View Full Version: Second Explosion At Pentagon

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Second Explosion At Pentagon

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Second Explosion At Pentagon
Description: At 9:43


dylan avery - February 21, 2007 11:42 PM (GMT)
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/pen...losion_CBS2.mp4 ( MPEG4, Open in Quicktime)

Is there any mention of an explosion at 9:43 in the official account, or anywhere else? I'm merely curious, not trying to speculate here.

Found this lying around in the directory as well...
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/pen..._explosions.mp4 ( Same as above)

Has any of this truly been explained? Exact cause been determined?

honway - February 22, 2007 12:15 AM (GMT)
Do you mean the explosion in the top photo?


user posted image

honway - February 22, 2007 12:18 AM (GMT)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448

"As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened."

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 01:50 AM (GMT)
No, guys....the impact occurred at 9:38. This explosion took place 7 minutes later.

honway - February 22, 2007 02:00 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Feb 22 2007, 01:50 AM)
No, guys....the impact occurred at 9:38.  This explosion took place 7 minutes later.

The explosion in the top photo appears to have occurred after impact. Note the developed smoke cloud and the fires on the left side of the photo.

honway - February 22, 2007 02:07 AM (GMT)
In a related event, are you aware the firefighters that initially responded had the fire nearly completely contained and then the firefighters evacuated the scene?

After the firefighters evacuated with their trucks and equipment, significant fire damage occurred to the Pentagon. The media never reported this event but it is documented in the photos and the After Action Report by the firefighters.

honway - February 22, 2007 02:14 AM (GMT)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=134938
Pentagon Fire: Can anyone help explain these photos?


Photos documenting the fact firefighters ran away from a Pentagon on fire
with injured inside a burning Pentagon can be seen at the link above.

The photo below was taken after the firefighters ran away from the fire.


user posted image

honway - February 22, 2007 02:18 AM (GMT)
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/5.jpg

Here is a link to a photo before the picture above and before the collapse of the wall at the Pentagon. Firefighters are on the scene.

honway - February 22, 2007 02:19 AM (GMT)
bump

Terrorcell - February 22, 2007 02:32 AM (GMT)
What the hell are you bumping this for?


honway - February 22, 2007 02:37 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Terrorcell @ Feb 22 2007, 02:32 AM)
What the hell are you bumping this for?

Thanks for the bump.

thehighwaymanq - February 22, 2007 02:48 AM (GMT)
whats a bump

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 03:03 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (thehighwaymanq @ Feb 22 2007, 02:48 AM)
whats a bump

This is.

water_bender - February 22, 2007 03:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (honway @ Feb 22 2007, 02:07 AM)
In a related event, are you aware the firefighters that initially responded had the fire nearly completely contained and then the firefighters evacuated the scene?

After the firefighters evacuated with their trucks and equipment, significant fire damage occurred to the Pentagon. The media never reported this event but it is documented in the photos and the After Action Report by the firefighters.

do you have any links to the source of this info?


water_bender - February 22, 2007 03:48 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Feb 22 2007, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE (thehighwaymanq @ Feb 22 2007, 02:48 AM)
whats a bump

This is.

i thought you did bumps in bathroom stalls.

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 04:43 AM (GMT)
Yes there was an explosion at that time.

Pugh has the audio of it in his video. Go to the little movie screen at the bottom of this page to hear it. This explosion occurs 1:02 into the Pugh video, roughly 8 minutes into the incident. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/091.html

This is one witnesses quote about it.

"A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene. They began ordering people back into their cars and away."

http://www.naualumni.com/site/apps/s/conte...17233&ct=489385


racerX - February 22, 2007 12:37 PM (GMT)
Could it be a fuel tank of the cherokee or maybe the generator? Or hanjour switched on the afterburners.. :huh:

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 03:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Feb 22 2007, 04:43 AM)
Yes there was an explosion at that time.

Pugh has the audio of it in his video. Go to the little movie screen at the bottom of this page to hear it. This explosion occurs 1:02 into the Pugh video, roughly 8 minutes into the incident. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/091.html

This is one witnesses quote about it.

"A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene. They began ordering people back into their cars and away."

http://www.naualumni.com/site/apps/s/conte...17233&ct=489385

Oh, I don't doubt it exists. I'm wondering if an exact cause was ever nailed down.

