Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
OK, let's go back to day one. There are 4 forces acting on an aircraft in flight:thrust, drag, lift, and weight. www.fi.edu... In level unacelerated flight, thrust equals drag and lift eq0ual0s weight0. In France, lift is derived from Bernou,lli's law. Every where else in t0he world, it is derived by Newton's laws, particularly his third one. If you move 160,000 pounds of air down, you can keep 160,000 pounds of aircraft up.

"Weight" is a poor substitute for gravity.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Several things effect lift. The camber(curvedness) of the wing; the angle of attack (angle between the mean chord line of the wing and the relative wind); and, speed.

Indeed, we also know that a 757 has a very high lift wing, said wing was at nearly optimum aoa given the plane was level at the time.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Now, to the extent that reducing drag at a given thrust increases speed, an increase in lift will occur. A good explanation of ground effect is at www.aerospaceweb.org...

That gives a 404, try this.
www.aerospaceweb.org...

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Sincerely
Doc
Airline Transport Pilot Rating
Commercial Pilot Cert, ASMEL, Glider
Advanced and Instrument G. I.
CFII
FAA Accident Prevention Counselor

I too have flung long tubes around the sky.... short ones too.

I recommend you examine the photo sequence and text inthis thread.

It has much more detail and answers many of the questions raised in this thread and more

I would point out especially the analysis of why the main hole is the size it is, and the photos of the engine damage to a wall and the damage to an external equipment (a large generator) caused by engine strike.

There is no mystery about the size of the hole.

There is no mystery about what happened to the engines.

There is no mystery about what hit the Pentagon.





[edit on 10/2/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by rnaa
Here is adiagram showing the locations where the bodies were found. I assume the yellow ones are Pentagon workers and the blue ones are passengers. Notice how most of the passenger remains are outside the building?

[edit on 10/2/2010 by rnaa]

There are some reasonably high resolution pictures of the area surrounding the impact site, I did not see a pile of bodies.

Originally posted by rnaa
I recommend you examine the photo sequence and text inthis thread.

There is no mystery about the size of the hole.

There is no mystery about what happened to the engines.

There is no mystery about what hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 10/2/2010 by rnaa]

Using your previous post we have this.
"All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring."

No it did not. all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river the fuel was enclosed (and contained) within three compartments, one in the body and within both wings.

While the explanations are lyrical and contain mental images of "rivers" etc. the simple fact is the wings had enough inertia to punch their own holes but did not.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Lillydale

 

NOT A PASSENGER BODY!!!!!!

How do you know? What makes you so sure?

Here is adiagram showing the locations where the bodies were found. I assume the yellow ones are Pentagon workers and the blue ones are passengers. Notice how most of the passenger remains are outside the building?

[edit on 10/2/2010 by rnaa]

What makes me so sure? If I tell you that a magic carpet flew into my house and dropped off dead bodies and then I presented the dead bodies and told you about the carpet...would you assume the bodies came from that magic carpet?

If it were the other way around, you would have to prove to me the magic carpet existed before I could believe it was the source of the bodies you claim it left there.

There is also the fact that there are no records of any photographs of any bodies that belonged to AA77. These bodies in these pictures were identified by DNA. It is known who they were and where they were.

Where I come from 2 + 2 still = 4. Maybe you come from some place magical. Please feel free to tell me all about how they are passenger bodies. Before you get too deep into it though, remember - there bodies have been identified so make sure you keep your story in the realm of reality.

Oh yes and please do not forget that in the pictures, they are under rubble from the building so...

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Oh yes and please do not forget that in the pictures, they are under rubble from the building so...

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Playing devils advocate for a moment the building did fall down (in part) some time after the (insert your choice of impactor) hit the building, ergo rubble on bodies.

However photographs from here: visibility911.com...

such as this:
visibility911.com...

Do not show a pile of bodies in front of the entrance hole, (note the red stiletto in the tree)

Originally posted by prof-rabbit

Originally posted by Lillydale

Oh yes and please do not forget that in the pictures, they are under rubble from the building so...

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Playing devils advocate for a moment the building did fall down (in part) some time after the (insert your choice of impactor) hit the building, ergo rubble on bodies.

