Showing posts with label secondary explosions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secondary explosions. Show all posts

Friday, November 9, 2007

THE ELASTIC TIMELINE

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 1: THE ELASTIC TIMELINE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Nov 9 2007, 11pm
hopefully final update 11/13 1pm


An 18-Minute Error
Recently I had the minor pleasure of witnessing a notable timeline alteration regarding the collapse of the damaged Pentagon section. Still reported in some spots as occurring at 10:50 am EDT, it has generally been placed (9/11 Commission, ASCE, etc.) almost an hour earlier, at 9:57. But it turns out numerous better sources converge on a collapse time of 10:15 am – an 18 minute difference only sorted out by 9/11 researchers six years later. Notable mention in updating this must be give to Russell Pickering and LCF member Honway, whose work with time-stamped video provided evidence that unlocked the timeline mystery and soon more buried evidence was found. I’m now comfortable stating the collapse happened at 10:15, with earlier reports referring in confusion to an order issued to firefighters to evacuate the area in anticipation of collapse.

A 5-Minute Error
Not that such minutiae was or is very important to most, but a similar shift had happened with the more important impact time attributed to Flight 77, but that story changed five minutes backward and did so early in the game. Despite CNN having first broadcast about an explosion at the Pentagon at 9:39, in the days after the attack, the essential official story was an impact at 9:43 and generally taken as fact. Some examples: 9:40 graphic - 9:45 graphic - 9:43 CNN - 9:43 Patriotic site - 9:43 Christian Science Monitor - 9:43 CBS - 9:43 still repeated in 2007 - Etc…

It was only on September 18, a week after the attack, that NORAD announced a revised crash time of 0937(estimated) [1]. It’s not clear what this was based on, but NORAD were suspected by some of fudging it back to minimize the delay of defense indicative of a stand-down. However Col. Alan Scott, a NORAD officer active on 9/11, told the 9/11 Commission in May 2003 the time was shifted first due to an “entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have.” [2]. He also noted “it took about two weeks” to find this footage, so NORAD’s source as of 9/18 might have been something else. The 9/11 Commission accepting this time is often cited as evidence it was a lie, but one also supported by the Flight Data Recorder, the last frame of data at 9:37:45 (alternately rounded to 9:37 or 9:38). The radar record (see below) also supports this time, as do the NORAD tapes, and other points to be addressed in part 4.

9:43 Event Evidence Addressed
I spent a long time digging for all reports I could find for reasons 9:43 was first offered as Flight 77's crash time, and found almost no evidence at all directly indicating it. One possible exception is longtime CT researcher,founder of 9/11 Citizen's Watch, and DC resident John Judge, who later offered Paul Thompson ’the Flight 77 timeline’: “a 9:41 crash time into the Pentagon. I still say it was later, but certainly not at the 9:37 NORAD claims (and shouldn't they know?). I put it at 9:43 earliest, 9:48 latest, but maybe my clock is off. I did hear it hit and looked at the time.” [4] Earlier he'd explained that from his home in DC, 1/2 mile away, he heard a blast loud enough to shake his windows. [3]

A secondary explosion, like the ones widely reported by ear-witnesses, is one likely explanation for Judge's timeline. A few examples: “Two explosions, a few minutes apart, prompted me to start walking.” “Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.” “secondary and third-order explosions started going off. One of them was a fire department car exploding.” On-site news reporters and others compiled by Arabesque back this up. At least one powerful blast with erupting fireball was photographed by Daryl Donley within a few minutes of the attack (above - note this fireball is erupting as the area is already damaged and smoldering. Ralph Olmholt found a source somewhere indicating "jetting flame from an underground utility bunker, presumably a broken gas main" was said to be responsible for Donnely's "dramatic picture," a theory he doesn't seem to buy. [4]

This harrowing account by survivor Kevin Shaeffer, originally published in Shipmate magazine, and re-posted 9/11/02 at Citizen Smash/Indepundit, seems to support the original time:

“In a flash, at exactly 9:43 a.m., the entire Command Center exploded in a gigantic orange fireball and I felt myself being slammed to the deck by a massive and thunderous shock wave. It felt to me as if the blast started with the outer wall facing my backside, blowing me forward toward Commander Dunn’s desk. I never lost consciousness, and though the entire space was pitch black, I immediately sensed that I was on fire.” [5]

I'm not enough of an explosives expert to say if an orange fireball moving inward in the building and igniting him is indicative of any type of explosives package, but it does fit the profile of jet fuel hurtling inward. So this would seem more likely to be the initial impact than the 9:43 blast of what seems to be burning fuel moving outward. Whether he was watching the actual time and had seen it turn to 9:43 just before the event, or filled it in later based on the flawed initial reports is not clear.

It could be the loudest explosion was the one at 9:43, louder than the crash itself – loud enough it shook Judge’s windows a half-mile away – while for whatever reason he didn’t hear the earlier crash. Other DC residents may have heard the same thing, triggering a rash of calls taken as the most likely point just due to this noise factor - it was likely flawed intelligence echo chambered in the initial confusion that got the first timeline off by five minutes. It was probably not a sinister cover-up.