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 03:58 PM (GMT)
Not that I am aware of.

It appears it may have been internal. If it had been any of the fuel related to the generator or anything outside I believe Bob would have panned the camera to it.

We would have to know if there were boilers or propane in use at the Pentagon to associate it with building systems.

There were many flammable gases being used for construction as we know by the bottles burning/purging outside in the metal cages.

I presume there may have been bottles of that nature inside as well.

I also believe there are multiple sources of evidence for the use of secondary explosives as well. I just can't see the purpose of them so far into the incident.

I originally associated that explosion with the device that may have caused the "exit" hole. But I found a recorded interview of a person who escaped through it into the A/E drive. The time line of his escape and treatment have him through the hole prior to this explosion.

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 04:05 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Feb 22 2007, 03:58 PM)
Not that I am aware of.

It appears it may have been internal. If it had been any of the fuel related to the generator or anything outside I believe Bob would have panned the camera to it.

Russ, did you watch the video I uploaded? That explosion is definitely external.

Which brings me to your point. How did Bob miss it?

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 04:14 PM (GMT)
I don't have a viewer for it on this computer.

When I get to my work computer I will watch it and get back to you.

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 04:41 PM (GMT)
I just downloaded Quicktime and watched both clips. I had only watched the bottom one yesterday. I didn't see the explosion one since I thought you meant the two clips were the same when you said "same as above" because I am a moron and didn't realize you meant the same opening instructions.

Now that I have watched the explosion one and see they are claiming it was live footage at 9:43 exactly that makes it different. I thought we were talking a general time frame.

That sure looks like CM's clip from the USA Today Building. Do you have that around to compare the explosion? The clip where he grabs the camera and runs down the hallway.

Foam 331 is reported to have arrived at 9:44. Bob's video starts when that apparatus is already doing its first foam attack. He may have missed this 9:43 explosion then.

Send him these clips and see what he says maybe?

The flash nature of that explosion and its quick dissapation does strike me as a flammable gas explosion. At some point those containers that are burning in the safety cages outside had to purge or blow. This may have been that.

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 04:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Feb 22 2007, 04:14 PM)
I don't have a viewer for it on this computer.

When I get to my work computer I will watch it and get back to you.

This should help...

user posted image

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 04:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Feb 22 2007, 04:41 PM)
That sure looks like CM's clip from the USA Today Building. Do you have that around to compare the explosion? The clip where he grabs the camera and runs down the hallway.

Foam 331 is reported to have arrived at 9:44. Bob's video starts when that apparatus is already doing its first foam attack. He may have missed this 9:43 explosion then.

Send him these clips and see what he says maybe?

The flash nature of that explosion and its quick dissapation does strike me as a flammable gas explosion. At some point those containers that are burning in the safety cages outside had to purge or blow. This may have been that.

CM hasn't returned any of my e-mails, Russ.

I figured it was something gas-related. Just wondering if it had been pinned down.

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 04:48 PM (GMT)
Did Bryant Gumbel work for USA Today at that time?

If we can confirm that this is in fact the same explosion as in the CM video then I have a theory.

Note how much heavier the smoke is in this than in the Pugh video too.




Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 04:50 PM (GMT)
I mean the Youtube one where he screams "the Pentagon" and moves the camera after the impact.

I couldn't find the link to it.

dylan avery - February 22, 2007 05:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Feb 22 2007, 04:50 PM)
I mean the Youtube one where he screams "the Pentagon" and moves the camera after the impact.

I couldn't find the link to it.

No sir. Haven't been able to locate that. I just wish he'd release the full thing.

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 05:35 PM (GMT)
I sent you that link at one time. It was on my old destroyed harddrive so I can't find it.

I also posted it somewhere so I will try to find it.

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 06:08 PM (GMT)
Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j1Bo5tW8_o

For those that don't know - this is footage that a guy who had 3 cameras running on DC recorded. He got the idea to do this after NY and decided to film the White house etc. in case an attack occurred there. He however did not think of putting one directly on the Pentagon. A regret for him to this day. He captured the audio of the impact and grabbed one of the cameras and ran down the hall to get a better view of what was happening at the Pentagon.

