TWISTED ORANGE TRAILERS

TWISTED ORANGE TRAILERS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 18 2007
last update 1/2 1am

I'm still working out my analysis of the trailers-in-the-impact-zone situation: were they exploded to string airliner-ish confetti across the lawn and helipad as some have speculated? Were they removed entirely before the event as satellite images (see left) suggest is quite possible? Attack witnesses Micheal DiPaula gives a picture of an amptying but not empty construction zone: “we were in the process right prior to September 11 cleaning out the area. We just – we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building. And we had one trailer left, which was the – we had the Singleton trailer out there. And – and then we had some other trailers over here. So that’s the lay down area, were the plane actually came over.” So it seems possible there were trailers right there, and gone after, presumably removed by the plane on its way in. Are there any photos of trailers inside the Pentagon? What constitutes a trailer exactly? Why the hell am I still wasting time on things like this? These are the questions I've been tackling for the last three days.

In this case just the graphics and a few notes and links should suffice. Thanks to John Farmer for bringing up this issue again and spurring me with his post The Trailer (redirecting at the moment). Until I read that, I'd been baffled by the melty cheesy form seen in the construction area just north of impact, by the burning SUV (see below), seeing an orange tarp - or something - though others had previously identified this as some type of trailer. More accurately, as Farmer proposed, I'd consider it a steel cargo container, the angle from it being tipped over by the left wing, and the warping mostly due to fire that gave it the rust color. It seems it may have been ON a towable trailer, judging by the floor remaining beneath it and apparent wheel axle. This graphic represents what I feel is the most likely style matching the Pentagon sample, with various matching features highlighted.


Doesn't look quite right? For comparison, see these sample images of cargo containers subjected to explosion and fire aboard the M/V Hanjin Pennsylvania, which burned for four days off the coast of Yemen in November 2002 after a nasty fireworks mishap. The twisted shapes are those that fell to the bottom of a massive container cell that collapsed. Note the different appearance of corrugated vs. bare-ribbed walls, perhaps different styles of container. The pictures and info were found at this site.

Compare again to this stray scrap photographed from at least two angles, found just inside the Pentagon. It appears to be neither part of the plane nor of the building. In fact it looks kind of like somethinng from the Pennsylvania. Below are the shots these are from, the second (by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino) I've labeled with the likely column assignations. There are no supports on line 10 in this area, and by looking at the photo index in the ASCE's Performance Report, I've pegged this snake skeleton of a remnant as that of column 9B.
Below is the ASCE's column damage pattern laid over a rendering of the September 7 satellite image (lined up along expansion joints, in black). The trailer location on the right (the plane's left) corresponds roughly with the tipped and melted trailer seen above. The one on the left more closely matches the position to have wound up at column 9B given the 'official' 757 trajectory (red arrows represent approximate angle and impact points of engines and fuselage).

Therefore I speculate that we're dealing with two similar cargo containers in the spots where containers and trailers had previously been seen. One remained outside, the other inside, battered, and invisible in the available photos but for this good-sized scrap (and possibly others if I dug deeper). The intact one shows no sign of exploding to scatter debris, being as it is intact. The other possible container or trailer would have had to undergo a peculiar directed explosion to put it inside the building while leaving no similar traces I've seen in the other direction, away from the building. So while both possible trailers are possibly compatible with a plane strike (no detailed forensics yet), neither seems to make sense from the explosion and fakery hypothesis.
---
Update: Two more pictures of a rather shiny looking warped trailer, near the same construction scaffolding seen in other photos of the trailer.
These are close-up crops of Jason Ingersoll high-res photos provided by CIT. Another from that batch also has background details useful here, from later in the day, after it dried up:

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 20 2007
pretty much final Nov 21 3 pm

In the interest of critical thought regarding fakery of the Pentagon plane impact, I’d like to address the massive fireball unleashed when the plane *supposedly* struck the building. This was reportedly unleashed from the exploding fuel tanks of the 757 that impacted at a 39 degree angle traveling 530 mph or more. By the laws of physics, the motion of the expanding fireball would be determined by some combination of its general expansion (in all directions,) the forward momentum it retained from its flight there, and the angle of deflection and as such should spread across much of the building face, especially to the left (north) of impact, pressing against limestone and glass alike on its way. It would also have some tendency to rise and roll forward over the facade, igniting the roofing materials.

If there was a staged overflight with on-the-ground explosives and pyrotechnics used to create the fireball, it would either somehow have to mimic this pattern, or reveal the deception with inconsistencies. Ignoring for the moment the likelihood of this fakery, let’s look at some of the evidence of this event and its aftermath; whether it was stage-managed or simply crashed into, what does the building and the scene reveal about what actually happened?

The Crappy Video Evidence
First, let’s look at the famous and much-questioned CCTV security gate video of the attack. These choppy sequences of images (video at one frame per second) were captured by two cameras near each other at a security post just north of the supposed crash site. They show the plane (in black or white, depending on how one sees it) for one frame, about 600 feet from the cameras and closing at an oblique angle, less than a second before a bright flash at impact in the next frame, followed by a surging orange fireball that engulfs the building (below). That seems to make sense. The silhouetted structure is the heliport tower. Note this for later.