Or was it a cover-up? If the secondary explosion were, for example, engineered for some reason, as some have speculated, there would be reason for them to say that was the hijacked jet crashing. Hmmm.... Discussion at the Loose Change Forum was inconclusive on the cause of the explosions, although member Honway provided this highly relevant screen cature:
Gaffney’s 9:43 Cover-Up Evidence
Another possible reason for a cover-up has been offered by Mark Gaffney, a noted environmental and peace activist and published expert and author on ‘Gnostic Secrets.’ He wrote a seminal piece posted at Rense.com called The 9/11 Mystery Plane, regarding the E4B ‘doomsday plane’ seen and filmed over the Capitol. There at about the time of the attack across the Potomac, this airborne command center is thought by some to have been running the remote control for the Pentagon attack plane. As worthy as this analytical piece is, Gaffney followed it with The 9/11 Mystery Plane Part II: Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline?

Still eschewing overt silliness in favor of a relatively even keel, it elaborates on reports of the mysterious white jet over or near DC’s restricted airspace around 9:40-9:45, and alleges official flight path misinformation (vague at best) to allow us to believe this was Flight 77 before impact. Supporting this is live CNN footage from 9/11, where White House correspondent John King reported around 09:52 "about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead.” Gaffney summarizes “I believe that the US military announced the original 9:43 AM Pentagon crash time to conceal the presence of the E-4B over Washington.” [7]

However, recently released 84 RADES data, viewable here in stunning video form with Air Defense audio, shows nothing over DC at 9:43. An aircraft labeled “M3_0310” crosses just north of DC, flying west, at about 9:46-9:46:40, heads north then loops back south passing east of DC around 9:49. The E4B is also said to have passed the capitol twice, so it seems blip M3_0310 that skirts that airspace is this same craft.

This data must be approached with the proper caution due all evidence, but so far I see no particular reason to doubt it aside from its conflicts with 'CIT-compliant' eyewitnesses. But regarding this separate craft, if this is accurate and represents the white plane, it would seem King was rounding up when he said it passed the mall ‘ten minutes ago.’ Interestingly, its takeoff time – from Andrews Air Force Base - as seen in the video is 9:43:43, so if true it would have been on the ground at the official impact time as well as the 9:43 window. If this jet truly did not pass until 9:46, placing the impact time three minutes prior would have been a silly and risky gambit. This radar data has never been seen until now, but the cover-up might at any point have been exposed by any class of data: 911 calls, other call records, time-stamped video, etc. Or alternately, if other evidence supports Gaffney's claims, then the RADES data might be shown altered to conceal the true time of its flight.

Back Six More?
The RADES video linked to above also shows Flight 77 disappear from radar just short of the Pentagon at 9:37:12; this is consistent with its final dive to official impact 33 seconds later, and one more point of evidence that the shift from 9:43 to 9:38 was justified. But a sporadic attempt at another shift back of six minutes in the impact/explosion time - to about 9:32 – has been afoot for a while now and seems to have a lot of evidence backing it. Is it time for me to shift the timeframe back another six minutes, or is it not? This is my main reason for delving into timeline questions and the case for a ‘9:32 event,’ supported in part by Gaffney, will be introduced in the next post and its points of evidence directly addressed in the following one.

Sources:
[1] North American Aerospace Defense Command. “NORAD’s Response Times.” News release. September 18 2001. Accessed via: http://www.standdown.net/noradseptember182001pressrelease.htm
[2] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Second Public Hearing, panel 1. May 23, 2003.Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216, Washington, DC. Witness: Col. Alan Scott (Ret.). http://www.911commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm
[3] Judge, John. The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77. February 21 2004. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html
[4] Olmholt, Ralph. "The Dog Should Have Barked." Pentagon Reasearch.com. December 22 2004? ('date created' in html info) http://www.pentagonresearch.com/098.html
[5] Account of Kevin Shaeffer. Shipmate magazine. Original URL (non-funtioning): http://www.usna.com/News_Pubs/Publications/Shipmate/2002/09/Ring.htm. Accessed via: http://www.indepundit.com/archives/2002_09.html
[6]
[7] Gaffney, Mark H. The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II): Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Rense.com. July 5, 2007. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm

Friday, July 13, 2007

A PUNCH-OUT FOR CARLSON’S BACKHOE THEORY

A PUNCH-OUT FOR CARLSON’S BACKHOE THEORY
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 13 2007


The “punch-out hole” in the C Ring is a true mystery of the Pentagon attack, addressed by an anarchy of theories both in the conspiracy world and in the official story. Official reports fail to clearly explain the near-perfect “wall failure” at the end of the damage path through the building, though they tie it in one way or another to the airliner impact. [location, basics, and official explanations here.]

