Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Lillydale
Why do truthers believe EVERYTHING THEY READ?

They only believe it if it is on a silly conspiracy theory website!

Where are those body parts and seats again?

See, what did I say - a "truther" who refuses to visit a non conspiracy website as he knows it will destroy his silly conspiracy theory

so once again, just for a "truther" ,body parts, pictures of and where they were found
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

but we all know that you will not go there, as you do not want your silly conspiracy theory fantasy destroyed!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Is that the casing of the CVR? And were they able to recover the data from the CVR in spite of this damage? Or is this photo misidentified in the OP?

That appears to be part of outer casing of the terribly damaged CVR that was found in the Pentagon. There is internal casing as well (not shown) but looking at the fire and physical damage there on the inside of the tough housing it's hard to imagine that anything inside could remain usable but not absolutely impossible. It gets murky when the NTSB says they did extract something from it which was immediately handed over to the FBI for analysis but, in the words of FBI director Robert Mueller, they found 'nothing useful' which, to me, is a way of saying they didn't find nothing (double negative intended )

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Why do truthers believe EVERYTHING THEY READ?

They only believe it if it is on a silly conspiracy theory website!

Where are those body parts and seats again?

See, what did I say - a "truther" who refuses to visit a non conspiracy website as he knows it will destroy his silly conspiracy theory

so once again, just for a "truther" ,body parts, pictures of and where they were found
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

but we all know that you will not go there, as you do not want your silly conspiracy theory fantasy destroyed!

First of all, I am not a HE. How many men named Lilly have you met?

Second of all, you keep providing the same link to a long list of all kinds of pictures and expect me to find the ones you are looking for? On that page, you can link directly to the actual pictures.

Can you point me to the ones of the seats and body parts? No. They are not on that page. Link me to that page about 30 more times and see if it magically shows what you want? So far 10 times is not the right number.

Let me ask, yet again, for you to link me directly to the pictures you mean and not that list.

edit to add 20 minutes later that every time this list is posted I have asked for the specific links that are the pictures in question. Each time it is ignored. This would mean that either Dereks is LYING or very MISTAKEN. All I need is those pics and we will all know. I cannot help but think they are not in that list anywhere or we would have seen them by now.

Up to you, Dereks. Are you lying, wrong, or can you show us which pics you mean? I hope this question is clear and simple enough to just answer without lots of sidestepping.

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by fleabit
There was an engineer who was on site soon after this happened, and he worked on it for months, on-site, to figure out exactly what happened. It was a nice special where I saw the results, and where the hole, including the smaller one inside, on another wall, were explained in detail. Just because you are not an engineer and can't fathom how something happened, doesn't mean it's impossible.

This guy was actually PO'd when they mentioned how some people felt it was a missile, or nothing at all. He in a nutshell, said that he has over 30 years of experience with this sort of thing, and he gets disgusted when people jump to conclusions, when the facts are there for the finding. He did the work, hundreds of hours, and there was no doubt in his mind this was caused by that plane.

But whatever.. nothing anyone says will sway you, if you think it's a coverup. People who think there is some conspiracy can't even agree with each OTHER about this plane. You expect us to believe you are all-knowing about the physics of a plane crashing into the Pentagon? Fly over, missile, nothing at all.. a bomb was exploded, and so on. Get your own story straight first perhaps.

OMG... OMG... there was this one guy... and he was an engineer... 'with 30 years of experience with this sort of thing'... and he was severely pissed off at missle claims?!

Well, damn, completely mis-interpreted the evidence then. My bad. My stance is entirely altered due to this, fresh, new, hard-hitting perspective.

A real eye opener. Thank you for posting.

Originally posted by seism
I personally know someone who watched the plane fly over the highway and it hit some lamp posts as it was coming through. We talked about 2 days after the event and he was sure it was an airliner.

where's all the wreakage ??!! PentaLAWN!

2nd line..

reply to post by Lillydale


All someone needs to do is produce links or the pictures themselves of seats and passenger bodies and then I might be turned around on all of this. Of course if people continue to claim such things exist and never produce them...what should I think?

And, all this talk about "well, explain to me where all the passengers went, then" talk is hilarious.

