Explain these photos

Originally posted by ianr5741

Incredible. I've spent hundreds of hours reading about 9/11, and yet this is the first time I've seen photos from this angle.


What really gets me is that if any debris made it through that cross-section of the building, then why is there no damage on the structure running perpendicular to the rings? It clearly would have intersected that wall, yet I see no damage. But somehow something popped out on the other side...


This makes no sense at all.


Where is all the wreckage that MUST exist for such a large plane crash? Not in a single photo I have ever seen does there appear to be anything more than a few small scraps.


Where is all the camera footage?


How could such a large plane get that low to the ground with the phenomenon known as "ground effect"?


If the plane hit so low on the facade of the building, where are the trenches that must have been dug by the engines under the wings?


Why does it seem like there are intact windows where the wings would have hit?


Why was no defense system tracking this plane, monitoring it all the way in to the most heavily defended and highly restricted airspace in the world?


How could there not be any automatic anti aircraft missile batteries near the pentagon which would identify unfriendly targets?


Why has there been no effort made to reconstruct the aircraft by the NTSB like they do with ALL other airline crashes?


Why did bush resist an investigation of the event for over 400 days?


How did the government come to its conclusions of who is to blame BEFORE an investigation was made?


Why was the US and British military already in position for an attack on Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 happened?


I could ask questions forever. But the point is that there is simply so much guilty demeanor and empty holes in the government story, that for me it simply cannot be coincidence.


This was a plan by hijackers alright. Hijackers of our own government.

This is a great post!

You said you could ask questions forever, I'd be curious to hear your top 50-100 Questions about 9/11!!

Originally posted by Disclosed
haha! I knew you were bull#ting when you said you could easily prove the Pentagon wall could sustain a 60 ton 500mph hit.

Pot calling the kettle black, since you cannot post evidence i have been asking for all along.'

You have been proven to lie, misquote, and now cannot post evindence to support your fantasies.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I'm no expert on this subject but using common sense, the picture in the OP seems completely wrong.... I would certainly expect to see damage to ring D if this whole punched through to ring C from a plane.

Also if jet fuel brought down the WTC... how do human remains survive here? there may be an answer but I cant see one.

And my last and most confusing query is what caused the hole? it must of been a) very very strong b) very big so....... where is it? was it found?

If anyone knows please respond, its playing on my mind....thanks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Pot calling the kettle black, since you cannot post evidence i have been asking for all along.'

Still no evidence to prove your claim that the Pentagon wall could sustain a 60 ton, 500mph impact.

Am I suprised? No. When confronted to present your evidence, you will quickly go on the defensive, but post zero evidence to back up your claims. Typical...

I guess you didnt want to debate like an adult after all.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
I guess you didnt want to debate like an adult after all.

Thats the funniest thing i have ever heard coming from a child that lies and misquotes.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



If you could post facts and data as well as you do name calling, you would go far ULTIMA1.

It is quite obvious discussing anything with you will only resort to childish namecalling...and zero debate.

For someone who seeks to find the truth, you sure are going about it in an immature way. Quite frankly, I'm sure survivors families would be embarrased about your ways of "finding the truth".

I would have expected a more civilized discussion from someone who claims to work at the NSA.....instead of junior high school namecalling.

Ah well...i'll just sit back I guess and laugh at your ridiculous, factless claims. Trying to show you the truth is like spitting in the wind.

Tootles..

Originally posted by Disclosed
If you could post facts and data as well as you do name calling, you would go far ULTIMA1.

I learned from the best.

If you would do any research at all you would know that i can provide facts and evidence to support what i post.

More inorfmration on the walls of the Pentagon from NIST, your favorite agency.

fire.nist.gov...

The original structural system, including the roof, was entirely cast-in-place reinforced concrete using normal-weight aggregate. Most of the structure used a specified concrete strength of 2,500 psi and intermediate-grade reinforcing steel (yield of 40,000 psi).The floors are constructed as a slab, beam, and girder system supported on columns, most of which are square. Figures 2.4 through 2.8 define the typical framing. Member sizes vary with framing arrangements and special loads.The area of interest
in this study was populated by the typical members shown in the figures. The column sizes vary in each story—generally from about 21 by 21 in. in the first story to 14 by 14 in. in the fifth story—but there are many exceptions. Nearly all the columns that support more than one level are spirally reinforced. The remaining columns have ties.The floor spans are relatively short by modern standards: 5.5 in. slabs span to 14 by 20 in. beams at 10 ft on center.The typical beam spans are 10 or 20 ft,

I will be waiting for your evidnece to show how the aluminummade it through all the walls.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by raven bombshell
but I swear I saw a plane.