I believe the clip Dylan posted is of the same explosion. If that is the case then you can hear CM still out of breath from running down the hall. Also he said he had about 15 seconds of elapsed time between recording the audio of the impact and the footage from the end of the hall.

That would make Gumbel's report inaccuarate time wise.

I am also going to make a graphic that shows the exact air space visible behind the Pentagon later. Since the 3 videos were running at the time of impact, this will narrow down the potential escape route for an alleged flyover aircraft.

I can assure you that the people who had this elevated view and were recording the video were very clear that nothing flew over the Pentagon. They laughed at the idea. They just don't want to get involved and hounded by hard core conspiracy theorists and accused of being government plants. There are also copyright/ownersip issues.

I am still trying to get all three videos (as has Dylan) but it doesn't look promising.

Terrorcell - February 22, 2007 06:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Feb 22 2007, 04:46 PM)
I figured it was something gas-related. Just wondering if it had been pinned down.

If we're speculating and no one is sure because there is no official explanation let me be the first to put out there that this was a delayed blast from a preset explosive device which must not have properly functioned that morning.

Kind of like the WTC 'squibs'............

Russell Pickering - February 22, 2007 09:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Terrorcell @ Feb 22 2007, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Feb 22 2007, 04:46 PM)
I figured it was something gas-related.  Just wondering if it had been pinned down.

If we're speculating and no one is sure because there is no official explanation let me be the first to put out there that this was a delayed blast from a preset explosive device which must not have properly functioned that morning.

Kind of like the WTC 'squibs'............

All of my fire department training and actual 11 years of experience indicates that it is one of the containerized gases exploding. In addition to that we have photos and videos of those gasses in safety cages in front of the Pentagon burning off.

It does not have any characteristics of a solid explosive.

Remember some things were normal that day!

The squibs are an entirely different matter.

Terrorcell - February 22, 2007 10:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Feb 22 2007, 09:32 PM)
In addition to that we have photos and videos of those gasses in safety cages in front of the Pentagon burning off.

It does not have any characteristics of a solid explosive.

Remember some things were normal that day!

The squibs are an entirely different matter.

Can you cross reference them to confirm their in the vacinity or because of the angle and distance is it too hard to conclude that was the cause of the secondary explosions?

You posted an audio of it and Dylan posted the video of it, maybe if someone mixed the two .........It would have the characteristics of a solid explosion? I mean if you have a fireball erupting up along with a solid 'bang' that's signs of an explosion, right?

Doesn't have to be a preset explosive device, could very well be what you said. It very well could not be too though.

honway - February 23, 2007 01:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (water_bender @ Feb 22 2007, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (honway @ Feb 22 2007, 02:07 AM)
In a related event, are you aware the firefighters that initially responded had the fire nearly completely contained and then the firefighters evacuated the scene?

After the firefighters evacuated with their trucks and equipment, significant fire damage occurred to the Pentagon. The media never reported this event but it is documented in the photos and the After Action Report by the firefighters.

do you have any links to the source of this info?

http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Fire...fter_report.pdf

Arlington County After Action Report

see pdf page 8 or Section 1:Initial Response Annex A page A-13

and

pdf page 52 or Section 2 Annex A page A-30

water_bender - April 26, 2007 08:26 AM (GMT)
after going through various pics of the pentagon fires, i've come to a possible theory. the second explosion came from the jeep. not sure of the exact nature of the exposion but the condition of the jeep from different times seem to show the jeep in good condition and the fire to be mostly out. later pics from the collapse and on show the jeep and 300z to be in horrific and burned out conditions. the cars seem to still be structural ok, but completely burned out. perhaps the second explosion was more of an incendiary than a compression type explosion.

Slaughtermeyer - June 13, 2007 08:03 AM (GMT)
Here's a CNN report that says the Pentagon was hit several minutes after 9:40:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...eo.09.html#11th

Look for the report by Peter Viles, it's on the left side, the 9th one from the bottom.

honway - August 11, 2007 04:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (water_bender @ Apr 26 2007, 08:26 AM)
after going through various pics of the pentagon fires, i've come to a possible theory. the second explosion came from the jeep.

I don't think that is likely.
user posted image

I possible theory involving the car next to the jeep would be more plausible.

honway - August 11, 2007 05:08 PM (GMT)
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/2.jpg

Click above for an image shortly after the initial explosion. It appears the car may be on fire. You can see the jeep above the top of the rescue unit.

