Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by randysz
Alright, my first post here on ATS, but I feel i have some valuable information to bring to the table.

First thing I'd like to bring up is the fact that 9/11/01 is the 60th anniversary of the contract signing for construction of the pentagon. The contracts were signed on 9/11/41. (food for thought if nothing else)

this image now shows the destruction of the incident.



Does anyone else find it strange that that truck near the right, although I'd estimate far less than 100 feet from the "crash" is slightly charred, but still in 1 piece? This reveals the following question: If a blast was powerful enough to disentegrate a ~125 foot wide plane, including... 4 engines, each weighing about 6 tons and composed of a titanium alloy... why did this truck and those wire spools survive? Also... if the truck is that charred, why were the pieces of fuselage so clean? Hard to get a good idea of where exactly that truck is/was located, but from this angle it looks fairly close. I can still even see the cab... with a door still hinged on and closed and everything. This is just a little more disproof about the 911 story, and I'm proposing that it may be something larger than we all know.

My opinion in this whole matter is that

---------startconspiracytheory----------

9/11 was phase one of the NASA Blue Beam project. It matches the description of the first step, which was essentially to use earthquakes and similar as an excuse to "occupy" key failed states that have a history of possibly having religious artifacts, which will later be "discovered" (which in this case means created) to disprove the basis of current religions.

Furthermore I believe that the unusually long, powerful earthquake in Haiti, could have been another incident related to blue beam. Shortly after the quake, US relief workers (and many, many armed forces) are in Haiti to 'assist'. From this, Haiti is now essentially begging the US to come in and take over. They will then control Afghanistan and Haiti, which were both extremely failed states and both of which may in the future be home to 'ancient artifacts' that disprove religions basic concepts.

Once those artifacts are found, the goal of Blue Beam is to present holographic images in the sky of certain religious icons, and have them speak to their followers. These images from the heavens are planned to be sent from a satellite in space essentially using the skies as a projection screen.

Occurances such as the Norway Spiral incident among other 'failed russian missile launches' seem to be happening more often. Are these the testing stages for Blue Beam? Has blue beam been in full swing since 9/11/01? or earlier? Blue Beam itself is basically a means of achieving the NWO as depicted on the Georgia guidestones... is this NWO closer than we expected?

If anyone has any information on any parts of my theory please let me know.

---------endconspiracytheory---------

Back to the point; with the NWO possibly on the horizon, I think it is very important for the people to understand exactly what happened in the past, especially in instances that may be related.

Thank you OP for the information, and I am in 100% agreement, it was not a plane (not one carrying passengers at least) that hit the pentagon.

Hopefully with more information like this, the public will know what happened, and can better predict what the future holds for us.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by randysz]

That's nothing. My Aunt Mildred was 62 on 9/11/01. Scary or no ?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Indeed it makes a big difference as the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.

According to Newton when two objects collide the forces on each object is EQUAL, regardless of the speed of the objects.

Which means the amount of damage effected by velocity is proportional to BOTH objects. So just because the plane was moving fast doesn't mean it would have more ability to smash though the wall. The wall and the plane will receive the same amount of force, so back to Newton, who says that when objects collide they each have reverse acceleration, the object with the most mass (not weight) will receive the least amount of deceleration, the object with the least mass will receive the most deceleration causing the MOST damage.

Problem with the Pentacon is that the plane penetrated the outer wall, then proceeded to punch through more walls, yet the plane was smashed to unrecognized pieces at the same time as it was punching through walls. That contradicts Newtons basic laws of physics. Can't have it both ways.

You can also use this basic physics principle to explain why planes at the towers could not have penetrated the outer core columns AND still have had enough energy and mass to then penetrate even larger internal columns.

Please don't believe me, go check it out for yourself...

[edit on 2/8/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I have no investment in the Pentagon attack, one way or another

Then why are you here supporting these criminals?

Cop out answer!

Typical debunker post, ignore the real point of the reply and focus on the irrelevant...

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
WOW! If these exist, and I have spent a great deal of energy looking for these, please do post them.

you must not have searched much!

www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Wow, your pictures are kinda vague. No background, besides maybe a few inches to feet. Those pics could be of damn near any plane wreck. I have seen a few large pentagon images with some plane parts, but nothing bigger than a couple feet at most.

