Where are those engine parts and luggages?

Originally posted by rhunter
Do we have any "chain of custody" evidence (for Swampfox and tezzajw) on those photos or do you know where, when, and by whom they were taken, thedman?

The images are pointless without proper chain of custody.

Swampfox demands chain of custody for images that he does not agree with.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The images are pointless without proper chain of custody.

Swampfox demands chain of custody for images that he does not agree with.

Hasn't Swampfox stated that in fact that was simply him acting as a truther and declaring an unreasonable requirement when he disagrees with the picture?

reply to post by exponent


That was his excuse after I called him out on it. Read that whole thread and you'll see that Swampfox was deadly serious. He did not want to accept those images without a chain of custody. He didn't like what those images were showing.

As I stated, I agree with Swampfox. All images and evidence needs to have a chain of custody. Do you have a problem with me agreeing with Swampfox?

Originally posted by tezzajw
That was his excuse after I called him out on it. Read that whole thread and you'll see that Swampfox was deadly serious. He did not want to accept those images without a chain of custody. He didn't like what those images were showing.

I don't presume to know his mind, but it is a topic I would pick if mocking a truther, so it's possible. I wouldn't go linking to such a thing, especially when the rebuke is publicly known.

As I stated, I agree with Swampfox. All images and evidence needs to have a chain of custody. Do you have a problem with me agreeing with Swampfox?

Of course. Nobody is in court here, or even conducting an extensive investigation. Chains of custody are nice, but as with all information on the internet they could easily be falsified or inaccurately represented. A lack of a chain of custody does not invalidate a photo, only evidence can, whether it is a lack of any other supporting evidence or a lack of any contradictory evidence.

If you require a publicly documented chain of custody for every photo, I very much doubt there are any 911 photos that truly meet your critera.

Originally posted by exponent
Of course. Nobody is in court here, or even conducting an extensive investigation.

Some people do try to conduct extensive investigations, with sources. I'm surprised that you would make that generalisation, exponent. Considering that you're one of the few people on the 9/11 threads who not only has brains and class, that's an odd statement for you to make.

Chains of custody are nice, but as with all information on the internet they could easily be falsified or inaccurately represented.

True. However, eventually, for key pieces of evidence, the chain of custody should extend to a verifiable paper-trail that isn't hosted by an internet server. Something more tangible than binary data.

A lack of a chain of custody does not invalidate a photo, only evidence can, whether it is a lack of any other supporting evidence or a lack of any contradictory evidence.

A lack of chain of custody does not verify a photo either. Visual images, that lack the proper chain of custody, can not be relied upon as solid evidence.

If you require a publicly documented chain of custody for every photo, I very much doubt there are any 911 photos that truly meet your critera.

Not only do I require it, Swampfox also requires it. (Tounge in cheek).

Most pictures of 9/11 are probably untampered. Bluntly, they show what they show. However, the critical claims about crucial images, demand that those images can be verified with more certainty.

Swampfox didn't like what the FLIR images showed, so he was questioning their chain of custody, etc...

Wow, I never realized just how prominent I am when it comes to 9/11 till I read the last few postings on this thread.

Exponent, you were right, I had decided to act like a "truther" when I posted the bit about the chain of custody. This has been pointed out to Tezzajw many times since then, but he is still stuck on it. It is almost as if I have my very own stalker.

On to the point. He thinks I was serious when I posted the chain of custody statement. Nope. I felt like having some fun that day and playing what some might call a psy-ops game on certain posters (which has worked far beyond what I thought)

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


so true!

hey I had a thought, what if this whole 9/11 conspiracy is actually a "psy-op" created by the govt to see just how gullible people really are? I mean, if you managed to pull it off so easily one has to wonder! well done Swampfox!

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by SPreston
Larger version

The simulation is a joke. These Military Industrial Complex contractors cannot be trusted with the truth.

Yeah that is ridiculous, it doesn't even have the reinforced wall it would have first met. Do they think it already had a hole in it?

Ridiculous.

