Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon; New book intimately detailing Flight 77
Topic Started: Feb 20 2009, 05:56 AM (973 Views)
8bitagent	Feb 20 2009, 05:56 AM Post #1
Posts: 153 Group: Members Member #783 Joined: 08/02/08	http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055 Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 (Hardcover) Quote: Editorial Reviews From The Washington Post Reviewed by John N. Maclean It took only eight-tenths of a second for American Airlines Flight 77 to strike the outer wall of the Pentagon, penetrate the concentric E, D and C Rings, collapse upon itself like an accordion and ignite chaos. The jet spewed thousands of gallons of fuel through hallways, offices and meeting rooms inside the nation's premier defense installation -- into every place that airborne mist could go on the wings of an enormous shock wave. A series of explosions sent an ominous mushroom-shaped cloud into the air. The aircraft had punched a hole 90 feet wide at the entry point, then compressed into a bullet-like shape and burrowed 310 feet, or about twice its length, into the building. Its speed decelerated from 530 miles an hour to zero in less than a second. The bodies of the five hijackers were found about 100 feet from the point of impact; most of the bodies of the 59 passengers and crew, who had been herded to the rear of the plane, carried farther into the building. The final death toll included 125 Pentagon employees. Because the fire got under a thick slab of concrete covering the roof, flames burned for three more days. The repercussions of that day, though, will be felt for decades. In the same way that a previous generation remembers the Kennedy assassination, many Washingtonians will forever remember where they were standing, what they were doing and thinking, when they learned of the Pentagon attack and felt the shock of a terrible vulnerability. So question: If thousands of people sifted through the Pentagon hole and law, and inside offices and intimately described seatbelts, non Pentagon employee charred remains, burn luggage, etc. and people literally did see the plane slam into the Pentagon then 1. How is it possible a missile or passenger-less plane hit it? 2. How is it possible that no plane or object slammed into it?(CIT theory) and 3. How come during the Moussaoui trial and sense, the government has never released more pictures of the plane wreckage or albeit grizzly photos of the passengers? Weve seen al Hazmi's burnt drivers licence. And plane parts inside and out. I personally believe Flight 77 slammed into the 77 foot Pentagon. But I think its clear the flight path is a bit off and theres definitely some odd anomalies at play. Its 2009. Anyone have any new thoughts on this matter?
Posts: 153 Group: Members Member #783 Joined: 08/02/08


DoYouEverWonder	Feb 20 2009, 06:12 AM Post #2
Posts: 437 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	"The aircraft had punched a hole 90 feet wide at the entry point." Well that's a big lie. There's no visual evidence of a 90 foot wide hole in the Pentagon before the wedge collapsed.
Posts: 437 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Feb 20 2009, 07:03 AM Post #3
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	8bitagent Feb 20 2009, 05:56 AM So question: If thousands of people sifted through the Pentagon hole and law, and inside offices and intimately described seatbelts, non Pentagon employee charred remains, burn luggage, etc. and people literally did see the plane slam into the Pentagon then 1. How is it possible a missile or passenger-less plane hit it? 2. How is it possible that no plane or object slammed into it?(CIT theory) 3. How come during the Moussaoui trial and sense, the government has never released more pictures of the plane wreckage or albeit grizzly photos of the passengers? Weve seen al Hazmi's burnt drivers licence. And plane parts inside and out. I personally believe Flight 77 slammed into the 77 foot Pentagon. But I think its clear the flight path is a bit off and theres definitely some odd anomalies at play. Its 2009. Anyone have any new thoughts on this matter? 1. its not possible because it didn't happen. 2. well i dont know who saw seatbelts.....anyways some people post a picture of a pentagon employee who died at their desk and claim it is a passenger in their seat. if that were the case then we should expect to find more passengers still in their seats but there were none because there was none. people died inside the pentagon. that doesn't prove any of them where on a plane when they met their end. april gallop was there, unlike the author of this 'book'. she said a plane didnt hit. she said there was no smell of jet fuel or huge jet fuel fires but explosions that went off. she also crawled out the [not] 90 foot hole [excuse while i vomit on that] prior to the collapse. 3. because there weren't any. 8bit, i respect your work. a lot and you know that. the flight path cannot be off at all for your conclusion to be accurate. there is no room for error in this regard. the plane never hit any poles. no one witnessed it. the plane flew over the navy annex. the official flight path is now destroyed. the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station. the sustained damage is now impossible for the cause to be this plane. they blew it up and lied to you. lying = it's what they do.