Id have to say that it wasnt a plane, probably a large missile, hell maybe they even plowed a UAV full of explosives into it.

Originally posted by ProRipp
I believe a bunker buster missile struck the pentagon ! I have yet to see any convincing evidence that an airplane ever struck the building !

Really now...

You know what is TOTAL crap and I have not seen anyone bring up yet,
nor explain?

Look at photo #1, on page #1 of this thread:

WHY is the concentration of the fireball dead center where the fuselage
would impact the wall...instead of across the wing span?

Correct me if I'm wrong...but if that was a BOEING 757 that hit the wall,
the concentration of fire would be anywhere but the middle of the window.

Last time I checked, the fuel is stored in the wings, NOT THE FREAKIN'
FUSELAGE!



[edit on 8-2-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


There is a center tank in the wings, but you're right most of the fuel is in the outer wings...

rds.yahoo.com...=A0oGkxgbfHBLqnsBQidXNyoA;_ylu=X3o'___'EzOW5tZGppBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0g0OTNfMTMz/SIG=131ve3mpi/EXP=126574940 3/**http%3a//pilotinfo.ru/index.php%3foption=com_docman%26task=doc_download%26gid=7

(PDF file)

According to BBC conspiracy files,
bodies were found inside the cavity.
The pilots near entrance hole and passengers scattered along the rest of the cavity towards the exit hole.
It also states that upon impact the wings partly sheared off and continued into the impact hole folded against the remainder of the fuselage thus resulting on the exterior pillars on the pentagon being only partly damaged.

let me state that I neither agree or disagree with that finding, but with the 9/11 debate, there is a lot of smoke and heat
but no light.

reply to post by dalek


Yes bodies survived a fire that supposedly burned a 757 beyond recognition.

The BBC have no idea what they are talking about, wings folded and got sucked into that little hole along with the rest of the plane?

For one thing the wings are not two separate pieces stuck to the side of the fuselage, they are one piece that the fuselage is fitted around. They are a lot thicker in the center than what you see sticking out the sides. If a wing broke off it how could it do anything but hit the wall and break apart throwing wing debris all over the lawn? If it was not attached to the fuselage anymore what pulled it through the path of most resistance?

But even so the wings are not going to fold and be sucked in a hole, where do they get the idea that could even happen? That would be the path of most resistance. Where is the precedence for such physics? What are they basing this hypothesis on exactly, obviously not past incidences as there are none?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.

The information I found from a manfacturer's website and history of the Cockpit Voice Recorder is they are to withstand
3,400 Gs for 6.5 seconds, and
1100 degrees F for 10 hours

Many have been subjected to 6,000 Gs and survived.

Figure if a plane can fall at freefall speed or faster for 30,000 feet and crash into the ground, while the CVR is 100% intact time after time, a low flying plane at 350 MPH crashing into a building should NEVER, EVER cause the CVR to fail.
Of course this is hypothetical because there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon.

Like many people that day, I was watching all the cable news stations as this event unfolded, one thing I clearly remember seeing was a broadcast that had an interview with several eye witnesses who were caught in the slow traffic right next to the highway that the plane flew over as it struck the Pentagon, they clearly described seeing a huge jet airliner fly directly over them at a high speed at extremely low altitude micro seconds before the impact. There was hardly any time for an effective dis-information campaign to be established, the witness(s) was(were), credible and security cam footage backs up this crucial testimony. The mystery of the damage seen on the impact point is strange and hard to address, but that is not enough to refute the live feeds of the witnesses who saw the giant airplane fly overhead just before it hit the Pentagon. For me this is a show stopper as far as any conspiracy to hide a bomb attack by us, against ourselves. To say that the security cam footage is faked could be plausible if we didn't have the eye witness reports so soon after the incident. In the end we are left with a mystery of the strange damage, (Or lack of it), as seen in the photographs. But the conspiracy theorists are the ones who need to prove that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon that day, and in my mind they have not done this. The evidence is intriguing and interesting, but the people sitting in their cars saw the plane strike the building and that is evidence that cannot and SHOULD NOT be ignored.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Just draw a simple outline around the plane for us. Why is this such a difficult task for you?

I've already rendered 3 animations for you, including one with a plane in it. If you don't understand by now, you're deliberately ignoring a perfectly plausible scenario — but, then, that's your forté, isn't it?