Do you not think an organization so ruthless, so driven, and so calculating (but, apparently not good enough) to carry out the events of 9/11 isn't capable of disposing of a few airplanes and a couple hundred bodies?

Please. Childsplay portion of this 'mission'.

reply to post by Lillydale

Hi Lillydale,

I'm not sure if we should link the pics direct and we certainly couldn't upload them here, due to the T&C (ATS being a site that is readily accessible by minors). However, the pics are there, about 7/8 of the way down in that long list, in the "Phase 2" section.

If you scroll down through these exhibits until you reach P20042, you'll find the pics dereks referred to.

Clearly, they do not make pleasant viewing. I personally have seen worse (and no doubt so have many who've had anything to do with emergency rescue work or even volunteer firefighting), but all the same I'd advise members to use your good judgment when viewing them if you have any children around at the time.

These pictures allege that the victims shown were found within the Pentagon "after Flight 77 crashed into the building". That is basically all they state. None of the statements with these evidence photographs declares or implies that the deceased person or people in the images were actually from American Airlines Flight 77.

We have official information that workers within the Pentagon died that day, and I see no way of telling if the victims depicted were Pentagon staff/visitors or aircraft passengers/crew/hijackers, and apparently neither did those officials who prepared the description statements for these images. I also do not see any wreckage that I'd be willing to identify as aircraft seats.

In short, I don't see how the images of these people definitively prove that flt AA77 impacted the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001. Considering the relative closeup nature of the images, I also don't see how they prove that the images were taken within the section of the Pentagon that was damaged on that date. I don't think we can say that the images absolutely weren't taken there, but that's a long way removed from saying they must have been taken there.

True, it could be argued that as the description statements say these bodies were found in the Pentagon after flt 77 crashed into the building, then they or some others like them (which are not shown) must be from flt 77. That's not unreasonable if this aircraft did crash into the building and it contained passengers, and the OS is that it did and they were on board. But frankly, these images of human remains apparently inside a burned-out building could be from another fire and another location entirely.

Evidence image nr. 200047 troubles me the most, though. You have to look at it to see why. The state of one of the bodies is inconsistent with its surroundings and something that I've never seen before even in normal house fires when victims have been trapped inside a room and everything has been burned and charred. For a victim's clothing to be untouched -- not even scorched -- is truly remarkable.

But that's just another of the strangenesses about 9/11 I suppose.

Mike

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

You get n A++ for aerodynamic theory but need to brush up on current technology. Boing did a FDC software fix for the ground effect problem. The computer commands a power reduction to offset reduced induced drag and makes a minor elevator trim change. Wait a minute on the theory grade. ground effect doesn't change lift, only drag. And "very close" is not very quantifiable. Try "within one-half wingspan of the ground." And the 757 has winglets which already reduce vortex drag by effectively raising aspect ratio. OK, you still get an A-.

You are forgetting the plane was claimed to be doing 555 kmh according to the flight data released. The plane hit the lowest floor of the Pentagon without even a scrape mark on the lawn. That puts the engines just an inch or so from the ground.

As for theory you might brush up on yours, day one in flight school is all about thrust, lift and drag. Reduce drag = greater lift where thrust is unchanged.

Firstly everyone will see something different, vis

Originally posted by jaywoo
9. “This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.”[126]
14. “[The plane] nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring.”[131]
37. “I saw…this big silver planerun into the side of the Pentagon.”[154]
38. “The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking ‘whoomp’ as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon.”[155]
42. “it was an American airlines plane that came in and hit the Pentagon.”[159]
45. “I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first… It did not hit the roof first… and yes, it did impact the Pentagon… There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing…”[162]
50. “[the plane was] aimed like a dart straight into it.”[167]

A sharp turn at 555kph in a 757?
"nearly shearing the roof off the trailer" puts the aircraft into the second floor.

Everyone sees the event for a second or two.

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Hi Lillydale,

I'm not sure if we should link the pics direct and we certainly couldn't upload them here, due to the T&C (ATS being a site that is readily accessible by minors). However, the pics are there, about 7/8 of the way down in that long list, in the "Phase 2" section.

No. They are not. Read what he said. Dereks claimed that there are pictures of DEAD PASSENGERS. Do you see any pics that contain passengers? If so, point those ones out specifically as that was the claim.

