Much attention and millions of keystrokes have been spent discussing planes, global hawks, cruise missiles, light poles, etc.

What does it all come down to?

How can we apply what we know towards establishing a model or theory that explains Pentagon damage?

Russell Pickering's PentagonResearch.com was first out of the gate, with detailed photos and analyses. Russell provided countless pages of photos and analysis -- and participated in a number of eyewitness interviews, along with some of the group that would later form CIT.


The FDR (aka flight data recorder) allegedly from the aircraft N644AA -- which was on that day AA77 (released by FOIA) and CIT and independent analyses at Pilots for Truth forum have shed new *(and controversial) light on the issues --

Much of the debate seems to focus on new CIT/PentaCon claims of Flyover, vs the tried and true Gov't loyalist account codified in the 9/11 Commission report -- or an inbetween position such as "AA77 but remote controlled"

But let's stop a sec --

The fundamental question "is the 9/11 commission story correct and complete?" has been answered: a Resounding NO!!!


The story endorsed by the Commission, a hani-hanjour piloted hijacked 757 guided into the Pentagon's west wing, has been widely dismissed. (except on Fox News... and by about 50% of the country...)

Thus, throw the ENTIRE 9/11 commission report of Pentagon out, and let's build it up from the ground.

let's look first at the TIMING of damage and then the PATTERN of damage -- and see what it takes to build a model that reasonably explains the data we have to work with.

The time of damage to inner Pentagon rings has been corroborated at 9:30 to 9:32 by Barbara Honegger and others. Before going farther, read Barbara Honegger's seven hours in september
This EVENT or series of events -- let us call the 9:30 AM FIRST EVENT.


A SECOND event later happened at the lawn/E ring facade at 9:40 to 9:53, later determined to be 9:37am. This "second event" has been widely interpreted as a plane impact, which appears possible, if not proven. But the TIMING is not the same.

So if the Pentagon was already on fire at 9:32 am, we can assume that there were additional causes of the damage, or in other words -- the plane 'did not act alone'


The PATTERN of the damage is equally troublesome.

The ASCE damage report shows a loosely diagonal oblique pattern of damage, showing some columns damaged more, some less, extending from E ring to D, and then C (including the 2 stories of built-up area between the rings.

This damage was then correlated (via Purdue simulation) to the entry and "liquefaction" of the plane -- based on the entry angle described from the flight path over Rt 27 and assuming a path that knocked down the 5 infamous light poles, etc.

But as seen above, the plane-impact-alone is insufficient to explain all features of Pentagon damage.

Crap!!

The necessary involvement of explosive devices (some cordite, some possibly fuel bombs) to create the timing, type, and pattern of damage.fire.death in Pentagon inner rings creates these possibilities, which I will treat in turn later in this thread.


1) south side plane impact = SSPI

2) south side plane impact, PLUS explosives = SSPI +X

3) north side of "CITGO" plane impact = NSPI

4) north side impact PLUS explosives = NSPI+X

5) North side flight, non-impact (aka "flyover") Explosives ONLY. = (X only) all damage from prepositioned devices.

Think about the various pros and cons of each of these 5 theoreticals.

Treatment in turn as I come to them

pros and cons of each explanation

1) south-side impact (Plane only)

even if you dismiss the Hani Hanjour piloting proposal made by Hamilton & Keane, substituting some kind of flight termination or remote control, this theory has numerous issues.
pros -- correlates with 'majority' of eyewitness reports re: flight path, especially those eyewitnesses that got on the news right away.
-- would provide theoretical explanation of light pole knock downs
-- 42' degree angle of impact and flight path over light poles correlates with reported damage pattern in Pentagon
- finally, explains the silver fuselage materials found on lawn
sufficient? to explain PATTERN of damage ( unsure -- i'll leave that to others)

Cons -- insufficient to explain TIMING of damage, reported at 9:30 to 9:32 am both by CNN and by stopped clocks, and even by Al Gonzales himself.

Cons - again, where's the plane parts? engines? tail? Hard to explain where 80 tons of aircraft went, after an oblique impact.



Therefore, "south-side plane impact only" is rejected as insufficient on its own to complete explain Pentagon damage TIMING and PATTERN.

