FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Why is there no holes or at least marks where the two 7,000lbs (3,181kgs) titanium engines hit the building?

move along, nothing to see here.

a landing gear is enough to punch out a hole in the pentagon after traveling through several walls and steel columns, but the impact of the engines? pulverized and evaporated, I guess

a reply to: facedye

Nope. They found quite a few engine pieces in the wreckage. So, no, not evaporated.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: facedye

Nope. They found quite a few engine pieces in the wreckage. So, no, not evaporated.

*yawn* not this again.

seriously this feels like a merry-go-round.

no official investigation publicly found anything that definitely fits the description of a Boeing 757 engine. they found pieces that might be attributed to a boeing - none of the debris gives you a definite match (aside from, maybe, the pristine condition of the AA serial # LOL).

if they did find hard evidence of a boeing 757 engine, and could confirm it was flight 77's, we obviously would not have to have this conversation.

"a few engine pieces in the wreckage," eh? why don't you go ahead and source that for everyone here so we can take a look at precisely how the pieces you're talking about don't prove a thing.

while you're at it, how about you provide any diagram or illustration showing exactly how a landing gear can traverse through this kind of distance, through these kinds of materials, and have enough force to be the sole reason for the punch out hole.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

Simply pointing out that the combination of things that happened that day resulted in the final collapse. One or the other by itself would have resulted in a different outcome.

The engineers envisioned something like the Empire State Building crash, where a plane going slow looking for the runway hit the building. Not that someone would have slammed a plane into it at a high rate of speed. Different events, different impacts.

both would have caused fires.

the logic in the assertion you raise is severely lacking.

these buildings were built to withstand plane collisions, *with fuel.* this is partially why the steel was thicker on the bottom half of the building than the top half.

believing otherwise is unrealistic.

You miss this post?

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: facedye

are you saying that the engineers prepared for the plane's collision but not the fuel in its tank?

At time buildings were constructed were not able to model fire behavior - computers at that time not powerful enough

Were able to calculate impact forces on building - found that would take lateral force of 17 million foot pounds to collapse building

Impact by jet airliner would generate 13 million foot pound - ergo building would not collapse from impact

Secondary effects - striping of fire proofing from steel and resulting fires caused by fuel load could not be
determined .......

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, 15 years worth of civilians conducting their own investigations, in the day of the internet. Why was that necessary, why did it happen>

Largely because POTUS refused to conduct an investigation. Clueless the day before they said, by late afternoon on 11 September the Bush administration knew all the answers about what happened. They didn't need no stinkin' investigation.

As a result, curious citizens began their own investigations. Of course the secrecy invoked by the government made it impossible for investigators to examine things like airplane parts and debris, and the steel and debris at Ground Zero was fairly well shipped overseas without any forensic examination. That was because the government had much to hide.

Eventually Bush & Cheney were forced to surrender, and they formed the 911 Commission with Henry Kissinger in charge. Goodness, shades of Richard Nixon.

And both heads of the Commission stated in public that the commission was set up to fail.

The official story is invalid. The government did not and cannot prove it, and neither can you.

a reply to: D8Tee

no, I didn't miss that post.

did you miss the part in his post where he states that a plane impact which includes fire would cause results that "could not be determined"?

he also implies that we need computers to accurately assess "fire behavior." this is hilarious.

i wonder what we did all throughout the 1800's? maybe just rolled up our buildings with newspapers and crude oil, hoping for the best?

a reply to: facedye

Well, first, the punch out, was the end result of a large fast moving object. The only serious resistance, was the exterior wall it entered and then the "punch out".


As for a look at some of the engine components...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

a reply to: Salander

Incorrect...again.... There were numerous investigations being conducted, FBI, CIA, NSA, NYPD, PAPD, FDNY, FAA, just a few agencies involved.....and agencies that were relied on by the 9/11 Commission for its assembly of the facts of the events of the day.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Wolfenz

And for your proof, you offer a video of WTC Construction Engineer Frank DeMartini......who died in the collapse of the South Tower shortly after radioing down that he was seeing signs that the building was going to collapse. Oops.

Then.....the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.

was that before or after he heard those Explosions ? Radioed In ?
those type of Signs , the the Elevator incident too don't forget
Lol the Titanic was Flawed,
the Bulk tanks aka Water compartments tops were not Sealed.
a domino effect. the Downfall of Thomas Andrews Opps


but what about Leslie R. Robertson the Structural Engineer that Designed the Twin Towers ?

ok ok ..

De Martini Radioed about the Elevator collapsing, he conversed too Gerry Drohan
about getting some structural engineers brought up to the 78th floor to look at the steel
but the police officers would not let them pass through that were already in the building ..

He obvious had seen something down the elevator shaft,
was if from the Plane it self or some damage from pre cut or termite ignition in the center core
where those Elevator shafts had been . for those conspiracy Nuts!
could of been why he had Structural Engineers within the tower going up to the problem ??
you would think Martini WHY would ? De Martini of bothered getting them, up there in the first place.
or he just wanted a 2nd opinion to make the call, or How Long the Building would hold up ,

We may never know although those messages were NOT in the Transcripts
of the Radio Message , just by the Survivors that were with him Saving lives .

well , Questions Questions , unanswered !


well Franky De Martini
went down with his construction just like Thomas Andrews did with the Titanic
and both saving lives !

