Booman Tribune

Would the Pentagon Alter 9/11 Photos? U bet

by dougr
Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 04:43:57 PM EST

Fallen light poles? airplane scraps? big hole? little hole? battling widespread fire?
The .mil and .gov photos of the Pentagon on 9/11 show it all...or do they?  When clear evidence of fakery in the photos shows up...who's to know what we're looking at?
Some of the fakery even appears to have been perpetrated just for fun!  For starters I give you...the YIELD sign that doesn't exist!  Or does it?
The closer shot includes a yield sign while the further back shot doesn't.  Both photos taken from exactly the same angle.  Note the fire truck on the left, the spools in center and the mangled fencing on the right.
The orientation of the face of the building itself matches up perfectly in both shots too.
Playful sons of guns photoshopping.
http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0203885&JPGPath=/Assets/2002/Ma rines/DM-SD-02-03885.JPG

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0203886&JPGPath=/Assets/2002/Ma rines/DM-SD-02-03886.JPG

So what's going on here?  If there's ONE piece of obvious fakery, odds are greatly in favor of more less obvious alterations going on.

How about those light poles?  Photoshopped in as fallen?
Lets look at the agreed upon flight path.

http://www.911-strike.com/spools.jpg

Keep in mind a 124 foot wingspan.
What are these poles doing standing in the flight path?

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0203922&JPGPath=/Assets/2002/Ma rines/DM-SD-02-03922.JPG

In the above photo the lamp on the pole on the right is directed
toward the building while the one on the left is toward the camera.

In the photo below the lamp on the right is directed to the right
while the one on the left is the same one as the pole on the right in
the above photo....the one that's directed toward the building.

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0203917&JPGPath=/Assets/2002/Ma rines/DM-SD-02-03917.JPG

Between the two pictures there are 3 different poles...at least 2 of these poles very much appear to be within what is said to be the flight path.

Why put a pole right smack in the center of a photo?
http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0203920&JPGPath=/Assets/2002/Ma rines/DM-SD-02-03920.JPG

Oh...and that yield sign prank?  Was it put there as a red flag?  Sort of a whistle blowing?
Another funny thing about it is the word on the sign has "D" as the second to last letter?  That's not how you spell yield.

For more photo analysis take a walk through a series of Pentagon shots scrutinized with an eye for detail:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies3.htm

The photos I linked here can be found at:
http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/

Do a search for "pentagon". It shows 50 photos at a time. Go 1400
photos in.



Display:
The light pole photos in the diary show there were 3 poles in succession along the area of the approach path.
The analysis in the following link shows there is no successive 3 pole combination after the event.

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies78.htm

The next link asks some critical questions (if you feel nobody has a right to be critical of the "official" story, don't click the link)

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies79.htm

If, as the "official story would have us believe, the wings of flight 77 hit the poles going 500 mph why did the poles did not severely damage the wings?
And if the wings weren't ripped to pieces by the poles, the full momentum behind them would have been transferred to the poles.  Only one of two results are possible.  Either the wings get sheared or the poles go flying a LONG distance.
But we're led to believe that the impossible happened...the poles merely toppled over.  
Or so the "official" photos would have us believe.

by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 08:48:59 PM EST
dude, your source is a kook that doesn't believe we landed on the moon.
by BooMan on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 08:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dude, my source is the photos from the military.
by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 09:42:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
how do you even know that?  The guy doesn't even provide a link.
by BooMan on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look at the body of my diary...click on the .mil links that I provide.

Check back here tomorrow evening and I'll have more .mil photos that match his.

Did you take a look at the fake YIELD sign in the .mil photos?
Can you explain why it's in one .mil photo and not in another .mil photo taken from the exact same angle but from a bit further back which gives a wider view of where the YIELD sign should be according to the first .mil photo but isn't?

by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look closely at the two photos involving the yield sign and its absence.

Look closely at the spools.  Look closely at the fencing.

In the picture that has the man in the foreground you can see the left side of the fencing that is perpendicular to the building.  That means the shot is taken from a few steps to the left of the other one.  In it you can see the entire fire truck.  The yield sign should be there.
Now look closer at the fencing.  Notice that the objects to the right of the perpendicular section of fence appear FARTHER away from the fence than in the other picture.  Consider the perspective...those objects should appear CLOSER to that piece of perpendicular fencing.  There should be LESS space between the objects and the fence.