This is an incorrect statement.

Please back it up and explain how they specifically support the south over the north side of the citgo flight path.

One thought -

having recruited hundreds of people to :

1) plant explosives in a conical shape through the building
2) fake an FDR
3) kidnap and kill the original plane's crew and passengers
4) knock down poles
5) fake the generator and fence damage (etc)
6) sprinkle aircraft remains and bodies outside and inside
7) fake the DNA testing
8) .. many other things ...

without one failure or blabbermouth ...

they ...

then ...

flew the plane in the wrong direction, and missed the proper "damage path"

d'oh !! :rolleyes:

see eyewitness accounts here.

Of course, the eyewitness account support of South Side of CITGO depends on their location being mapped properly.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pent...ewitnesses.html

By placing 'majority' in quotes, my intention is to ask the reader to be skeptical about the validity of these claims.

Note that two of the "star eyewitnesses" are Gary Bauer (PNACer) and Bobby Eberle (GOPUSA.com and longtime GOP operative loyalist)

Neither of those accounts directly support the south of the citgo flight path over the north of the citgo flight path.

In fact there are zero accounts that do this and only a very small amount that indirectly support it such as Lloyd and Frank Probst.

Basically very few witnesses are in a position to tell but most accounts could go either way other than all the citgo witnesses.

let's move on to model #2

2) South Side Plane Impact, PLUS explosives, or for short, "SSPI+X"


This explanations holds that AA77 or a like-sized 757 flew through the light pole-path (south-side of Citgo), impacted the Pentagon (presumably causing trailer, etc damage) -- and then caused an undefined amount of damage to the Pentagon E ring (and possibly D.... and possibly C ring....)...

PLUS EXPLOSIVES

In order to explain the C ring anomaly (three fire blow-outs, two of which are steel doors, one a circular hole breaching masonry) -- the possibility that ADDITIONAL explosive or incendiaries were used must be here invoked.

Thus, the story would be "hijacked plane (unplanned)" meets planned explosives inside Pentagon.

For this operational plan to work, it presumes a high degree of coordination between our arab hijacker team of pilots (they have to successfully wrest control, fly plane, hit target - one chance only -- in the right spot) --- and a group of aligned on-the-ground 'moles and sabateurs planting the explosives.

Kind of complicated.

The sub-theorem of this would be 'remote guided plane impact plus explosives' --

This obviates need for Hani & Co as our unreliable pilots -- and thus you coordinate one team of remote-controllers with another of explosive saboteurs (AMEC contractors, other Pentagon "bad insiders" -- red teams, whoever)

---
This theory has the advantage of providing a complete explanation for all damage -- since it combines the attractiveness of "it was all done with explosive" and "yes, the official flight path and plane are real:"

The cons of this theory are the obvious North side witness contradictions, and the usual complaint of lack of major plane debris exterior to the E ring facade.

The pros are that many of the anomalies in the damage TIMING and PATTERN are explained -- although very little by way of precise mapping of either time, location, and type of damage has yet been done.

This, IMHO, constitutes one of the major areas where useful eyewitness or physical evidence was never collected.
where, what, and when did explosive damage occur inside the Pentagon, either in B, C or D rings?

I have rejected 1) as insufficient to explain TIMING and PATTERN

scenario 2) a plane impact + explosives 'opens the door' to an inside-job scenario -- the biggest objection to (2) would be the north-side flight path witnesses such as Turcios. TIMING is taken care of by allowing for "additional devices and/or actors" and PATTERN as well.

Considering now scenario 3)

3) -- North-side flight and plane impact , or NSPI

This north-side-of-CITGO flight path takes the plane on a more direct trajectory for the E ring facade of Pentagon -- which many of the north-side eyewitnesses featured in ThePentaCon allege.

I note also that many of the PentaCon witnesses insist that the plane hit the building --- or at the least, 'exploded' as per Eric Bart PlaneBomb theory.

The North side flight path aligns with eyewitnesses accounts, at least those mapped physically in 3-D space. Good.

However, the bugbear of Pentagon damage TIMING and PATTERN again appear.

