Just wanted to share my FAVORITE 9-11 picture that trashes "AA77 at the Pentagon" story...

Pictures? You want pictures? Look at these from german sources. The first floor is obviously intact. From both the front and rear. So how could a jet have plowed through three rings of buildings? Notice all the extra non-damaged office space 'cleared away' in the last photo.

Flight 77 Pilot Was MASCAL Author !!!
MORE HERE: -->  http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html


Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines Flight 77
MORE HERE: -->  http://www.aldeilis.net/aldeilis/content/view/633/107/

The Washington Post reported on 16 September 2001 that the pilot of Flight 77 was former F-4 fighter pilot Charles Burlingame III, who in his last Navy job, developed anti-terror strategies for the Navy before retiring to fly for American Airlines. He drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan in case it was hit by a civilian airliner. Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon. It is not clear which MASCAL Charles Burlingame III authored.
Charles Burlingame was a Naval reservist for 17 years. He was age 51. The Army would initially not allow him to be buried at Arlington National Cemetary since he died before the age of sixty, which is the eligibility age for reservists not killed in combat. The cemetary is managed by the Army. After Congressional intervention and negative publicity, the Army reversed its position.
MORE HERE: -->  http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm

Over 100 witnesses reported an American Airlines Boeing 757.


IF you weren't there, then you have to explain what caused the witnesses to say what they said - this includes the 13 reports of a gray C-130 electronic warfare aircraft -- the one that is apparently too mundane and inconsequential to concern so-called "truth" seekers.

All 100 witnesses worked for the pentagon in one capacity or another, or worked for or had family in the military. It's already been researched. Look at those German pix again Sherlock. It's all a big lie, just like WMD''s and the Ohio vote count. Not even a nice try....

It would be child's play for the bad guys to get 100 people trained to make statements. That's why "witness" testimony will never convince the conspiracy theorists.

On the other hand, dear AP, just how would you explain the images that shutterbug posted? Can you somehow wave your intellectual magic wand and explain that away? Hmmm??? Can you?

their refusal to release all but one of the videos of the pentagon being hit is evidence that something is not right with the official story. the one video that they did release didn't even show anything at all, just a small projectile that could have been any number of things (but certainly didn't look large enough to be an airplane) and an explosion. there may have been 100 witnesses that saw an AA 757, but there were also a number of witnesses who saw a missile, a small military aircraft, and even swore that the explosions were bombs. in situations like this witness evidence is often anything but conclusive. there were also a number of air traffic controllers who believed that the jet was a military aircraft and not a 757 due to the way it was maneuvering through the sky. and the evidence i have just touched on is only the tip of the iceberg.

the bottom line is that it needs a full and impartial investigation. the problem is that most of the evidence that would lead to any real conclusion has either been destroyed by the government or is being held by the government. i continue to believe that whether or not foreign terrorists were involved, our own government was complicit in one way or another.

Yeah, it's obvious they seeded Charles Burlingame into American Airlines as a pilot after he worked up the state terror plan. He was in on it. He was trusted with the black op--his AA77 plane was full of others like him, remember.

They bundled into the AA77 hit lots of black ops personnel--so when it lands somewhere they are "officially dead" though still alive of coruse--an excellent cover for continuing to work for the Pentagon undercover.

Watch the opening few minutes of Loose Change for more about Charles Burlingame.

I would conjecture that they trusted him to land the plane somewhere, and he's still alive. Or the Pentagon had him liquidated afterwards because he was someone who definitely "knew too much" about the whole black op version of AA77 being substituted with whatever it was that was shadow-guided with the C130 that was mentioned above.

I expect the landing would have taken place somewhere in southern Ohio (where the AA77 "dissapears off radar" last, which just happens to place Burlingame and AA77 near Wright-Patterson AFB. Wright-Patterson AFB is the home of the airborne laser and Global Hawk programs... less places to go, everything centralized at Wright-Pat, and it could be done with the same team...

Where's that AA77 black op list that was posted some while ago. That should be here in this thread...