OK then let me play too. A plane was pulverized as it entered the building. The plane was completely destroyed in a massive explosion. Badly burned bodies are discovered. What are the chances they came from inside the plane that was smashed to nothing as opposed to being in the building too close to the explosion?

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Lillydale

 

NOT A PASSENGER BODY!!!!!!

How do you know? What makes you so sure?

Here is adiagram showing the locations where the bodies were found. I assume the yellow ones are Pentagon workers and the blue ones are passengers. Notice how most of the passenger remains are outside the building?

[edit on 10/2/2010 by rnaa]

•Yet nearly all of the bodies shown in the trial pictures appear to be taken inside the Pentagon, not outside.

•Nearly all of the bodies where clothes can be discerned appear to be clad in an orange or red colored jumpsuit or cover-all type affair, reminiscent of contractors or other "workers."

•In the one shot that shows a man not in a jumpsuit, he is under someone wearing one of the jumpsuits.

Look carefully at the first picture in the OP. In the first, the fireball is still hot in the wall. No fireman have arrived. No one is shooting water at the hole yet. The shot is fairly wide, you can see quite a distance on either side of the fireball, right? Does anyone question that this is where the Pentagon attack occurred?

Now tell me, where are the bodies? Most of them were found outside, so claims the chart. So tell me, where are they?

For that matter where are pieces of plane wreckage that show up in pictures taken later in the day? As there are no entrance holes for the engines in the facade of the building, where are either the sheered off wings and engines, or where is the debris from the shattered turbines?

This is why, I believe, the OP entitled this thread as he did. He really only needed to post the first shot, which stands as proof positive that the official story of a commercial jet full of passengers striking the Pentagon is a fake, a phony, a fabrication, a god-damned bald-faced LIE.

Because you can't have it both ways, people. The jet can't have vaporized on impact and left bodies littered all over the lawn. The evidence of passenger victims from the lawn can't be photographs of workmen victims taken inside the building. You can't have a valid chart of bodies of passenger victims found outside on the lawn when there is no evidence of this in clear photographs taken almost immediately after the impact and throughout the day. You cant say that the wings and engines were sucked into a 12-14 foot diameter hole in the wall, and that they were shattered when they hit the wall, and that a photo of one turbine equals evidence of two fairly massive jet engines.

I believe that evidence trumps theory in every respect, no matter how well-researched you imagine your science to be. Unless someone is going to claim that the first photograph of the OP is tampered with or of some other place and time, it stands as the best and most irrefutable hard evidence of what did not happen on the morning of September 11, 2001.

All other, later, government-supplied evidence could be fabricated, or mislabeled. Pictures of various individuals carrying small, light aircraft parts prove nothing. They could just as easily be placing them as removing them. Scoffing at such an idea does not disprove it. The chances that the aircraft items are being placed or are being removed is equal on the basis of the photographs themselves, thereby negating them as "proof" of anything other than that person was photographed holding that alleged aircraft part. As there are no aircraft parts, bodies, or luggage apparent in any of the first photos of the event, a reasonably skeptic mind must weigh in favor of later photos depicting such items being faked.

Look again. THERE ARE NO BODIES. THERE IS NO PLANE. Case closed.

Originally posted by without_prejudice
So tell me, where are they?

Outside, like the diagram showed - Hint: Have a closer look at the diagram, have a look at a aerial view of the Pentagon, nd you will see exactly where "outside" is!

As there are no entrance holes for the engines in the facade of the building,

yes there is.... how do you think that they got inside?

The jet can't have vaporized on impact

Who claimed the jet "vapourized"?

and left bodies littered all over the lawn.

Who said bodies were littered over the lawn? Which lawn are you talking about?

You can't have a valid chart of bodies of passenger victims found outside on the lawn when there is no evidence of this in clear photographs taken almost immediately after the impact and throughout the day.

You obviously have no clue on the makeup of the Pentagon.... have another look at the diagram showing where the bodies found outside were, and have a look at a plan view of the Pentagon!

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Food for thought...

If four airplanes were hijacked on 9/11, but one of the four wasn't really a hijack/crash scenario - were the other three?

who benefitted by the events of 9/11? Are we having a "war on terror" because of these faked events?