TIMING
If the plane struck from a North side flight path at 9:37, what caused the CNN reported FIRE at Pentagon at 9:30? (multiple corroboration from Honegger)

PATTERN
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/
the damage to Pentagon is a westward diagonal moving from South to North, slashing across at about a 40 degree angle. A north-side flight path reduces this angle of incidence much closer to perpendicular or "straight on" -- however, if the north-side witnesses are correct, and the plane entered from that angle, how do we arrive at the damage in the more-northerly parts of D ring (naval command) and C ring (including the 'exit hole' -- see trajectory of debris alleged at
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Once again, both TIMING and PATTERN present obstacles to this theory.

I therefore judge that Scenario 3) --northside flight path, plane hits building, earth-shattering kaboom,

-- is INADEQUATE on it's own to explain all aspects of the Pentagon damage.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6158

(4) North-side path plane impact + explosives? -- call it "NSPI+X" for short

"NSPI+X"
This scenario goes along the lines of (3), plus an indeterminate number of explosives and incendiaries in the necessary places in the B, C, and D rings to create the damage observed.

Pros --
satisfied the Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios etc strong testimony to the north side path. Is not contradicted by majority of witnesses -- except the "pole people"

cons: does not tell us much about light pole downings.

pro-- satisfies the damage PATTERN issue by invoking damage-as-by-explosives to B, C and D rings. satisifies TIMING issue by allowing for explosisve/incendiaries to go off at 9:30-9:32am, well before the plane arrived at 9:37.

Damage to E ring can be entirely attributed, if need be, to plane impact, fuel.

satisifies (!! more or less!!) for how the FDR record was created for alleged AA77.

oddity: show me the plane. Any part of the 80 tons (other than wheel rim and landing gear strut and fuselage skin) -- luggage seats tail USPS mail etc etc

and again: April Gallop does not recall a plane, or jetfuel, on the PentaLawn after she emerged.


Winner so far?

;)

:huh:

by "winner" i mean a model best able to account for most, if not all, observed features of the event, without being directly contradicted by any* observed features

(caveat: "any" as defined as "verifiable and vetted evidence" )


The main difficulties in a single model explaining Pentagon events are

1. TIMING of damage
2. PATTERN of damage

either north or south side plane impacts or plane flyovers are insufficient, on their own, to account for TIMING and PATTERN.

I know what you meant. ;)

North side impact is not possible.

North side impact is testified to by Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios (after a fashion) -- however not under oath.

Does that mean a plane struck from North Side? Dunno.

the convergence and sense of the original point of thread was to shine a light on how, whether you plump for a north side flight path, or a south side, (arguing their various merits vis a vis downed light poles and flap track grooves) --

neither north, nor south, -side of CITGO flight paths + plane impact are sufficient to explain TIMING and PATTERN of damage.

North side flight path impact to explain damage pattern is particularly troublesome. (but i did not know that north side impact was impossible -- you mean due to Navy Annex corner height, or...?)

North side impact can not line up with light pole damage and building damage. You're not aware of this?

north side impact
supported by Brooks Lagasse & Turcios (aka "BLT") as a "supposition" to the disapearance of plane at the same time as the fireball/explosion. on a day when TWO other jetairliners were crashed intentionally into buildings, the eye, and the mind, might be pre-programmed to accept this conclusion naturally.



does not explain light poles as "knocked down by plane"

note that the hypothesis "light poles were knocked down by plane" is a working hypothesis. it is the "cleanest" insofar as no additional agencies need be invoked.
primrose path would be
1) light poles were UP as of 9am 9/11
2) plane flew into them (5 of them)
3) plane knocked these 5, and only these five, down with wingspan.

however, the "lightpole" issue founders on the shoals of logic when the Lloyd pole is considered -- as if someone oversold their case. neither lloyd, nor the hood of his car, are particularly convincing.

Second issue with lightpoles is the neat shearing of the bases. According to Russell's research, they were made to be car-impact safe, by breaking off at the base when struck at 20mph by a 1979 VW rabbit, a relatively low kinetic energy event, compared to being clippped by a massive wing at 400+mph.

