Car Bomb at Pentagon on 9/11

the_barfly1

For some reason I was watching a video of RTÉ's coverage of 9/11 this evening. I found it a little strange that Anne Dole mentions a car bomb at the Pentagon. I've never heard of this previously. Was wondering if the members here that are more familiar with the research on this event would be able to shed some light on whether this has been discussed before? (maybe it has, but I don't have time to trawl through the forum)
Here's the video, relevant section from approx 3:30 onwards

Cheers.

Jonny7

There was no car bomb, it's just bad reporting

She also mentions that the second plane was "smaller" than the first, when in fact it was a slightly larger plane

Brown Bomber

That was interesting to look back on. Thanks for sharing. I remember reading reports that battlefield experienced military guys in the Pentagon were convinced that bombs had gone off in Pentagon based on the distinctive sounds of the explosions.

Also, there was a large number of people doing "renovation" work on the side of the building that was hit that had all miraculously cleared out in time before the plane hit.

But of course any reports or anomalies that stray from the 9/11 Commission report is always simply "bad reporting".

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That was interesting to look back on. Thanks for sharing. I remember reading reports that battlefield experienced military guys in the Pentagon were convinced that bombs had gone off in Pentagon based on the distinctive sounds of the explosions.

Also, there was a large number of people doing "renovation" work on the side of the building that was hit that had all miraculously cleared out in time before the plane hit.

But of course any reports or anomalies that stray from the 9/11 Commission report is always simply "bad reporting".

Yea and whats that other one about witnesses hearing /seeing these anomalies

misremembering

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Yea and whats that other one about witnesses hearing /seeing these anomalies

misremembering

haha yeah. Just like that fat bloke who was the last person in building 7 who "misremembered" when he gave his statement as soon as he was out of the building but later remembered the story that fit.

Or the NYPD guy whose eyes were playing tricks on him when the mural van expoded in front of his eyes and the occupants fled.

Never happened.

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

haha yeah. Just like that fat bloke who was the last person in building 7 who "misremembered" when he gave his statement as soon as he was out of the building but later remembered the story that fit.

Or the NYPD guy whose eyes were playing tricks on him when the mural van expoded in front of his eyes and the occupants fled.

Never happened.

Yea Jennings and also that legal mouthpiece who was with him in the building

He also got very coy when the penny dropped that he was told to head on over there while everybody else was being told to get the fu*k out

He was also the government mouthpiece during the Pentagon Papers he would have a great insight into what shenanigans these guys get up to

Jonny7

OP, we can safely say this iis an accurate account of what occurred on 911.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

The attacks created widespread confusion among news organizations and air traffic controllers. Among the unconfirmed and often contradictory news reports aired throughout the day, one of the most prevalent said a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters in Washington, D.C.[28

I was watching the whole thing live (and for many days after), speculation, rumour and unconfirmed reports were rife - such is the nature of hectic live news from multiple sources. The car bomb was just another false report.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

haha yeah. Just like that fat bloke who was the last person in building 7 who "misremembered" when he gave his statement as soon as he was out of the building but later remembered the story that fit.

He was misquoted.

Or the NYPD guy whose eyes were playing tricks on him when the mural van expoded in front of his eyes and the occupants fled.

Name and badge number of this officer please.

Oh what's that, you haven't got either of those this because it

Never happened.

Thank you for your honesty

Sixtus

Jonny7 wrote: »

There was no car bomb, it's just bad reporting

She also mentions that the second plane was "smaller" than the first, when in fact it was a slightly larger plane

Bad reporting is a misnomer. A more accurate statement would be reporting something with verifying it first. By the very nature of rolling 24 news information is reported, before it is verified. It is best to check whether it is established and verified by several sources, and until then use qualifiers such as "Alleged".

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That was interesting to look back on. Thanks for sharing. I remember reading reports that battlefield experienced military guys in the Pentagon were convinced that bombs had gone off in Pentagon based on the distinctive sounds of the explosions.

One wonders were these soldiers able to different between a "bomb" and the sound of a jet engine being flown at speed into a reinforced building. While I imagine there are innumerable people in the pentagon who can tell you what a bomb, or a explosive, or a artillery shell sounds like due to their prior experience with these matters, no one had really any point of reference as to the sound a jetliner crashing into the building you're sitting in would be a more rarefied circle of people. pre 9/11.