Note the deflagration's apparently triangular or conical shape, peaking just to the left of the building edge. I’ve seen this taken as a static, Christmas tree-shaped mass of fire, rising straight up from an epicenter in the building – as if the upper floors weren’t there, proof of obviously bad photo-editing. Another explanation is that the incandescent mass is rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera, if the ‘official’ trajectory is any clue. And a third possibility is that it was Photoshopped right to look like it should, which would look the same as the second option.

If the blast originated within, as a flyover would indicate - and the video were honest – I feel it would look something more like this (at left): an apparent fuel explosion (I'm not sure) inside the building five minutes after impact radiating out from the first and second floor impact wound. What we see here is indeed consistent with a fireball rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera (see below). The glowing mass spreads along the façade to the area behind the heliport – it’s certainly difficult to imagine any inside-the building incendiary package actually doing this.Debris movement as seen in the video is another clue; some fragments hurtling out and ahead of the fireball seem to move backwards, but the larger pieces go forward, and presumably towards the camera, another clue of its overall momentum. As so many have said before, of course, this controlled video footage would have been easy to doctor, and so we're left with the old question - is it live or Memorex?


Post-Attack Photos
For whatever reason, photographs of the scene are not as often accused of fakery, but in fact they are easier to doctor. But ignoring the pit of paranoia that opens, here is a photo of façade burns after the impact and collapse, taken from an angle similar to the gate cameras. In fact, the cameras are in and in front of the small foreground buildings. The taller structure between them is the heliport/fire station. Compare the burn area to the left of the collapse zone to the narrower area to its right (not so clear in this shot). Also note for reference the security camera in about the middle of the wide left area.

This face-on early shot taken by Steve Riskus shows the area before the collapse, just minutes after the impact. Already we see that even after the fireball has passed, there are rectangular patches of fire that has somehow gotten inside of widows, and much further to the left than to the right (heliport cropped off the left side). This is yet more evidence of a fluid combusting with forward momentum consistent with a path from the southwest combined with expected deflection angle.


Upper Floor Fires
And in this picture, again after the collapse, note the same asymmetry and also the fires flaring out from inside on upper left, some of those that raged and smoldered inside for over a day. I’m not certain of the official take but would guess these are believed to be caused by the impact fireball breaking out windows in the un-renovated wedge two, and entering the upper floors though these breaches.

ASCE, Pentagon Building Performance Report, 2002:
“Clearly, some of the fuel on the aircraft at impact did not enter the building, either because it was in those portions of the wings that were severed by the impact with the facade or with objects just outside of the building, or because it was deflected away from the building upon impact with the facade; that fuel burned outside the building in the initial fireball.” [p 41] "Windows that had not been upgraded generally were broken for several hundred feet to the north of the impact point." [p 28] "A large fireball engulfed the exterior of the building in the impact area.Interior fires began immediately." [p 20]

These observations of the ASCE would support the theory that these upper floor fires far from impact were injected by this possible engineered inferno. The following passage however is confusing: "Most of the original windows in a vast area of Wedge 2 were broken after the fire was extinguished. It is probable that some of these windows were broken by the fire or by firefighting efforts rather than by the effects of the impact." [p 44] This gives little clue of just how the fires got started behind these intact windows. With the fire unable to spread laterally through walls from the actual wing impact points, let alone up through floor slabs, it seems likely the fire came in from outside.

The Running Eyewitness Evidence
The rolling deflagration was reported by eyewitnesses, including Fort Myer firefighters Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper, and Dennis Young, close enough to have to run for their lives as it billowed towards them. On duty at the Pentagon’s heliport (which has a mini-fire station beneath it and an on-site engine, ‘foam tender 161’), Wallace and Skipper were outside the station, inspecting 161 they had just parked against the Pentagon’s outer wall. As Newsweek reported:

“The two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away -- the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." [source: "Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html]

Wallace’s account is interesting in that his image of its trajectory and altitude indicated imminent impact; and being so close to its said impact location, he’d have the perfect vantage point to see it work its flyover magic, (80 feet off the ground minimum to pass over). But being so close to its anticipated impact point from 25 feet up and 600 feet away, he was running with his eyes pointing away from it at the time. At any rate, it’s a good thing they ran instead of standing and fighting the fire like men. It would have won. This is Foam 161 afterwards, at the spot they were standing when the plane first came into view. Jon Culberson photo, Smithsonian

By the flyover hypothesis championed by some, however, this palpable pressurized explosion was not the effect of impact, but something engineered beneath the steeply pitching plane.

The Challenge
The usual proposal for non-plane damage is a truck bomb out front, or bombs inside the building. Any number of explosive materials could be used – including a jet fuel element to simulate a 757 strike – and different mechanisms employed to create the angle of the engineered fireball. Who knows, huh?