Title: autopsy: no arabs on flight 77
Author: brian
Date: 2003.07.18 05:40
Description: by thomas olmsted MD
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268276.shtml

Title: Now Updated:No Arabs on Flight 77: Part II -The Passengers
Author: www.sierratimes.com/Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D
Date: 2005.03.18 06:11
Description: More of a summary and some questions about the passengers from flight 77. Intelligence, navy, remote flight technology experts, and their backgrounds. List obtained through a FOIA request.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313698.shtml

Title: "I know what happened to flight 77"
Author: rerepost of peter's 1:48am Fri May 24 '02 indymedia.org post
Date: 2005.05.07 08:32
Description: here is a cached copy of the post back by request for some unknown reason indymedia.org purged their archive and destroyed tons of important information regarding 9/11 and related stuff.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316972.shtml
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/299484.shtml
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316975.shtml

Two smoking guns of 911 are WTC7 and Flight 77. The Pentagon was struck/bombed 38 minutes after the WTC South Tower fell. We were "at war." Washington air space is the one of the most secure in the world! WTC7 fell at 5pm without being struck by a plane.

Getting the message to the masses is more important than splitting hairs. Splitting hairs is important, too!

See also these essays:

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman
first published: October 7, 2004
revised: November 15, 2004
 http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

and


The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
by
Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, March 28, 2006
 http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html


Evidence from the Pentagon crash that would decisively resolve the question of whether Flight 77 was the attack plane has been systematically suppressed by authorities, such as the FBI. Actions have included the following:

* The seizure of security videos from the nearby Citgo gas station and Sheraton hotel within minutes of the attack, and their refusal to release those videos.
* A failure to release recordings of security video cameras thought to ring the Pentagon or traffic monitoring video cameras along the nearby highways maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* A failure to release photographs of the Pentagon's interior prior to removal of debris.
* A failure to disclose the fate of aircraft debris collected at the Pentagon, and their failure to document or disclose the results of any attempts to identify the aircraft parts.
* An implausible insistence that the recovered black boxes yielded "nothing useful."

This behavior is consistent with three different motives on the parts of the those responsible for suppression and destruction of evidence.

1. An institutional penchant for secrecy, amplified by the atmosphere of national emergency produced by the attack
2. A desire to suppress evidence that would disprove the crash of Flight 77
3. A desire to suppress evidence that would prove the crash of Flight 77

People who fail to grasp the role of disinformation in the cover-up will tend to overlook Motive 3 and attribute the suspicious actions to Motive 2. However, as I point out in the Booby Trap article, an analysis of the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement demonstrates the value of the no-jetliner theories in sidelining challenges to the official story as the product of 'lunatic conspiracy theorists.'

very interesting ...

"I know what happened to flight 77"
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316975.shtml

quote:
-----------------
It would be child's play for the bad guys to get 100 people trained to make statements
-----------------

Yeah, that's right!! And they would coach 13 of them to report a gray C-130 ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT that ACCOMPANIED FLIGHT 77 to the PENTAGON through SEVERAL MILES OF RESTRICTED AIRSACE!!

Why do you suppose the Pentagon would to *that* ??

I guess you couldn't figure out a way to explain the photographs that Shutterbug posted? They do rather ruin the "official" narrative, huh? When you do your fair share of explaining, I will be happy to explain to you the ways in which this testimony or that testimony doesn't pose problems for the "conspiracy theories". Until you do that, I won't bother spelling out any of several possibilities. Constructive debate would involve you not just asking all the questions, but answering some as well. But, hey, if you can't come up with a plausible explanation, it's OK. I understand.

PS, I'm not sure how a C-130 goes against the statement that a 757 didn't strike the Pentagon, or how it opposes the sensibility of the belief that a huge tin can of an airplane would not make a little itty bitty hole and, incidentally, penetrate through 3 rings of reinforced buildings.

I don't know what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. I haven't even studied the Pentagon aspect of 9/11 in much detail (I have looked in to towers a bit more deeply). I just know that the official narrative is full of holes that should be explained. When the complete truth is told, more things should make sense. As far as the Pentagon goes, I don't see, realistically, how it could harm US security to release the tapes that they have. I don't see how Shutterbug's images jive with the official narrative. I don't see how alleged novice pilots could steer a big ungainly plane around like that to hit the Pentagon when a nice and simple straight line into it would have crashed near where Rummy was instead of into a comparatively vacant area. And that's just for starters.

"The first floor is obviously intact. From both the front and rear."

Thanks, Shutterbug. First I have seen that second picture there. Fascinating. Pretty much purports to place the object flying into the pentagon, or the weapon fired into it as the plane delivery module, as some kind of bunker buster missle.

newswire article announcements global 18.Mar.2006 09:39
9.11 investigation | government
Mechanical Engineer: A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
author: Tom Paine
I saw this letter posted on Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I think more people should see this, so please spread it around. The original posting is here:  http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

...

