757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by darkbluesky
No...absence of evidence may be suspicious, suggestive, thought provoking, and even conspiracy nurturing, but it is not evidence, especially of "absence" which was the context in which I was using the phrase.

I'm out of here too.

Maybe you should look at the law, absence of evidence can be used as evidence.

OK Caustic take a deep breath..........we know you can handle debating without getting personal about it.

What is your point? one fell over? That is not what I was talking about. I am talking about the one that is standing up, in a rolling position. The one that is tip to its side may have been like that before.

Here is how easy it is to roll a large spool or reel. Take note. And this is only two people pushing the roll, now imagine a jets engines at full throttle. The reel would have been blown 100's of feet away, in that rolling upright position.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
This damn debate stinks and here I am with more time going in but that's my own doing.
Rolling position - aha! Did they roll out of the way pf the engines and fuselage?
Here is a cartoon I just made to illustrate:

Look back at the photos - the one on the far left was pushed back and tipped over and flattened a bit. What did that to your magical spools?
You can't argue with a cartoon. Which is why I'm outta here.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Realtruth
What is your point? one fell over?

RT, What is your point? A planted bomb in the Pentagon or a cruise missile somehow magically "pulled" the wire spools toward the building from their previous locations? Or that they were easily rolled to their final resting positions by spooks taking part in "the deception"? Spooks who also smashed up one of the spools, while at the same time other spooks were knocking down light poles, hauling in landing gear parts and engine parts, scattering aluminum shards painted in American Airline colors over the lawn, hiding AA 77 and disappearing all the crew and passengers, etc etc.?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by darkbluesky
It's my opinion it went wherever the FBI sent all the crime scene remains. And it went there in lots and lots of little pieces.

Ok, so now pls explain how it ended up in lots of little pieces?

www.itap.purdue.edu...
www.youtube.com...

Do I have to explain the physics of collisions again?

Please do. I must have been sick that day.

How did the engines end up in little pieces?

They didn't as the photographic evidence shows

The tungston counter weight?

'dunno

Originally posted by darkbluesky

RT, What is your point? A planted bomb in the Pentagon or a cruise missile somehow magically "pulled" the wire spools toward the building from their previous locations? Or that they were easily rolled to their final resting positions by spooks taking part in "the deception"?

First watch this Video that was done with a 747 engines at full thrust, if it was a plane there would have been no reel/spools standing, on their side, or anywhere near the crash site, due to the thrust of those engines passing over them, near them or even close to them. And at least the one standing would have been push 100s of yards away by the thrust of the engines.

update I was told that it's completely different when the plane is in flight, so my theory on the thrust pushing the reels probably won't fly, no pun intended.






[edit on 27-4-2007 by Realtruth]

Realtruth - I was going to address the thrust reaction in flight but I see you've already done that. While I was preparing to post, I marked up a photo that I think addresses many issues being debated so I thought I'd post it anyway.

This well known picture shows the outline of the impact damage, it shows foam being used, it also shows where the wire spools were located prior to impact "A", it shows the inward and right to left deflection of the primary outer load bearing columns "B", and I just realized it shows very clearly the rounded outline of exactly where the fuselage impacted.

I cant see how anyone looking at this can say a very large aircraft didn't cause this damage.



In this pre-collapse picture, the undamaged colums to the right of the colums labelled "B" were left intact because they were hit by the end of the starboard wing. The damaged and deflected "B" columns took the impact of the very massive and much stronger wing roots.

Review the Pentagon Building Performance Report and the Purdue University computer model to see much more detailed pictures and explanations.

edit left/right



[edit on 4/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The damaged and deflected "B" columns took the impact of the very massive and much stronger wing roots.

Excellent picture DBS. Would you mind putting a circle where the starboard (right) engine (RB-211) went through the Pentagon wall? Thanks.

And would you also circle where the wing debris is, since thier is no hole for them to go through.

Originally posted by johnlearExcellent picture DBS. Would you mind putting a circle where the starboard (right) engine (RB-211) went through the Pentagon wall? Thanks.

I done it before...you mind puttin' a circle where the hologram went thru?

Or where the drone with the DU warhead went thru?

And if the later...please explain how the missile with a DU or explosive WH created the entry damage pattern we can see.

Thanks!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And would you also circle where the wing debris is, since thier is no hole for them to go through.

Done this before too. The depth of field in this pic is fore shortened due to the low angle. The foam extends at least 150 ft from the building. There is plenty of aluminium wreckage under the foam.

Also, do you really expect a cookie cutter outline of a wing and engines like in a Road Runner vs Coyote cartoon?

We need ANOK for a collision/physics refresher I guess.

How many times are people going to show that pic and claim it's a 'hole' that a 757 went through?

Is it obvious to any one but me that if a 757 did go through there we wouldn't be seeing columns still standing and bowing out wards?

What you are seeing is the effect of an explosion blowing the wall out wards. You can even see the rubble sitting right in front of it.

The only real hole is right in the middle and it's only 18' wide.

The wings and engines could not have gone through there, so where are they?

Originally posted by ANOK
How many times are people going to show that pic and claim it's a 'hole' that a 757 went through?