Posts: 2,006 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


8bitagent	Feb 20 2009, 08:21 AM Post #4
Posts: 153 Group: Members Member #783 Joined: 08/02/08	Domenick DiMaggio Feb 20 2009, 07:03 AM the plane never hit any poles. no one witnessed it. the plane flew over the navy annex. the official flight path is now destroyed. the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station. the sustained damage is now impossible for the cause to be this plane. I will say despite all the hate on the CIT guys, I find it ballsy that they got on camera and or audio a wide bulk of the original witnesses to the Pentagon attack of whom all place the flight path far to the left of the official flight path as well as give a completely different flight path/360 turn as well as a different Cargo flight path and an alternate explanations of the E3b doomsday white plane. Its also interesting the government refuses to show any new photos or that any camera caught the attack on camera. Some speculated that the Pentagon attack frames were manipulated to show a corrected flight trajectory. I do graphic design, and if you blow up the highest quality may 2006 released frames of the attack from the .mil site, you can see a dark plane like object in front of the white plume of smoke(whom some mistake as the plane) It looks like theres a faint AA logo on the tail. But the plane seems so level, barely a few feet off the ground. But I see this footage of a jet slamming 500 mph into a wall, and I cant help but think...well when 500 mph jets slam into walls, there's not going to be much left: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 Edited by 8bitagent, Feb 20 2009, 08:21 AM.
Posts: 153 Group: Members Member #783 Joined: 08/02/08


Andoo Inc.	Feb 20 2009, 08:31 AM Post #5
Sir finds a lot Posts: 551 Group: Members Member #42 Joined: 01/15/08	yeah the level nature of the plane always threw me off. It never sat right. But then again the quality of the image was soo bad it made me sick that it's all they would show us. Of course there is nothing to hide.



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 20 2009, 12:14 PM Post #6
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	8bitagent Feb 20 2009, 05:56 AM So question: If thousands of people sifted through the Pentagon hole and law, and inside offices and intimately described seatbelts, non Pentagon employee charred remains, burn luggage, etc. and people literally did see the plane slam into the Pentagon then I'm confused regarding this leap of logic or why you would ask the question of "if" for these things without evidence. You aren't considering that quote from the book review to be evidence are you?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 20 2009, 12:26 PM Post #7
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	8bitagent Feb 20 2009, 08:21 AM But I see this footage of a jet slamming 500 mph into a wall, and I cant help but think...well when 500 mph jets slam into walls, there's not going to be much left: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 You're kidding right? How can you compare a 2 seat fighter slamming into about 10 feet of solid concrete simulating a nuclear reactor to a massive 90 ton Boeing hitting 2 feet of limestone, brick, and concrete? It's a completely flawed analogy to begin with but even if it wasn't it certainly would not begin to contradict the multiple lines of evidence you just mentioned proving a deception, cover-up, and FACT that the plane could not have hit the light poles or the Pentagon.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 20 2009, 12:31 PM Post #8
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	8bit, Were any of those firefighters on the outside of the Pentagon when the plane flew by?