I offer no other explanation for the appearance of the poles in the 'down' position as they were photographed on that day.

it is only a pity that none of the ?83 cameras captured images of the plane striking the poles -- that would put an end to all this debate. As it is, the jury is still perforce OUT on the lightpole issue.

back to OP--
I reject northside impact as insufficient to explain damage TIMING (9:30am) of first Pentagon fires and damage PATTERN internal to the Pentagon. (see C ring and B ring damage reports, and C ring photos from A-E drive).

Southside impact is also summarily rejected as being sufficient 'per se' to create the effects observed -- although the 42 degree angle of 'impact' matches better with the alignment of damage inside building (although no one has linked definitively damage INSIDE building at D, C and B rings with plane impact, it has been widely inferred -- perhaps the biggest error made by the collective OCT or "twoofer" community)

any plane impact at 9:37+am does not account for the TIMING of the pentagon attacks first recorded at 9:30am. see
http://www.media-criticism.com/Naudet_Brothers_09_2004.html
http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

I am searching for better evidence for the use of secondary or ancillary explosive or incendiary devices inside the Pentagon.

The first set of evidences are eyewitness accounts from inside Pentagon (survivors) - reporting the concussive effect of explosions, smelling cordite, and more. These are easily found.

The second set of evidence is the TIMING of Pentagon events. Can it be established that the multiple clock stoppages (and April's watch) at 9:30am, AND the CNN report of "Pentagon on Fire" at 9:30 am .....

...HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PLANE IMPACT?


[ETA: the presence or detonation of explosives does not per se rule out a plane or other flying body impact against the E ring facade. Clearly a plane was observed. It's flight path, and subsequent fate, are matters of debate in other threads, not here.]

The third general area of data that would testify to explosives (much less solid ground) are the physical appearance of the damage internal to the Pentagon.

The parts most hard to reconcile with a plane-impact only model are

1) slab deflection upward (betw. basement and 1st floor or 1st and 2nd floor?)

2) multiple independent foci of heavy column damage (if ASCE report is to be believed) -- approximately three separate areas

3) three separate and fire burnout marks on interior walls of C ring (frequently called "punch out" holes for short, whatever their cause)
These are spaced at wide distances along the C ring wall of A-E drive.

4) inexplicable -- B ring damage, fire and death. this is testified to only in the Washington Post.
---
Questions --- among the rescue response, were there any hazmat, radiological safety, or explosives-removal or search teams dispatched inside Pentagon (as happened in OKC in 1995 murrah explosions, unexploded devices were removed)

If anyone has insights on Slab Deflection, column damage anomalies (ie 6 north) and the C drive fire burnout (rollup doors and circular hole) let's get a discussion going.

Difference of opinion does not require breaking civility of discourse

now CNN is talking about "explosions" plural at the Pentagon... and not discussing a plane strike.

Pentagon Events that CANNOT BE IGNORED:

TIMING and PATTERN of damage.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone tape the CNN 911 special report that aired within the hourly news last night (Sept 12th).....

Amidst the 6th anniversary 9/11 reports t...... the CNN voiceover make an amazing statement. In referencing what happened that day, the reference at the Pentagon did NOT mention a 757 hitting it but that "explosions went off there".

That is an historic breakthrough that needs to be followed up on ...

Congratulations & thanks to Barbara Honegger for the far-reaching historic impact of her "Pentagon Attack Papers" research.

YOU MUST READ NOW:Barbara Honegger "seven hours in September"

People need to write CNN - McCafferty Report, Wolf Blitzer & 360 and ask for a more thorough report on what they were reporting in that statement.

Are they actually reporting what happened more accurately - consistent with Jamie McIntyre's original report the morning of 9/11/2001 that said he saw no evidence of a 757 crashing anywhere near the Pentagon (which he reneged on last year ......

NSFP + explosives/incendiaries = "best fit to Pentagon Damage TIMING and PATTERN"

You can argue all you want about plane impact vs no plane vs flyover.

at the end of the day...


to fully explain the Pentagon damage TIMING and PATTERN, one must invoke causes other than a plane alone.

This much I learned by observing Russell's work.....

It supports a few witness accounts specific enough to support a south path, but the general body is too vague to say if this is or ISN'T a majority.

All witnesses who think they saw an impact COULD be taken as a SSPI take, or as evidence they were all deceived.