I am not looking for the same body pics we have already gone over several times. You admit yourself these pics do NOT SAY whether or not these people were on the plane. That would make them NOT PICTURES OF PASSENGERS.

He also claimed there are pictures of seats and it seems you cannot find those.

This is what is called a BLATANT LIE. Sorry but if you read what he said, you will see it is nowhere on that page. There are no pictures claiming to be bodies of passengers and there are no seats. Thanks for pointing all of that out. I am sorry you read bodies when he said PASSENGER bodies but that is what he said.

I think you did a pretty good job of pointing out how untrue a statement that is and I thank you for that.

edit to add: Thank you for reminding me that Dereks has now obviously and blatantly lied. I can tag him a liar now and base anything else he says on this level of credibility. This list is getting long.

Hey, the rest of your post makes pretty good sense and all. I just want you to be careful what you are sticking up for. Semantics and specifics are important here and what Dereks claimed was that there were pictures of passengers there. You and I agree these are not pictures of passengers but pictures of unidentified bodes. Too bad that he specifically said they were passengers.

We have official information that workers within the Pentagon died that day, and I see no way of telling if the victims depicted were Pentagon staff/visitors or aircraft passengers/crew/hijackers, and apparently neither did those officials who prepared the description statements for these images. I also do not see any wreckage that I'd be willing to identify as aircraft seats.

In short, I don't see how the images of these people definitively prove that flt AA77 impacted the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001. Considering the relative closeup nature of the images, I also don't see how they prove that the images were taken within the section of the Pentagon that was damaged on that date. I don't think we can say that the images absolutely weren't taken there, but that's a long way removed from saying they must have been taken there.

True, it could be argued that as the description statements say these bodies were found in the Pentagon after flt 77 crashed into the building, then they or some others like them (which are not shown) must be from flt 77. That's not unreasonable if this aircraft did crash into the building and it contained passengers, and the OS is that it did and they were on board. But frankly, these images of human remains apparently inside a burned-out building could be from another fire and another location entirely.

Evidence image nr. 200047 troubles me the most, though. You have to look at it to see why. The state of one of the bodies is inconsistent with its surroundings and something that I've never seen before even in normal house fires when victims have been trapped inside a room and everything has been burned and charred. For a victim's clothing to be untouched -- not even scorched -- is truly remarkable.

But that's just another of the strangenesses about 9/11 I suppose.

Mike

I am with you here. I have not tried to analyze the context of the pictures as so little accompanying information is available about them. They are terribly out of context and could almost be any pics of any bodies from any place and time. I agree with you.

The problem is OSers seem to BELIEVE these are passengers for no good reason and are insisting that is what they are for no good reason. I do not understand why anyone would stand behind a story they need to lie about to defend but that is exactly what Dereks seems to be doing here.

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by jaywoo
The other half of them...
59. “It added power on its way in…The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.”[176]
74. “I saw it fly right into the Pentagon… ‘It just was amazingly precise… It completely disappeared into the Pentagon.”[191]
75. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. [Note: this eyewitness claims he watched everything in ‘slow motion’ due to ‘adrenaline’].At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again—only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon……I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building”[192]
77. “My people who did see it enter the building described it as entering the building and then there being flames coming out immediately afterwards.”[194]
79. “I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time. As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge… The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.”[196]
83. “The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. “The plane completely entered the building… The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake…The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.”[200]
89. “The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon’s wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud. Its ability to withstand the initial impact of the jet probably saved thousands of lives.”[206]

59: No wings on the lawn.
74: "Completely disappeared" propaganda.
75: has a flair for the dramatic
77: hearsay
79: has an interesting point about the two hills.
83: The Major is completely wrong.
89: Probably worked on the building. Seems to want a pat on the back.

Not sure which one but the tilted aircraft is also obviously wrong.

Ergo, eye witness accounts will differ.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The nose of an aircraft is carbon fiber, not very strong, what actually punched the hole? Where are the soft nose parts that would have smashed and spread out as debris before any part of the stronger frame, that might have punched through, hit the wall?

