Good afternoon,
This is my first topic posted.

The witnesses in the NSA video seemed very capable of discerning right from left.
It's that elementary, folks.
The cop willing to bet his life that the official plane route was wrong made me laugh out loud.
Who wants to bet their life on the official conspiracy theory?
Perhaps, they already did.

A lawful jury will easily be able to trust the testimony of these witnesses.
No more minutia.
The controlled opposition and government shills love to dwell on details, forever.
They have no plans to arrest themselves.
The light of truth will expose them.

Sincerely,

Dominic John Circolone

Pfeilstucker, Daniel C. Jr.
Daniel C. Pfeilstucker Jr., caught in the flying debris, didn't know if he was going to make it out alive. The Pentagon was on fire. "It was horrifying," Mr. Pfeilstucker says . . . Danny Pfeilstucker is a commissioning agent for John J. Kirlin Inc., a Maryland-based mechanical contracting company that worked on the Pentagon renovation project that was nearing completion September 11. . . . Kirlin Inc., among many companies involved in renovating the Pentagon since the early 1990s, was in charge of updating plumbing and heating units. Around 9:30 a.m., Mr. Pfeilstucker and a co-worker got orders to check a hot-water leak in a third-floor office on the western side. After doing so, he stepped off an elevator on the second floor in Corridor 4, ladder in hand. Suddenly the walls and the ceiling began to collapse around him. The lights went out. "It went from light to dark to orange to complete black," Mr. Pfeilstucker says. "It was so dark I couldn't even see my hand in front of my face. "Within seconds, his left leg buckled. Unable to grab on to anything, he was thrust 70 feet down the corridor and into a tiny telephone closet halfway down the hallway connecting E Ring and A Ring. All I know is that the blast must have pushed open the steel door to the closet," says Mr. Pfeilstucker, who had been 40 feet away from the plane's point of impact. He remembers shutting the door and trying to stand up, not understanding what had just happened. "I thought it was some sort of a construction blast," Mr. Pfeilstucker says. "Or maybe there was a helicopter accident." His hard hat and work goggles were blown away. His ladder also had disappeared. . . . The fire sprinklers came on as the temperature shot up. Then he smelled jet fuel and smoke. The putrid odor was seeping into the closet. "It was this odor that I can't describe, but one that I'll never forget, that's for sure," Mr. Pfeilstucker says. "It was so hard to breathe. I didn't think I was going to make it out."
Dead link: http://www.washtimes.com/september11/heaven.htm

Since this jet fuel did not come from an AA passenger airliner, it leads me to think something with jet fuel hit the pentagon.

This is not the only reference to "jet fuel" in articles/interviews. There's a number of things like burning fuel smell, fuel pools (if I remember well), even a very interesting "jet fuel found inside the lungs of a victim" (that survived).

I should have a list somewhere.

UPDATE:
I found 23 quotes about fuel. I think I have sources for all of them.

Well, since nothing like that was actually witnessed, it was more likely the exploding fuel tanks behind the generator trailer.

Thanks for the response, riv.
23 witnesses cannot be readily discarded so easily.

Birdwell, Brian, LTC
He was just heading back down the hall to his office when the building exploded in front of him. . . .
. . . [He was] transferred . . . to George Washington Hospital where [he was treated by] the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.
"Pentagon Survivor LTC Brian Birdwell," USMA 1961 Luncheon Speaker, July 18, 2002

I have no intention to simply write this witness testimony off as mistaking kerosene for jet fuel.

Was the doctor interviewed to determine if they know the difference between kerosene and jet fuel?

I can't readily dismiss this testimony:Jarvis, Will
From time spent on military aircraft as part of his job at the Pentagon, Will Jarvis . . . knows what aviation fuel smells like.
That smell was his only clue that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon, where he works as an operations research analyst for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
"Testimony to Tragedy," University of Toronto Magazine, Winter 2002

Hey thanks for the reply, janusaur.

Are you convinced Will Jarvis mistook kerosene for jet fuel?
Did Craig try to interview any of the witnesses that smelled jet fuel?

I think there is more than enough evidence already, but Craig threatened to ban me if I talk about anything other than evidence, so here is more evidence to discuss...