Well, for people who claim something to that effect actually happened, it would be useful to have some guesses at hand. So I challenge Craig and Aldo of the Citizen’s Investigation-ish Thing to offer a plausible method for how this was all faked. An unseen incendiary catapult hidden behind the generator to hurl a fireball against the wall as the explosives blew outward? I seriously challenge them – describe the least Rube-Goldberg-esque contirivance, the least exotic weaponry they feel may have been actually used. Diagrams, specifications, numbers, guesses as specific as they’re willing to get. Brainstorm on it. People are watching.

Simply branding it as another point that could be done any number of ways will not suffice. Sure, they’re investigating people with theoretically unlimited power and they’ve said before they don’t need to explain how, since their witnesses prove this was all staged somehow. While that presumption remains contested, if this fireball fakery was another of the many points of deception, it had to happen in some way, by some mechanism, or it wouldn’t happen. Columns can be bombed. Poles can be clipped or torched down and hidden. Fences can be torn down. Generators can be pushed, etc. But what on earth could hurl a fireball like that against the façade of the Pentagon? I’d love to see any guess as to what, other than a crashing jetliner, it could have been? Or failing that another tap dance routine will suffice.

I'm not trying to push this as some smoking gun debunking either, just a good point to offer a firm challenge on. And Aldo, you aren’t banned here. Feel free to comment.

VIDEO REVIEW: PENTAGON STRIKE

First released for free viewing online in mid-2004, the Flash animation short Pentagon Strike (subtitled “what hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”) immediately made waves with its slickly-produced, strong-seeming argument that something other than a Boeing 757 was responsible for the attack on the Pentagon. It was created by Darren Williams, a 31 year-old British systems analyst and member Laura Knight-Jadczyk’s Cassiopaea.org. Williams e-mailed a copy of the video to Knight-Jadczyk, who posted a link on the group's Web site August 23. “Within 36 hours,” the Washington Post later reported, “Williams's site collapsed under the crush of tens of thousands of visitors. But there were others to fill the void […] Across thousands of sites, demand for the video was so great that some webmasters solicited donations to pay for the extra bandwidth.”

My younger brother first told me about this little mind bomb in late 2004. Until that point the whole no plane argument never did sound right to me, but he swore this video would change my mind. I finally watched it and was actually impressed, if still skeptical, and started my journey to sort the glittery from the gold regarding this part of the attack I’d previously ignored.

Eventually associated as well with the Quantum Future Group and the website Sings of the Times, Pentagon Strike is still available for viewing at the same site: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm if you haven’t seen it yet. It wouldn’t be entirely fair to call the video deliberate disinfo – Conspiatainment is a better word. It does give fair warning, opening with a screen reading in part “Critical Discernment suggested – knowledge and awareness recommended.” Of course they had a certain kind of “awareness” in mind, and knew few people at the time had much “knowledge” of the attack and would be well set-up to glean it from the video that’s done loading now…

It starts with brooding trip-hop music and a voiceover from Adolph Hitler, I believe, and text alerting us that despite the official story of the Pentagon attack, “in reality a Boeing 757 was never found.” What follows is a five-plus minute montage of still images and animated text in which circumstantial evidence like the seized videos of the attack is well-explained enough. The five stills from 2002 are analyzed incredulously, and a slew of eyewitness reports – or select snippets anyway – verifying all the tiring charges: small jet, missile, no plane parts, etc. Quoting the video’s backer Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the on-screen text reads “the very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action” had described something “like a missile.” This was a clever way of indirectly misquoting Mike Walters (who said it was an AA jet that was flying like a missile and two other witnesses who thought it sounded like a missile).

As for the video’s physical evidence analysis – what I didn’t know then but can finally comment on – the punch-out hole analysis is better than average; they have it correctly placed and no talk of six walls. But otherwise it’s an unprecedented display of the Frustrating Fraud, all the machinations used before and repeated later. Williams again rehashes the Meyssan trick of showing a spray of fire foam while claiming to show the single small hole in the façade. Deceptive long shots of the lawn showing no debris are brandished, and only the smallest bits are shown up close – a supposedly exhaustive run-down that passed up, as usual, the telltale landing gear found inside the building. The unmarked Pentalawn and a brief golf animation are cleverly used to imply a specific 757 witness (Tim Timmerman) was lying about his whole story – just look at that lawn! The blue tarp smugglers were vaguely shown in the section on plane wreckage with a large question mark. The unburnt stool on the third floor is featured, as it was in IPS at about this same time, in questioning where the supposed 757-full of jet fuel went (answer: across the two floors beneath that – it never touched the third floor).

But such misleading “facts” are emotionally bolstered by a varied musical underpinning with well-timed highs and lows and long moments of suspense punctuated with dark techno/trip hop and screaming groove metal borrowed from the Dust Brothers (via Fight Club) and Marilyn Manson. This work clearly puts emotion above logic even as a computerized voice tells the viewer “you are now looking at the objective reality – please stay focused.” The video seems designed to snap the viewer dizzily from one point to the next, a torrent of images, “facts” and “quotes” that has worn down the skepticism defenses millions of average 9/11 Truthers and likely created thousands of new skeptics itself. After an open-minded six minute viewing experience, it would seem almost undeniable to many that anything but a Boeing 757 struck the temple.

These people know all about “mind control machines” going into action.