I just went across the airport (SRQ) and looked at the nose cone of a B-757 and it looks like the tpical aluninium-manganese metal alloy or alloy 075. Your confusion is understandable given all the hype from Boeing about the Dreamliner, which is almost all carbon fiber skin. And for a photo of a damaged nose cone on a 757, see www.cnn.com... And when you say carbon fiber is not very strong, that is meaningless without real quantification. Do you mean tensile, compressive, shear, tensile fatigue, or tensile creep strength of a reference carbon-fiber
composite ? Where Boeing does use composites, like on the Dreamliner, they use a crossply, [&45”]ss, consisting of 6K’Thornel
T300 continuous fibers in a urethane matrix. Look at 74.125.47.132...:ZinFAnLg6EAJ:www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106099.pdf+carbon+fiber+strength&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us for specific strength values for in-air grade carbon fiber composite strengths. Carbon fiber, in almost every measure is stronger than aluminum, even alloy 7075, which is an aluminum zinc copper alloy. See, www.aluminum.org...

Originally posted by downisreallyup

I challenge all of you to watch a recreation of a train crash, particularly one where the train crashes into the end-terminal. Because of the momentum, the train just plows through the concrete, iron and steel, ripping the building to shreds. While the train engine is indeed strong, the cars are not much stronger than an airliner, and the airliner engine is certainly as strong as any other type of engine. Remember, jet engines are built for strength and durability above all else, even efficiency or weight... safety is their main concern.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

Yes, I remember seeing that on youtube somewhere, either way there should be two holes spaced about 35 feet apart where the engines went through the building.

My other point being if the plane went through then the engines must also have gone through and there are no holes!

reply to post by Lillydale

Oh, right. Sorry about that... I more clearly see the precise point you are making now. Yes, I took what dereks said but didn't comment directly on his own assertion not being in accord with what the official evidence statements say. Instead, I just gave my own opinion. But yes, we are in accord: the court evidence statements for those images do not say these were passengers. That is only dereks' interpretation.

To be honest it would seem more likely to me that none of the complete human remains shown could be those of passengers. It's just my observation, but seeing as the alleged plane struck the building at a reported 555 kmh (some say higher), I wonder how well a human being's frame would stand up to such horrific forces.

In other words, if there were any passengers, they would have travelled forward under their own inertia until they collided with something solid enough to remove that energy of motion, namely the huge tangle of smashed metal, plastics, concrete and steel reinforcing. Considering that they would have been travelling at roughly double the velocity of those who jumped from the WTC upper floors, I cannot imagine how any bodies on such an aircraft could have survived intact, and certainly with not even their clothes burned as one of those images shows. After all, there was several thousand gallons of fuel just in the lower fuselage alone, and then the rear section of the aircraft allegedly following in behind them.

That's why in my earlier post (p 27 I think), I stated how incredible it was that the AA pilot Capt Burlingame's remains were apparently complete enough, that authorities were able to declare he died in a "struggle" before the crash.

That would seem to me a unique event in the annals of high-speed and fiery aviation crashes, but if there were others then I'd be glad to know about them so it would credibility to that aspect of this case.

Mike

Originally posted by JustMike

That would seem to me a unique event in the annals of high-speed and fiery aviation crashes, but if there were others then I'd be glad to know about them so it would credibility to that aspect of this case.

Mike

I completely agree.

I think the very uniqueness of it is exactly why something like that should be heavily documented if not for educational purposes, then at least historical.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

My other point being if the plane went through then the engines must also have gone through and there are no holes!

Anything that did not go through should have left remains outside as well, right? Or is that just me?

Originally posted by rnaa

No, they are built for efficiency and durability. Both characteristics dictate minimizing weight and contribute to safety. Remember, the heavier they are the more stress they put on their mountings... and safety is the main concern.

Please review this page which shows a cut away view of the engine, note that the central shaft alone is approx. 12 feet long.

The piece viewed in the beginning of the thread has been identified at the APU or auxiliary power unit rotor.

pagesperso-orange.fr...

One quick question - Picture #6 (the one with the small gaping hole) shows a brick building - I didn't think the Pentagon was built from brick?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

[



Or maybe you have a better explanation for why the flight data recorder didn't survive in this particular instance.

I try to deal in facts, not supposition but maybe some people didn't want it to survive. Actually the FDR did survive. The photograph in question was of the CVR (cockpit voice recorder.)