Is it obvious to any one but me that if a 757 did go through there we wouldn't be seeing columns still standing and bowing out wards?

What you are seeing is the effect of an explosion blowing the wall out wards. You can even see the rubble sitting right in front of it.

The only real hole is right in the middle and it's only 18' wide.

The wings and engines could not have gone through there, so where are they?

Does this constitute the extent of your lesson on the phyiscs of collisions?

Please post a picture showing the outward blown columns.

[edit on 4/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Done this before too. The depth of field in this pic is fore shortened due to the low angle. The foam extends at least 150 ft from the building. There is plenty of aluminium wreckage under the foam.

Also, do you really expect a cookie cutter outline of a wing and engines like in a Road Runner vs Coyote cartoon?

Oh thats so funny. I have videos of the Pentagon while the firemen are still putting out the fires (with water) and thier is no wing or other debris in front of the hole. So please try again with a better theory.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1I have videos of the Pentagon while the firemen are still putting out the fires (with water) and thier is no wing or other debris in front of the hole. So please try again with a better theory.

Please share your videos. If nothing else, it might make me shut my cake hole.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
This guy is kind of trying to make a good point IMO.

That's percision flying that even veteran commercial pilots can't pull off.

The impossible precision flying argument does not lend credence to the missile theory.



Have you seen the blackbox recorded flight path reconstructed in a digital animation? The plane makes minute adjustments every x number of seconds, an exact interval with exact alterations in the path by a degree or less than. That is not the work of a man. This alone proves that the planes were remote controlled by computer. The military has published successful results on RC'ing airliners a few decades ago.

Also, think what you want of John Lear, but he and other top class airman have stated over and over these moves were impossible pull off.

Lastly I wish to mention the manuever videos someone posted earlier would be impossible at the verified impact speed of 400mph.




[edit on 27/4/07 by SteveR]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Please share your videos. If nothing else, it might make me shut my cake hole.

Here is 1, i am going to edit the other to cut out the WTC and other stuff.


s114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 27-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Ultima1 - Your video shows firefighters spraying water on the building after it collapsed. My picture shows foam being used before the collapse. For all we know your video could have been made days after 9/11. The depth of field in your video is also foreshortened due to teh distance of camera from the subject and the low angle. Those firetrucks and caution tapes are at least 100 feet away from the bldg, and I can't see what is, or is not lying on the ground in that area, can you? I have satisfied my own doubts and conclude there was debris lying on the ground. You can disagree. It doesnt matter to me.

This picture shows debris on the lawn to the north of the impact location

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Ultima1 - Your video shows firefighters spraying water on the building after it collapsed. My picture shows foam being used before the collapse. For all we know your video could have been made days after 9/11. The depth of field in your video is also foreshortened due to teh distance of camera from the subject and the low angle. Those firetrucks and caution tapes are at least 100 feet away from the bldg, and I can't see what is, or is not lying on the ground in that area, can you? I have satisfied my own doubts and conclude there was debris lying on the ground. You can disagree. It doesnt matter to me.

I think you might want to watch the beginning of the video again, it clearly shows water being sprayed on BEFORE the collapse, it shows the collapse a few minutes into the film. And you can clearly see that their is no debris or parts around the hole before or after the collapse. Their are a few close ups of the hole and fires even at the contruction trailers. Please do not lie about something when its right there on film. Why do you even debate when you can see it on film? How much evidence will it take for you get over being closed minded, because i will keep posting facts and evidence till you can admit what i say is in the evidence.

I mean its ok you can beleive what you want but i look for and can tell facts when i see it and can admit it, why can't you?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I think you might want to watch the beginning of the video again, it clearly shows water being sprayed on BEFORE the collapse, it shows the collapse a few minutes into the film.

My powers of observation are OK. Your video begins with a collapsed building. I see a few seconds of burning structure later but with no fire fighting activity included in the frame. Please give me the time reference in the video you want me to look at.

Please do not lie about something when its right there on film. Why do you even debate when you can see it on film?

I don't see what you're seeing. Please help me by telling me the time reference within the clip I should be looking at.

Thanks

edit - OK i see the collapse at approx 00.45 but there is no firefighting activity visible in that sequence. And nothing between the bldg and wire spools can be seen with any degree of resolution.

[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

edit # 2 ....I still see foam lying on the ground in the collapse sequence that starts at approx 00.45.



[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
My powers of observation are OK. Your video begins with a collapsed building. I see a few seconds of burning structure later but with no fire fighting activity included in the frame. Please give me the time reference in the video you want me to look at.
[edit on 4/28/2007 by darkbluesky]

Ok, i will try to make it as easy as i can for you.

From 00:00 to 00:20 Water being sprayed on fire (before collapse)

From 00:20 to 00:40 Clearly seen lawn area around hole and no debris or parts.

00:40 Collapse.

00:40 to 01:33 People walking and working around area, no debris or parts.

From 01:33 to 01:40 close up of hole. No debris or parts around or right inside hole.

From 01:40 to 01:50 Water being sprayed on fire.

From 01:50 to 02:00 Cleary seen lawn area around hole and no debris or parts.

I will be posting more vidoes and photos if you are having a hard time with this one.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]