was OK, too. They compared injuries—burned arms, minor cuts, scraped skin. He ran back into the station to try to suit up. But he found debris everywhere. The ceiling had crumbled, there were broken lights and drywall everywhere. His boots were on fire. His fire pants filled with debris. The fire alarm was blaring. Then Wallace heard someone call from outside. “We need help over here,” someone yelled. He ran back outside over to the Pentagon building and helped lower people out of a first-floor window, still some six feet off the ground. He helped 10 to 15 people to safety. Most could walk, though he helped carry one badly burned man. “He wasn’t too responsive,” Wallace recalls. He helped two other men drag him to the other side of the heliport then he turned around. “I’ve got to go back,” he said. Working with a civilian, Wallace headed back to the building. He could hear more cries for help from inside. There was trash and debris everywhere. The trees were on fire. Wallace headed into the building through an open door, but couldn’t find anyone else to save. “After a while I didn’t hear anybody calling anymore,” he says. “They probably found another way out.”

Another eye witness:

Yeingst William Just prior to the impact there were three firemen on the helipad at the Pentagon. They looked up and saw the plane coming over the Navy Annex building. They turned and ran, and at the point of impact were partially shielded by their fire truck from the flying debris of shrapnel and flames. They were knocked to the ground by the concussion. They had to put out parts of their uniform--their bunker gear was actually on fire, so the first thing they had to do was put out their own fire truck and their fire equipment and they tried to start the truck and move it, but they discovered that it wouldn't move. They got out and looked, and the whole back of the fire truck had melted.

original source americanhistory.si.edu... The firemen were on the heliport when it happened.