Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Is it possible that they didn't set up any video cameras to film plane attacks on the pentagon? That's my first guess. The cameras are setup for other reasons, like cars driving slowly compared to the speed of a jet for parking lot surveillance, etc. And maybe the frame rate (frames per second) of the cameras is adequate for the application they were intended for like filming cars, but inadequate for applications they were not intended for like filming airplanes which travel at higher speeds), why would that be so shocking?

Oh, come on now. Did I need to preface by saying "intelligent explanations"? The Pentagon roof is littered with surveillance camera's. And NOT ONE captured a video of the plane hitting the building? I bet the terrorists said, "hey, the Pentagon's camera's are only set up for capturing cars and people on video, so if we use a plane.....". Are you kidding me?? By that rationale, convenience store camera's are only set up for capturing people robbing the clerk at gunpoint. Not vehicles crashing through the front window to steal ATM's. So maybe those criminals aren't that dumb after all. They just didn't expect 7-11 to be so "hi-tech". lmao

Oops, forgot to answer your question, "why would that be so shocking?"

Answer: Because it's the friggin' Pentagon!!!

[edit on 8-2-2010 by upssales]

Originally posted by theyareoutthere
I have seen a very short clip from a helicopter posted on youtibe that shows something smaller hitting the pentagon. it has wings, yes but does not appear to be a 757. I am trying to find it and I will post a link to it.

I found it here:

[edit on 7-2-2010 by theyareoutthere]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by theyareoutthere]

Very interesting good find.
may be made vid may be not

[edit on 8-2-2010 by way I man]

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I'll spend more time looking into thsi but it's a little weird that for this one flight attendant they say she was a 25-year, 27-year, and 30-year veteran... 3 different stories on one page!

www.afanet.org...

I'm open to changing my mind - but extraneous, although apparently sad, stories like this aren't convincing evidence compared to on-the-scene pictures that clearly show no airplane crashed that day. I wish I did know what happened that day.

We'll never know untill the FBI releases those videos. For now you could go bat-# insane looking over all these photos and speculation, so I don't really look too much into it.

All there is to know is that there was a conspiracy against the American people that day, and that is that. No point in debating wether or not it was a plane that hit the Pentagon because you'll just never know.


Also to the guy who was talking about the faked moonlandings...Wasn't that debunked? I remember looking up a whole load to do with that recently and I came across Mythbusters. They showed how the flag could have waved even though they were in space etc, basically debunked all the conspiracy theorists claims! Interesting stuff.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by Baguette]

Originally posted by dereks
Due to the severe damage done to it , unchecked fires, the movement of it before it fell and the noise it was making it was obvious it was going to fall. Just look at all the other misreporting done that day!

Damage to building 7 was minimal, buildings 5 and 6 were severely damaged see buildings 3 - 6 here,
911research.wtc7.net...

Movement? noise? where are the reports?

That video is very interesting. Hopefully a clearer version of it is out there and will either show a 757 or a missile. I'd just be happy to see an undisputable picture of either one.

Also, I actually took the time to think about the hypothesis offered a few minutes ago. Regarding the camera's at the Pentagon not being set up to capture planes hitting the building. And here's what I came up with; If the camera's really weren't capable of catching planes on video, there's no way that the so-called terrorists would have known that. BUT, our government obviously would have known it. So perhaps you're right, and that's why they chose high speed aircraft (I didn't say planes), rather than another truck bomb of manure.

Now let's see you trying not to have that both ways....

Originally posted by dereks
The "truthers" are the only ones lying here, no plane hit the Pentagon (because they refuse to visit the site showing pictures of a 757 parts), explosives used in the WTC buildings, beam weapons used, atomic bombs used, pod carrying aircraft etc etc. All lies!~

OK this is what you're not comprehending...

Your pictures could be fake, the parts could have been planted, there is a margin of doubt as to their validity. There is no proof they are parts from flight 77, no records to verify the claims...

Now, as for the pictures the OP used to make his point. They are not fake, they were not planted, there is no doubt as to their validity...

Now back to the point, where is the Boeing? Where are all the other parts that are not in your small list of photographs. Do you know there are 22 rotor hubs in the 2 engines of a Boeing 757? I have only seen a picture of one, where are all the others? While we're at it where are the rotor shafts, there should be 2, they are quit large and would not be damaged in a fire? The engine casings that house the compression and combustion sections, (designed to not shatter on impact to protect the fuselage from engine parts) etc? Hmmmmmm? Do you think your collection of 'parts' really makes a whole Boeing? It doesn't even make one engine, not even half an engine, in fact less than about 5% at my guess (as an ex Navy jet engine mechanic).