What's so difficult in understanding that a jetliner hit a building? It happened 3 times in one day, yet you can't seem to grasp the concept.

That's the main problem with the "truthers" — We don't know what happened, and we don't have even a cursory education in aeronautics or structural design, but WE KNOW the Official Story is a lie!

No, you don't know that.

As soon as you utter the words "We don't know what happened," you should just step away right then and there, because you have no expertise in catastrophic physics, you have no evidence in hand, and you're not qualified to call the OS into question. Period.

You can't answer the important question — Where did AA77 go if not into the Pentagon? — and you can't even articulate what you think happened or WHY.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by ANOK



I know my friend, the theory does sound a little clunky and its convenient that BOTH wings folded against the fuselage, especially as the right wing hit the wall and at a flatter angle than the left, just saying what they said.

Originally posted by ANOK
why are you here supporting these criminals?

What criminals? You can't answer that question in any coherent manner nor support your answer with hard evidence.

Originally posted by ANOK
Cop out answer! Typical debunker post, ignore the real point of the reply and focus on the irrelevant.

Typical "truther" post — present no credible evidence whatsoever, make blind assertions without a shred of qualification to do so, then attack anyone who takes exception to your juvenile nonsense.

And call it Truth.

You "truthers" would have been working for Joseph Goebbels on his propaganda team about 65 years ago in Nazi Germany, coordinating "The Big Lie"

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Here's the only thing that bugs me

Hey Doc, if you're REALLY bugged by the oddity of those frames, I would highly suggest you take a look at the video referenced on the first page of this thread. In that video, the guy makes a very detailed analysis of the Pentagon clip and shows absolutely that the video was doctored. The most compelling part of what he shows is that the fireball starts while the projectile nose is still quite visible on the right, and that the projectile nose just hangs in a frozen position for quite a few frames.

If you really want to see the problems with that clip, watch this video:

Originally posted by ANOK
The BBC have no idea what they are talking about, wings folded and got sucked into that little hole along with the rest of the plane?

For one thing the wings are not two separate pieces stuck to the side of the fuselage, they are one piece that the fuselage is fitted around. They are a lot thicker in the center than what you see sticking out the sides. If a wing broke off it how could it do anything but hit the wall and break apart throwing wing debris all over the lawn?

Here is a videotape of a wing folding, it breaks but doesn't snap off completely. So this might give you some clue how it could fold up without completely coming off.

Sorry I don't have the same video of a 757 wing failure test but I'd expect a similar failure mode to this 777 since both are Boeing designs:

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I can imagine it would take some planning to execute such a ruse. With America going to war over this, would it really be that hard to take the time to do it right? Movie stunts are harder than timing an explosion to a passing plane...

The Pentagon worker that saw the plane fly away is interviewed on the video I posted on page 1.

No sir, there is a BIG difference between a movie stunt and real life. Cars dont flip over in real life like they do in movies, buildings dont explode in real life like how they do in movies, real life and movies are two different entities.

You are talking about stuffing tons and tons of high explosives, fuel, aircraft parts body parts, etc, into the Pentagon, and then having a 757 flying at nearly ground level fly right over the Pentagon at high speed, and having it just barely miss the Pentagon and having a large explosioon go off at the same moment. That is a hell of a stretch of imagination.

First off, having a 757 pull up while doing nearly 400mph is very hard to hide behind a timed explosion. You have to recall, it takes a bit of space to be able to pull up and over the target. None of the eyewitnesses that saw the cash saw the plane pulling up and over. They all confirmed it was going in, nose down right towards the Pentagon. Sorry, planes dont pull up with the nose down. Second, you want the plane to be hidden by the blast. That would mean having the aircraft dangerously close to the explosion, or even going through the fireball, not to mention the damage done by the blast to the fuselage, FOD damage to the engines, etc. Not to mention damage to the control surfaces and getting thrown about by the blast. That along would have knocked the plane out of the sky. What about the debris that gets blasted out by the explosion? What happens when you have chunks of concrete being ingested by the engines? Or puncturing the aircraft's skin? The heat, the fires, I can go on.

