Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Alfie1


This is the proof?
www.rense.com...

From the site:

Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly. Charles Burkhammer similarly noted small lime-green pieces of aircraft interior.

Notice the lack of scorch marks in this image below. Also notice the unburned wires...looks like a phone cord?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e84fc3b772c5.jpg[/atsimg]

From the site:

Resting next to another pillar is another section of lime-green material bearing clear rivet lines (photographed by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10645f542218.jpg[/atsimg]

I do see rivets. Missile? Construction Equipment? Was this part submitted and cataloged as evidence? Do you know if they identified what it came from? Where is this part now?

From the site:

Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane. Hanging from the ceiling is a sheet of aluminum:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b563d2517c80.jpg[/atsimg]

Looks like a piece of a fuel tanker, or a cable spool maybe? The aluminum hanging from the ceiling is included why? Did the pentagon not have any heating ducts?

From the site:

This photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring by VATF-1 workers. The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/670f1558c141.jpg[/atsimg]

Okay, is it just me or does it seem like investigators on TeeVee do a better job than they did at the crime of the century? Why don't they know where this part was found, and why is it not known for certain what it is? If they can't tell us what it is or where it was found, why is it included as evidence to justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people?

From the site:

Now we are moving to the C-ring punchout hole. The following photo taken on 9/13 or 9/14 gives a unique view of the hole from the inside, unfortunately after most of the debris was hauled away:

Nuf said.

From the site:

However the following photo shows a landing gear found inside C-ring near the punchout hole. Note how completely charred the rest of the debris was.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f60d49b55255.jpg[/atsimg]

Is there a diagram like they do in real crime scenes? You know, retracing the path of the plane with notations as to where the parts were found? Take the above photo...do we have anything there to place it at the crash scene? What day was it found, and where exactly was it and in what position? Would they accept photos with no context as evidence if I was on trial for murder?

Why must we note how charred the rest of the debris is, why can't we note the position of the part in relation to the other parts. Why can't we know the serial numbers?

From the site:

As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread.The following photo (by Fort Belvoir photographers) shows two pieces of fuselage debris (note the green primer) lying in front of the hole. Note a ring of 8 small holes on the larger piece. A similar ring of 8 holes may be found on a 757 nose (with an attaching piece), just below the cockpit windows -- but it is far from clear whether the configuration is a match. This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone" referred to by Lt. Kevin Shaeffer and Victor Correa.

They say chunk of fuselage or nose cone (why don't they know!), a landing gear and an aircraft tire tread. Tire tread? What is the material of the fuselage nose cone? Carbon fiber or fiberglass...3mm aluminum sheeting? I thought they only had a picture of the landing gear on the inside...I don't see it on the outside. I also notice they're not directing us to note all the charred other debris. Funny, that.

Now we're getting the real point. In what world can a fuselage nose cone and a piece of wheel travel through masonry walls and a "forest of columns" of more reinforced concrete, and have enough mass, density and momentum to punch a hole many times their size through reinforced concrete and multiple layers of brick fascia?

That's the claim, and the proof offered in the form of these photographs is laughable. This show wouldn't even last one season on TV, why do you accept it now?

One more comment. Note how the windows are broken above the hole in the image below? Why would the windows be broken by the impact of landing gear, when the impact of the jet on the other side of the building didn't even break all the windows?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7da6e7283a1f.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Dear Weedwhacker,

Your credibility is worse than Reheat's.

You have declined to admit that you were spreading disinformation about the reinforced concrete walls of the C ring light wells. Many times you have claimed they were made of much weaker materials, and many times I have provided you with the proof of their being rebar reinforced, poured in place concrete. Each time you ignore it. If you had the courage to admit your error, you might help your credibility gap, but probably not now because at this point it would be obviously not genuine.

You were saying the light well walls were lathe and plaster at one point, and that the rebar was just electrical wire or support for a false ceiling or some sh!te.

Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do.

All the best,

Yankee451

reply to post by Yankee451


Thanks for your response but you also are not addressing my question which is :-

If all the aircraft wreckage is phoney and planted how was this done when that area of the Pentagon was not only plainly burning fiercely but in imminent danger of collapse, which soon occured ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Thanks for your response but you also are not addressing my question which is :-

If all the aircraft wreckage is phoney and planted how was this done when that area of the Pentagon was not only plainly burning fiercely but in imminent danger of collapse, which soon occured ?

I appreciate your question, but it's not my job to answer that. The claim is a jet did this damage. The evidence at hand proves otherwise. If we laypeople can figure this out, the media, government and military of the world have certainly figured it out. The fact that they continue their lies and their wars in the face of so much evidence implicating THEM means we, the people of the world who just want to be left alone, have a BIG problem on our hands.

