New 9/11 stuff to mull over - Planted evidence

TalkieWalkie

Copied from another forum, let the games begin. Again :rolleyes:

It's a bit of a mess, tried to tidy it up a bit, who gives a sh!t right ?

(1) Workers inside the Pentagon were killed by inside-the-building explosives several minutes before the flying object crashed through the west wall of the building. Barbara Honegger has proven the false-flag, inside-job, provocateur, and false-victimhood establishing nature of the attack on the Pentagon.
Her findings are as conclusive -- if not more so -- than my own -- yet she is one of the investigators that "Big Truth" investigators avoid interviewing or featuring in documentaries, books or organized public forums.The best people in any field -- detective work, government, social science, history -- are always the ones that the big-mouths and the Big Truth organizers are directing you away from.
May I point out that the real leader of the 9-11 truth movement is not Fetzer -- who blackballs Honegger and Eastman -- but David Ray Griffin -- who features Honegger's findings in his latest book: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.Here on youtube is Barbara Honegger outlining her evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTm6OQrtEBA
Now read in detail what she uncovered:Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lieby Barbara Honegger, M.S.
http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/september2006/articles/911secon...

---

Re: .. my research and analysis re the inside-the-Pentagon explosivesThe bottom line of my work is that the real story of 9/11 is inside explosives at both the WTC and the Pentagon, with planes merely the pre-planned cover stories to match the pre-scripted Official Lie. It not only serves as the core of David Ray Griffin's 'Reports of Bombs' in Ch. 2 of his latest book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, but is also the Appendix in Jim Marrs' 9/11 expose book The Terror Conspiracy.
The missing Elephant in the Room is the 'other half' of Ranke and Marquis' conclusion in this piece "that the plane seen by so many people did not hit the Pentagon, but flew over the building AT THE SAME TIME THAT PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES CAUSED A HUGE FIREBALL AND THICK, BLACK SMOKE, obscuring the fact that the plane was still in the air and flying away...
To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, AND ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS RARE NOW.My "Pentagon Attack Papers" has long marshalled the evidence for the inside-the-bldg. explosives, which, by the way, went off just after 9:30 -- way before the 9:47:46 official alleged 'impact' time.-- ... which can be read as the link under my entry at www.PatriotsQuestion911.com as well as many other web sites, including S.P.I.N.E. Its evidence and findings also form the core of the section 'Reports of Bombs' in Ch. 2 on the Pentagon attack in David Ray Griffin's most recent 9/11 expose book Th e New Pearl Harbor Revisited.Barbara Honeggerbarhonegger@aol.com(831) 233-1032If I may digress from this discussion of Honegger's findings. Here is my only interview on 9-11 that is still avaiable on the internet.
(Years ago I was interviewed, along with Christopher Bollyn in, I think, January of 2002 by Tom Valentine -- but that interview took place before the Pentagon security camera pictures were first released March 7, 2002, and besides Valentine took down the interview and my interview on Bernard Baruch down after only a few months -- Tom has maintained a much lower profile ever since.
I haven't heard from him at least five years.) I am grateful to Mr. Giuliani for keeping this interview in his archive.Dick Eastman discusses other aspects of 9-11 May 17, 2007The interview begins 9 minutes and 15 seconds into this audio broadcast.Charles Giuliani Guest: Dick EastmanDick EastmanCharles talking with Dick Eastman about 9-11 researchMP3s:1
http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_051707_110000...2 http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_051707_120000...Winamp: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.m3uWindowsMedia: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.asxRealMedia: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.ramQuicktime: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.qtl ;

