Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
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.

Right. I think if they are guilty of anything, it's perhaps not being proactive enough to use what intelligence they had to do more to prevent the attacks, and then possibly covering up their own incompetence and bungling in not doing more to prevent the attacks, that much I could believe which would be consistent with your description.

But even the government folks aren't silly enough to try to make people think a plane hit the pentagon by using something other than a plane. Why create all that extra work for themselves, some of which is impossible like planting the airplane and body parts without anybody noticing.

It reminds me of that meaningful quote from a "Team America" musical part
" Even Rocky went through a montage"

How can so many people in a civilized country buy such a lie ? I've seen with my very eyes the Garges-les-Gonesse crash in France, and when I saw the extent of damage due to a Concorde, I can't even think of what an airbus would have done to the Pentagon. Luckily the blak-op psy-op team in charge decided to keep the Pentagon up and running... symbolism maybe...

reply to post by Doc Velocity

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.

Sorry but Barbra Olsen phone calls never happened Ted Olsen lied, and the FBI has now admitted to it.

BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!

www.opednews.com...

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Pentagon 9/11: Barbara olson's Phone Calls Didn't Happen

tribes.tribe.net...-c6aa-447f-b424-499b0ea2ee72

David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview

www.youtube.com...

And now comes the second thing we truthers are most tired of hearing: "The govt is stupid. And they can't keep secrets."

Oh really? Then please explain how they managed to keep all of the secrets they did prior to being made public through the Freedom of Information Act??

Here, I'll give you the same challenge that I've given everyone else that I've had this argument with. Please, if you can, provide me with pics of another crash site anywhere in the world where a large plane has crashed and left a similar debris field, as with the Pentagon and Shanksville "crashes". And while you're at it, please post the crashes where the black boxes couldn't be recovered or weren't "useable".

This should be a simple thing to do with the internet at your fingertips and so many plane crashes to choose from. Right?

Chop chop.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b36a881b2a7.jpg[/atsimg]

Why is this piece of the plane so far away from the impact point? We were all told that due to the speed of the plane at impact, the plane virtually disintegrated. And from the sparkling clear 5 frames of video that the Pentagon's high tech camera captured, we know that it burst into flames INSTANTLY.

So how did this small, obviously fragile, lightweight piece not only survive being pulverized, but also escape without as much as a smoke stain?

I'm not asking trick questions here. I'm asking OBVIOUS questions! Questions any real NTSB investigator should have asked, but didn't.

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

No, you made a error again, have another look at the picture you commented on, the exhaust turbine is what the bloke is looking at is what matches the RB211 engine part found inside the Pentagon, not the compressors you indicated.... you obviously know nothing about jet engines. So you confirm it was a 757 engine found inside the Pentagon!

Originally posted by Meesterjojo
Ya know, using google is a wonderful thing, but claiming that you alone have all the evidence, then pulling photos from google image search, adding cliched text (not that you haven't thought the stuff before, only that it's been said a million times), well, um...no.

I believe the government had some hand in all of it, but I don't salute your weak efforts at explaining the pentagon deal, and I also don't like your title "Absolute proof".

You know, I found better photos, and more of them, with perhaps slightly more reveling bits on google. Eh, better luck next time.

Folks: This is why college students can't use "Google.com" as a source for their reports. Do some real homework, get information directly from as many sources as possible. I really shouldn't have to repeat this every time a thread like this is started.

Who says college kids can't use google as a source? I use it all the time, it's HOW you use the information. Google has lots of GOOD information on many topics, it's how you use the information I think....

Also if this thread is so bad and shows nothing then why dont you do better since you seem to think you have seen better pics.

OP great thread! I have never thought a plane hit the Pentagon and I know nothing about planes. It just didnt look like a plane hit it after I looked at pics and it was just a feeling I kept having.

S&F!

Originally posted by upssales
And now comes the second thing we truthers are most tired of hearing: "The govt is stupid. And they can't keep secrets."

Oh really? Then please explain how they managed to keep all of the secrets they did prior to being made public through the Freedom of Information Act??

With the 9/11 "coverup" there would have to be dozens if not more people all on the same page and quiet about the same thing for the rest of their lives. When things happen just between a smaller group, it is easier to hide. Base work is compartmentalized, why wouldnt the government operate on basically the same idea just tailored a bit?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1cf317e0155e.jpg[/atsimg]


A plane crashed into DIRT here! Where is it??? This is EXACTLY like the story I told about my car burning away to nothingness.