There's so many perspective anomolies between those two photos it's ridiculous.  They were both heavily doctored.
And they're both .mil

by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the above, replace the word "right" for the word "left"

It should read:
In the picture that has the man in the foreground you can see the right side of the fencing that is perpendicular to the building.  That means the shot is taken from a few steps to the right of the other one.

sheesh...the pictures are so screwy from a perspective viewpoint I can't even tell right and left now...LOL!

by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
why do you believe these are the pentagon pictures?
by BooMan on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First of all, as stated in the body of the diary, they're from here:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/

Second of all, when you access them from that Department of Defense Visual Information Center website....which has a .mil domain...you will see that the photographers credited are military personnel.

by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
so go verify that the pics are the same.  
by BooMan on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 10:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The same what?

The first two pictures referenced in the diary are BOTH .mil photos.
BOTH are taken by the same photographer:  Camera Operator: CPL JASON INGERSOLL, USMC

BOTH are DIFFERENT shots of the SAME foreground.

ONE shows a YIELD sign at the left edge of the frame and only the front portion of the fire truck beyond the yield sign and to the left.

The other DOESN'T show a yield sign but shows the ENTIRE fire truck.  The YIELD sign should be MORE prominent in a photo that doesn't show it AT ALL.

The pictures are altered BY THE MILITARY.

by dougr on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 11:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
go find them on the .mil site.
by BooMan on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 12:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I gotta ask.
Are you being purposely obtuse?

The links I used for the Yield sign/no Yield sign photos and for the light pole photos ARE .mil.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 08:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Might as well put this one up too.
Note the .gov domain.
This is a government photo:

The Shanksville crash scene:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg

Anything missing?

Also note the foreground area of the "gouge" is not freshly disturbed dirt. For how long had the "gouge" been already prepared?

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 08:37:50 AM EST
by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 11:55:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is another photo of the shanksville site...on a .mil website.

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/Shanksville_photos.htm

The red truck is also in this one.  There's still smoke in the air so there's not much time difference between the two.

In both pictures the truck is to the right of the gouge.  

Look at the trees.  They are leafless and burned in the .mil photo starting from 15 or 20 feet in front of the truck.

In the .gov photo the truck may or may not be in the same place but it is definitely NOT farther from the gouge.  NO trees in front of the truck extending for at least 30 feet are leafless or burned ANYWHERE.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 12:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A third Shanksville photo.  This one from the 911 Comission website.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

With this one you'll again have to use the lightening process I've described.

Note the men to the right of the gouge.
Note the trees...burned and leafless.

They are in approximately the same position as the red truck in this photo that shows NO BURNED TREES.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 01:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually this particular picture is from an inkjet print by Mark Stahl. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-docphotos.html
It is from an online exhibit from the Library of Congress (thus the loc.gov domain) which contains thousands of  photos, drawings, poems, eye-witness accounts, etc. that did not originate with "the government."

ITMFA!
by librarylil (librarylil at g mail etc.) on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 11:40:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
too funny.  And totally predictable.

That's why I asked him to prove the photos were from the Pentagon's release.   He didn't even try, just sent me a link so I could pour through photos of Rummy 50 at a time.

by BooMan on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 11:45:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Stahl photograph is the one that's NOT doctored.
The government and military had no control over it.

The other two, which WERE produced by the government and the military ARE doctored.

sheez...you need to be able to see proof when it's put right in front of you.

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-12-Wed-2001/photos/scebe.jpg

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 12:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The first set of photos, w/wo the yeild sign, are taken from two significantly different angles. The best way to tell that is by the angles of the spools. The pic with the sign in it is taken from much further to the left, bringing the sign into the picture. The firemen are also in different positions in each pic, signifying two pics taken at distinctly different times. That explains the Police car in one, and not the other.

The other pics of the grass color differentiations don't look photo shopped to me. It looks like a strip of new sod was layed in along the area where the guardrail used to be, as if the inner guardrail was removed and the grass replaced.