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

you're seriously asserting that the landing gear ONLY had to face the resistance from the wall corroborating with the punch out hole?

if so, then you're asserting that this landing gear was literally flying at about 500mph in a straight line, barreling towards only this one wall of resistance, with nothing to stand in its way until that point.

this is, again, hilarious, and completely illogical among many other unflattering descriptions here I will not use to maintain civility. seriously, are you just regurgitating things you read somewhere that made an impression on you?

what you just said makes zero physical sense, in every sense of the word. it does not pass any kind of scrutiny, however passive or strict. it's quite simply nonsense.

as for the photos you linked, lol.. I knew it.. using the same old rehashed and recycled photographs every member here has seen and is widely familiar with. they don't prove a thing, do they? no, of course they don't.

thank you for confirming that you have no logical, illustrative nor physical explanation for how the landing gear can make that kind of punch out hole, and thank you for confirming that you cannot prove a boeing 757 hit the pentagon.

word of advice: follow where the evidence/lack of evidence takes you, and stop blindly backing the laughable conjecture of the OS.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

Simply pointing out that the combination of things that happened that day resulted in the final collapse. One or the other by itself would have resulted in a different outcome.

The engineers envisioned something like the Empire State Building crash, where a plane going slow looking for the runway hit the building. Not that someone would have slammed a plane into it at a high rate of speed. Different events, different impacts.

both would have caused fires.

the logic in the assertion you raise is severely lacking.

these buildings were built to withstand plane collisions, *with fuel.* this is partially why the steel was thicker on the bottom half of the building than the top half.

believing otherwise is unrealistic.

Cite the design criteria for the buildings involving plane collisions.

Per 9/11 studies showed the WTC fire insulation was insufficient.

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html

"FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS
10/01/2002
BY ROGER G. MORSE
ROGER G. MORSE is a member of the American Institute of Architects and director of Morse Associates, which focuses on forensic building investigation.


I investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000, the last time I was in the towers.
There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire. These problems are not unique to the WTC; I have observed similar problems with the fireproofing in many high-rise buildings in the United States and Europe.

www.debunking911.com...

Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse

Excerpts:

By JAMES GLANZ with MICHAEL MOSS
"Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing did not stick properly. But Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said. Although measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every March and April when you had these windstorms and the building rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing down."

In an interview, Mr. Morse said the problems were far more widespread than that, probably because the fireproofing had been applied improperly to rusty steel. Mr. Morse, who at the time of his inspections was a consultant to the manufacturer of the fireproofing, said his examinations had never reached above the 78th floor in either tower, but that the nature and dimensions of the problem convinced him the failings of the fireproofing would be found on virtually all parts of the buildings. Investigators think the planes struck around the 90th to 94th floors of the north tower and the 78th to 84th floors of the south tower.

Mr. Morse said his inspections on several floors also found problems with the fireproofing of the lightweight, weblike trusses that held up the floors. He said his inspections, which began in 1986 and continued intermittently until June 2000, showed stretches of the tubelike structural steel supporting the trusses without any fireproofing, and other areas of extremely thin fireproofing.

Port Authority officials dismissed those allegations, saying that they doubted the photographs were representative of the entire building and that fireproofing on the trusses was regularly replaced and upgraded whenever there was a major renovation or a change of tenants."

www.mzaconsulting.com...

a reply to: Wolfenz

The reason for the Titanic comment was that it shows you cannot trust engineers with all their claims. As for Mr. Robertson, he has no problems accepting that the damage/fire killed the Towers.

DeMartini, was seeing signs of at least a local collapse. Conduct a senace ask him how he feels about that interview now.

a reply to: facedye

You are so biased to the point beyond being rational.

Please do tell what remains were released to the surviving family members of the passengers that died on flight 77 at the pentagon!

Please start discrediting with proof the 100 plus witnesses that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon.


Might want to read this article as a starting point for an intelligent debate.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Essays, Science, US

Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the

You have the Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth begging individuals that don't believe in the large jet strike at the pentagon to stop because its killing the credibility of the truth movement.

a reply to: facedye

LOL...you really do not know anything about airliner construction do you? Or the flaws in the Pentagon construction they found during the clean up. And because you missed it, it was "serious resistance" the interior walls of studs/drywall did not offer much in the way of resistance to the keel beam of the airliner moving as fast as it was.

You can bold "nonsense" all you want, it does not change the facts, it does not change the evidence, it does not change reality.

Yay! You know I would use the photos of the engine pieces found at the Pentagon that match a RB-211 engine..which makes one wonder.....

Do the engines by themselves prove anything? In this context no..(actually it does, since the insurance company has the records of the wreckage found and that they were satisfied about the identity of the airliner), but in our context, you take RB-211 engine parts, 757 landing gear parts, assorted wreckage painted with AA markings, the bodies...well..remains.. of the people known to have been on Flight 77, the radar tracks, the Tower crew at Reagan National, the crew of GOFER 06....the few hundred pieces of evidence, you cannot escape the logical conclusion that it was Flight 77 an American Airlines 757 that hit the Pentagon that day.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

You are so biased to the point beyond being rational.

That's what a healthy dose of cynicism for the federal government does to a person.

a reply to: facedye

The landing gear was framed to and protected by the fuselage. The front gear and mid section landing gears. Landing gear is made to take the repeated abuse of a 180,000 pound jet pushing into the runway. Pushed by the energy transmitted of a crashing 180,000 pound jet with at least 50 foot of jet behind the mid section landing gear.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nope. But being burt by ufologists, cryptozoologiests, and conspiracists seeking notoriety, conning people through miss quotes, quotes out of context, pictures out of context, hiding facts, ignoring direct questions, relying on innuendo, using false peer review with no referee and a hack magazine, and pseudoscience has.


Care to explain how the damage at the pentagon was caused by a missile or cordite?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596
Leslie E. Robertson, , said:
" The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."