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Bernie big shorts	Feb 20 2009, 03:52 PM Post #9
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	Hi, There was a thread about this 9 months ago. Also, here is an interesting interview with the authors: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90696597&ft=1&f=1012 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/352069/1/ Cheers, Bernie
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


8bitagent	Feb 20 2009, 06:21 PM Post #10
Posts: 153 Group: Members Member #783 Joined: 08/02/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 20 2009, 12:26 PM 8bitagent Feb 20 2009, 08:21 AM But I see this footage of a jet slamming 500 mph into a wall, and I cant help but think...well when 500 mph jets slam into walls, there's not going to be much left: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8 You're kidding right? How can you compare a 2 seat fighter slamming into about 10 feet of solid concrete simulating a nuclear reactor to a massive 90 ton Boeing hitting 2 feet of limestone, brick, and concrete? It's a completely flawed analogy to begin with but even if it wasn't it certainly would not begin to contradict the multiple lines of evidence you just mentioned proving a deception, cover-up, and FACT that the plane could not have hit the light poles or the Pentagon. First off, I have greatly enjoyed your guys work since the first early 2007 release. I've noticed on AboveTopSecret and elsewhere when people attack you guys, they never try to address the gravely different flight pattern anomaly. They don't address anything but hurl ad hominems and then the big thing: they go back to interviews or statements to say "See, so in so saw the plane hit". But I personally have not seen anyone explain how there can be two wildly different flight patterns. I am quite stunned at the level of cooperation of all those folks youve been able to get on camera/film. Independent films like "Severe Visibility" have tried to weave their own Pentagon, theory, but it's more than noteworthy that you guys have spent a considerable amount of time in DC/Arlington to have face to face time with people. However, as much as the government refuses to release pictures of passenger bodies or more of the plane part pictures...one has to wonder why so many reports are out there by first hand accounts of sifting through passenger remains, seats, etc. Now on the OC Register, one comment did stand out: Quote: No airport in the entire world reported Flight 77 landing. Hundreds of members of the Arlington County Fire Department saw bodies, luggage and airplane parts in the Pentagon. 184 of the bodies were postively identified. Not one single family member of the 59 people who died on that flight have come forward to support this nonsense. Over 150 first responders are named in a new book entitled, Firefight: The Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman. The CIT guys won't interview any of these witnesses. They won't contact anyone at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who conducted the autopsies. Basically, anyone who disagrees with their theory is either: in on it, being tricked by the "evil doers" or being somehow silenced. I find it imperative that all sides of things are looked at for impartialality. It's stunning admittedly how everyone you've talked to has staked their reputation by placing the plane decidedly at odds with the official NTSB flightpath. But what about the people who sifted through non Pentagon worker bodies, luggage, etc? One has to wonder just how many "operatives" would have to be in on it. The entire forenzic team? Planting al Hazmi's burnt drivers licence? I think that's why many folks are agnostic on the whole thing, as while controlled demolition at the WTC is a very rorschach test kind of thing to most...over a dozen witnesses sticking to a north side flyover is quite something. Anyways, I like ya guys. I'm just trying to envision a scenario where the Flight 77 passengers remains, luggage, etc is secretly stores inside or whatever theory some might have.
Posts: 153 Group: Members Member #783 Joined: 08/02/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 20 2009, 07:24 PM Post #11
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	You are talking about two entirely different things. Nobody has denied that people died in the Pentagon. We know that about 130 people were killed. There is zero independent verifiable evidence that ANY of the debris or bodies found weren't already there before the attack or that any of it had anything whatsoever to do with "flight 77". None of the first responders or pathologists had to be in on it nor have we ever said that they were. And besides, what you are doing here (based on a statement from the lying media shill Nick Schou) is conflating whomever might have analyzed the alleged DNA with the first responders and/or whomever might have collected it. It would be naive to suggest and actually foolish to assume that the same scientists who analyzed the DNA actually collected it from the Pentagon! They were simply handed plastic baggies of ash and and told to analyze it. The chain of custody of this "evidence" was 100% controlled by the suspect and is therefore 100% invalid. Furthermore there is ZERO independent evidence of "luggage" or people strapped to "airplane seats". That is based on nothing but rumor and conjecture. Plus realize that what you are dryly referring to as a "flight path anomaly" is not merely that. If the plane was where ALL of the witnesses in this critical area say that it was it is 100% scientific proof that it did not hit the light poles or the building. Do you understand this? Also have you watched our follow up presentations The North Side Flyover and The Eye of the Storm? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 20 2009, 08:24 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 20 2009, 08:28 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	8bitagent Feb 20 2009, 06:21 PM Anyways, I like ya guys. I'm just trying to envision a scenario where the Flight 77 passengers remains, luggage, etc is secretly stores inside or whatever theory some might have. See here's the thing, none of it had to be. Although maybe some was. Same thing about people being "in on it". All it takes is one guy to lie or even innocently embellish about seeing a body strapped to an airplane seat. Or maybe somebody honestly thought that is what they saw when it was a charred office chair. We'll never know for sure either way and theorizing about it doesn't really get us anywhere when it's clear the body of independent evidence definitively proves the plane did not hit. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 20 2009, 08:38 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mike_abcd	Feb 21 2009, 03:30 AM Post #13
Posts: 30 Group: Members Member #141 Joined: 01/20/08	Pls dont bash me. I really respect the amount of effort, time, money and enthusiasm put in by CIT. Thats really commendable, just like the loose change crew. The following is just my speculation - In the WTC videos - we have each of the WTC crash planes followed by another plane in the background (controlling the WTC planes?). I have a feeling we have a similar scenario of a small jet/ or a missile (most probably) hitting the pentagon, flying south of citgo via damaging the poles, and the main controlling plane flew North of the Citgo pathway. Just my speculation. Edited by mike_abcd, Feb 21 2009, 03:31 AM.