So please, I'm begging you, give me an intelligent explanation of how this could possibly happen. Show me just one more instance in all of history where a plane crash site that looked similar to this one! Because I've looked and looked, but I can't find one.

911review.org...

can anyone verify that the info in this list is correct , if so , its more proof it wasent a plain.

sorry if this link has been posted before

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

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.

Sorry but Barbra Olsen phone calls never happened Ted Olsen lied, and the FBI has now admitted to it.

BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!

www.opednews.com...

I read your source saying what the FBI said but the source saying what the FBI said is hearsay, it's not the FBI saying it.

In fact I found another source which says the FBI said something different:

www.faqs.org...

57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all fam- ily members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001; AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004.

So are you saying they definitely determined who all those 4 calls were to now? And if so who were they to?

But also if you have a source of what the FBI actually said or a specific FBI citation that can be looked up like those in the source I listed, that would be much better than a source making claims about what the FBI said that may be misinterpreted. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just asking for better evidence that's not hearsay. Thanks.

Originally posted by A-E-I-Owned-You

With the 9/11 "coverup" there would have to be dozens if not more people all on the same page and quiet about the same thing for the rest of their lives. When things happen just between a smaller group, it is easier to hide. Base work is compartmentalized, why wouldnt the government operate on basically the same idea just tailored a bit?

It is said two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. If you think a little outside the box some concepts create thought.

Lets assume Bin Laden or some one came up with the idea to use a plane against a building, some people found out and helped rather than hindered. So Bin Laden is blamed, the man hates the US, would he take the blame? of course he would. Would he take the blame for all four? course he would.

Now you need a couple of buildings, in comes Larry, can money buy silence? of course it can. Especially to the tune of 5 billion dollars.

So what else can we see a trail of.

An article in the TimesOnline gives the following rundown of precious metals that were being stored in the WTC vault belonging to Comex. 3

* Comex metals trading - 3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million
* Comex clients - 800,000 ounces of gold with a value of about $220 million
* Comex clients - 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million
* Bank of Nova Scotia - $200 million of gold

Note the Bank of Nova Scotia's gold deposit was the only one not insured, and the only one returned.

Second report here.
The Comex metals trading division of the New York Mercantile Exchange kept 3,800 gold bars — weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million (£70 million) — in vaults in the building’s basement. Comex also held almost 800,000 ounces of gold there on behalf of others with a value of about $220 million. It also held more than 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million.
911research.wtc7.net...

Money can be a powerful way of keeping people silent.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
An article in the TimesOnline gives the following rundown of precious metals that were being stored in the WTC vault

and all of that was recovered...
www.rediff.com...

""All of the silver, gold, platinum, and palladium stored in its vaults at 4 World Trade Center have been successfully relocated by an Exchange-approved carrier to a newly Exchange-licensed Brink's Inc depository in Brooklyn,"

Originally posted by upssales
And now comes the second thing we truthers are most tired of hearing: "The govt is stupid. And they can't keep secrets."

Oh really? Then please explain how they managed to keep all of the secrets they did prior to being made public through the Freedom of Information Act??

Here, I'll give you the same challenge that I've given everyone else that I've had this argument with. Please, if you can, provide me with pics of another crash site anywhere in the world where a large plane has crashed and left a similar debris field, as with the Pentagon and Shanksville "crashes". And while you're at it, please post the crashes where the black boxes couldn't be recovered or weren't "useable".

This should be a simple thing to do with the internet at your fingertips and so many plane crashes to choose from. Right?

Chop chop.

Here you go :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

Where is the plane ?

There is no way that that is the black box from this plane. There is a TV show here in the UK called Brainiac: Science Abuse, where they took a black box and subjected it to serious assaults to see just how indestructable they are.

Here's what it survived:

- A barrage by US Civil War-era muskets, and then a 10lb ordinance rifle (a rifled cannon used by both sides in the conflict).
- A napalm charge being detonated right in front of it.
- A round of shots from some of the best boys down at the London Gentry (it was shot at by a tank).
- Being dropped in a barrel full of highly corrosive acid. It should be noted that this had one major problem: they attached a bungee cord to it. The blackbox wasn't in the acid for very long; therefore, the acid couldn't do much to the blackbox before it sprung out of the barrel.
- An attack by Bigfoot (the monster truck).

So, one black box survived all of that, one after the other. Are we to believe that a simple plane crash managed to do as much damage as shown in the picture?

These little suckers are designed to withstand a crash, that's the whole point of them.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Here you go :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

Where is the plane ?