(2) Looking at the piecesThe piece of an American Airlines Boeing 757 has been definitely identified as coming from the starboard side (starboard is the side to your right if you are seated in the plane facing forward.) But the piece was photographed on the lawn north of the crash. This section of the lawn was portside (on the left) of whatever flying object hit the building.
Did the wind carry it to the wrong side of the plane? That would be impossible. Check the smoke. The wind was blowing from the northwest. This object is not aerodynamic enough to have flown this distance, through the explosion and against the wind. This piece of placed at this location to be photographed. The photographer, Mark Faram, writes, see his letter to me below -- that he did not arrive on the scene until ten minutes after the crash-bombing event.
This piece was on the cover of Newsweek magazine and was shown in newspapers and magazines around the world. This piece of debris is what "convinced" the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Now, however, we know this evidence was planted. Rather than proving that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, we have here rather evidence of someone at the Pentagon falsifying evidence at the crime scene. Not one passenger seat was seen by anyone at the Pentagon, only a single pilot's seat. What about that piece of a Boeing 757 photographed by Mark Faram on the lawn of the Pentagon?The one piece found on the lawn of the Pentagon that was clearly recognizable as a piece of an American Airlines Boeing 757 is now shown to have been planted on the scene. See for yourself.
The most famous piece of 757 debris is positively identified by rivets and the lettering fragment and the expanse of blank aluminum to the right of the letter fragement to have come from the starboard side (the letter "n" is not followed by an expanse of aluminum with two rows of rivets on the port side, because on the port side a door is placed immediately to the right of the "n" -- but this starboard-side piece of a 757 (confirmed by photos below) was found on the lawn about 100 feet north of the crash -- and north would have been portside of the plane (or missile) as it struck the Pentagon.
Not only that the piece is shaped so that it could not travel far through the air -- like trying to throw an open newspaper page across the room -- and what is more the wind, as all pictures of smoke movement that way attest, the wind was form the northwest. Thus it is proven that this piece was planted. Now look at the evidence assembled that proves all of the above.The famous piece of debris photographed on the lawn north of the crash about ten minutes after the crash came from the starboard side of a Boeing 757 all right, but the starboard side of the killer object that hit the Pentagon faced south, not north. The piece was planted on the wrong side of the crash.




Photo taken from north of the crash hole. If we were standing here during the "event" we would have seen the port side of the killer object as it headed for the west wall. (Reminder: The port side of an airplane is to the seated pilot's left.)But this piece did not come from the port side of any plane. It is definitely a piece from a specific part of the starboard side of a Boeing 757. But the starboard side of the killer object faced south. This piece could not have gotten this distance north. It could not have gotten through the a crashing plane and the explosion and it could not have moved against the constant wind from the northwest that morning. The shape, thinness and lightness of the aluminum could not have overcome air resistance to travel this far in the wrong direction.Look carefully at this evidence:















On the starboard side the letter "n" is followed by bare aluminum for several more inches -- so that it is not just the "n" from "American", rather it is the "n____" from "American___"Two sides of Flight 77Now let's look at the actual jetliner in question. Below are photos of AA Flight 77, Boeing 757-223 N644AA, Fleet #5BP, cn24602/365, from which you can verify these crticial differences between the letter "n" on the port side and the "n" on the starboard side of that plane."Flight 77 Album" on Airliners.net: http://tinyurl.com/nx4hwe








77 Starboard Side view link (above) again note letter "n" in "American longer stretch of aluminum that follows to the right of it before reaching the front emergency starboard-side emergency exit door.