Posts: 30 Group: Members Member #141 Joined: 01/20/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 21 2009, 02:19 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mike_abcd Feb 21 2009, 03:30 AM Pls dont bash me. I really respect the amount of effort, time, money and enthusiasm put in by CIT. Thats really commendable, just like the loose change crew. Thanks man that's cool but the best way to "appreciate" it is by bringing attention to the hard evidence presented while helping us to avoid speculation like the plague. We have hard proof that 9/11 was an inside job so further speculation only sets us back and reduces everything to a conspiracy theory. This is no theory. This is war. There isn't a reason on earth that they would need to risk another plane in the immediate airspace to "control" anything. The notion is actually quite silly. We know that remote flight technology wouldn't require this. It's imperative to only focus on information that can be proven with evidence. There is ZERO evidence for a missile or 2-planes at the Pentagon but lots of evidence that this notion has been deliberately floated as disinfo to keep us off track of the flight path which is the true smoking gun.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bretwalda	Mar 2 2009, 03:22 PM Post #15
Posts: 205 Group: Members Member #173 Joined: 01/21/08	Everyone needs to see CIT's entire body of work before speculating on the rest. Those poles were cut down - plain as day in the photos. Remains pics from mousauii trial - no seat belts, no passenger seats. Edited by bretwalda, Mar 2 2009, 03:23 PM.
Posts: 205 Group: Members Member #173 Joined: 01/21/08


skunkrider	Mar 2 2009, 04:42 PM Post #16
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 21 2009, 02:19 PM mike_abcd Feb 21 2009, 03:30 AM Pls dont bash me. I really respect the amount of effort, time, money and enthusiasm put in by CIT. Thats really commendable, just like the loose change crew. Thanks man that's cool but the best way to "appreciate" it is by bringing attention to the hard evidence presented while helping us to avoid speculation like the plague. We have hard proof that 9/11 was an inside job so further speculation only sets us back and reduces everything to a conspiracy theory. This is no theory. This is war. There isn't a reason on earth that they would need to risk another plane in the immediate airspace to "control" anything. The notion is actually quite silly. We know that remote flight technology wouldn't require this. It's imperative to only focus on information that can be proven with evidence. There is ZERO evidence for a missile or 2-planes at the Pentagon but lots of evidence that this notion has been deliberately floated as disinfo to keep us off track of the flight path which is the true smoking gun. you're so full of absolutism, i'm having troube not to throw up. unless there's some real civil war between those that can't stand this society anymore and those that defend it (also called: armed resistance, which I am not calling for here), nothing will change, and the Pentagon story being exposed as bollocks won't change that either. I urge everybody to keep on speculating on anything that common sense and physics allow, and don't ever specialize. Specialists are idiots. Edited by skunkrider, Mar 2 2009, 04:42 PM.
Posts: 328 Group: Members Member #166 Joined: 01/21/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 2 2009, 07:03 PM Post #17
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	skunkrider Mar 2 2009, 04:42 PM you're so full of absolutism, i'm having troube not to throw up. unless there's some real civil war between those that can't stand this society anymore and those that defend it (also called: armed resistance, which I am not calling for here), nothing will change, and the Pentagon story being exposed as bollocks won't change that either. I urge everybody to keep on speculating on anything that common sense and physics allow, and don't ever specialize. Specialists are idiots. Yay speculation! Boo evidence! Exposing the deception won't change anything so let's keep having fun on the internet talking about it! Yipeeeee!