All the others I looked at were even less suspicious to me. The red firetruck was a little odd, but again, all of these pics appear to be taken from completely different angles, contrary to the the guy's claims. The one that was really laughable was the claim of the shoe under the sidewalk. It showed nothing of the sort. I also looked very closely at all the shadows of each person, piece of equiptment, and debris. The positioning of the shadows were all consistent with each other.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon. But the evidence presented here does little or nothing to back up my suspicions.

"green grass and high tides forever"

by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 10:09:27 AM EST
Get a camera...look through the viewfinder and take note of any object that shows up on the left edge in the foreground.  Look into the background at another object to see their relative positions.
Now...take a few steps back and to the right.
Aim the camera at that background object and then make sure to include more area to the left of that object.

This is the process the photographer went through from the yield sign photo to the no yield sign photo.

You will see that the foreground object necessarily is in the viewfinder and is closer to the center of the frame.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 10:37:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the guy is a nut.

As for Flight 77, here are the eyewitness accounts.  

It's more than convincing to me.

by BooMan on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 01:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought only wingnuts needed to resort to ad hominem.

I have referenced .mil and .gov photos throughout this diary that have nothing to do with the guy against whom you would rather use character assassination.
Character assassination can be used against anybody...even, as is often the case, against eyewitnesses.  And it's well-known that eyewitness accounts are usually faulty.  For every eyewitness who claims to have seen one thing, there's another who claims to have seen something else.

Look at the Shanksville photos I've linked to.  All .mil and .gov sites.  None of them have anything to do with the guy you errantly think this diary is based on.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 02:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a guy that looks at shadows in pictures and determines that the Apollo landing was a grand hoax.

That's his credibility.  Zero.  You site him, which greatly undermines your credibility.

He never explains why he thinks he has properly identified the triage site's location.  He provides no links to anything.  I have no idea if he has photoshopped some of his pictures, or whether he has discovered photoshopping from .mil sites because he provides no links.  Most of his conclusions are either dubious on their face or just not sustainable by the very pictures he posts.

On the on hand you have the eyewitness of dozens of people that saw a PLANE fly into the Pentagon.  On the other you have a the ravings of the worst type of conspiracy theorists.  

On the one hand, you have a Flight77 that took off was tracked on radar and that ended at the Pentagon, you have all the crew and passengers that were never seen again.  On the other you have amateur physicists that attempt to describe what happens to the wings of a Boeing when its nose slams into the ground.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, killing everyone on board.  Who flew the plane?  Why wasn't it intercepted?  Why didn't the Pentagon have or use antiaircraft batteries?  Why didn't the administration authorize the downing of the plane?  Why did Rummy go outside and help the wounded instead of remaining in his command bumker and protecting the country?

Those are all good questions.  Whether the plane crashed into the Pentagon is a complete distraction that no one takes seriously and pleases only the people that thereby escape scrutiny.

by BooMan on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 02:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are either forgetting or completely unaware of one thing concerning the Pentagon.

It is within a defined area of protected airspace.  That airspace is  guarded by FIVE AUTOMATED batteries of surface to air missiles.

There are only 2 ways to enter that airspace without being automatically targeted and fired upon.

Military aircraft have military transponders on them.  These transponders transmit a US military friendly signal.  Any aircraft without that transmission is, by definition, an enemy and targeted and fired upon.

The other way is for the automated system to be MANUALLY shut down.

American Airlines passenger jetliners DO NOT transmit on military frequencies.  Flight 77s transponder was not on anyway.

The only conclusion, if American Airlines was miraculously piloted the way the "official" story would have us believe, is that the automated defense system guarding the Pentagon...THE most heavily defended site in the world...was shut down.

If, as OTHER eyewitnesses have reported, that the aircraft was much smaller than a 767 AND the automated defense system was in operation, the only conclusion is that whatever struck the Pentagon was transmitting a US military friendly transponder signal.

Either way...the government's "official" story...which you seem to be so heavily invested in for some reason...is absolutely false and complicity from within the government is highly likely.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 02:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what are you talking about?  Where is any link to that?  

The law of the land did not allow for the Pentagon to automatically fire on any plane that came out of its flight path and into their airspace.  They needed permission from the President and he was reading a children's book and hightailing it to Louisiana.  

