Tuesday, August 21, 2007

PUNCH-OUT PAGE {Masterlist}


PUNCH-OUT PAGE {Masterlist}
Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated July 16 2007


It’s long past time I worked out a study of the much-discussed but little-explained “punch-out” hole at the end of the plane’s trajectory through the Pentagon. The official story maintains that the disintegrating 757 plowed in a northeasterly direction clear through the E, D, and C rings of the building, the furthest-reaching elements from the fuselage coming to rest just outside the inside wall of the final ring, and into the open, ground-level service roadway past that – the A-E Drive that runs around the building between C and B rings. Burning debris was ejected with enough force to leave marks on the outer B ring wall, but otherwise stopped in the drive.
Russell Pickering of Pentagonresearch.com, who has studied the issue more than perhaps anyone else, aptly describes this exist wound as “one of the most anomalous features of the Pentagon attack […] absolutely inexplicable in terms of the composite nose of a Boeing 757-200 "punching out" through it," given "curiously little" of any plane parts outside of it. [1] It’s a perfect hole implying strong, evenly applies force and yet no ready sign of just what part of the plane made this and then - apparently - vanished before hitting the next wall.
Here is the earliest photo Pickering could locate of the hole, before any marking were spray-painted and before the debris inside was pulled forward. Note the ground is strewn with scattered bricks and flooded with water from firefighting efforts. [2] Compare this with with the damage to ring B's wall across from it [below], separated only by fifty feet of air; not a brick removed. [3]
Only a few photos of the exit hole have been released, many had seen it, and none have explained it with any useful precision. It has proven a magnet for mystery-mongers and skeptics from across the credibility spectrum.

How exactly the plane's trajectory wound up giving us what we’ve seen is left a bit vague in the official record.
- official "explanations:" confusion/silence over the exact cause of the hole.

- Analysis of the plane debris at and near the site.

- Carlson's backhoe punch-out theory assessed for errors

- Possibility of a purposeful, explosive punch-in

Personally I cannot venture a solid guess as to what happened here. The hole was either cut out with explosives for some reason or somehow caused by the barreling 757, perhaps via debris that was removed before the pictures we’ve seen were taken. I’m certainly open to suggestions. But I have to agree that IF there is a physical crime – an inside job element to the Pentagon attack that can be shown with evidence - this is the most likely spot to look.
---
Sources:
[1] Pickering, Russell. “Exit Hole” Pentagon Research. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html
[2]. [3] Photo Source: Pentagon Research. Exit Hole Chronology. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/062.html

3 comments:

Kevin Fenton said...

Found this:

"This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there."

It's not entirely clear what he is talking about and he might have gone back there after plane debris was cleaned up, but he seems to be contradicting Mlakar.

Also:

"As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out. You can see this is the -- some of the unrenovated areas where the windows have blown out."

This may or may not refer to the main punch-out hole - the transcript is very confusing. However, it is evidence that rescue workers were making punch in holes.

Link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1636

There was one better quote about the hole being a punch-in hole. I will try to find it.

Caustic Logic said...

Thanks for the comment, Kevin. I love getting comments. Anyway...

That line was from Mr. Terry Mitchell, chief, Audiovisual Division, OASD (PA), referring to a video they were showing, available at:
http://www.defenselink.mil/afis/clips/Sep2001/20010915.ram
He mentions above that
"This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there.

QUESTION: Which area is that?

MITCHELL: This is right inside the E Ring."

???
Then:
"This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever. As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out. You can see this is the -- some of the unrenovated areas where the windows have blown out."

I remember the pile of debris in front of the building that had little or no recognizable plane debris (compared to the punch-out with many plane bits). Also mention of windows - no windows on the AE drive. Somehow he's talking about the entry point on the E Ring. I guess he means the plane came IN thru that hole? I never heard of any hole being "punchec" in or out anywhere except by the plane, officially, so this is an odd quote - I'll have to see the video, but no time now.

Anyway, the investigation continues...

Caustic Logic said...

To clarify: I'm looking closer and it seems confusing and dijointed because we can't see what graphics they're referring to - the link for the ram video isn't working for me, and the slides in the PDF at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/g010915-D-6570C.html aren't clear as far as order in the presentation.

There are windows on the AE drive, just not on the first floor, but that ref is probably to the front of the building anyway.

The punch-in ref is still odd, and I don't know how to place it. "As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out." There is no picture in the PDF that seems to fit this.

Was it an early slip? Was the punch-out hole scrubbed from the PDF? Did the FBI intervene? Did Mitchell just misunderstand the hole and state what he thought? Or is this a ref to something else entirely?

I dunno...