I agree there simulation was a joke there were several factors they ignored. But to say the tail section would have caused a hole in the building is laughable it would have sheared off and followed the plane. It just doesn't have the support to stand up to a cement wall. If this would have been reinforced concrete the plane would have turned to dust.

The air force did an experiment with an f4 phantom to see what damage a planes could do to a nuclear power plant. End result the plane was destroyed largest parts they found of the engine were only a couple of inches. The only difference between this is it was a larger plane therefore heavier plane and concrete wall wasn't as thick but end result is alto of the plane would literally turn to dust on impact. So its not a mystery that the plane has missing parts come on.

Originally posted by dragonridr
I agree there simulation was a joke there were several factors they ignored. But to say the tail section would have caused a hole in the building is laughable it would have sheared off and followed the plane.

Yes the tail section should have sheared off, but what makes you think it would have followed the plane through the hole the fuselage supposedly made?

I didn't say the tail would have made a hole, but seeing as it didn't then it should have bounced off the wall, and even if it broke into pieces we should see those pieces.

But having said that, you say the tail is not strong enough to make a hole, yet the nose of that plane is made of carbon fiber and it supposedly punched through the wall (and steel at the towers, along with the tail). There is a contradiction here.

The air force did an experiment with an f4 phantom to see what damage a planes could do to a nuclear power plant. End result the plane was destroyed largest parts they found of the engine were only a couple of inches.

Yes, either the plane will have enough mass and inertia etc., to go through what it hits, or it doesn't and is smashed into pieces. Not some of the plane, but all of the plane was smashed into pieces. So why do we have discrepancies at the pentagon? Such as the nose punching through, but not the engines or tail section? And we have discrepancies at the towers where the tail and engines DID punch through STEEL columns. Can you see the discrepancies here?

Some Newtonian physics to remind you...

"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Wally Hope]

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Yes the tail section should have sheared off, but what makes you think it would have followed the plane through the hole the fuselage supposedly made?

Let's put our thinking caps on, shall we?

Since we don't have an instance prior to 9/11 of a large passenger jet impacting the Pentagon, we will have to use our imaginations.

Let's see: The majority the mass of the airplane has already impacted by the time the tail section arrives. Of course, all very rapidly, in less than a second of time.

Some Newtonian physics to remind you...

"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."

To paraphrase Sir Isaac, 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Fair?

So, according to Newton, believe it or not, every time you jump up, the Earth moves the opposite direction in response. Of course, the difference in mass between you and the Earth is so great, that the effect on Earth is virtually infinitesimal.


What does all this mean? Well, same holds true at the Pentagon. It is a massive, nearly immovable object, and the jet crashing into it didn't stand a chance. Of course, the kinetic energy of the jet did damage...fuel burned, exploded (any voids in the fuel tanks would contain fuel vapor, which will explode when ignited). Speaking of the fuel tanks -- since I know a bit -- the Center fuel tank would not have been full, for that flight. Wing tanks are full, because fuel is burned first from the center tank, then when depleted, it is 'tank-to-engine'.

Where was I? Oh, yes. SO, the jet impacts, and the destruction sequence begins. There is no cartoonish 'hole' that the vertical fin would shear off and follow into. Everything was ripped to shreds.

Certain items, due to density of weight, likely will have penetrated differently than the aluminum skin pieces. But, it was all very chaotic.

So, your statement:

I didn't say the tail would have made a hole, but seeing as it didn't then it should have bounced off the wall, and even if it broke into pieces we should see those pieces.

is not a good representation of events.

You quoted from good Sir Isaac, but remember he devised three laws. You forgot to mention that an object in motion will tend to stay in motion, until acted upon by an outside force.

Essentially, he is describing kinetic energy, although I believe others used his work to build upon.....

You carried on about the tail, for a while...

Then:

Yes, either the plane will have enough mass and inertia etc., to go through what it hits, or it doesn't and is smashed into pieces. Not some of the plane, but all of the plane was smashed into pieces.

Fairly accurate.

So why do we have discrepancies at the pentagon? Such as the nose punching through...