The piece is found and photographed more than a hundred feet north of the crash -- on what would have been the port side, not the starboard side, of the plane or missile that crashed. Yet the piece is a starboard piece based on the stetch of bare aluminum following the "n" and the rivets found only on the starboard side.Conclusion: By direct inspection of photos of the plane the stretch of bare aluminum following the "n" of "American" on the port side is not long enough to match the famous (starboard) piece photographed north of the crash.The piece photographed did not come from the side of a Boeing 757 that would have been facing this part of the lawn (north of the crash) had the killer plane been Flight 77.
The piece definitely comes from the starboard side of a 575, the side that would have been facing the lawn south of the crash, not north. This is easily and conclusively demonstrated.Concering the photographs of the "wrong-side piece":The piece of American-airlines-style polished aluminum skin with a fragment of the letter "n" on it and the stretch of bare aluminum that was photographed by Mark Faram. Faram found the piece lying near the heliport north of the crash, which was on the port side of the actual killer jet as it approached the Pentagon's west wall.
Below is an e-mail from Mark Faram, who took this famous picture.Faram writes:> I saw the piece, that was near> the heliport pad and had to work around to get> a shot if itNote also that he does not add that he took pictures of any other piece. In other words, this piece "stuck out like a sore thumb" amid the other "shards" and nondescript matter from the crash and explosion. He says he arrived at the Annex 10 minutes after the explosion -- but that would mean he came from the south - an how long did it take him to see the piece? The man seems sincere to me -- but his facts do not add up to proof that this starboard side piece got 100 feet portside through an explosion and against the wind.
From: "Mark Faram"To: "Dick Eastman"Cc: ; "Michel Chossudovsky"; ; "Carol A.Valentine" ; ; "LewRockwell" ; "Jeff Rense" ; "GeoffMetcalf" ; "Alex Jones"Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:58 AMSubject: Pentagon Debris Pic: - it's the planted "photo opportunity" , not the photographyDear Mr. Eastman,I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind the photograph. At the time, I was a senior writer with Navy Times newspaper. It is an independent weekly that is owned by the Gannett Corporation (same owners as USA Today).I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion. I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had to work around to get a shot if it with the building in the background. Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had yet to shut off the area.
I photographed it twice, with the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the background.The collapse of the building above area happened long after I left the scene. I was not even aware that that had happened until that evening when I watched the news. My photos were on the wire by noon.That was the only piece of wreckage of any SIZE that I saw, but was by no means the ONLY piece. Right after photographing that piece of wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel were tending to a seriously burned man.
A priest knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately.As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces - that is what these shards were covered with.I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash.In short, I was there so quickly after the explosion [10 minutes after] that there was not time for anyone to "plant" this piece of wreckage and it would have been impossible for anyone to plant the thousands of shards on the highway without being noticed by myself or others.Sincerely,Mark D. Faramcomment: Mr. Faram indicates that he arrived 10 minutes after the crash. I think that is plenty time for one of the many FBI agents who were immediately on the scene picking up debris to have also put down this particular piece.
I also think that had the plane been AA Flight 77 then some of the pieces would have been of the polished aluminum of the outer skin as well as the greenish undercoating that is sprayed on the inside of the skin. And certainly there is no reason for there only to be small shards when an airliner crashes into an office building -- the small shards are in fact the missile that was blown to smithereens when fired from the attacking jet -- the explosion being shown in the second picture of the series of five that have been released that were taken by the security camera north of the attack. Mr.
Faram is being honest and sincere, but he simply had not put things together yet at the time of his writing.Clearly the piece -- the only obvious AA 757 piece, was planted, by mistake, on the lawn on the wrong side of the crash -- in order to make the cover of Newsweek and dozens of other magazines around the world.
Once they saw that picture Americans were ready to heap ridicule on anyone who pointed out the dozens of glaring discrepancies in the official version.Dick EastmanYakima, Washington

---

Summary:There is a famous photo that has from the first been the great "proof" of the official story of the Pentagon crash. It is a photo taken 10 minutes after the crash and it shows some of the aluminum skin of a Boeing 757 with part of the letter "n" from "American" painted on the side American Airlines 757s. Furthermore, because there are several inches of blank aluminum following the letter "n" and because of two rows of rivets in the piece we know that the piece is from the starboard side and not the port side. On the port side the letter "n" of "American" is immediately followed by a door and there are no two rows of rivets. Photos of the Flight 77 Boeing exist showing that what is claimed here for all Boeing 757-200s is indeed confirmed to have been true for this specific plane. The fact that the photographed piece came from the starboard side is important because the starboard side of the killer object (remote controlled jet fighter or missile) as it approached and hit the Pentagon faced south, but the fragment that was photographed was located more than a 100 feet north of the crash and, as the photographs of the smoke confirm, the wind was from the southwest that morning.
Finally for the piece to have flown that distance through the explosion and against the wind would have been impossible give its shape and weight -- something like throwing an open newspaper page across the room. The piece was planted.

Divorce Referendum

Whoa. Would you be able to throw a few paragraphs into the large chunks of text?

Yitzhak Rabin

But seriously though Talkie, a bit of punctuation and formatting there would be great. That is impossible to read! :P

Also, link to the original source if its not yours.

Bjorn Bored.

I cant read this,too bunched up.

TalkieWalkie

Long day, I'll sort it tomorrow

gizmo

I thought the CT was that it was a missile which hit the Pentagon?

meglome

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Long day, I'll sort it tomorrow

Didn't you argue at length that there was no plane?

Any chance you could tell us what you believe?

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

(1) Workers inside the Pentagon were killed by inside-the-building explosives several minutes before the flying object crashed through the west wall of the building. [/SIZE]Barbara Honegger has proven the false-flag, inside-job, provocateur, and false-victimhood establishing nature of the attack on the Pentagon.

Her findings are as conclusive -- if not more so -- than my own -- yet she is one of the investigators that "Big Truth" investigators avoid interviewing or featuring in documentaries, books or organized public forums. The best people in any field -- detective work, government, social science, history -- are always the ones that the big-mouths and the Big Truth organizers are directing you away from.