JackD - August 16, 2007 07:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Feb 22 2007, 04:44 PM)
.

user posted image


smoke question:

where does it appear that the smoke is originating from in this photo?

at a later point, there was a lot of oily black smoke from the trailer/generator.

however, at this point, it appears that the smoke is coming out from somewhere inside the Pentagon.


Terral - September 25, 2007 04:05 PM (GMT)
Hi Guys:

Some of you will think this is crazy, but my view of these events has changed dramatically in the past week or so. The story about the taxi driver says,

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448

QUOTE
Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down [1st Attack] onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes . . .


Stop the action! The time here is not 9:43AM or 9:37AM. The time is 9:32 AM and the Tomahawk Missile just passed through the light poles on the ‘south’ flight path

user posted image

The BIG plane decoy flyover just took place to take attention away from the supersonic missile traveling from the far end of the Route 27 cloverleaf (in green) . . .

user posted image

. . . in just about 1 second. Now the story continues:

QUOTE
. . . Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a BIG BOOM [2nd Attack] and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.


Now five minutes have passed since the decoy flyover and the 9:32 AM missile strike the stopped the Pentagon clocks. Lloyd and his helper were messing with the downed light pole and BAMMM here comes the radio-controlled twin-engine jet on the North of Citgo flight path ( in blue) slamming into the E-Ring wall between Column Lines 8 and13 in a second failed attempt to bring the E-Ring roof down. Engine 161 was already on the scene in response to the smoke/fire plume from the original missile attack, seen by very few witnesses, so that some of the firemen were injured at 9:37 AM.

The DoD then made a third failed attempt at 7:43 to bring the E-Ring roof down by detonating charges that failed to go off at 9:32 AM, because the Tomahawk Missile damaged the primary wiring harness feeding the different zones. This gives us three different explosion points at 9:32 AM (missile), 9:37 AM (twin-engine jet) and at 9:43 AM (demolition charges), as the DoD took three swings and struck out. :0) Their blunder led to calling for bogus evacuations, until their demo crew could repair the wiring and finally bring the E-Ring wall down at 9:57 (Arlington After Action Report), 10:10 (CNN), 10:15 (News9) or my 11:20 AM collapse time; whichever you choose to believe. The people entering the scene after 9:32AM heard only two explosions, while most of those hearing the first (9:32) and second (9:37) did not hang around to catch the third.

GL,

Terral

Terral - September 25, 2007 04:25 PM (GMT)
Hi Jack:

QUOTE
Jack >>  smoke question: where does it appear that the smoke is originating from in this photo?


You can see the fire/smoke plume transpire into almost nothing in just a few frames here:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/e.../dodvideos.html

Start at the top and go down all the frames to realize we are out of fire at frame #8. Note that you have no sign of fire at all after frame 8 all the way down through frame 30. However, the twin-engine plane comes along at 9:37 AM packed with incendiaries and the scene is quickly transformed into this:

user posted image

Did you see 300 feet of fire along the base of the E-Ring wall in the security camera images? :0) No, and neither did anyone else. Engine 161 was parked directly in front of the 18-feet diameter entry hole from the 9:32 AM missile strike, because ‘that’ was the only location of any fire at 9:32AM to 9:37AM when they were almost killed by the twin-engine jet packed with tnt. Before you say, “Hey, they needed to have that jet in the air already!:” NORAD and the Joint-chiefs were involved in “Live Fly” ( http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm = see addendum) antiterrorist exercises with up to 22 Jets in the air on 9/11. This bogey was packed with charges and ready in case “Plan B” became necessary – and we see the results of their handiwork.

QUOTE
Jack >>  at a later point, there was a lot of oily black smoke from the trailer/generator. however, at this point, it appears that the smoke is coming out from somewhere inside the Pentagon.


The 9:37 AM twin-engine jet crash was far messier than the original 9:32 AM missile strike, which gave you cordite-based incendiaries and the oily kerosene fires in the picture. This case has been difficult to solve, because everyone is mixing together the ‘explosions’ of three different events to create one single distorted timeline that begins at 9:37 AM and not the accurate time of 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped from the Tomahawk Missile strike.

GL,

Terral




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree