Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

There's not an insurance adjuster in the world that would approve that claim! Yet, it's virtually the same claim that we as American citizens are being asked to approve regarding both the Pentagon and Shanksville. Is it not?

I removed my reply before you ever even replied to it. I meant to sound funny, but came off "dickish", I apologize.

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

I have no investment in the Pentagon attack, one way or another.

The "truther" anti-mentality is that a conspiracy must exist in the absence of evidence. Face it, you have no evidence of anything, only paranoid speculation.

And it's typical for the "truthers" to arrogantly turn up their noses to the only logical question: If it didn't hit the Pentagon, WTF happened to AA Flight 77?

That's the key that decouples the whole "truther" train of speculation on this non-event. While they discuss AA Flight 77 at length as an abstract element in their fantasy, they avoid attempting to address the only logical question — where did the plane go if not through the Pentagon? Into the Bermuda Triangle?

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 2/8/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
That's the key that decouples the whole "truther" train of speculation on this non-event. While they discuss AA Flight 77 at length as an abstract element in their fantasy, they avoid attempting to address the only logical question — where did the plane go if not through the Pentagon? Into the Bermuda Triangle?

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/8/2010 by Doc Velocity]

No, let us view the basic premise, "a large airliner hit the Pentagon", given all the pictures of the wall before collapse please show where 5 tons of engine impacted the wall in two places.

If you cannot do so then something else happened. What happened is not known to us. However it is then clear your government is lying to you.

Originally posted by upssales
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.

That really is the bottom line when talking about 911 conspiracy. How anybody could believe in the OS after seeing the lack of wreckage in Shanksville AND at the Pentagon, is beyond belief.

No plane crashed in Shanksville and no plane hit the Pentagon. It so obvious that anyone who continues to argue that there was, simply looks completely foolish.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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?

Of course there is record and proof that AA Flight 77 existed and that passengers who boarded it have vanished from the face of the earth... Even some rather famous people "vanished" along with Flight 77.

What happened to CNN's Barbara Olson, a passenger on AA77, one of the only people who made cellphone calls from the flight after takeoff and its hijacking?

Her phone calls exist as a matter of record (they were hot evidence in the 911 investigation), and I imagine they could be pinpointed by GPS tracking, if it came down to it, to prove that Barbara Olson was calling from a hijacked plane.

Barbara Olson never returned to CNN nor to her husband and family.

Where did she go, if not into the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour?

For "truthers" to brush the question aside is the height of arrogance and the depth of stupidity.

The biological evidence was there, the DNA evidence was there, at the Pentagon, proving that passengers who had boarded AA77 earlier that morning somehow ended up splattered all over the interior of the Pentagon.

Now, if we're going to disregard all scientific evidence because it's tainted by conspiracy, then you can make up any preposterous story you want. Come on, you can do better than George Bush personally firing cruise missiles at the Pentagon, you imbeciles. Get really creative.

Sheesh.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Hey Doc

Before you make yourself look any more foolish

What phone calls did Barbara make.

2 phone calls to her husband , as HE claimed on Larry King ?

Funny thing those calls.

The FBI say they didn't happen

Cmon Doc , you looking a tad silly

Originally posted by fxmodels
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Please post the pictures and further proof you seem to have. I have never seen the pool of aluminum you mention. The metal piece from within the engine, that happened to be sitting in the back of Pentagon Wing C, by itself, doesn't really sell me - where are the whole engines, the whole wheels, the main support beam, etc.

Post the pics if they exist.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by upssales
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??

I'm not denying they had cameras, I'm just saying they weren't high frame rate cameras set up to monitor planes traveling at high speeds.

I don't think the terrorists cared what kind of cameras they had. If they get caught on camera like the 7-11 robber so what, he's a suicide terrorist, he probably would consider it a bonus to his martyrdom if he got caught on camera somehow.

But the main point you don't seem to be aware of is that people that tried to suggest to the pentagon they needed to protect against a plane flying into the pentagon were considered "nuts" as this demonstrates:

The Pentagon - Missile batteries

Former Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor for the U.S. National Security Council Richard Clarke had a few things to say about the matter, as well. From page 131 of his book "Against All Enemies":

"We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts."

So why would they bother setting up cameras to monitor airplanes if they thought the people proposing an air defense system were nuts? There you go.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
No, let us view the basic premise, "a large airliner hit the Pentagon", given all the pictures of the wall before collapse please show where 5 tons of engine impacted the wall in two places. If you cannot do so then something else happened. What happened is not known to us. However it is then clear your government is lying to you.

No. You're making a gigantic leap of reasoning from "we quite simply don't know what happened" to "your government is lying to you"... You may as well have said We don't know what happened THEREFORE the government is lying to you.

Which is absurd.

Look, I don't trust the government at all, but I really don't trust people who try to make everything the government's fault. Such people have way too much time on their hands for dreaming up all sorts of crazy nonsense, and they give the government too much credit for inventiveness.

What we know for a fact is that our government couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. They couldn't hit water if they fell out of a fekking boat.

I've worked with people in Washington, I've even worked with some of the biggest agencies and departments, and I'm telling you that those people aren't criminal masterminds — they're government employees, a dismal lot, not particularly stupid, but let's say they don't go the extra mile to showcase their intelligence.

They're bureaucrats, paper-chasers, pencil-pushers, not terribly inventive people.

For the "truthers" to conjure up these extraordinary cloak & dagger conspiracy theories, they have to elevate the government to the intellectual level of Brainiac, okay?

And that aint happening.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 2/8/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I'll ask the same question I've asked several times (with no answer) in this thread:

You honestly think it would be easier for the government to hide 64 people and an entire plane and then launch a missile mocked-up to look like the exact same plane, rather than just use the plane itself?"

No, it would not be easier... jeez. It's a stupid, inappropriate, unhelpful, and unrelated question - maybe that's why you had to ask it 27 times without anyone answering you. No, given that lame ass scenario it would not have been easier.

Now one for you:
Is it easier for Santa Claus to use the chimney? Why doesn't he just use a door?

Originally posted by upssales
Long time reader, first time poster. Mainly because I just cant sit back and watch anymore. I never considered myself a conspiracy theorist, but after looking into everything that happened on 9-11, I guess I have no choice but to be one now.

Welcome! Glad you signed on =)

I call myself a "conspiracist" rather than conspiracy theorist
sounds a little better

Originally posted by Sean48
2 phone calls to her husband , as HE claimed on Larry King ?
The FBI say they didn't happen
Cmon Doc , you looking a tad silly

Show me where the FBI says those phone calls didn't take place, because Barbara Olson's calls were gathered as evidence in the 911 investigation, and they were hot evidence — meaning that there was record of the calls.

So I want to see where the FBI said those calls never happened. This is news to me.

Watch your own "silly" ass before watching mine.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
For the "truthers" to conjure up these extraordinary cloak & dagger conspiracy theories, they have to elevate the government to the intellectual level of Brainiac, okay?]

Very true, a President could not even cover up a blow job in the WhiteHouse, yet we are expected that 911 was planned with such detail, involving (according to the conspiracy theorists)

Thousands in the USAF knowing about it.
secret invisible ninjas installing tonnes of explosives in the WTC buildings requiring man months of work, but no one noticed?
Flight 77 landing some where secretly, then the passengers and crew were murdered, their bodies burnt and torn apart, then 757 engines, 757 wheels, undercarriage and the body parts all scattered around inside the Pentagon - and no one noticed?
nuclear weapons and/or spaced based beam weapons were used to bring down the 3 WTC's.
etc etc.

So with all these many people involved there is no proof at all explosives were used, no proof Flight 77 landed anywhere etc etc.

And we are supposed to believe the government could cover all of this up?

Originally posted by way I man

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]

I fully believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but that video is obviously fake... the projectile is striking the building in the wrong location. The actual point of impact is quite a bit to the right of where that CGI "missile" is hitting.

I just call 'em how I see 'em.

Originally posted by dereks
And we are supposed to believe the government could cover all of this up?

The paperwork alone, trying to organize these ridiculous conspiracies, would spill out into the streets. Government workers would be walking off the job because of the excess red tape.

Seriously, kids, Washington is a center of mundanity.

Good Asian restaurants, though.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
For the "truthers" to conjure up these extraordinary cloak & dagger conspiracy theories, they have to elevate the government to the intellectual level of Brainiac, okay?]

Very true, a President could not even cover up a blow job in the WhiteHouse, yet we are expected that 911 was planned with such detail, involving (according to the conspiracy theorists)

There is so much truth in that. I mean, people talk of conspiracies with 9/11, but there are witnesses and proof for most of it. We cannot expect the government to give us all of the information we desire. While we may deserve it, that is not how things work no matter how hard we cry. There is NO way that many people could keep it a secret. Bottom line.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Hi Thermo Klein!

A missile with a delay warhead would result in an internal explosion and the effects seen in the pics.

There is a pic from the incident which shows a small turbine fan that may be from a cruise missile.

reply to post by dereks


How about the crew of Flight 77 being part of the conspiracy!

Originally posted by djbj597922

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
I looked at the comparison of photos contained at the Aerospaceweb.org website and found it very amazing that anyone would think that the aircraft part found in the Pentagon is the same as a Rolls Royce RB211.

obviously you also know nothing at all about jet engines. You are comparing a compressor with a exhaust turbine, 2 completely different components with a different purpose, so of course they look different!!

Actually, if you examine the picture you posted the bloke in it is fiddling with the exhaust turbine, which looks exactly like the part found....

Just more "truther" quality research!

[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

I can't actually see what Dereks says because I put him on ignore a long time ago when I realized that he refuses to actually argue with facts and honesty.

The fact is, those two pictures that I analyzed were the very two pictures compared by the website I referenced... a website dedicated to the official story.

This is so typical of what that particular member does... I made it very clear that I got those two photos, side-by-side, from the website that published an analysis in support of the official story. But, in typical fashion, he continues to skew and manipulate the truth... in this case making it look like I am the one who pulled those two pictures together, which I made it very clear that I was not. Those pictures, linked side-by-side, come from the in-depth analysis produced by a PRO-OFFICIAL-STORY website, as referenced in my post.

My analysis merely shows how their attempt to put those things together is in error, thereby invalidating their entire analysis.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by downisreallyup]