Was it the 757 of Flight 77?

Why are more and more first responders coming forward speaking out against the official story?

I couldnt say it was that flight. There is no way to know that from the ground. I was just going over there that day to attend a meeting. I was on a bus that takes us from Bolling AFB to the Pentagon. God, it just goes through my mind over and over again sometimes. I cant stand low flying planes to this day, which was so difficult living in MD around so many airports and military bases. I dont live there any more, so I am more at peace now.

I digress- There were hundreds of people who saw it. I never read these 911 threads before because I didnt want to get into this. I dont even know why I clicked on this thread last night.

Originally posted by raven bombshell

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by raven bombshell
but I swear I saw a plane.

Was it the 757 of Flight 77?

Why are more and more first responders coming forward speaking out against the official story?

I couldnt say it was that flight. There is no way to know that from the ground. I was just going over there that day to attend a meeting. I was on a bus that takes us from Bolling AFB to the Pentagon.

Are you published as a witness? Send me a U2U. I have questions. You might be able to help (not everyone, but some folks)

Originally posted by raven bombshell
I cant stand low flying planes to this day, which was so difficult living in MD around so many airports and military bases. I dont live there any more, so I am more at peace now.

I was working in a government building in MD and received a call to evacuate my office because we might have been a target.

reply to post by beachnut

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

Did you bother to do the experiment that I suggested?

Even if the hollow aluminum mass at that velocity could have penetrated, there is no way for the energy to have been focused into that punch-hole coming out the other side.

An aluminum hollow-point bullet will shatter/explode upon initial impact. A steel-core lead round would impact, strip the lead sheath at or near the point of impact, while the steel core went on to punch a nice clean hole through the target.

reply to post by WeSbO


You might be interested to read the premise of this thread...


If 9/11 was a domestically complicit conspiracy, how did “they” mess it up so bad?

reply to post by Idoubtit


If the wings of the plane had hit those reinforced steel poles as the video shows, at 500 mph, the wings would have shattered and the plane would have been knocked off-course.

Originally posted by Grock
My question is how come there is very little (or absolutely none) damage to the rings between the 2 points? WTH?

To my eyes and for what its worth, i think the 'debris' travelled under the second story roof then exited. (see the image please) If it travelled inside the building (under the roof) then that might explain why there is no obvious sign of it punching through rings. Bear in mind that what looks like the ground is in fact the second story roof.



Thats my take.

Out of curiosity, what angle does the official story of the plane hitting the pentagon wall at(not the angle of the plane, but angle the plane is actually moving at)? Is it flying parallel to the ground or is it still descending at the point when it hits the outer wall?

reply to post by PplVSNWO


It's difficult to tell. The data is "turned off" just prior to impact.

Here is a thread on the NTSB flight data...


Official Account of 9/11 Flight Contradicted by Governments Own Data

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by raven bombshell
I cant stand low flying planes to this day, which was so difficult living in MD around so many airports and military bases. I dont live there any more, so I am more at peace now.

I was working in a government building in MD and received a call to evacuate my office because we might have been a target.

THat sounds familiar- my office building was evacuated in the same manner but it was so a command post could use it. Someone from the CP actually took off with my cake plate,

reply to post by raven bombshell


I can't belive they took your cake plate!

Well, I see you got some apple pie instead.

If you don't mind my asking, did you actually see the plane make impact, or just a plane around the time of impact?

[edit on 4/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by raven bombshell
THat sounds familiar- my office building was evacuated in the same manner but it was so a command post could use it. Someone from the CP actually took off with my cake plate,

Yes where i work now if something happens we have a team comes in and takes over some of our workstations.

i dont see anything that shows it wasnt a 757, flight 77. i see a lot that does though. every piece of wreckage matches exactly. eyewitnesses say it was a 757, including a couple of pilots that saw it. nice theories though. lol. pictures of the building with white lines drawn in 30 feet from where the exit hole of the outer ring is are proof that we aren't dealing with people that understand physics, or their mind makes them defy physics and eyewitness accounts.