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Mick	Mar 8 2009, 10:53 PM Post #18
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 20 2009, 07:24 PM The chain of custody of this "evidence" was 100% controlled by the suspect and is therefore 100% invalid. If the plane was where ALL of the witnesses in this critical area say that it was it is 100% scientific proof that it did not hit the light poles or the building. How did you determine who the suspect (s) were? Is everyone involved in handling the evidence suspect? You were only able to locate 13 witnesses in your critical area? What is your definition of the critical area? How many of these people did you interview? http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Mick	Mar 8 2009, 11:07 PM Post #19
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	bretwalda Mar 2 2009, 03:22 PM Those poles were cut down - plain as day in the photos. I have seen light pole photos that show twisted and bent metal that supports the idea that they were knocked over. Have not seen a "plain as day" cut photo yet.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 9 2009, 04:53 PM Post #20
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Mick Mar 8 2009, 11:07 PM Have not seen a "plain as day" cut photo yet.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 9 2009, 05:11 PM Post #21
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Just to be clear.... Here is what the bottom of these cast aluminum break away bases look like when undamaged: This is the same style pole in the same area that was knocked down in a car accident: And this is staged light pole #4 from 9/11 with pre-fabricated damage:
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Mick	Mar 10 2009, 11:53 PM Post #22
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Are the poles you identify as 9/11 and non-9/11 of the same type, size and manufacturer? Did all of the poles near the pentagon show the same kind of damage? Are the poles designed to break away the same way when hit by a car near the base or the top by an aircraft?
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Craig Ranke CIT	Mar 11 2009, 12:16 PM Post #23
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Mick Mar 10 2009, 11:53 PM Are the poles you identify as 9/11 and non-9/11 of the same type, size and manufacturer? Yes. In fact the "non-9/11" pole is still laying on the highway right near the Pentagon. It's been ignored for years showing you how little cause for alarm a light pole on the side of the road would have been for anyone that morning if they were planted the night before the attack. Quote: Did all of the poles near the pentagon show the same kind of damage? Not necessarily but we don't have any high resolution close up images of the other ones. The point is that this one is clearly dubious. Quote: Are the poles designed to break away the same way when hit by a car near the base or the top by an aircraft? They are designed to break. They are cast aluminum. A sudden random force would not cause them to break in a perfectly uniform fashion leaving a sooty residue along the edge. Most importantly....the evidence proves the plane was nowhere near the poles:
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Mick	Mar 11 2009, 06:29 PM Post #24
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Craig Ranke CIT Mar 11 2009, 12:16 PM They are designed to break. They are cast aluminum. A sudden random force would not cause them to break in a perfectly uniform fashion leaving a sooty residue along the edge. Most importantly....the evidence proves the plane was nowhere near the poles: I get that they are designed to break. In my opinion that break you are talking about while much neater than the others is not perfectly uniform. The discoloration does not have to be soot. The break appears too smooth to have been cut with a torch, but too rough for a metal saw. As for it being evidence that it was not knocked down by an aircraft, it is not convincing to me. But it is interesting.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Aldo Marquis CIT	Mar 11 2009, 07:07 PM Post #25
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Mick Mar 11 2009, 06:29 PM Craig Ranke CIT Mar 11 2009, 12:16 PM They are designed to break. They are cast aluminum. A sudden random force would not cause them to break in a perfectly uniform fashion leaving a sooty residue along the edge. Most importantly....the evidence proves the plane was nowhere near the poles: I get that they are designed to break. In my opinion that break you are talking about while much neater than the others is not perfectly uniform. The discoloration does not have to be soot. The break appears too smooth to have been cut with a torch, but too rough for a metal saw. As for it being evidence that it was not knocked down by an aircraft, it is not convincing to me. But it is interesting. Yeah well let's not forget that no one saw the plane anywhere near those poles.
Posts: 1,650 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2