Now you also have to remember, that DC and the area around the Pentagon, has THOUSANDS of people that would be eyewitnesses to any flyovers. Have you ever been around the Pentagon? You can see the Lincoln Memorial just down the street across the bridge, you have numerous high rises overlooking the area, you have Arlington Cemetary which also overlooks the Pentagon. I can think of many mor areas which offer a good light of site of the Pentagon and the airspace over it. Many many people around the Pentagon on the streets, highways and byways. Ever been by the Pentagon between 9AM and 12 noon? Heh, plenty oh plenty of potential eyewitnesses to any flyovers of a lowflying 757 skimming the Pentagon ahead of any blasts. You have way too many places for exposure and blowing the whole fake op when a few people happen to look at the right place and right time.

Now I'll watch the video of the alleged flyover eyewitness acount, but can you please point to the specific part of the video where he is on, cause I do not want to sit through an hour of video trying to find it.

I'll repost the thread from waaaay back in 2004 by CatHerder:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a lot more information which shows better proof Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon. also uses more pictures from inside and outside of the debris.
Also describes the damage path inside the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Indeed it makes a big difference as the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.

According to Newton when two objects collide the forces on each object is EQUAL, regardless of the speed of the objects.

Which means the amount of damage effected by velocity is proportional to BOTH objects. So just because the plane was moving fast doesn't mean it would have more ability to smash though the wall. The wall and the plane will receive the same amount of force, so back to Newton, who says that when objects collide they each have reverse acceleration, the object with the most mass (not weight) will receive the least amount of deceleration, the object with the least mass will receive the most deceleration causing the MOST damage.

Problem with the Pentacon is that the plane penetrated the outer wall, then proceeded to punch through more walls, yet the plane was smashed to unrecognized pieces at the same time as it was punching through walls. That contradicts Newtons basic laws of physics. Can't have it both ways.

You can also use this basic physics principle to explain why planes at the towers could not have penetrated the outer core columns AND still have had enough energy and mass to then penetrate even larger internal columns.

Please don't believe me, go check it out for yourself...

[edit on 2/8/2010 by ANOK]

:headslap:

ANOK, do you actually believe the nonsense you speak about physics?

I mean I get a headache from reading this, this, I cant even describe it really.

Which means the amount of damage effected by velocity is proportional to BOTH objects. So just because the plane was moving fast doesn't mean it would have more ability to smash though the wall.

With that drivel, you just violated a major physics law. Newton's 2nd Law: F=MA
ANOK, its not the mass or the size alone, or the speed alone. Its called FORCE. The more FORCE something has, the greater the potential of destruction it will have. Mass times acceleration = force. The more mass somethings has, the greater the force. The greater the acceleration, the greater the force will be.

Also lets not forget kinetic energy as well.
E=(1/2)mv^2

So by your "logic" or "understanding of physics", bullets are violating the laws of physics. How can a small bullet punch a hole through a human being? If I throw a .44 magnum bullet at you with all my might, at MOST it will annoy you. Now how about I take that bullet, and load it into a .44 Magnum handgun and shoot you with it, what is going to happen? According to you, nothing should happen because the bullet is so tiny and small and you are so big and its speed has no bearing on the damage it can cause to you. So want to try this theory out for real? I dont think so!

A 757 fueled up, traveling at speeds of 400mph has a major amount of kinetic energy behind it, and also a LOT of force. THAT is what allows it to penetrate the Pentagon's exterior walls and travel that far inside. Find the mass of a fueled 757, and the speed at impact, and plug that into the kinetic energy equation. Thats why a screw or a bolt released in space can destroy a satellite that size of a bus on impact. Boy oh boy ANOK, you have a LOT to learn about physics. My recomendation, stay away from talking about physics until you have taken and completed physics I and II.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Lillydale
Just draw a simple outline around the plane for us. Why is this such a difficult task for you?

I've already rendered 3 animations for you, including one with a plane in it. If you don't understand by now, you're deliberately ignoring a perfectly plausible scenario — but, then, that's your forté, isn't it?

What's so difficult in understanding that a jetliner hit a building? It happened 3 times in one day, yet you can't seem to grasp the concept.

Wow um...I never asked for any animation. I asked you to DRAW AN OUTLINE OF THE PLANE IN A STILL. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT IN UNDERSTANDING OUTLINE OF PLANE IN PICTURE???

It is pretty funny that you rant on about how confused I am after getting what I asked you so BLATANTLY WRONG. I have some ideas of what you can do with those animations but they have nothing to do with what I asked for so um...yeah