—–Original Message—–
From: PainfulQuestions@XXX.com
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:23 PM
To: Joe
Subject: Since you have experience with explosives…
would you like to take a closer look at the photos from the Pentagon security camera and help settle the dispute over whether the flash is from an explosive or from jet fuel?
Here is a video here that can help you understand why there is a controversy:
http://911sb.org/911CommissionReport.wmv
You can find that video, and more infor, here:
www.HugeQuestions.com
—–Original Message—–
From: Joe
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:43 AM
To: PainfulQuestions@XXX.com
Subject: RE: Since you have experience with explosives…
I looked at several of the presentations and I didn’t see the security camera with a flash. Could you give me a direct link to that image or video?
Thanks.
-joe-
—–Original Message—–
From: PainfulQuestions@XXX.com
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:38 AM
To: Joe
Subject: Re: Since you have experience with explosives…
Sorry, I assumed you knew about those security videos. They have been creating controversy around the world for years. This is why “French Fries” became “Freedom Fries”.
In case you never saw this, the site in France that started this controversy is still available: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
That web site scrolls left to right, not up and down.
The issue has since been looked into more deeply by people around the world. The security camera videos I refer to, along with an analysis of them, can be seen in the videos here:
http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm
Look near the bottom of the page for:
To download the free Internet Version
of “Painful Deceptions” DVD click on
the following links
Then watch those videos. Prepare yourself for the possibility that some of our government officials might be dishonest. Those videos should help you understand the anger towards the USA that you find in Europe.
That video is available in DVDs if you want higher quality, and for as low as $10 with shipping included at:
http://www.EricHufschmid.net/PainfulQuestionsBook.html
Jimmy Walter is also selling the DVD at 888-Investigate, along with books, in at attempt to cover some of his advertising costs.
Eric
—–Original Message—–
From: Joe
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 10:13 AM
To: PainfulQuestions@XXX.com
Subject: RE: Since you have experience with explosives…
I got a chance to review one of the videos that gave some pretty good shots of the Pentagon. In terms of the fireball I don’t see anything suspicious about it. The fireballs that I produce are done with one to four gallons of gasoline and one to four pounds of explosives. Take a look as some of these. Go through them frame by frame and you will see the fireball does actually expand. As long as the fuel supply is increasing the fireball with increase in size. In the case of a plane smashing into a solid object it seems entirely reasonable to me that a fireball starts shortly after the exposed fuel ignites and then as the rest of the fuel is exposed as the tanks are flattened and ripped apart the fireball grows in size. And consider that some of my fireballs are 30 to 40 feet across with only four gallons of gasoline. With thousands of gallons of jet fuel much larger fireballs should be expected. But depending on how it is dispersed and ignited the fireball could be almost any size from non-existent to several hundred feet across. You will also see that the flame appears to be white hot and actually causes the video camera to adjust the exposure compensating for the brightness to the point that the surrounding landscape turns dark although it is during the middle of the day.
In the case of explosives, properly oxygen balanced explosive mixtures do not generate a fireball at all. There may be very short flash but not a fireball. TNT, by itself, produces a fireball because it has a shortage of oxygen. Or in other words an excess of fuel. As the fuel gets exposed to the air it will produce a fireball. What is usually done is that another compound is added to achieve oxygen balance. That is why “fuel oil” or diesel is added to ammonium nitrate. During detonation the AN produces excess oxygen and by adding a fuel the oxygen can be used to increase the heat and hence the pressure of the detonation. The increased heat also means the reaction is easier to initiate and it propagates easier. The reason this is important is because I would expect any missile to have an efficient explosive and not have excess fuel to produce a fireball. Hence if there is a fireball it would have to come from the target not the missile. Since I doubt the Pentagon was struck in an office containing a tank of some sort of fuel I have to conclude it came from the object that struck it. Hence, a plane containing fuel is an entirely plausible explanation for the fireball.
I can’t explain everything in the video but many of the things are out of my area of expertise. I can tell you why I would put the gravel on the lawn however. Heavy trucks were going to be hauling debris away and new material in. If the ground had any significant amount of moisture in it the repeated truck crossing would have softened soil and they would have gotten bogged down and stuck.
With the selected set of evidence presented in the videos I can see why people would have some questions. But I don’t see anything I consider conclusive evidence that anything other than a commercial jet struck the Pentagon.
Here are some specific fireball videos to demonstrate my points:
http://www.boomershoot.org/2003/SundayFireballDemo.wmv
http://www.boomershoot.org/2003/Kim.avi
Or for a fairly complete collection of my fireball videos see this page:
http://www.boomershoot.org/general/fireball.htm
If you have any other questions about this feel free to ask.
-joe-
I don’t think he got the answer he expected. And I doubt he will stop selling his DVDs and books. But at least I didn’t bolster his crackpot ideas (there were lots of unbiased eye witnesses that saw the plane slam into the Pentagon).