Also, there was a large number of people doing "renovation" work on the side of the building that was hit that had all miraculously cleared out in time before the plane hit.

125 Pentagon Personal were killed in the attack so the miraculous clearance is clearly specious.

As to the renovation work. The Hijackers hit the side of a five sided building that was being renovated. Not being a statistician I can only guess that the odds of the plane hitting that part of the building were a astronomical 1 in 5.

enno99

Sixtus wrote: »

As to the renovation work. The Hijackers hit the side of a five sided building that was being renovated. Not being a statistician I can only guess that the odds of the plane hitting that part of the building were a astronomical 1 in 5.

what are the odds for this type manouvre ?

Alright dont answer that. I think I got it

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

So why didn't they come from the west and go straight for the supposed target area?
Why, in the conspiracy narrative did they make such a wide loop that makes it a dead give away?

Sixtus

enno99 wrote: »

what are the odds for this type manouvre ?

Alright dont answer that. I think I got it

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

No it's a airplane travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, and at several thousand feet, the pilot saw the pentagon, and engaged in the simplistic manoeuvre a steady descent and long turn.

It seems that you don't understand that a plane travels in 3 dimensions and you can't brake and do a 3 point turn in one.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

He was misquoted.

Huh?

He was speaking on live TV.

Sixtus wrote: »

Name and badge number of this officer please.

Oh what's that, you haven't got either of those this because it

Thank you your honesty

I'm not exactly sure why you want the badge number but here is the live police radio recording of the incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4FBaK_fRo

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

One wonders were these soldiers able to different between a "bomb" and the sound of a jet engine being flown at speed into a reinforced building..

I would assume so as they are the noises of two different things. Do they sound the same?

Sixtus wrote: »

125 Pentagon Personal were killed in the attack so the miraculous clearance is clearly specious.

As to the renovation work. The Hijackers hit the side of a five sided building that was being renovated. Not being a statistician I can only guess that the odds of the plane hitting that part of the building were a astronomical 1 in 5.

You misunderstand.

I am talking about the renovation crew the started work in the Pentagon on 911 but had cleared out completely before the plane hit the Pentagon.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

It seems that you don't understand that a plane travels in 3 dimensions and you can't brake and do a 3 point turn in one.

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Bad reporting is a misnomer. A more accurate statement would be reporting something with verifying it first. By the very nature of rolling 24 news information is reported, before it is verified. It is best to check whether it is established and verified by several sources, and until then use qualifiers such as "Alleged".

Ohh yeah just like the firemen you quoted as saying building 7 was fully engulfed in flames

Try again

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

Cheers BB belligerance and bad manners are not uncommon here

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Cheers BB belligerance and bad manners are not uncommon here

Can you imagine sparking up a conversation with someone face to face with a stranger say and them out of the blue and unprovoked saying "I assume you don't know that a plane flies in 3-D" in a sneery way. I'm a peaceful man but I'd feel lie knocking them out tbh".

People don't talk like that in the real world -- if they did they'd end up eating most of their meals through straws. I don't know why they can't apply the same standards here

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

I thought I was on ignore.

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

Ohh yeah just like the firemen you quoted as saying building 7 was fully engulfed in flames

Try again

And photos, and the testimony of dozens of firefighters confirm that it was fully inflamed.

a number of staff in pentagon made statements that when they heard the impact "it sounded like a bomb or explosivies being detonated) however these statements were made by people who were not in full possession of the facts, and it was there initial impression.

How many of those people who say it sounded like a bomb going off, still maintain that it was a bomb after they received further information.

The firefighters weiss by the way, all maintain that they saw a building fully involved in fire, and about to collapse. How many of them have changed or retracted their postions? Zero.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

So? Anyone who looked at the scale of the map and considered the speed and altitude the plane was travelling at and assumed the plane should have made a hand brake turn deserves a degree of scorn, and lets not forget the tone in which enn099 raised the issue

what are the odds for this type manouvre ?