Some researchers have often seen the possibility that this hole was made on purpose, to some specification for an unknown reason. It’s been wondered if this was related to one of the secondary explosions reported by some. I had wondered on first seeing the hole’s near-perfect form and its size if it wasn’t made by emergency workers [see picture]. It's perfect for human entry, almost a doorway really.

One novel notion to this effect that I feel deserves its own brief post was proposed in 2005 by perennial no-planer clown Jon Carlson.” IT IS CRYSTAL-CLEAR,” he announced at Rense.com, “that this wall opening was made by contruction workers needing to access the inner Pentagon [and] NOT by a landing gear as claimed by Popular Mechanics. “ He presented “the evidence that the WALL OPENING next to the road that runs inside the Pentagon was actually made by a backhoe.” [1]

Carlson noted the symbols that look like upside down anarchy signs, bracketing the spray-painted words “punch out” to the right of the hole. Now, from what I know (a quick internet search) of construction terminology, a “punch list” is “a list of discrepancies that need to be corrected by the contractor,” while a “punch out” is a process of inspecting a site and making a punch-list. [2] In this case, it seems to be a directive to assess the damage inside, or an acknowledgement that the erea had been punched-out. But Carlson gets mixed up and explained “in CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY 'punch-out' refers to making an opening in a wall to access the inside contents of the wall or the inner room.” [3] Oops. Better run a punch-out on Carlson’s wrecked research for any discrepancies to bill him for.

First, let’s look at the Pentagon Renovation press conference from just after the attack that Carlson took as the “FINAL WORD” that this hole was made intentionally. Presenter Terry Mitchell said on September 15:

“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.” [4]

While it’s not clear which photo(s) he’s really referring to here, Carlson joined this quote with the photo below and for good reason. Note the markings, the flat/straight/square metal scraps (building debris), and the clear view through the gutted building to the (unrenovated) outer E Ring wall north of the impact point. It seems likely, as Carlson decided, that this is the photo referred to.


This must not be the case however – according to Russel Pickering of Pentagonresearch.com anyway, this photo was taken by a FEMA photographer on September 20, nine days after the attack, and five days after Mitchell’s presentation. [5]

Whatever he was really talking about, Mitchell’s “FINAL WORD” is not as useful as Carlson pretends; just before this quote he also said “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.” [6] There certainly were parts that seem to be from the plane at the punch-out [link coming], so if he’s talking about the same location, it would appear Mitchell got confused – calling it first a punch-out and then a punch-in. Or perhaps he was showing two different areas. Whatever the case, no other official sources I’ve seen mention a manmade punch-in - they all say the plane did it but can’t agree exactly how.

Carlson then looked at the photo above with its “orange circled 'V's [which] directed the backhoe operator to make the opening within the V's.” He also drew attention to “the orange arrow on left edge of the opening,” just beneath the “no-parking” sign. [7] This he seems to take as the “dig here” mark, but it was clearly painted on after the brick damage.

In fact in the first photos showing the hole there on 9/11, the wall bears no spray-painted “directions” at all to guide the operator, thus nullifying Carlson’s evidence here. This was all done after the fact. The purple backhoe directive to “punch out” the area with its bucket did not appear on the wall until September 14, just in time to be misread by Mitchell the next day. [8] The Vs and the arrow appeared earlier, late on the 12th. As for these symbols, they seem to stand for “victim,” as Pickering explained in his rebuttal to Carlson’s piece:

“[T]he markings on the wall to which Jon refers are international rescue symbols, not backhoe directions. The "V" indicates a victim has been located. If there is a line through the V (an upside down "A") that indicates the victim is deceased. If there is a circle around it, that means the victim has been removed.” [9]

Pickering’s chronological study of hole photos shows that the markings were not there by mid-day Tuesday, but the Vs had been placed, crossed, and circled by photos from that night. [10] Given the devastation inside, I’d find it curious that all bodies in that zone were cleared in less than a day before the morning of 9/13. This could be another clue, but I don't understand the procedures and it's a bit of an aside...

Despite Carlson’s transparently silly analysis, Pickering noted in his rebuttal “the exit hole is very important evidence to indicate a government cover-up because it can't be explained by an aircraft hitting the building.” [11] His worthy analyses of the hole can be found compiled here: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html Though I cannot agree with his certainty that this is something intentional, I must admit his theory makes at least as much sense as the vague official stories.

Sources:
[1], [3]. [7], [9], [11] Carlson, Jon. “PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole.” With responses from Russell Pickering. March 9 2005. Rense.com. http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
[2] Home Building Manual. Glossary. http://www.homebuildingmanual.com/Glossary.htm
[4], [6] Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, Deputy Asst. Sec. of Def. for Public Affairs, and Terry Mitchell, chief, Audiovisual Division, Office of ASD PA. The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia. September 15, 2001. 11:00 A.M. EDT http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1636
[5], [8], [10] Pickering, Russell. “Exit Hole chronology.” Pentagonresearch.com. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/062.html