Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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.

This has already been debated.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The sources speak for themselves.

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?

So let me ask...yet AGAIN...why is it that the office supply warehouse I worked in in 2001 had full 30FPS recording and every camera outside the building also happened to capture the planes coming from and going to the local airport. Guess what, we were not purposely watching the planes either, cameras just happen to have a pretty decent field of view when not pointed STRAIGHT DOWN.

To think the Pentagon is ringed with cameras and yet none of them are recording full video and none of them is aimed any higher than 5 degrees up from -Y is a little on the naive side.

Do you really think that staplers and reams of paper are just more worthy of real surveillance than the Pentagon is?

reply to post by nik1halo


Actually I recall that same episode where a black box was subjected to all sorts of stress, in particular projectile impacts, and came through it all unbreached. It's not as if it wasn't damaged but more that it wasn't breached exposing the recorder inside.

They do have their limits though and perhaps the most important one in terms of survability is how many g's they can take, not the outer box but the contents within it. If the box was brought to a progressive standstill from 480 knots in about half the length of the plane it would experience over 100 g's. If it hit something relatively immovable like a building support column the peak g's would be drastically higher than that like 1000 g's or more.

Give me a friggin' break! This video is the best our government has to offer from one of the most secure buildings on the planet???

Does that alone not make it pretty obvious that there is at least some sort of cover up going on???

If that's all the security the Pentagon had, should we not all feel ripped off with our tax money???????

If I threw an anchor out onto the lawn of the Pentagon and photographed it, would you belive it was hit by a Cruise Liner?

Originally posted by nik1halo
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.

If you think the black box is supposed to survive every crash without fail, where are you getting your information from? Nobody is claiming a black box can survive every conceivable crash (except maybe you and your evidence doesn't support this) and this was a severe crash.

Flight data recorder

Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s²) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 cm.

OK it will withstand an impact velocity of 270 knots on the soft dirt, but perhaps not an impact at 500 kph into a reinforced concrete barrier. This crash apparently exceeds the parameters which the box was designed to withstand. They are pretty tough little boxes though.

reply to post by impressme


Your "sources" are all bogus "progressive" sites, you clown. Show me something real, not that asswipe National Enquirer garbage.

— Doc Velocity




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

Quote: "Both recorders are designed to withstand enormous impact and heat. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials said they should have withstood the conditions at the WTC.

And finding the boxes after a crash seems to be standard procedure, according to the NTSB.

“It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back,’ said NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz. “I can’t remember another case which we did not recover the recorders.”


So, please list for us the other instances where Flight Data Recorders were not recovered from similar crashes. Or, for that matter, any crashes where they were not recovered. Then we can compare the circumstances. Wouldn't that be fair and logical?

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

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]

Those bits were so obviously placed there by the Iranian Government I can't imagine why you fell for it.

How do I know those few bits of junk are from a Tupolev ? What about the serial numbers ?

Originally posted by upssales
Or, for that matter, any crashes where they were not recovered. Then we can compare the circumstances. Wouldn't that be fair and logical?

Well, you asked...

Partial List of Unrecovered Flight Recorders...


— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

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.

This has already been debated.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The sources speak for themselves.

That's about as evasive and non-responsive as you can get. I give you specific names and dates of FBI documents and you give me a link to a thread with people arguing and calling each other names, but no FBI document citations.

Roswell has already been debated too and that doesn't mean it's case closed, so saying it's been debated is no answer. I haven't seen you or your sources support their claims that the FBI actually said what is claimed.

What I suspect is happening is the report I cited said the FBI can't say who made those 4 calls but they think Olsen did. Then your source distorts that report to say the FBI has no evidence that Olsen made that call and thinks it was a hoax. If you can't prove otherwise don't expect people to accept such meaningless statements as "the sources speak for themselves". That argument actually hurts your case because they look about as credible as the tabloids that say Elvis is still alive and married a female bigfoot.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by upssales
Or, for that matter, any crashes where they were not recovered. Then we can compare the circumstances. Wouldn't that be fair and logical?

Well, you asked...

Partial List of Unrecovered Flight Recorders...