Alright dont answer that. I think I got it

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

If he's going to start posting on this thread with this kind of patronising guff he can't get in a huff if the response isn't met in kind

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure why you want the badge number but here is the live police radio recording of the incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4FBaK_fRo

So to be clear, you don't have the name of the officer who says he saw the mural van blow up, or his badge number?

Great, keep making my point for me.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

So to be clear, you don't have the name of the officer who says he saw the mural van blow up, or his badge number?

Great, keep making my point for me.

What's your point exactly? I don't have the name or badge numbers of the officers who arrested OJ Simpson. Does that mean that he wasn't arrested?

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

So? Anyone who looked at the scale of the map and considered the speed and altitude the plane was travelling at and assumed the plane should have made a hand brake turn deserves a degree of scorn, and lets not forget the tone in which enn099 raised the issue

If he's going to start posting on this thread with this kind of patronising guff he can't get in a huff if the response isn't met in kind

What are you talking about any hand brake turn? You brought that up.

I'm quite sure the point he was making is that it was considerably easier to hit the Pentagon, as that was the target face in in the direction it was travelling from. Not do a 3/4 lap at low altitude and risk being shot down and make a sharp curve to hit an alternative side for no apparent reason or gain. And this is by a supposed pilot who was useless by most if not all accounts.

"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html#ixzz2M3iqj2LG

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you talking about any hand brake turn? You brought that up.

I'm quite sure the point he was making is that it was considerably easier to hit the Pentagon, as that was the target face in in the direction it was travelling from. Not do a 3/4 lap at low altitude and risk being shot down and make a sharp curve to hit an alternative side for no apparent reason or gain. And this is by a supposed pilot who was useless by most if not all accounts.

So again, why in the conspiracy narrative did they not fly directly at the targeted area? Or have the construction work on the face it would approach?

Why did they do it in a way that is apparently such a dead give away?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So again, why in the conspiracy narrative did they not fly directly at the targeted area? Or have the construction work on the face it would approach?

Why did they do it in a way that is apparently such a dead give away?

Why are you asking me about some "conspiracy narrative"?

His actions don't add up. Do you disagree? It would be like Atta flying past the WTC doing a U turn to hit the back side of the building for no apparent reason.

UNLESS there was a specific reason to do so. I can't think of one. His actions seriously jeopardised his mission for zero gain. The only thing I can think of is that he lost his bottle and then regained his focus.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What's your point exactly? I don't have the name or badge numbers of the officers who arrested OJ Simpson. Does that mean that he wasn't arrested?

What a infanrile argument theres plenty of coberating evidence that OJ was arrested such as yknow his trial.

in this inatance who have your xlaim that a NYPD cop rwported a car bomb blew up in NYPS on 911. We have no other supporting evidenc Debris from the hlast?.other eyewitnesss? NOTHING

Just a alkedged radio report of a supposed member of NYPD who is never identifed 12 yo later.

but thats good enough evidence for you that this occured? Pathetic.

what street? Whch officer reported it? What FNDYY units attended the scene.

wheres your proof?!?


Urg typo landen post on pyone will clean it up tomorrow.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

What a infanrile argument theres plenty of coberating evidence that OJ was arrested such as yknow his trial.

in this inatance who have your xlaim that a NYPD cop rwported a car bomb blew up in NYPS on 911. We have no other supporting evidenc Debris from the hlast?.other eyewitnesss? NOTHING

Just a alkedged radio report of a supposed member of NYPD who is never identifed 12 latera

I think someone has switched around the keys on your keyboard

Try again.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think someone has switched around the keys on your keyboard

Try again.

Read my edit.

btw BB do you think that every immwdiate eyewitness account particularly coming from events like 911 should be treated as gospel and completey accurate
And ignore later reports when a morre accurate and detailed picture is prwaented when mre facts become available.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Read my edit.

btw BB do you think that every immwdiate eyewitness account particularly coming from events like 911 should be treated as gospel and completey accurate
And ignore later reports when a morre accurate and detailed picture is prwaented when mre facts become available.

No. This isn't merely an "eyewitness account" it is a real time description of a qualified professional, an NYPD Officer, an expert witness at the scene who simply cannot be mistaken about a) suspects fleeing b) A van exploding c) suspects apprehended and arrested.