Pentagon Photos Faked ???

Seriously, this is one debate not worth debating. I dont think the change in color and damage points towards anything dodgy, you dont know what order the fotos were taken, what circumstances were involved etc.

Just move on

Originally posted by Skibum
Yes the damage does change.
They probably moved them with a bulldozer or something during the cleanup, which may have damaged the SUV in that fashion.
The windows would have broken during a fire and the plastic bumper would have melted off as well.

Well do you have proof of the bulldozer theory.

Well do you have proof of the bulldozer theory.

No, however, looking here
www.911studies.com...

the vehicles were apparently moved around on site. Lots of heavy machinery in the photo, how else would you move junker cars bound for the wrecking yard?

Why call a wrecker when you can push it out of your way with a dozer?

How come that guy is working as a reporter when he should be on a higher salary as an air crash investigator?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
CNN report, No plane hit the Pentagon.

media.vidilife.com...

classic argument from ignorance .

why do you hold that one layman , who was not in possesion of all the facts , and reporting his opninion , from a single vantage point is the sole artbiter of truth ??

OOOPS -- i forgot -- its the one official source that supports your story -- so it myst be true , right ??

the reason it was " never shown again " -- is because later reports had actual evidence of the plane and crash -- so that report was now worthless

[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


What evidence, can show us the following parts.

1. 9 wheels
2. 2 landing gear
3. Main parts from 2 eingines
4. Wings
5. Tail
6. 1 large tungstun counterweight



Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

I don't believe those photos have been scrutinized nearly enough.

What about this: www.911studies.com...

Can this huge size discepency of the background be due to different lens curvatures? I've never seen distortions of that magnitude.

And what about the firetruck that moves around all over the place, even though one photo shows it's burnt. www.911studies.com...

And what about the sidewalk. Why do some photos show 2 guard rails. Does anyone have access to some photos that show for certain where all the relevant guardrails were on or around that day?

And why does one photo show a curb and more lawn below it?? www.911studies.com...

And what about the whatsits? This is not caused by some kind of wierd pixelation. www.911studies.com...

Has anyone actually given these photos a serious look? I don't believe one can honestly shrug off the whole site because Jack White may or may not have captured photos of two different signs. (It seems like he just posted anything that looked suspicious.) This reeks of a sophomore grade straw man tactic. I expect better from serious skeptics. So far what I've seen is at or around the level of thoroughness I'd expect from the government.

Can this huge size discepency of the background be due to different lens curvatures?

The weird discrepency may be the result of a telephoto lens. Telephoto lenses tend to make background objects look closer to the foreground objects than they really are. (compression??) Maybe a semi-pro photographer can explain it better (it's one of those cases when you know what it is but can't explain it )

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What evidence, can show us the following parts.

For one thing, the great big wings/tail etc are all pretty fragile and there is no reason for there to be any significant pieces left over.
Sometimes I wonder if half these people have even stood next to or been in one of these aircraft, they really arn't that big comparatively speaking and certain parts of them are no where near as strong as you hope they are. Especially not when hitting a solid object at extremely high speed.

And the other thing is a lot of people seem to speak like we've been shown every single photo that has been taken, but I doubt it somehow and why would they? You don't normally get to see every photo of every disaster? Should they pander to people by making everything available so they can say that's fake too?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Can I ask just one question, it is alleged that the FBI within minutes of the attack on the Pentagon went to all the premises that overlooked the point of impact and removed all the securty video tapes from those premises. That is an undestandable action when you are gathering evidence of a crime. My question is, if these tapes reveal what actually happened that day why have they (the Goverment) not released any images of the plane hitting the Pentagon, it can hardly be for any security reasons can it ? Any images of the plane hitting the Pentagon would finally put all this speculation and theorising to rest once and for all.

magicmushroom, funny you should ask that about the videos because supposedly a new video has been released today, but I cant find it. judicialwatch.org is going to post it or already has but the site seems to be down for me. What makes me wonder why it took years to release the video?

Can I be devils advocate here and say maybe it took that long to make a really good authentic film of the attack, thats the problem isn't it wont people say they (the goverment) have had years to put it together rather than releasing the footage whilst it was "fresh". Again I cannot see any reason why any video footage was not showm immediately after the attack, the whole world was told who did it how they did it etc. so there does not seem to be any reason to kept quite.
Oh and just a thought I was at home that terrible day and was watching the news over and over, one thing I found strange was a statement made by Tony Blair, that day he mentioned Al Queda, this was only hours after the attack and whilst news from the US was reporting initially that nobody knew who was behind the attacks. Ah well, maybe Tony has a big crystal ball.

Looks like that site went down. I was hoping to find the image sin my temporary internet folder but they were gone. Does anyone else have them by any chance? I can host them in my unmetered photobucket.


In one of the images he showed where the firetrucks had just gotten there, and there was no debris on the lawn. It looked spotless. Has that been discussed here before?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What evidence, can show us the following parts.

For one thing, the great big wings/tail etc are all pretty fragile and there is no reason for there to be any significant pieces left over.
Sometimes I wonder if half these people have even stood next to or been in one of these aircraft, they really arn't that big comparatively speaking and certain parts of them are no where near as strong as you hope they are. Especially not when hitting a solid object at extremely high speed.

And the other thing is a lot of people seem to speak like we've been shown every single photo that has been taken, but I doubt it somehow and why would they? You don't normally get to see every photo of every disaster? Should they pander to people by making everything available so they can say that's fake too?

[edit on 16-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Being a former Air Force Crew Chief i know a little bit abot aircraft and what should survive a crash, i have been on crash sites.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Looks like that site went down. I was hoping to find the image sin my temporary internet folder but they were gone. Does anyone else have them by any chance? I can host them in my unmetered photobucket.


In one of the images he showed where the firetrucks had just gotten there, and there was no debris on the lawn. It looked spotless. Has that been discussed here before?

I work at NSA, Office of Weapons and Space. I have looked at dozens of pics and videos and can not see any real debris or parts that should have survived on the lawn.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Being a former Air Force Crew Chief i know a little bit abot aircraft and what should survive a crash, i have been on crash sites.

and you've examined all aircraft crashes in history? right? how come many disastrs leave behind nothing?

Originally posted by Wizy
how come many disastrs leave behind nothing?

Do they? Pls show us some evidence of aircraft crashes were there is no sign of an aircraft crashing...

Pls back up your claims, or you are just trolling...

Originally posted by Wizy
and you've examined all aircraft crashes in history? right? how come many disastrs leave behind nothing?

Well you don't have to examine all crashes to know what should survive an aircraft crash. Thier are parts that do not burn and can survive a crash, specially on large airliners.

I'm certain its not my computer, or internet connection, but I'm not certain why every link posted in the origonal post is dead. Government Coverup? Think this should be edited or closed....

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What evidence, can show us the following parts.

certain parts of them are no where near as strong as you hope they are. Especially not when hitting a solid object at extremely high speed.

Oh, and where did you get your aircraft training? There are parts that are made to withstand thousands of degrees heat for long periods of time, or hold up to major stress and can survive a crash. Material like:

Titanium
Magnesium
Tungsten
Composites

[edit on 30-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]