Not a soul would fly into Reagan airport if the regulations you describe were in place.

You're just making shit up.  

I have studied 9/11 extensively and read every word of both the Congressional and the 9/11 Commisssion reports.

I have read hundreds of open source articles both pre and post-9/11.  

There is nothing credible that I have ever read that says the Pentagon even had anti-aircraft batteries in place, let alone had standing orders to fire on passenger jets without explicit confirmation from the President.

That's is simple bullshit.  

It's also laughable for you to accuse me of being invested in the official line.  I'm not.  I'm invested in keeping your eye on the ball.  Detonation teams, remote control planes, cruise missiles, dozens of fabrictated eyewitness accounts, pseudoscience, etc., all of that is put into the pipeline to discredit anyone that actually DOES question the official line.

by BooMan on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 02:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seismology is not pseudoscience.

The physics of gravity is not pseudoscience.

Chemical analysis is not pseudoscience.

And what in the world does Reagan airport have to do with the protected airspace around the Pentagon?
Do you see mentioned in this diary anywhere that the protected airspace extends to the Reagan Airport??
Why would you resort to such an obvious straw man argument?

Interview with April Gallop
April Gallop worked inside the Pentagon on 9/11, as an administrative specialist (with a Top Secret with SCI clearance) with the U.S. Army. It was her first day back from maternity leave, after delivering her son Elisha, then two and a half months old.

April is a very brave woman. She and her son suffered tremendous injuries and trauma on 9/11, but they both made it out alive to tell their story.

Me: April, did you hear any warning alarms go off before the Pentagon was hit on 9/11?

AG: No I did not.

Me: What type of warning alarms would you normally expected to go off in the case of an attack on the building?

AG: While I worked at the Pentagon. At random times, there would be drill exercises utilizing an alarm for us to evacuate the building.

Yet on that particular day no alarm. [This is] especially [odd] considering the fact of what had already taken place at the World Trade Center.

Me: When you were first hired to work at the Pentagon, what were you told about the security of the building?

AG: I wasn't hired. I was selected from the military in Germany. I just was granted approval for an additional 3 years tour in Heidelberg Germany. Which is called an IPCOT (In Place Consecutive Tour). Then I learned I was selected among my peers to go to the Pentagon. Upon arrival,I completed what is known as Reception and Integration.

A common statement provided, as you are walking around is that, "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States." It is quite an impressive building on the inside.

Me: Do you have any theory about how a Boeing 757 could have hit such a secure building without any anti-aircraft defenses being activated or any warning alarms sounded?

AG: I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?

And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?

You know, it takes a while to get around that building. And I remember being so disgusted at the frequency of random drill exercises taking place for us to evacuate the building. It seemed as if they always happened when I had to take care of certain things.

Yet on September 11th, the day when our lives were threatened, not one alarm.

Me: I would imagine that security procedures are different now than they were prior to 9/11, so I don't think you would be revealing any confidential information by answering this question. I have heard that, as of 9/11, the anti-aircraft batteries were automated, in other words, that they would have automatically fired against any incoming aircraft that did not transmit the appropriate friend or foe signal. Is that true?

AG: Yes that is true.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 03:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not a strawman argument.  

WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities said Friday that Reagan National Airport will eventually reopen, but they said security concerns require that it remain closed for now because it is so close to the Pentagon and other landmark federal buildings.

They would not say what specific security issues concern them. And they would not explain why these issues are expected to resolve themselves, given that the airport will always be just minutes from the Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol and other important federal buildings and monuments.

"In light of what happened on Tuesday and the proximity of the airport to federal buildings, the airport is temporarily closed," said Alison Duquette, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Situated just across the Potomac River from the capital, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport handles 42,000 passengers on domestic flights daily and is unusually convenient for a major airport, just minutes from downtown and Capitol Hill. Other area airports, Dulles International in Virginia and Baltimore Washington International in Maryland handle both domestic and overseas flights and have reopened following Tuesday's terrorist attacks.

Jonathan Gaffney of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority said there is no specific timetable for reopening National but hoped it will be "not even weeks." He said he hoped it will not be months.

