Eye witness Identifies a Global Hawk
"Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, reports:
Samuel Danner (electrical engineer for AmTrak), was involved in the clean-up at the Pentagon crash site and inspected the debris at the site.
He said, "It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. (There were only seven made as of 9/11/01 and two were missing at the time.)
Danner is a former pilot.
He said the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was very quiet with one engine near the back. He also saw a second plane overhead and wonders if it was controlling the plane that hit the Pentagon. He walked the lawn and picked up small pieces of debris with others. He did not see any bodies from the aircraft.
Danner is very ill now with lymphoma, which may be the result of DU exposure at the Pentagon on 9/11. He wants to talk now (after seeing "Loose Change") because "it's been bugging me."
The Global Hawk fired a DU missile that penetrated the thick concrete wall of the Pentagon. DU was detected at the time and workers on the sYep, this 53-yr old Sam Danner, a pilot since the age of 16, was a first-hand observer of the crash. He pulled his car over to the south of the pentagon on the right side of 395 when he saw the approach of the plane that hit the pentagon.
He also observed a bunch of guys outside the pentagon standing there looking through binoculars.
He got a good view of the plane's approach, for a duration of at least three seconds. He says that the plane was not a 757, no way.
"It was like a humpback whale" he says. Size of a gulfstream 300, about 100 ft wingspan, one engine on the backside with a "V" tail and no windows he could see. And it was very quiet. Going about 400mph. Overhead, at an estimated 15,000 feet he saw another plane.
As an EMT, he ran over to help at the pentagon, but found no bodies, no wreckage from a boeing aircraft on the scene. He smelled cordite and he saw a 3-foot single engine on the ground there. He picked up graphite pieces similar to the composite wings on a global hawk.
This engine matches the description of the single engine of a globalhawk. The globalhawk is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) but could not have caused the damage if it wasn't containing a bunker-busting missle deployed on impact. The plane observed overhead might have been the plane controlling the remotely-controlled mission.
If a 757 had crashed into the pentagon, then there would have been aluminum all over the grass and two 9-foot diameter engines. There is no evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon available to the public.
Here is clear testimonial evidence from someone who not only saw but was able recognize what type of craft struck the Pentagon, but also actually handled the debris in the clean up process.
Some people have believed that a missle struck the Pentagon, but the debris left behind suggest that it wasn't a missle.
I'm convinced that what the Pentagon was a Global Hawk.
The "engine" they found is more then likely an APU. An APU or auxiliary power unit is used to start larger jet engines. This is true with any type of aircraft that uses large jet engines. The APU on a Chinook Helicopter is about the size of the engine that found on site.
bullshit. The photos from TLC's "pentagon Under Fire" clearly showed a huge nacelle cover and a landing gear in ring C-3 (It was a 757 nose gear that was all beat to **** and burnt. It had part of the axle still on when it was found.
You seem to want to wait a few more years until all the real evidence and some more of these lying bullshit artists can be produced to start new legends .
You guys seem to have nothing better to do with your lives?
I think I handle'Truth" quite well. It cpomes from making sure that the evidence lines up. ALas, yours is just another pile of **** like that which you made up regarding the Trade Center.
I think this Samuel Dnner character is a media whore who just decided to perp up some big lie .
I have a buddy who was a contractor who worked in the Pentagon . When the plane hit the building and until it was cleaned up, they had crews only assigned at specific areas and rings. They didnt allow everyone to just wander around for souveniers . The areas are amazingly evidenced and photographed, Thats wgere the Learning Channel got all their footage when they produced the program which pretty much debunked all the douche bag conspiracy theorists of that day. Here we are 10 years later and weve got a new bunch of theorists who are coming up with entirely new "witnesses" who, have either changed their original stories or just werent anywhere near where they say they were.(like this guy who claims to have seen a drone).
You imagine the amount of conspiracy at so many levels would have been necessary to pull something like this off? Then the conspiracy core would really have to go about whacking all the "helpers and technicians" who actually fly the dones and target them.
Its always a good story and Im sure, after 50 or 100 years there will be tv shows about the "conspiracy" yep, we are a really weird race
The curious thing is the "We are being killed by our own government" crowd seem to get some kind of pleasure out of this horseshit (all while sitting perfectly still) whereas, if they thought any of it were true, they would actually do something about it.
Pump your brakes farmerman. I'm on your side. I think the whole 9/11 truther people and just as crazy as the Obama Birthers. I was pointing out that lots of aircraft use APU's that match the size of the "Global Hawk" engine. I 100% think the "engine" was indeed an APU.
sorry, I just get all full of an incedulous anger at people who just ignore facts and evidence to try to come up with some kaka mamee story that suits their dispositions.
Yeh the birthers are another batch .
Thu 9 Feb, 2012 07:16 pm
LOL. Are you serious? Have you been snorting cow manure fumes again? The engine that you refer to is too small to have come from a Boeing 757. A Boeing 757 engine is 9 feet in diameter, the engine found is about 2-3 feet in diameter.
Same deal with the landing gear, it too small to have come from a Boeing 757.
A Boeing 757 is 60 tons and if a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, it would leave 60 tons of scrap, NOT a few pieces.
If you really believe that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, then why are there NO HOLES in the wall where the plane's enormous engines would have impacted?
There is NO PROOF at all that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.
really? Then why are there photos and diagrams from the Learning Channels that show a side by side match up of the nose landing gear from a 757 (unsmashed up( and the one in the PEntagon? They are exactly alike in size and design you dipshit!!
If you want to believe that there are fairies flyin out yer ass, or that we didnt go to the moon ,or that aliens shot Kennedy, feel free. BUT PUH_FUCKIN_LEEZE dont try to push this crap on the people who dont have their heads up their asses like you apparently do.
I dont know what wire got crossed and shorted out in your uptake circuits but you need to play in the fresh air and get a fuckin clue.
BYE, Im no longer interesetd in the ravings of a conspiracy idiot like you. Maybe somebody else is in need of your brand of entertainment.
Thu 9 Feb, 2012 10:41 pm
Maybe you can understand it in pictures.
There is a LOT of proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon including pictures of parts and the engine part that you claim is too small fits the diagram of the engine with what could be described as an exact match.
Read this and look at the pictures. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
When you can make a scientific argument with actual facts that dispute the evidence and your argument is NOT based on speculation then you might have something. Until then, you are nothing but another fool with a tin foil hat.
Fri 10 Feb, 2012 05:07 am
Thanks for that, parados. I tried, for about ten minutes, to like or appreciate what Ron Paul has in his head and heart, but the more I hear and see the less I want him or any of his cohorts near the centers of US power.