May I point out that the real leader of the 9-11 truth movement is not Fetzer -- who blackballs Honegger and Eastman -- but David Ray Griffin -- who features Honegger's findings in his latest book: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.Here on youtube is Barbara Honegger outlining her evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTm6OQrtEBA


Now read in detail what she uncovered:Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lieby Barbara Honegger, M.S.
http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/september2006/articles/911secon...

My research and analysis re the inside-the-Pentagon explosives. The bottom line of my work is that the real story of 9/11 is inside explosives at both the WTC and the Pentagon, with planes merely the pre-planned cover stories to match the pre-scripted Official Lie. It not only serves as the core of David Ray Griffin's 'Reports of Bombs' in Ch. 2 of his latest book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, but is also the Appendix in Jim Marrs' 9/11 expose book The Terror Conspiracy.

The missing Elephant in the Room is the 'other half' of Ranke and Marquis' conclusion in this piece "That the plane seen by so many people did not hit the Pentagon, but flew over the building AT THE SAME TIME THAT PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES CAUSED A HUGE FIREBALL AND THICK, BLACK SMOKE, obscuring the fact that the plane was still in the air and flying away... "

To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, AND ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS RARE NOW.My "Pentagon Attack Papers" has long marshalled the evidence for the inside-the-bldg. explosives, which, by the way, went off just after 9:30 -- way before the 9:47:46 official alleged 'impact' time.-- ... which can be read as the link under my entry at www.PatriotsQuestion911.com as well as many other web sites, including S.P.I.N.E. Its evidence and findings also form the core of the section 'Reports of Bombs' in Ch. 2 on the Pentagon attack in David Ray Griffin's most recent 9/11 expose book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.

If I may digress from this discussion of Honegger's findings. Here is my only interview on 9-11 that is still avaiable on the internet.
(Years ago I was interviewed, along with Christopher Bollyn in, I think, January of 2002 by Tom Valentine -- but that interview took place before the Pentagon security camera pictures were first released March 7, 2002, and besides Valentine took down the interview and my interview on Bernard Baruch down after only a few months -- Tom has maintained a much lower profile ever since.
I haven't heard from him at least five years.) I am grateful to Mr. Giuliani for keeping this interview in his archive.Dick Eastman discusses other aspects of 9-11 May 17, 2007The interview begins 9 minutes and 15 seconds into this audio broadcast.

MP3s:
1.
http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_051707_110000...
2 http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_051707_120000...
Winamp: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.m3u
WindowsMedia: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.asx
RealMedia: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.ram
Quicktime: http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Hertz/07/05/Hertz_0517.qtl ;

(2) Looking at the pieces. The piece of an American Airlines Boeing 757 has been definitely identified as coming from the starboard side (starboard is the side to your right if you are seated in the plane facing forward.) But the piece was photographed on the lawn north of the crash. This section of the lawn was portside (on the left) of whatever flying object hit the building.

Did the wind carry it to the wrong side of the plane? That would be impossible. Check the smoke. The wind was blowing from the northwest. This object is not aerodynamic enough to have flown this distance, through the explosion and against the wind. This piece of placed at this location to be photographed. The photographer, Mark Faram, writes, see his letter to me below -- that he did not arrive on the scene until ten minutes after the crash-bombing event.

This piece was on the cover of Newsweek magazine and was shown in newspapers and magazines around the world. This piece of debris is what "convinced" the world that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Now, however, we know this evidence was planted. Rather than proving that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, we have here rather evidence of someone at the Pentagon falsifying evidence at the crime scene. Not one passenger seat was seen by anyone at the Pentagon, only a single pilot's seat.

What about that piece of a Boeing 757 photographed by Mark Faram on the lawn of the Pentagon?The one piece found on the lawn of the Pentagon that was clearly recognizable as a piece of an American Airlines Boeing 757 is now shown to have been planted on the scene. See for yourself.