See the 6 pics here.
news.bbc.co.uk...

more wreckage here
www.presstv.ir...

Here

www.tehrantimes.com...

And here

www.newsgd.com...

Here

www.newsgd.com...

Here

www.apakistannews.com...

And the tail here.

social.moldova.org...


As a Ps. would someone like to tell me how to embed pics as others do please?

[edit on 8/2/2010 by prof-rabbit]

Originally posted by upssales
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b36a881b2a7.jpg[/atsimg]

Why is this piece of the plane so far away from the impact point? We were all told that due to the speed of the plane at impact, the plane virtually disintegrated. And from the sparkling clear 5 frames of video that the Pentagon's high tech camera captured, we know that it burst into flames INSTANTLY.

So how did this small, obviously fragile, lightweight piece not only survive being pulverized, but also escape without as much as a smoke stain?

I'm not asking trick questions here. I'm asking OBVIOUS questions! Questions any real NTSB investigator should have asked, but didn't.

Why does a billiard ball bounce off the bumper or rail of a billiard table? Because the momentum of the object can be reflected off of certain surfaces. And the airplane was going maybe 500 kph so it certainly had enough momentum for some parts to bounce quite a distance if the conditions were right. That part might just be too light to penetrate the reinforced concrete structure so it probably bounced instead as it was ripped off the plane while entering, but that's just my guess.

You'd have to get the real answer from a crash investigator, but my college buddy was a mechanical engineering major who got a job at an accident reconstruction and analysis firm and they reconstructed accidents using sophisticated software and other tools. I know sometimes things bounce, but not everything does. Crashes are very complex interactions and if you don't deal with them all the time you might find some things surprising, that wouldn't surprise people that do crash investigations for a living.

Thanks prof-rabbit. You just saved me the trouble of posting all of those pics myself. (you can imbed pics by saving the pics to an album in your profile first. Then cut and paste the links into the thread.)

Even in the BBC video provided above, the first thing it shows is a huge piece of wreckage. And later what looks to be almost an entire wing! So I don't think that video link is helping their cause any. In fact, just further proves how a plane didn't crash at the Pentagon or Shanksville.

Here's the only thing that bugs me

In repeated examinations of these deep-field images from security cameras at the Pentagon, I am not seeing a great big Boeing 757-223 hauling ass through the field of view at 530 mph. I pointed a [color=brightred]b]BIG RED ARROW at the space where a Boeing 757 needs to be in the following 4-frame GIF...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/26de8a481c69.gif[/atsimg]

Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what a Boeing 757-223 looks like when captured in still-frame at 530 mph at ground level. Would it look like a "bluish-white blur" as some people say they see in the third frame? 530 mph is almost incomprehensibly fast at ground level, we humans never encounter objects traveling at this velocity in our everyday lives, we have very little in the way of a point of reference.

So, when a security camera captures "the incident" but doesn't really show us anything. perhaps it's because we have no frame of reference for identifying what we expect to see. We want to see a sleek silver fuselage poised just outside the wall of the Pentagon in one frame, and then a big fireball in the next frame.

That's conclusive proof, to us.

But I'm not seeing that silverish fuselage with light glinting off of it, and I'm not seeing what everbody agrees would be a dead giveaway, a 45-foot tail flagging through the image.

But maybe our optical perspective is seriously skewed in the above images... Looking at the images captured, you see there IS an artifact that fits the bill as a 757 tail!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b32d0a22022a.gif[/atsimg]

Between the first and third frames, there's some sort of little gizmo trying to move to the left (as circled in green), just before the explosion. Hm.

Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left.

Could that qualify as the tailfin of a Boeing 757? Perhaps, considering the drastic perspective of the image, as afforded by the wide-angle security camera lenses, and the fact that the plane is being driven into the ground at 530 mph by some assclown who trained to be a pilot for a few weeks down in Florida.

Why not?

Seriously, why could this NOT be a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon?

You "truthers" need to gather up all your 16-foot diameter holes and sinister "body wagons" spreading human tissue samples around crash sites and take it to the Supreme Court, if you seriously think you have some sort of case.

Because you're not selling it very well anywhere else.

— Doc Velocity






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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Crashes are very complex interactions and if you don't deal with them all the time you might find some things surprising, that wouldn't surprise people that do crash investigations for a living.

True, cuz I'm surprised a really soft person didn't get bounced out onto the lawn.

Ahem, I said "intelligent explanations". Thank you.