Who said that? I'd like to punch him in the nose!!


That hole in the 'C'-ring wall?? Could have been anything massive enough.

For instance (and I'm not looking at any trajectories to prove or disprove this) but the APU is nearly the same size as one of the engines. It would have spared the brunt of the initial impact force, and its momentum could have carried it through the carnage, to punch through a cinder block wall.

Just supposin'.

(I think we've seen what a hurricane can do with a wood 2X4 and a cinder block??)

[edit on 6/13/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Wally Hope


Ok so tail separates from plane on impact - ever hear of Issac Newton?
Some 300 years ago figured out that a body in motion will stay in motion
until acted upon by outside forces.

Tail separates from plane, it still has the same momentum it had when
connected to plane. Fraction of second later will strike Pentagon - there
is that outside force. At speed it was traveling it will be smashed by the
impact - the flight recorders (aka "black boxes") were found near the
hole punched in the C Ring wall by other debris.

Here is picture of C Ring wall - note aircraft debris



Debris (including parts of landing gear) recovered from just inside
C Ring hole

reply to post by weedwhacker


Your exactly right kinetic energy can cause more damage then initial impact its kinda like shooting a bullet in one place several times the 1st bullet nothing each successive one causes more and more damage. As far as speculating what actually occurred when that plane hit is at best conjecture. The government had to literally crash an f4 in a cement wall just to see what would happen if a plane attempted to crash into a nuclear power plant.

The reason for this is simple there is so many factors involved its hard to say what would survive and how much damage the plane can do. Ill have you know they did a computer simulation of the crash before hand to see how close it was and it was no where near reality. However made one cool video i will see if i can find it later.

Truth is no one has ever crashed a passenger jet into a building to confirm the damage done even the government report suggesting they know what happened is purely speculation. The only true way to test if a huge passenger jet can cause the damage it did to these buildings would be to recreate it by doing it again and somehow i don't think that will be likely.

In mostly harmless ford discusses rocket-proof glass.
" He didn't think there was going to be any way of breaking in. OK, the supposedly rocket-proof glass hadn't stood up, when it came to it, to an actual rocket, but then that had been a rocket that had been fired at very short range from inside, which probably wasn't what the engineers who designed it had had in mind"

I think this is a similar situation no one truly planed for a passenger jet to hit a building!And engineers couldn't possibly know what happened so to say this couldn't happen is silly truth is this is the first time it did and therefore it is the only comparison we have.

Originally posted by thedman
the flight recorders (aka "black boxes") were found near the
hole punched in the C Ring wall by other debris.

Would you care to supply some serial numbers for those alleged black boxes, thedman?

It's a bit hard to believe, until it's been proven true.

Still playing your little games....?

Originally posted by thedman
Still playing your little games....?

Not at all. I'm calling you out on your silly games.

You've got a history of claiming that lots of things are true - without offering proof.

reply to post by GenRadek


I must admit, I ruined a good thing appearantly. A couple truthers figured out they were being played and have stopped responding.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by thedman
the flight recorders (aka "black boxes") were found near the
hole punched in the C Ring wall by other debris.

Would you care to supply some serial numbers for those alleged black boxes, thedman?

It's a bit hard to believe, until it's been proven true.

Why? Do you have the maintenance records for that particular airframe? I could tell you it was a Series 600-C-3-1 serial number 3423-78930-001 and you would have no way to verify it....short of me posting a link to a government website that you wouldnt trust in the first place......

Originally posted by thedman

If the tail of the plane hit the wall and broke off it obviously didn't keep it's forward momentum, or it would have gone through the wall.

Seeing as it didn't go through the wall it would have experienced a loss of momentum/backwards acceleration.

That is what happens in collisions, the object with the least mass will experience more deceleration/loss of momentum, and more damage.

Now we have the soft nose penetrating the wall, yet the heavy engines didn't. Everything on that plane hit with the same force. The engines should have bounced back off the wall due to loss of momentum, heavily damaged obviously. There was nowhere else for them to go, they're not going to get sucked through a hole somewhere else. They wouldn't have been damaged out of existence, if that was the case then none of the plane would ever have gone through the wall at all, a la the F-4 video you all like to post. There is a contradiction here.