The most famous piece of 757 debris is positively identified by rivets and the lettering fragment and the expanse of blank aluminum to the right of the letter fragement to have come from the starboard side (the letter "n" is not followed by an expanse of aluminum with two rows of rivets on the port side, because on the port side a door is placed immediately to the right of the "n" -- but this starboard-side piece of a 757 (confirmed by photos below) was found on the lawn about 100 feet north of the crash -- and north would have been portside of the plane (or missile) as it struck the Pentagon.
Not only that the piece is shaped so that it could not travel far through the air -- like trying to throw an open newspaper page across the room -- and what is more the wind, as all pictures of smoke movement that way attest, the wind was form the northwest. Thus it is proven that this piece was planted.

Now look at the evidence assembled that proves all of the above.The famous piece of debris photographed on the lawn north of the crash about ten minutes after the crash came from the starboard side of a Boeing 757 all right, but the starboard side of the killer object that hit the Pentagon faced south, not north. The piece was planted on the wrong side of the crash.




Photo taken from north of the crash hole. If we were standing here during the "event" we would have seen the port side of the killer object as it headed for the west wall. (Reminder: The port side of an airplane is to the seated pilot's left.)But this piece did not come from the port side of any plane. It is definitely a piece from a specific part of the starboard side of a Boeing 757. But the starboard side of the killer object faced south. This piece could not have gotten this distance north. It could not have gotten through the a crashing plane and the explosion and it could not have moved against the constant wind from the northwest that morning. The shape, thinness and lightness of the aluminum could not have overcome air resistance to travel this far in the wrong direction.Look carefully at this evidence:















On the starboard side the letter "n" is followed by bare aluminum for several more inches -- so that it is not just the "n" from "American", rather it is the "n____" from "American___"Two sides of Flight 77Now let's look at the actual jetliner in question. Below are photos of AA Flight 77, Boeing 757-223 N644AA, Fleet #5BP, cn24602/365, from which you can verify these crticial differences between the letter "n" on the port side and the "n" on the starboard side of that plane."Flight 77 Album" on Airliners.net: http://tinyurl.com/nx4hwe





77 Starboard Side view link (above) again note letter "n" in "American longer stretch of aluminum that follows to the right of it before reaching the front emergency starboard-side emergency exit door.





The piece is found and photographed more than a hundred feet north of the crash -- on what would have been the port side, not the starboard side, of the plane or missile that crashed. Yet the piece is a starboard piece based on the stetch of bare aluminum following the "n" and the rivets found only on the starboard side.Conclusion: By direct inspection of photos of the plane the stretch of bare aluminum following the "n" of "American" on the port side is not long enough to match the famous (starboard) piece photographed north of the crash.The piece photographed did not come from the side of a Boeing 757 that would have been facing this part of the lawn (north of the crash) had the killer plane been Flight 77.

The piece definitely comes from the starboard side of a 575, the side that would have been facing the lawn south of the crash, not north. This is easily and conclusively demonstrated.Concering the photographs of the "wrong-side piece":The piece of American-airlines-style polished aluminum skin with a fragment of the letter "n" on it and the stretch of bare aluminum that was photographed by Mark Faram. Faram found the piece lying near the heliport north of the crash, which was on the port side of the actual killer jet as it approached the Pentagon's west wall.

Below is an e-mail from Mark Faram, who took this famous picture.Faram writes:> I saw the piece, that was near> the heliport pad and had to work around to get> a shot if itNote also that he does not add that he took pictures of any other piece. In other words, this piece "stuck out like a sore thumb" amid the other "shards" and nondescript matter from the crash and explosion. He says he arrived at the Annex 10 minutes after the explosion -- but that would mean he came from the south - an how long did it take him to see the piece? The man seems sincere to me -- but his facts do not add up to proof that this starboard side piece got 100 feet portside through an explosion and against the wind.

---

From: "Mark Faram"
To: "Dick Eastman"Cc: ; "Michel Chossudovsky"; ; "Carol A.Valentine" ; ; "LewRockwell" ; "Jeff Rense" ; "GeoffMetcalf" ; "Alex Jones"

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:58 AM

Subject: Pentagon Debris Pic: - it's the planted "photo opportunity" , not the photography

Dear Mr. Eastman,
I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind the photograph. At the time, I was a senior writer with Navy Times newspaper. It is an independent weekly that is owned by the Gannett Corporation (same owners as USA Today).I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion. I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had to work around to get a shot if it with the building in the background. Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had yet to shut off the area.

I photographed it twice, with the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the background.The collapse of the building above area happened long after I left the scene. I was not even aware that that had happened until that evening when I watched the news. My photos were on the wire by noon.That was the only piece of wreckage of any SIZE that I saw, but was by no means the ONLY piece. Right after photographing that piece of wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel were tending to a seriously burned man.