Duquette said there were no additional security issues keeping National closed -- beyond where it is situated -- and she could offer no further explanation.

Members of Congress, who like the convenience of National, and aviation experts questioned the decision.

John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation aviation subcommittee, noted that none of the planes involved in Tuesday's attacks left from National and that all of them traveled some distance to their targets.

"I don't think National poses any greater threat" than any other airport, said Mica, R-Fla.

"We've got to do everything we can to keep every airport open and every airplane flying," he added. "Otherwise, they've succeeded in what they intended to do and that is terrorize us."

Some have argued that National should close altogether, given its proximity to the White House, Pentagon and other sensitive buildings. David Stempler made that case in 1994, but he said it makes no sense to close the airport temporarily.

"The threat was there yesterday, it's there today and it will be there tomorrow, and I don't know what they can do to reduce the threat," said Stempler, who heads the Air Travelers Association.

If a plane going into Reagan gets even slightly off course it will enter protected airspace, not only of the Pentagon, but other federal buildings.

There were no automated shootdown regulations.  It's an idiotic assumption, and one officer speculating means nothing.

by BooMan on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 03:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She did not speculate.  She stated it flat out.

Where in that article does it mention the protected airspace around the Pentagon?
It doesn't.

Note that the words "protected" and "restricted" do not mean the same thing.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 04:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now...to make it easier for you.  Here is the Shanksville evidence of photo fraud having nothing to do with the "kook".

Three different photos of the Shanksville site directly off government websites show why photographic evidence from the government cannot be trusted.

The Shanksville crash scene:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg

Beyond the trench where the plane allegedly crashed note the trees.
NO leafless trees.  NO burnt trees.  The area to the left of the red truck extends at least 30 feet and the truck is parked very near the right edge of the trench.

In this photo:
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/Shanksville_photos.htm

The red truck is also present.  The disturbed ground at lower left shows that the truck is still parked to the right of the trench.
Note the trees.  Within 10 or 15 feet of the front of the truck ALL the trees are very Burnt, Branchless and Leafless.

In this photo taken from a page on the 9/11 omission website:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/images/911Report_Ch9_img6.jpg

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

there is a feature on PCs (Mac users probably have a similar feature)
that allows you to lighten the picture>>>>

How to lighten dark photos on your PC.
Left-click the image and hold the mouse button down.
Drag the cursor off the image to your browser's background area off the web page.
(you may have to reduce the size of the page that the image is on to see a background area to drag the picture to)
Release the mouse button.
A new window with the image will come up.
This new window has brightness and contrast controls.

Brighten the image and again note the trees.  The group of 3 men to the right are in almost the exact same spot as the red truck was in the first image above.

There is no way that the trees should appear undamaged in one photo while burnt and stripped of branches and leaves in others.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 02:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the second time I post this in reply to you.

Eyewitness accounts are analyzed and put in perspective in the Frozen Fish story.  An excerpt is in the box, but check out the whole story. I also recommend you watch the infamous Pentagon Strike Video.



    Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.

    "Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"

    - "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

Note that in the above, the statement that this eyewitness saw an "airliner" is made by the USA reporter who wrote the story, not by the eyewitness himself who only heard a "big boom".

    "Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine." - "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

Again, the comment that this eyewitness saw a "commercial airliner" is made by the reporter, not the eyewitness. In any case, an information management specialist working on the Pentagon Renovation Program is hardly a credible witness.

    "Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts."The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

As I have said, I am not suggesting that no plane hit the Pentagon, I am suggesting that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon, because there is evidence of aircraft debris, (however scant that debris might be) and that it was dressed up in American Airline colors, complete with fake windows, in which case, it is possible that eyewitnesses may have concluded it was a passenger plane. Of course, a passenger plane is also the description of an aircraft the size of a twelve or twenty seat private jet, or something about the size of such a jet painted with AA colors.

    "Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over.'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

This testimony is consistent with an aircraft hitting the Pentagon, but not necessarily a 757. The comment that a "huge screaming noise" was heard is contradicted by other testimonies (below)

    "Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said." - "Hell on Earth." UU World

This eyewitness did not explicitly say that he saw AA Flight 77. His actual testimony is prefaced with the comment by the reporter that "American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car". What the eyewitness actually saw was a "puff of white smoke", which is very interesting. One naturally wonders why the reporter did not quote the witness entirely instead of putting words in his mouth that he may never have said.