RAY SUAREZ: On that left side was wedge two, part of the unrenovated original Pentagon with no sprinkler system and tons of asbestos. On the right side was the newly renovated wedge one with a brand new advanced sprinkler system.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/j...lding_1-16.html


American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/...enovations.html

USA Today
In the renovated section outside the immediate crash zone, most damage was caused by smoke and water that poured out of brand-new sprinklers. . . .
But there was extensive fire damage hundreds of feet away in unrenovated areas that had not yet had sprinklers installed. The fire was so intense it cracked concrete.
"Pentagon repairs to cost $700 million," Associated Press / USATODAY.com, 1/1/02

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta09.html


USA Today
The massive explosion and fire fed by 20,000 gallons of jet fuel spread destruction over 2 million square feet -- almost a third of the building. It killed 189 people, 125 inside and 64 on the plane.
Luck -- if it can be called that -- had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach.
In the renovated section outside the immediate crash zone, most damage was caused by smoke and water that poured out of brand-new sprinklers. Many of these offices are occupied again.
But there was extensive fire damage hundreds of feet away in unrenovated areas that had not yet had sprinklers installed. The fire was so intense it cracked concrete.
"Pentagon repairs to cost $700 million," Associated Press / USATODAY.com, 1/1/02

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/01/01/pentagon.htm

There are many reports stating the pentagon did not have fire sprinklers in the yet to be renovated areas. Even Mikey (the controlled opposition) Rivero spreads this utter nonsense.

Check this out...

"A great deal of thought has been given to protecting the Pentagon from fire. Its steel-reinforced concrete construction makes it a fire resistant building. In addition, the main interior walls above the basement level are of masonry. The basement, where the maintenance shops, garage and storage rooms are located, is divided into fire areas by reinforced concrete firewalls with double, automatic firedoors. Transformer vaults and machine rooms throughout the building are protected by masonry walls and firedoors.

"Automatic sprinklers are located on the first floor and in the film-storage vaults on the top floor as well as on the roof. One hundred twenty-eight standpipe systems with an average of 125 feet of fire hose in 672 hose cabinets are distributed throughout the building. portable fire extinguishers are readily available, as are carbon dioxide fire extinguishers on wheels, which are located in the corridors, and 465 fire alarm boxes. Rooms with special fire hazards are equipped with automatic fire fighting systems. Outside the building there are 41 fire hydrants, and an additional 14 wall hydrants are inside court areas. Guards trained in fire fighting are on duty around the clock, more help is available from nearby fire departments if it is needed."

— Gene Gurney, USAF, The Pentagon - A Pictorial Story, 1964. p26.


http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

Why all the lies about 9/11?

I asked this very same question 9/11/01.

QUOTE
One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one.


Can I get the source for this information?


I can't find anyone talking about tanks full of propane and aviation fuel near the pentagon.
Why would there be tanks full of propane and aviation fuel in close proximity to the pentagon?

Note: Upon further investigation it seems aviation fuel is basically a kerosene based cocktail.

AVIATION TURBINE FUEL (JET FUEL)

CIVIL JET FUELS

Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosene type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosene (a blend of gasoline and kerosene) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.

JET A-1

Jet A-1 is a kerosene grade of fuel suitable for most turbine engined aircraft. It is produced to a stringent internationally agreed standard, has a flash point above 38°C (100°F) and a freeze point maximum of -47°C. It is widely available outside the U.S.A. Jet A-1 meets the requirements of British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosene type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

JET B

Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosene fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1 but because it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability), there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. In Canada it is supplied against the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23

MILITARY

JP-4

JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-4. (As of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-4 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.

JP-5

JP-5 is a high flash point kerosene meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-5 (as of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-5 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). NATO Code F-44.

JP-8

JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-83133E. JP-8 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.

Kerosene can easily be mistaken for jet fuel.

Sure, but more importantly there was jet fuel there since the tanks contained aviation fuel for helicopters coming and leaving from the helipad.

Bottom line, the presence of aviation fuel is not evidence of a plane impact.

Thanks, Janusaur.

Can I get the source for this quote, please?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur, hence, I declared "Since this jet fuel did not come from an AA passenger airliner, it leads me to think something with jet fuel hit the pentagon."

Can't tell if you're intentionally trolling or not, but you do realize that the jet fuel did not come from any aircraft?

Surely you understand that the presence of jet fuel from exploded tanks next to the Pentagon does not imply an object hit the Pentagon?

Presence of Jet Fuel does not = something hitting. Obviously given the scope of the op there is the potential for planting it there beforehand.

from_day_one,

This forum does not welcome alternative theories. This is a research forum centering around the evidence we have uncovered.

There is no evidence for a plane or anything "hitting" the wall.

So far, you have managed to imply trust issues with Craig, implied we have a ban happy nature with those that "don't agree", and now you are insisting on pushing the notion that there is jet fuel and that it came from "something" that hit, and promoted a very well known "No Plane"(@towers) "documentary"-something we consider to be vicious disinformation.

We consider this A. Subversive behavior B. A form of disinformation.

I will politely ask you one time to stick with the evidence WE have obtained.

If you don't, you are gone. I will be a watching your posts very carefully.

EDIT: He was banned.