— Doc Velocity

Okay, so out of 10 not recovered, 2 listed are from 9-11, 7 were LOST in deep waters (hardly the same circumstances as the Pentagon or Shanksville), and the ONLY one not lost in water was this one:

Quote: "El Al cargo flight 1862 came from New York and was heading for Tel Aviv after a crew-change and refuelling in Amsterdam. What it carried is still being discussed, nine years later.

Israel has admitted that the cargo included 190 litres of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a chemical that can be used both for making sarin nerve gas and in building materials as a flame retardant. The Israeli government insists that the chemicals were non-toxic but this claim is contradicted by El Al, which admits that the plane was carrying chemicals for the nerve gas sarin.

The Dutch media, citing the plane’s freight documents, says that the chemical cargo was on its way from a US factory to the Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona near Tel Aviv.

After the crash, men in white suits were seen searching through the wreckage. The black box has never been found and there are rumours that the white men were members of the Israeli secret service that joined the rescue team in order to remove sensitive material. "

Once again, not helping your case.

reply to post by WarloriousCreed

WHY DONT YOU!?

WHY DON'T YOU READ HIS FOLLOW UP POSTS?

He posted the links, and still this demand has been repeated several times AFTER he did so.

Follow them.

Read them.

View the photos in their wondrous glory. Or rather sad indictment of your delusions and paranoia.

If you chose to run around with your fingers stuck in your ears and a blindfold on your eyes, please put a gag on your mouth and tape your fingers together at the same time.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by upssales
Or, for that matter, any crashes where they were not recovered. Then we can compare the circumstances. Wouldn't that be fair and logical?

Well, you asked...

Partial List of Unrecovered Flight Recorders...


— Doc Velocity

Wow, did you really need to be told that 7 being lost in deep water is not NEARLY the same circumstance? Did you really need someone to point that out to you?

Minus deep sea and 9/11 you have ONE!

reply to post by Thermo Klein


I have not read every reply here, so maybe this is already addressed, but I have a question. If the plane didn't hit the pentagon, what are you suggesting happened to that flight, and those passengers. My memory is bad, but I assume we were told everyone on board died. What about all those relatives of dead passengers. Could all that be faked?

I couldn't get the video links, my screen is blank where those were. Does anyone have the links?

Click here to learn more about this warning.




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

Click here to learn more about this warning.




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

reply to post by 13AJJONES


For a start..if your going to post at least try to get the facts straight mate!

It wasn't travelling at 500+MPH, according to the BS/OS it was travelling at 500+KPH, a significant difference.

And as for the righteous tone of your post, perhaps you'd like to explain your understanding of the physics you are using to justify your opinion?

I'd like to know how you arrive at the aeroplane hitting a fortified concrete that disintegrates on impact (including the huge wings, and high tail section inc. horizontal tail fins)?

I take it, you are using the 'incredible atomising aeroplane theory' to explain the lack of damage to the wall from either the wings or the tail assembly? Is this correct?

Care to explain then, how an aeroplane that disintegrate/vaporizes on impact, but still manages to make neat, circular holes in several of these fortified walls, finally exiting the last wall, again, leaving a neat, round hole?

Perhaps i'm missing something fundamental here, but i don't know of any physics (the physics that you and others are relying on to explain events) that can both vaporise on contact, but still make a series of circular holes, that we are meant to believe were created by the fuselage of an aeroplane.

Think about it. You can't have it both ways.

What don't we put this on trial. Set up a fund. Hire the best defense and prosecuting attorney's money can buy. Make it very public. Bypass the government of course and put this theory on trial with all the evidence collected. Of course it wouldn't mean anything in the legal sense. But, if the defense loses I bet it would wake people up. If the prosecution loses then it would put the theory to rest. Jakob Lemy Zook

reply to post by spikey


Oy, I think Spikey done it!! The Brits have always been meddling in our affairs, and see now how they're trying to usurp our conspiracies!

SPIKEY DONE IT!
Have a care, mate!

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by spikey


Actually, the last recorded airspeed of that 757 was 483 knots. That amounts to over 550mph, 893 km/hr or 248 m/sec. Indeed it makes a big difference as the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.