    "We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubt that this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Notice that he never says that it was a Boeing 757. More "selective quoting."

    Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubt that this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Having said that, we note that Gary Bauer was a presidential candidate in 2000 and is an avowed right-winger and Bush supporter, for what it's worth.

    Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

CatHerder must be completely unaware of what constitutes a credible witness. Perhaps it escaped him/her that we are dealing with a government conspiracy to murder and the testimony of a Pentagon official can hardly be called impartial.




Don't Panic
by fourtytwo on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 12:03:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry.  that is worse than the byproduct of an enema.
by BooMan on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 12:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Tonite I'll use it, study the byproduct, study my entry and let you know how they compare.

Don't Panic
by fourtytwo on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 11:23:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait til he sees what I have coming up on Jerome Hauer from Kroll Associates.  Hauer, who on September 11th advised the White House to take Cipro, who also got John O'Neill the job at the WTC after the FBI unceremoniously yanked O'Niell from investigating OBL when that trail started him looking into Unocal, who also led Guilliani into a deal concerning West Nile virus just before it appeared in NYC, who also was involved with advising on planning the creation of the New York OEM headquarters, "the bunker," on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center.
Hauer is as uniquely connected in his own way as William Schneider Jr.
Since booman put up that story about anthrax a few days ago because it was in the news again, I figure it's time to get Hauer's name more well-known again.
And how come booman doesn't address the Shanksville photos?  Or any of the other .mil and .gov photos here?

Why are we seeing responses more typical of wingnut trolls?  Non-sequiturs, ad hominems, vulgarity, straw man, avoiding the subject.

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 08:12:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
because you are using ridiculous sources and making asinine arguments.  I don't give a fuck about some Shanksville photos of burning trees.  What's your theory of Flight 93 now?  That the plane was assumpted up into heaven to live by the left hand of God?

Once again, the issue with Flight 93 is whether or not it was shot down, not whether it was commanded by Arabs.  That has been proven conclusively.  

When you show me something interesting that actually contributes to the debate I'll let you know.  

Right now you are just using the shotgun approach to see what will stick to the wall.  I sympathize, but you accomplish nothing by spreading stupid rumors.  You do the opposite of what you hope to do.  You discredit yourself and you discredit people that actually do serious research, like Real History Lisa. http://www.realhistoryarchives.com

by BooMan on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 11:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's no rumor in any of the scientific evidence I've presented.

Seismology is not rumor nor is it "junk science".

The physics of gravity and conservation of energy is not rumor nor is it "junk science".

When the evidence is spread across the entire spectrum of the event, it's not a "shotgun" approach to point it all out individually as I have done.

And remember...whenever you yourself have mentioned WTC 7 all you've had to say about it is "setting WTC 7 aside..."
Why set it aside?  Because, when it's NOT "set aside" it calls the whole "official" story into question?

If you're so sure witness reports are valid, I'll give you one fact about witness reports that can't be ignored.  There are NO witness reports that multiple huge explosions were NOT heard at the WTC.  ALL witnesses referring to what was heard report explosions from before the planes struck throught the time until just before the towers disintegrated.

The "official" story is so obviously false from one end to the other, why would ANYONE try to stick to it unless they were somehow invested in it?

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 01:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your whole approach is wrong.  First you used the FAA's radar and seismoloogy to try to prove the WTC attacks involved bombs prior to impact of planes.  Then you totally dismiss FAA radar to imply no plane hit the Pentagon.  That's just a lack of intellectual integrity.  

You have one comment by one low level officer in the Pentagon.  She answers a question that is fed to her.  She probably isn't in a position to know, and you take that as the Holy Bible.  But I have never seen proof that the Pentagon even had anti-aircraft batteries.  And even if they did, which they obviously should, there is no way in hell that the standing rules and regulations would allow for them to be set to automatically down a passenger jet that gets off course and comes into their airspace.  If they did, they would probably down a plane every few years.  

