Eastman Pentagon Thread: Part 2

[QuietStorm]

Part one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1244

Important links from part one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1771&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1772&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1773&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1627&page=
(link to cnn transcript:
http://commemoratewtc.com/transcripts/tr-10-00.php)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1780&page=

comprehensive list of eyewits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1244&mesg_id=1675&page=

cordite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1209&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1183&page=

don perkal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1203&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1208&page=

more eyewits and cordite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=1167&mesg_id=1212&page=

[QuietStorm]

1. Crispy: UAV info here:

Also Crispy I am not sure that the wing span has to be 95ft or longer. Is it possible as it hit one pole (depending on angle it came in) it could have rebounded into the second pole?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=2062#2080

[Old and In the Way]

2. Not a chance.

Either the 757 hit or they were taken down with timed charges....no other scenario fits.

See Anableps overhead pics that show the spacing.

[QuietStorm]

3. well I do not believe the tiny hole accomodates the 757

timed charges is an interesting explanation I have not come across. As for anableps overhead pics. I still have not been able to find her theory or work or photos. I do not have search here on forum and perhaps if I just put anablep into googles? you know I hadn't tried that as I read here on forum that while she writes for rense she goes by another name.

[RH]

4. anablep

see e.g. Pentagon Crash Questions Here: Part 5!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5368.html

anablep took her pics offline but some are still available on various other sites e.g. by Jeff Rense and this mirror page:

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

The "tiny hole" was wide enough to accomodate three F16 jets.

[QuietStorm]

9. I was refused access to your anderson.ath... link

I while have to go through the other DU links you provided, along with a pile of other review I still have not done.

[crispy]

6. No

No I doubt there would be a rebound. Plane at 460 MPH vs light pole = plane wins. If the plane did turn a bit then the wingspan could be a bit smaller, maybe as small as 80 feet, but the number is still large enough to rule out an F-16.

[QuietStorm]

7. perhaps you can interpret this better than I

ADM-141A Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (TALD)
ADM-141C Improved TALD (ITALD) (SOLELY OUT OF ISRAEL)

The Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (TALD)/Improved TALD (ITALD) heavy glide/boosted family of passive/active decoys are expendable decoys used in offensive operations against enemy air defense systems by diluting and confusing surface-based and airborne defenses with realistic tactical target characteristics. The TALD is an air-launched, aerodynamic vehicle whose purpose is to minimize the effectiveness of an enemy's air defense system. The TALD is a preprogrammed glide vehicle used to increase the survivability of strike aircraft. The Improved TALD (ITALD) is a TALD which incorporates a propulsion unit. Both systems operate as expendable vehicles with no recovery capabilities. Launch platforms include the F/A-18, F-14, EA-6B, and the P-3.

The TALD is an air launched, preprogrammed, unpowered, glide chaff, RF passive, or RF active vehicle used to deceive and saturate enemy integrated air defenses during strike aircraft operations. The three operational TALD configurations include, the A/B37U-1 (V1) chaff vehicle, A/B37U-1 (V2) radar passive vehicle and the ADM-141A radar active vehicle. While fit, form and function remain the same within version, manufacturing differences have produced variants.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/tald.htm

this seems to be an add on. IT is a launcher as I am understanding it which can be added on to the various platforms it lists. I am wondering since it seems to render defense systems defenseless if it might not have been utilized to scramble radar as significantly as it does seem to have been scrambled in the area on 9/11.

[crispy]

5. Re: QuietStorm

> THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN A BOEING IN THE SKY

> THEY HAD TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A BOEING ... IF NOT

> NO ONE WOULD HAVE SEEN A BOEING OR A COMMERCIAL LINER

> AND ALL THE WITS WHO SAW IT WOULD BE LYING. CAN'T BE!

You are assuming that witnesses saw exactly what they said they saw. Witnesses said they saw a mid-sized plane with red and blue stripes and windows. That doesn't mean it's a Boeing 757.

[QuietStorm]

8. that might well be true what you say.

1- I have yet to revisit the eyewitness accounts since reading them back 4 months ago. And you must forgive me at this point I have to read things through myself before I desist. However, I may be right about that.

2- it is not necessarily imperative that an actual BOEING 757 WAS IN THE SKY, just as long as what was did result in fooling the eyes, and

3- it still does not mean that one of those planes that looked like a BOEING or fooled the eyes of those eyewitness, did not crash land, even if it was a gliding crash, at RRNA.