It should be obvious by now who the real enemy is. We have much more in common with the people we're being sent to kill than with the people who do the sending.

Originally posted by Yankee451
One more comment. Note how the windows are broken above the hole in the image below? Why would the windows be broken by the impact of landing gear, when the impact of the jet on the other side of the building didn't even break all the windows?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7da6e7283a1f.jpg[/atsimg]

Let me see if I understand this display of an intense path of wreckage amid mostly unidentifiable debris, but a scattering of obvious aircraft parts (some with green zinc primer commonly used on aircraft parts) buried in the debris showing a path of immense kinetic energy damage and then arrives at a large hole at the end the exact cause of which is unknown. Yet the contention is there was no aircraft there.

The windows are shattered above the hole, but not completely void of glass and the comment is why didn't the debris completely break those windows? Yet, the comment is that an explosive device made the hole.

The implication is that whatever made the hole didn't completely remove all of the glass, but an explosive device used just below those windows didn't remove all of the glass either!

Was a comment made about someones' credibility?

I've had my belly laugh for today!

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Thanks for your response but you also are not addressing my question which is :-

If all the aircraft wreckage is phoney and planted how was this done when that area of the Pentagon was not only plainly burning fiercely but in imminent danger of collapse, which soon occured ?

I appreciate your question, but it's not my job to answer that. The claim is a jet did this damage. The evidence at hand proves otherwise. If we laypeople can figure this out, the media, government and military of the world have certainly figured it out. The fact that they continue their lies and their wars in the face of so much evidence implicating THEM means we, the people of the world who just want to be left alone, have a BIG problem on our hands.

It should be obvious by now who the real enemy is. We have much more in common with the people we're being sent to kill than with the people who do the sending.

I do think that if some truthers want to pose a scenario whereby a jetliner didn't impact the Pentagon and all the wreckage was planted then it is really up to them to suggest how this could possibly have been done.

We know the scene was a fiery inferno and that within about 20 mins there was a collapse of the building in that area. Within seconds of the impact Pentagon police were observing the scene and the first of hundreds of first responders began arriving within minutes.

It seems to me that if truthers cannot even begin to suggest how this wreckage planting was supposed to have been carried out then isn't the obvious course to rethink the hypothesis ?

reply to post by Reheat

Let me see if I understand this display of an intense path of wreckage

Like this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ce15bb7d874.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/598e1fd1524b.jpg[/atsimg]

amid mostly unidentifiable debris, but a scattering of obvious aircraft parts (some with green zinc primer commonly used on aircraft parts)

Obvious to who? Were these parts forensically matched to the wheels off plane identified as flight 77? If all it takes is a little green zinc primer to convince you, why wouldn't the perpetrators scatter the stuff around as proof? Would anyone do that who didn't think we were a nation of Sheeple, and wouldn't our belief in such a transparent ploy prove their point?

immense kinetic energy damage

Now we're back to the KE damage again....it's immense.

How much would you calculate was lost here, when the wing smacked into, but didn't penetrate the front fascia?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd7ef961e453.jpg[/atsimg]

Yet the contention is there was no aircraft there.

Are you guys trained in Orwellian Doublespeak or something? The claim is that there WAS an aircraft there, but the proof offered is lacking forensic evidence and is provably impossible; fake physics reports by shill engineers notwithstanding.

The windows are shattered above the hole, but not completely void of glass and the comment is why didn't the debris completely break those windows? Yet, the comment is that an explosive device made the hole. The implication is that whatever made the hole didn't completely remove all of the glass, but an explosive device used just below those windows didn't remove all of the glass either!

Did you offer an explanation for the huge hole and how the tiny tire tread and fuselage, with the help of the wheel did that to a reinforced concrete wall? Nope. Did you even offer an explanation for the windows? Nope. How about the shock wave blew out the larger panes because they have a larger surface area than the smaller panes, as well as being closer to the blast?

How about instead of mocking and ridicule, you offer any sort of an argument as to how the damage FITS your theory? Why must it take us hundreds of pages of your transparent evasions to get a simple explanation?

Was a comment made about someones' credibility? I've had my belly laugh for today!

Yes, to you this is a joke.

reply to post by Alfie1


I am giving you a chance to explain, using the available evidence, how a plane caused the damage. It is not my claim; if you are making the claim that a jet caused the damage, it is your job to prove it. I can offer better theories, but it is certainly not my claim that a jet struck.

You offered nothing to counter my observations about your alleged proof that a plane caused the damage.

Instead you resort to the same blanket dismissals I've come to expect from the OS faithful.