A priest knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately.As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces - that is what these shards were covered with.I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash.In short, I was there so quickly after the explosion [10 minutes after] that there was not time for anyone to "plant" this piece of wreckage and it would have been impossible for anyone to plant the thousands of shards on the highway without being noticed by myself or others.

Sincerely,
Mark D. Faram

---

Mr. Faram indicates that he arrived 10 minutes after the crash. I think that is plenty time for one of the many FBI agents who were immediately on the scene picking up debris to have also put down this particular piece.

I also think that had the plane been AA Flight 77 then some of the pieces would have been of the polished aluminum of the outer skin as well as the greenish undercoating that is sprayed on the inside of the skin. And certainly there is no reason for there only to be small shards when an airliner crashes into an office building -- the small shards are in fact the missile that was blown to smithereens when fired from the attacking jet -- the explosion being shown in the second picture of the series of five that have been released that were taken by the security camera north of the attack. Mr. Faram is being honest and sincere, but he simply had not put things together yet at the time of his writing.Clearly the piece -- the only obvious AA 757 piece, was planted, by mistake, on the lawn on the wrong side of the crash -- in order to make the cover of Newsweek and dozens of other magazines around the world.

Once they saw that picture Americans were ready to heap ridicule on anyone who pointed out the dozens of glaring discrepancies in the official version.Dick EastmanYakima, Washington

Summary:There is a famous photo that has from the first been the great "proof" of the official story of the Pentagon crash. It is a photo taken 10 minutes after the crash and it shows some of the aluminum skin of a Boeing 757 with part of the letter "n" from "American" painted on the side American Airlines 757s. Furthermore, because there are several inches of blank aluminum following the letter "n" and because of two rows of rivets in the piece we know that the piece is from the starboard side and not the port side. On the port side the letter "n" of "American" is immediately followed by a door and there are no two rows of rivets. Photos of the Flight 77 Boeing exist showing that what is claimed here for all Boeing 757-200s is indeed confirmed to have been true for this specific plane. The fact that the photographed piece came from the starboard side is important because the starboard side of the killer object (remote controlled jet fighter or missile) as it approached and hit the Pentagon faced south, but the fragment that was photographed was located more than a 100 feet north of the crash and, as the photographs of the smoke confirm, the wind was from the southwest that morning.

Finally for the piece to have flown that distance through the explosion and against the wind would have been impossible give its shape and weight -- something like throwing an open newspaper page across the room. The piece was planted.

Here you go. I did the best I could. The layout of this is just awful. I was trying to guess what he meant at times. I didn't bother to add the correct punctuation because it would need a whole rewrite.

enno99

here is a link to the paper

http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

seannash

ah seriously now.

so bombs went off 7 minutes prior to the plane hitting the pentagon,yet noone in the pentagn called the cops or left the building especially after seeing the planes hit the towers an hour before hand

they heard an explosion and just remained at there desk.

this is really really stretching it.

have a look at this video,itll explain away the no plane theory and the expolsives in the towers theory which he makes claim to in the begining of the passage

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#


im linking everyone t this latlely

TalkieWalkie

meglome wrote: »

Didn't you argue at length that there was no plane?

Yeah why, is that not what is said in op ?

I didn't read that mess

meglome

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah why, is that not what is said in op ?

I didn't read that mess

I was wondering because how exactly did the bits of plane get there in broad daylight next in a highway full of people in cars?

Ping Chow Chi

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah why, is that not what is said in op ?

I didn't read that mess

So you posted a ton of rubbish without even reading it first? .. I must remember to give your postings the time and consideration they deserve in the future

TalkieWalkie

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

So you posted a ton of rubbish without even reading it first? .. I must remember to give your postings the time and consideration they deserve in the future

I must remember to pretend to care. Who are you anyway

Divorce Referendum

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I must remember to pretend to care. Who are you anyway

This is boards.ie you dont own it so you wont know everyone:rolleyes:. Do you always post stuff you dont read?

TalkieWalkie

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

This is boards.ie you dont own it so you wont know everyone:rolleyes:. Do you always post stuff you dont read?

I am not reading this reply

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie, if you won't read, let alone discuss your own posts, then you can find somewhere else to post.

If there isn't any actual discussion in this thread soon it'll be locked.