Explain these photos

Originally posted by Disclosed
Thats odd, it was evidence in the Moussaoui trial.

There is 1 photo and it is not sourced.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Thats odd, it was evidence in the Moussaoui trial.

There is 1 photo and it is not sourced.

govt exhibit = sourced



RB211 diagrams made by Rolls Royce = sourced.

case closed. and you haven't provided any sourced evidence to disprove it and you haven't provided anything to show engines, wheels and other non aluminum pieces would not have made it through to the exit hole. until then, EPIC FAIL.

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
govt exhibit = sourced

Gee, you really do not understand do you. Sourced means the name of the person who took it, where and when it was taken.

FACT: PHOTO UNSOURCED,, YOU FAIL.


FACT: NO OFFICIAL REPORTS MATCHING PARTS TO 757,, YOU FAIL.


[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
FACT: PHOTO UNSOURCED,, YOU FAIL.


FACT: NO OFFICIAL REPORTS MATCHING PARTS TO 757,, YOU FAIL.

Crime scene photo = sourced.

Unless they were letting tourists walk all around the Pentagon scene. Then the gov't saying "Hey, can we borrow one of your pics? We need it for a trial in a couple years."

Originally posted by Disclosed
Crime scene photo = sourced.

Show me the source, show me the name of the person who took it, time, date and location taken.

I will be waiting for the source.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

No, it is not plausible for a aluminum airframe to make it through.

Quite correct. Aluminum is sometimes used to make bullets. Some people like them for home defense because of the fact that they will fragment upon impact with anything, such as wall-board. The lack of penetration capability is preferable so you don't accidentally shoot your family hiding in the kitchen, when you spray rounds at a perp in your living room. The fragmentation is also highly lethal when it meets flesh.

On the other hand, military applications tend to favor penetration capability for obvious reasons. An armor piercing round, one that will penetrate a hardened target, consists of a pointed solid core enclosed in a softer metal. The core might be made of steel or tungsten, wrapped in an outer layer of lead, copper, or aluminum. Larger weapons, such as tank rounds, often use depleted uranium cores to penetrate.

In the case of an airplane hitting a building, there is virtually no penetration capability. The passenger cabin is hollow, surrounded by aluminum shell. If anyone want to test this out for themselves, go plug an aluminum hollow point round into a tree. Then try a tungsten-core lead round. You will see for yourself the world of difference.

reply to post by fastfingersfunk

as any competent engineer would explain, the hole was caused by a clump of debris pushed by a combination of inertia of a 500MPH impact and the expolsion of the fuel, which would exactly explain the charred brick and debris shown...

When was the last time you saw an explosion shrink to a single concentrated point?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Show me the source, show me the name of the person who took it, time, date and location taken.

I will be waiting for the source.

I'm sorry, did I say I worked for the govt? Please show me what post stated I worked for the govt. I thought you worked for the NSA....and are asking me, a regular USA citizen, for that classified information.

Perhaps you should send your precious FOIA request to the FBI for your information.

Classic comedy, thats what this is

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I don't think anyone knows 100% certain what caused it. Meaning.. was it the landing gear, fuselage, etc... This is what we do know:

Seems to me that you "know" that a plane (or its parts) caused it.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Bottom line, impact of a plane going faster than 473 KIAS caused the hole.

Again, seems to me that you "know" that a plane (or its parts) caused the hole.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What I am 100% sure DIDN'T cause this?
a. A tomahawk cruise missile
b. Pre-planted explosives
c. Thermite
d. Any other secondary event.

Hmmm...Of course you are sure none of those things caused it. You assume it was a plane. Also, I am curious...You are 100% sure that it wasn't any other SECONDARY event...Then why bother listing the missile, explosives, or thermite. They're all the same thing. Secondary events to your primary plane.

As far as I'm concerned...A real plane crash looks like a plane crash. To everybody. The simple fact that there is such massive disagreement as to what happened at the Pentagon gives me more than ample reason to believe that it was not a plane crash.

That doesn't even really matter though. NOTHING has been proven.

Perhaps I am alone in my opinion that ANY "evidence" produced from an "official" anything is worthless.

Roughly seven years, diligently working day and night.
Taking care of identified loose ends.
Huge resources spreading massive amounts of every form of information except that which is factual.

Seven Years... that's an awful lot of time to cover ones' tracks.

Thanks

reply to post by newgeneric


that was an excellent response to captainobvious. Its very interesting to see how different people interpret the visual data. I for one who does believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon, even I see a major problem with that hole and where it is and the circular shape of the hole.

This all could be settled if the gov had released a video of what happened, ( I personally don't believe that the military headquarters of the United States doesn't have that).

A video showing what hit and how would be most interesting.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by talisman]

Ironocally, this looks and sounds just like JFK's magic bullet theory, total utter nonesense.

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm sorry, did I say I worked for the govt? .

You stated the photo was sourced, show me the source or admit you are wrong. Show me the name of the person who took the photo, where and when taken and location.

You do not need to work for the government to do research.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

So how did the hole punch out of back but not the front?

I don't know how people can question the simple execution of a conspiracy, IE "how would airplane parts be planted"

Do you all not realize there are an infinite number of people working jobs you will never hear or know about who are designing aircraft and weaponry that the public will not glimpse for 20 years .. So why is it so hard to believe there is a group of people who are the collaborators for these conspiracies? It is not crazy in teh least in my opinion.

The only important question to me is that we *those who seek the truth* find the most plausable and realstic scenario that answers all the questions of who did this, who wanted it done, and who the event would truly benefit.


These glaring errors in the gov't story are the things, the beacons for truth that we need. We needn't worry about "how would of landing gear get there without a plane? " Like I said before, there are capabilites that we "the public" cannot begin to imagine.

Why do you all not think your gov't is smart enough to fool you? They do it all day every day.

There are two things that I can't understand. Sure the crash site looks fishy. But if 9/11 was a cover up, why attack the pentagon, I mean wasn't the twin towers enough, the situation didn't need to be more tragic than it already was. And also why fake a plane crash, If it was really a missile, why not just say "someone hijacked the plane and shot a missile" I mean it's not less believable than a kamikaz plane crash.

Anyway I've come to the point that, if this was just all a set up we will never get to the bottom of it...

This has already been solved - we have videos proving that there is no debris on the lawn because the plane "vaporized" on impact - yet - we are then expected to also believe that the aluminium skin travelled through multiple walls - AFTER it had vaporised - the more this charade continues the more the OFFICIAL story becomes a joke.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The only landing gear piece that was found (planted) was INSIDE the E to C ring area.

Backed up by no evidence. Blame the military. Tell my you have some evidence.

Since you have no evidence, this goes into the opinion bucket, marked "made up information", proven wrong by the events of 9/11.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
No, it is not plausible for a aluminum airframe to make it through.

In the case of an airplane hitting a building, there is virtually no penetration capability. The passenger cabin is hollow, surrounded by aluminum shell.

You and others have made a false statement. Proven false by physics.

Ask your physics teacher.

Mass and velocity, you are ignoring the physics of the impact, and have made a mistake.

Those interested in the damage to the Pentagon, ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report is recommended.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by jackinthebox


Mass and velocity, you are ignoring the physics of the impact, and have made a mistake.

Just as you ignore and fabricate stupid theories to cover up the FACT that no plane crashed in Shanksville in 911.

Originally posted by beachnut you are ignoring the physics of the impact, and have made a mistake.

You are ignoring the facts of what a plane is made of and it would not survive impact with the building.