Then you give me Library of Congress photos and claim they are government issued and doctored photographs.   Why would I take you seriously when you are so sloppy and illogical?

by BooMan on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 01:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for the rest of your faulty observations:

I did not dismiss FAA radar to imply that no plane hit the Pentagon.
Something hit the Pentagon and I have made no statements as to what I think it was.

The "low level officer" had the clearance to be in a position to know.  You are making an assumption that she "probably" did not know.
She had the clearance to know and did not equivocate in her answer in any way.  The qyuestion was crystal clear and so was her answer.

And saying they would "probably" shoot down planes every few years is just a statement you make out of thin air.

The photo from the Library of Congress was taken by a civilian who arrived at the scene early.  That photo was not in the posession of the military or the government.
The fact that <i>that</i> photo differs markedly from others which <i>were</i> handled by the gov. or military is the significance.  

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 02:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that 93 was shot down.
But that's not the only issue.
How were cellphone calls made from the plane when it was impossible to do so at the time?

The phonecalls are the only "evidence" that Arabs were on any of the planes.
Since cellphone calls were impossible, that "evidence" is seriously dubious.

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 01:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My God.  Every one of those calls has been traced back to one of the seat phones.  You can even find out what row they were made from.  I am not going to look for the link this moment, but if you doubt me you can find the information very quickly through one of the sites you led me to the other day.  It is the one with evidence from the Moussaoui trial.
by BooMan on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 02:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you mean that the guy who's call is said to have come from the bathroom was from a seat phone?

And do you mean that a government that lies about everything is to be believed because they claim to have traced EVERY call to a seat phone?

And do you mean that the callers who said they were calling from their cellphones couldn't tell the difference between a seat phone and their own cellphones?

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 02:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some bathrooms have phones too, but I don't remember seeing that one of the calls on Flight 93 came from the bathroom.

If you want to impress me that you are a serious researcher, do a diary on every phone call you can find from each plane, and then correlate it to the evidence supplied in the ZM trial.  Find the discrepencies.

I do not this.  Flight 93 had about 80% of the calls.

by BooMan on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 07:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean the government's evidence?
The same government that lies about everything and keeps the rest secret from the people?
The same government that waved around the yellow-cake forgeries as proof?
by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 07:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pretty much says it all.  If you don't want to do any work, then you aren't serious about the issue.
by BooMan on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 01:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yeah, that's conclusive because no one said they saw a particular model of aircraft? Whatever. Yeah, if I saw a massive jet coming over my head the first thing I'd do would be to take a picture and then google it to see what model of plane it was before talking to the media.

That's the jist of the argument? That because not one of them said "it was an AA 757" they didn't see flight 77? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Man oh man, I really wish all this disinfo wasn't spread by folks so we could actually talk about stuff like WTC7, the put options, and the mysterously unscathed passport that fluttered down from the burning buildings.

by spiderleaf (spiderleaf at gmail dot com) on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 01:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How to lighten dark photos on your PC.
Left-click the photo and hold the mouse button down.
Drag the cursor off the photo to your browser's background area off the web page.
(you may have to reduce the size of the page that the photo's on to get a background area to drag the picture to)
Release the mouse button.
A new window with the photo will come up.
This new window has brightness and contrast controls.

Put these two .gov photos up in separate windows.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01748v.jpg

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01749v.jpg

Drag the first picture (01748v) to your browser's background and lighten it.
Look at the reflector post standing in front of the guardrail to the right of the fallen lamp post.  You can see it is standing perfectly upright...perpendicular to the guardrail.

Now do the same for 01749v.
Look at that SAME reflector post.
It's clearly leaning to the left.

Now keep 1749v handy and lighten the following .gov picture:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01750v.jpg

Look closely at the spools.
You can see that the photographer moved slightly to the right after taking 1749v to take 1750v because you can now see the right side of the spool on the left in 1750v.

Now look at the small spool in both pictures.  In 1750v it's orientation is farther to the right than it is in 1749v. That orientation should be farther to the left.

Do not trust the "official" photos.
They've been altered.

by dougr on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 10:30:48 AM EST
You got nada here and I'm a 9/11 CT believer.

Just the poles alone is so patently ridiculous to discredit everything you're saying.