Others in this thread have tried to point this out to you obviously, but you needed it explained on a level you might understand.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Baguette

We'll never know untill the FBI releases those videos. For now you could go bat-# insane looking over all these photos and speculation, so I don't really look too much into it.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by Baguette]

How would the FBI know where ALL of the cameras in the area were? but it seems they got them all...

Bazinga! Nice job! Some new information on the engine parts that I wasn't aware of, so thanks!

Bottom line is this, there's no evidence of a plane in any of the pics or videos that would even come close to proving it happened in court of law. The same can be said about the lack of ANY discernible plane debris in Shanksville. IMHO, an even more convincing case for govt conspiracy.

"The "truthers" are the only ones lying here, no plane hit the Pentagon (because they refuse to visit the site showing pictures of a 757 parts), explosives used in the WTC buildings, beam weapons used, atomic bombs used, pod carrying aircraft etc etc. All lies!~"

My post was responding to your comments about Building 7 and this is your response? Beam weapons? Where the heck did that come from? C'mon, you can do better than that. Next time, just do a better job of keeping track of your lies and you won't contradict yourself. It's not that difficult if you concentrate.

So the obvious question that "truthers" can never answer is: What the hell happened to AA Flight 77? Where the hell IS IT?

Where are the crew, the passengers? Whisked away and assassinated in a secret Virginia location while a cruise missile was launched into the Pentagon?

The "truther" story is hopelessly convoluted.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


We don't have to answer that question.

Not knowing what happened to the plane, or passengers, changes nothing in the known physics of the events. We are not speculating here we are dealing with the KNOWN facts.

Sorry I know it's your last ditch cling to the OS point but it fails, miserably.

"How would the FBI know where ALL of the cameras in the area were? but it seems they got them all..."

Simple. By scoping out the area in advance, which means they must have had prior knowledge of the incident.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

How would the FBI know where ALL of the cameras in the area were? but it seems they got them all...

Another great point!! But the more important question is, WHY? Why did the FBI confiscate them all? Like I mentioned earlier, they didn't do that at Ground Zero! So saying that the video's were needed for evidence in the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial doesn't add up! Especially since the FBI confiscated them within hours of the Pentagon attack, when they didn't even know there would be a trial.

lol who says the plane went in the way it is shown in that picture? Who is to say it didnt tumble in semi sideways and then fold in on itself in a way?

The hole could be from an engine falling off.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
So the obvious question that "truthers" can never answer is: What the hell happened to AA Flight 77? Where the hell IS IT?

Where are the crew, the passengers? Whisked away and assassinated in a secret Virginia location while a cruise missile was launched into the Pentagon?

The "truther" story is hopelessly convoluted.

— Doc Velocity

This is the response I hate the most and get so tired of hearing. Why? Because claiming that just because we don't know what really happened to Flight 77, means that the official story must then be true. Which is ridiculous.

ex: I called my insurance guy the other day and told him that my car had caught fire and was destroyed beyond repair. He promptly set up a time to come out to my house and survey the damage. When he got here, I took him out to my garage and showed him the burnt spot in the floor. He then asked, "but where's the car?". I told him it had burnt until it disintegrated. Which of course was the first time in automotive history that something like that had ever happened. But I argued that it must be true, because if it wasn't, then all he needed to do was tell me where it really was.

Now, do you see why asking us what happened to the plane is so annoying? Because that responsibility lies on the person who makes the claim, not the people who are being TOLD to believe it.

"So the obvious question that "truthers" can never answer is: What the hell happened to AA Flight 77? Where the hell IS IT?"

Has it been positively established that Flight 77 even existed? Where is the photographic or video evidence at the airport of all the alleged passengers and crew checking in and going through screening for Flight 77? You know, Dulles is a major airport. Certainly there were security cameras all over the joint. Why don't we start from there instead of putting the horse before the cart?

Your attempt to sway the argument away from the fact that no definitive physical evidence exists of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is pathetic, to say the least. What's the matter? Since you lost the physical evidence argument, you now need to jump to a different issue which cannot be proven by those who are not in the know? You guys need to get a little more creative and stop regurgitating the same old, same old.




[edit on 8-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 8-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

"He then asked, "but where's the car?". I told him it had burnt until it disintegrated. Which of course was the first time in automotive history that something like that had ever happened. But I argued that it must be true, because if it wasn't, then all he needed to do was tell me where it really was."

Awesome post! If I was the insurance adjuster, you know how I would have responded? Claim denied wise guy!!!

[edit on 8-2-2010 by upssales]

"No wonder you don't get it. You dont even realize that the horse does go before the cart...."

Sorry, my mistake, I mixed it up. Thank you for noticing. Now, since that has been cleared up, can you respond to the rest of my post? That's if YOU GET IT, of course.