I'd like to add also the FDR tends to support his path, as well as the plane debris inside the building, and the shadow seen in camera 4 south of the Citgo. Oh, and the radar tracks that have been published.

Okay, carry on...

PRC rrote:

It supports a few witness accounts specific enough to support a south path, but the general body is too vague to say if this is or ISN'T a majority.

All witnesses who think they saw an impact COULD be taken as a SSPI take, or as evidence they were all deceived.

I'd like to add also the FDR tends to support his path, as well as the plane debris inside the building, and the shadow seen in camera 4 south of the Citgo. Oh, and the radar tracks that have been published.
----------------------------------------------

The FDR does not seem to support the altitude necessary for light pole damage. the CITGO camera data is very problematic.

The problem with the RADES radar tracks is that DIFFERENT ones have been published. it's frustrating...!!

check the Bobby Eberle and Gary Bauer pentagon eyewitness accounts that give some suppport to SSPI -- then tell me what you think, after you look them up.

SSPI (south side plane impact) remains the "official theory"

NSPI is the Lagasse/Brooks conclusion (north side flight path with impact assumed, deducted based on fireball)

The problem with NSPI is that the interior damage does NOT line up properly.

You NEED to have a SSPI to get that 42 degree angle of fuselage-through-E ring -- then blowing up D ring (and Naval Command) and continuing on through C ring (blowing up Defense Intel Agencey) and then punching through A-E drive wall (well, punching through one place and blowing out in 2 more)

So, no matter which flight path+impact you vote for, you have huge problems with the consistency of the evidence in terms of building DAMAGE esp the TIMING and the PATTERN.

the TIMING remains fixed at 9:32 and again at 9:37
the PATTERN is E ring explosions, plus total NavCommCenter destruction in D ring, and then THREE separate C ring areas, including violent explosive events.

I'm still having a hard time modeling all this damage pattern and timing on one plane impact.

Anyone else?

You're having a hard time modeling it because there was no impact.

Avenger, and others

I do my best to keep an open mind and critically weigh and evaluate all pieces of evidence.

However, in attempting to model either a South Side impact or a North Side impact, a pure-plane-alone model comes up short particularly to explain

PATTERN of damage and
TIMING of damage

The south side trajectory fits the damage path better, with a 42 degree oblique impact which travels through E, D & C rings.

a North side impact fits poorly or not at all.

here's kicker:
in EITHER impact scenario, you STILL need to invoke some kind of explosive at 9:32 to explain the TIMING, and/or additional explosive to model the PATTERN (just look at the C ring, three separate fire/explosive blowouts, including one peculiar round hole that matches with a shaped charge)

CONCLUSION>?

even if we accept a hijacking/impact, or even a remotely-flown plane (ala northwoods) impact, we STILL have to add in other explosive elements/.

as SOON as you have to invoke EVEN ONE BIT OF "HELP" on the ground, you open the entire Pentagon incident to "inside job"

let me see if i get this straight. you acknowledge the 3 exit holes in the C-ring but you don't believe the 1st one matches up with a NSPI?

actually, i could maybe line up a NSPI wiht the southern-most A-E drive burn-out.blow-out hole (somebody put photo up?)

a NSPI impact lines up nearly perpendicularly (actually about 10-15degrees) and would presume a distribution of damage in a linear pattern, never far from Corridor 5 to the immediate S of impact site.

That's fine and well.

but the NSPI on it's own is insufficient to explain the totality of the damage pattern.

NSPI does not PRECLUDE incendiary explosives, of course -- what caused the horrible damage to columns deep inside C ring at 6N and near "round exit hole"?

The "plane" in this case is like Lee Harvey Oswald -- even if you accept that the plane did strike the building, the plane-alone is INSUFFICIENT to explain the whole enchilada.

There's no doubt it was bombs inside. I was under the impression we all came to that conclusion after seeing the Leo Titus photographs.

The "exit hole" is clearly a wall breeching kit.

Keeping an open mind has it's place, but some things should be obvious. If it flew north it flew over. There can be no north side impact because it doesn't line up with the building damage. Multiple impacts is out because that also doesn't fit the building damage.

The left engine didn't damage the ground floor and there's no such thing as magical light poles. No impact.