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/335929.shtml

C-130 that are painted gray are flown by the navy. The C-130 flown by the regular Airforce are dark green. Special ops electronic warfare C-130 are black. The "Black Birds" have very little space in the aircraft for anything other than electronics and a small walk space forward and aft.

No, I did not confess that I "can't explain the photographic evidence." I simply ignored the photos because they don't represent evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.

If you are interested in accounting for trivial forensic damage details that have no bearing whatsoever on how a 757 --or a missile wrapped in a hologram if you prefer-- came to pass unhindered through several miles of higly-restricted airspace without having being struck by one of those antique anti-aircraft or anti-missile technologies (a hologram won't hide a missile from radar, btw), you can always try this explanation:

----------------
"According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, [Bin Laden's] attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives."
- James Hatfield - July 03, 2001 - nine weeks before the attacks
----------------

and you could provide a whiff of supporting evidence:

---------------
A personnel attorney at the Pentagon, [Gilah] Goldsmith was riding a shuttle bus to work on Tuesday, Sept. 11, when she learned of the attack on the World Trade Center. [...] "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like CORDITE or gun smoke.
-Jewish Bulletin News, September 21, 2001

I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you. My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere."
-Timothy McSweeney's, September 19, 2001
------------

But don't forget these are Pentagon employees with miltary connections etc, and so they can't be trusted, and they were probably paid to mention the distinct smell of CORDITE, just to confuse us --right?

And among the 100+ witnesses who must have been paid to pretend that they saw a 757, at least 13 were probably ordered to report that the ficticious plane was accompanied to the Pentagon by a C-130 electronic warfare aircraft --right?

And for reasons I just can't fathom---maybe you can explain it? ---they were paid to say things like this:

------------
"it flew directly above the American Airlines jet,
as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar
- while at the same time -
guiding the jet toward the Pentagon"
------------
and
------------
"they are definitely hiding something
a lot bigger than they are willing to let out"
------------
and
------------
"nobody knows about the second plane,
or if they do they're hiding it for some reason."
------------

These are statements by people who saw an AA-marked Boeing 757 jetliner.
This is probably why Chip Berlett doesn't want you looking for witness reportage online.
This is probably why the Pentagon footage was seized and suppressed.

C-130EW + ControlTransmission and FlightTermination System + 757 + packed with explosives.

This is the explanation upon which all the evidence converges.

What is preventing you from seeing it?

"C-130EW + ControlTransmission and FlightTermination System + 757 + packed with explosives."

is better expressed as

C-130EW + ControlTransmission and FlightTermination System + SOMETHING + packed with explosives + cordite already planted within the Pentagon itself.

There's nothing you can provide that shows evidence--tangible physical evidence--of a 757 at the Pentagon, so that should be stripped out. Not witnesses--some of which are PNAC members (no joke!) and have motive to lie. Just physical information, please. Look at it yourself. Nothing 757-like there at all.

Even Rumsfeld gets "off message" sometimes and says a "missile" hit the Pentagon!

AP is just trying to confuse people. On the 1-10 troll scale you get a 2.

rese link


 http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/4547_comment.php#4555

Will You be the next TARGET of our own corrupted Government?

YOU

If you want to accept that the C-130 was REAL
try to remember that you are relying on
the reports of those 13 witnesses to realize it for you.
(inititally denied, later confirmed by the Pentagon)

Those witnesses also reported a 757.

I'm not sure how you can logically accept one plane,
but not the other.

Look AP (Asinine Propoganda), get it right.

"If you want to accept that the C-130 was REAL try to remember that you are relying on the reports of those 13 witnesses to realize it for you.
(inititally denied, later confirmed by the Pentagon) Those witnesses also reported a 757."

The point is there is no way that the hole shows a 757 was there, period. Regardless of how many people claim to have "seen" it. Who cares about that.

Besides, care to show us proof of your statement? It doesn't exist. False association. There were many who noticed the C130 who were hardly there watching or witnessing a 757! Your "AP" story depends on your disembodied empty voice of authority like the Wizard of Oz without ANY information! Instead, here's somethings you can look up. Just go to the cooperativeresearch.org site as well. Just going back to the PIMC archives here's C130 watchers on 911 who didn't see (the nonexistent) 757 at the Pentagon either.