For those who demand to see more aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon here's a file that you can blow-up and sort thru. Bear in mind that most of the wreckage was buried under the collapsed portion of the roof. This pile is some that was dug out and stacked for examination and eventual disposal. Also, bear in mind the Pentagon was/is constructed of concrete, limestone, and wood......

reply to post by Reheat


I would like an explanation of how the light well wall can be blown open like that when according to the ASCE/SEI* image the columns around the hole appear to have cracking and spalling with "no significant impairment"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/598e1fd1524b.jpg[/atsimg]


*Edit: The ever shrewd Reheat and 911files pointed out that it is not the NIST report I referenced. It is a report provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Structural Engineering Society. I stand corrected on the authors, and breathlessly await their responses to my posts on the contents of their report. Would that they could be as accurate there.

Originally posted by Alfie1
It seems to me that if truthers cannot even begin to suggest how this wreckage planting was supposed to have been carried out then isn't the obvious course to rethink the hypothesis ?

How dare you be so brazen to suggest that some people think,
let alone critically think.

Originally posted by Reheat
For those who demand to see more aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon here's a file that you can blow-up and sort thru. Bear in mind that most of the wreckage was buried under the collapsed portion of the roof. This pile is some that was dug out and stacked for examination and eventual disposal. Also, bear in mind the Pentagon was/is constructed of concrete, limestone, and wood......

edit on 23-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

The communications chief of the HQ platoon, SGT (redacted) describes the events of 11 September and the actions of his company at the Pentagon, where he and others spent 16-hour days examining debris in the north parking lot.

NEIT 049

SPC [redacted] saw the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Observations about crash site, rescue and recovery effort

NEIT 064

SPC [redacted] removed debris and plane parts from the Pentagon beginning 13 September. Notified FBI of locations.

NEIT 067

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Reheat
For those who demand to see more aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon here's a file that you can blow-up and sort thru. Bear in mind that most of the wreckage was buried under the collapsed portion of the roof. This pile is some that was dug out and stacked for examination and eventual disposal. Also, bear in mind the Pentagon was/is constructed of concrete, limestone, and wood......

edit on 23-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

The communications chief of the HQ platoon, SGT (redacted) describes the events of 11 September and the actions of his company at the Pentagon, where he and others spent 16-hour days examining debris in the north parking lot.

NEIT 049

Man, you guys are so predictable...when assaulted with all the contradictions of the OS, you resort to the same old fake morality. < snip >

Mod edit: please review the following link: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Reheat

 

I would like an explanation of how the light well wall can be blown open like that when according to the NIST image the columns around the hole appear to have cracking and spalling with "no significant impairment"

You will need to ask the authors of that Scientific Study.

Psssst - it wasn't NIST.

reply to post by Reheat


Excuse < snip > me, then whatever fake report those silly images were drawn from. It's one of the dozens or so BS reports thrown like sand into the eyes of the readers and me. They all look the same to me and they all make me feel unclean after reading them.

THIS LAME REPORT < snip >

Mod edit: Please review the following link: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Originally posted by 911files
NEIT 049

SPC [redacted] saw the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Observations about crash site, rescue and recovery effort

NEIT 064

SPC [redacted] removed debris and plane parts from the Pentagon beginning 13 September. Notified FBI of locations.

NEIT 067

edit on 23-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)

911Files, I doubt most here wlll install the Codec for viewing the videos. Is there another alternative?

reply to post by Reheat


Get as far away from the topic of the light well wall as possible?

Jebus, if you guys are the A team, our country is in worse shape than I thought.

***ATTENTION***

This threads title is "Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish". Please discuss this in a civil manner, without resorting to childish and insulting behavior.

Further instances of this will result in posts being removed and possible loss of posting privileges.

Thank you!

Hefficide
ATS member and forum moderator.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by 911files
NEIT 049

SPC [redacted] saw the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Observations about crash site, rescue and recovery effort

NEIT 064

SPC [redacted] removed debris and plane parts from the Pentagon beginning 13 September. Notified FBI of locations.

NEIT 067

edit on 23-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)

911Files, I doubt most here wlll install the Codec for viewing the videos. Is there another alternative?

No codec needed, they are interview audio files. They autoplay on the webpage.

I am new to this site, and to this post. I know there a lot of us that have researched this through & through, and I apologize if I am posting something that has been discussed in the previous 120+ pages.....

Have you ever seen the documentary 'In Plane Sight'? It's streaming thru Netflix, so it's easily accessible. It debunks pretty much every theory out there regarding the Pentagon (about 75% of the film is on this) & the twin towers. Even some of the diagrams that were posted in just the past few posts.

It's easy to watch & not hyped-up.