Let me ask you a question, what experienced the most force during the collision, the plane or the pentagon? What if it was reversed and the building hit the plane, would it make a difference?

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Wally Hope]

As a former aircraft mechanic (J43171C) who has seen and walked through several crash sites, I have a few observations to offer.

1. Aircraft grade titanium is much harder than pure titantium, the Brinell hardness value is 389, not 42 and the tensile strength is 180000 psi. In my experience, an aircraft hitting the ground at a near vertical impact angle at high speed still leaves mostly intact engines, main wing spars, and other hardened portions (attachment points, seat, and the like) even after the explosions and fires. Titanium doesn't evaporate or disappear in a crash, neither do the hardened aluminum alloys used in aircraft. Aircraft are simply not as fragile as some apparently think. Anything that can support the impact forces of landing several times a day HAS to be extremely tough.

www.titaniumstyle.com...

2. When an aircraft hits something like a light pole, two things should positively happen: first, parts will come off the wings and leave a debris trail; second, the aircraft will be thrown off-course, i.e., spun towards the impact side, due to asymetric thrust and to think a semi-skilled pilot can anticipate this and correct course several times is simply beyond the bounds of reason. To imagine an aircraft plowing through several and maintaining the same course is utter nonsense that defies physics and human reaction times. Hitting several light poles should have brought the plane down well short of the Pentagon.

3. The idea that everything was sucked into the small hole is patently false: at least one wingtip should have bounced off and come to rest outside the building. If the hole is smaller than the aircraft logic dictates that the parts that exceed the size of the hole sheared off and should have remained outside. If the airframe was tough enough for the wings and tail to fold back but remain attached so that they can be pulled into the hole, that trashes the argument that after that, everything disintegrated into tiny pieces defies logic. Kind of an M&M explanation: tough and nearly indestructible outside the building, but soft enough to disintegrate inside.

I base this analysis on direct experience, including examination of the crash of a fully loaded KC-135 (aerial refueling tanker) into a munitions storage area. Even with huge fires and explosions, there was enough left of the aircraft to piece together what caused the crash. And I might point out that the engines survived relatively intact. Again, those babies are incredibly tough.

And no, I didn't polish anybody's boots, including my own, while I served: I was too busy actually working on the birds for that sort of nonsense. I worked down and dirty fighters, not spit and polish bombers.

reply to post by apacheman

...i.e., spun towards the impact side, due to asymetric thrust and to think a semi-skilled pilot can anticipate this and correct course several times is simply beyond the bounds of reason. To imagine an aircraft plowing through several and maintaining the same course is utter nonsense that defies physics and human reaction times.

While appreciating your experience, and take on the subject, it is unfortunately incorrect to assume that the light poles would have the effect you suggest. ("asymetric thrust" is a term that refers to something else, entirely).

Remember, these are designed to be 'frangible'. Just has Approach Light systems at airports, and such. It really boils down to momentum. A jet, weighing over 200,000 pounds at a high speed will certainly barely notice a light pole that weighs a mere few hundred pounds, at most.

It doesn't require "human reaction times" at all! We are talking just a few seconds, at most. AND, any shearing of pieces, upon contact with the poles, would result in those pieces carrying onward, again due to their momentum. They don't just stop, dead and fall straight down. That only happens in cartoons.

People seem to forget the energies at work here. Sure, you may cite an example of a Herc plowing into a munitions building...but did the pilots do that on purpose??? At the maximum velocity they could attain???

I tend to think not.

See, there is a difference.

Pieces of the airplane....sheared, twisted, unburnt...were found. HOW they got there, on the lawn?? Well, you had one idea, possibly. Contact with objects prior to impact. Other forces, as the airplane shredded, and explosions occurred...shockwaves, any number of reasons.

It simply is too complicated to state, categorically, that something is impossible.