Look at the ground in the first picture and where the pole is in relation to the curb. Then look at the photo you claim shows the same two poles but facing different directions. The guy took the shot from a different angle and didn't capture the pole closest to the curb/ intersection in the second one but DID capture the next pole over that wasn't in the first shot... the pole across the street.

Now, in terms of why they weren't destroyed when the plane hit? Well, you can't get a good judgment of distance based on the angle of this photographs and it could just be that the wingspan missed them because they were far enough away... now, if you ask me why the explosion didn't bust their lightbulbs you may be on to something. But in any case it's not a discussion that could happen when you present photographic evidence that doesn't prove anything and to anyone looking with an open mind makes your whole case suspect.

Don't get down on Boo for this, he's a CT'er himself, but man, this shit is just sad and not factual at all.

by spiderleaf (spiderleaf at gmail dot com) on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 01:14:36 PM EST
If you can explain how all the downed poles, after being hit by a massive object going 500 mph, managed to resist being thrown 100s of feet, then there would be no need to examine the photos.  Either their appearance in the photos was from photoshop or somebody planted them before the photos were taken.
I can't imagine people walking around the scene carrying light poles or knocking them down, so I'll lean toward photoshop which is a lot less labor intensive.
by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 02:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, like I said, I believe it. But trying to make the case this way is counterproductive. I think there are a lot of things that don't make sense and I've just spent the last 2 hours pouring over those pics on the 911studies site and damn, that stuff about the nissan and the SUV (btw, the original green one is a jeep cherokee and it looks like the second one is a dodge or chrysler mini-van) is tight. But the guy doesn't present his case well either (visually - he needs a graphic designer to help him with the layout so it's easier to tell at first glance, etc.)

But there are also some things that are just guesses and that photos etc. don't conclusively prove. SO to present those and then yell that we don't get it doesn't help things along much.

by spiderleaf (spiderleaf at gmail dot com) on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 03:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The intent of the diary wasn't to yell "you don't get it".
It was to show that the "official' story contains lies right down to the photographs they use.

The "official" story likes to rely on photos that show the generally well-known scrap of aluminum as some kind of "proof" that it was a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon.  But when the photos aren't legit, that's one piece of "evidence' that's less than credible.

Anyway, I just think it's strange that Booman gathers the government's histories of the hijackers together and doesn't doubt what they are saying along that line but he'll doubt numerous government claims about any number of other things.  The point of doing something independently is to NOT rely on what the government says.

Stuff like Atta's affiliation to the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft.

News that Mohamed Atta had been on the payroll of the elite international program surfaced in a curious way just a month after the 9/11 attack: a brief seven-line report by German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Oct. 18, 2001, under the headline "ATTA WAS TUTOR FOR SCHOLARSHIP HOLDERS." The story quoted spokesmen for "Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft," described as a "German international further education organisation," as having admitted paying Hamburg cadre principal Atta as a "scholarship holder" and "tutor," between 1995 and 1997.

But what makes the story curious is that the German paper concealed the shocking implications of their story, that Mohamed Atta had been on the payroll of a joint U.S.--German government program, through the simple expedient of neglecting to mention that the "Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft" was merely a private entity set up to administer the "exchange" initiative of the two governments.

The U.S. end of the program is run out of an address at United Nations Plaza in New York by CDS International. The letters stand for Carl Duisberg Society, also the name of its German counterpart in Cologne, the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. Both are named for Carl Duisberg, a German chemist and industrialist who headed the Bayer Corporation during the 1920's.

The list of elite power brokers backing CDS International ranges from the aforementioned Kissinger and Rockefeller to former President Bill Clinton and other Democratic heavyweights like former First Lady Hillary Clinton and Clinton White House adviser Ira Magaziner.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0305/S00092.htm

Maybe it's the Clinton connection to the CDG that keeps Booman sticking so closely to certain elements of the "official" story...or something...who knows.

by dougr on Fri Sep 29th, 2006 at 04:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


SOTW-120x90
Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes (Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes (Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes
John Belushi - SNL
Download South Park on iTunes
Verve Vault

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:
James Hunter - People Gonna Talk
icon


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com



Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

A-List Blogger

Blogarama - The Blog Directory

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Listed on BlogShares

© 2007 Booman Tribune