Quite possibly.

The "Truther" movement generally suffers from a handful of silly imbecile assumptions:-

1. That these were traitors who did this, yet at the same time, that they were patriotic enough to use ONLY all-American kit.
2. That those who did this sat down and decided that they would only use either all missiles or all aeroplanes and not a combination.
3. That nothing went wrong for them whatsoever.
4. That the US Government is the ONLY other group with means, motive and opportunity.
5. That the conspirators decided to include the maximum number of people in it rather than the minimum despite this making no sense at all.
6. That the super-rich people involved were driven by a greed and that they were prepared to gamble everything they had, including a trip to the electric chair on making even more money, even though it would be a meagre fractional increase in their wealth.
7. That everything that Bush and the Government said or say was/is totally false as are the photos, allowing one to identify the truth by simply putting "not" into each one of their sentence.

NONE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MAKE THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF SENSE AND TOTALLY DISCREDIT ANY ATTEMPT TO REACH THE TRUTH.

Originally posted by dereks

As there are no entrance holes for the engines in the facade of the building,

yes there is.... how do you think that they got inside?

If you have a picture you can point to where the engines have made a hole in the facade then by all means please link to it.

Originally posted by dereks
Who said bodies were littered over the lawn? Which lawn are you talking about?

You can't have a valid chart of bodies of passenger victims found outside on the lawn when there is no evidence of this in clear photographs taken almost immediately after the impact and throughout the day.

Originally posted by dereks
You obviously have no clue on the makeup of the Pentagon.... have another look at the diagram showing where the bodies found outside were, and have a look at a plan view of the Pentagon!

The chart is sufficient and self evident, a large number of bodies are shown outside the exit
hole.

[edit on 11/2/2010 by prof-rabbit]

Originally posted by aristocrat2
The "Truther" movement generally suffers from a handful of silly imbecile assumptions:-

Assumptions created by you to disparage those who would question the government line.

Originally posted by aristocrat2
NONE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MAKE THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF SENSE AND TOTALLY DISCREDIT ANY ATTEMPT TO REACH THE TRUTH.

That's very true.

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
The chart is sufficient and self evident, a large number of bodies are shown outside the entrance hole.

Wrong, they are shown outside the exit hole, not the entrance hole!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
The chart is sufficient and self evident, a large number of bodies are shown outside the entrance hole.

Wrong, they are shown outside the exit hole, not the entrance hole!

Freudian slip, my bad.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by without_prejudice
So tell me, where are they?

Outside, like the diagram showed - Hint: Have a closer look at the diagram, have a look at a aerial view of the Pentagon, nd you will see exactly where "outside" is!

OK, you got me on that one. I didn't read the chart, i took outside to mean outside on the lawn. That was my bad, my mistake. Apologies all around.

As there are no entrance holes for the engines in the facade of the building,

yes there is.... how do you think that they got inside?

Show me the impact holes on a picture before the fire department collapsed the wall, preferably before or just after the firemen got there. And just so I understand you, you are saying that the jet engines pierced the wall and were found inside the Pentagon, as in, through the exterior wall of the outermost ring, somewhere inside the first wall and/or any walls past that? And that there are visible holes in the wall where the impact took place?

The jet can't have vaporized on impact

Who claimed the jet "vapourized"?

That was the original and official story.

and left bodies littered all over the lawn.

Who said bodies were littered over the lawn? Which lawn are you talking about?

Already 'fessed up to this mistake. I misunderstood and made a bad assumption. I stand corrected.

You can't have a valid chart of bodies of passenger victims found outside on the lawn when there is no evidence of this in clear photographs taken almost immediately after the impact and throughout the day.

You obviously have no clue on the makeup of the Pentagon.... have another look at the diagram showing where the bodies found outside were, and have a look at a plan view of the Pentagon!



You may think that continually insulting people somehow lends validity to your arguments. What premise of logic do you base that decision on?

You also cherry pick points or questions that might provide you with an opportunity to show off your caustic wit, while ignoring other more difficult questions or points that might actually add something to the discussion.

For example, harping on the fact that I took a statement made at face value, without checking the link provided. Certainly a mistake on my part, but that does not mean I "obviously have no clue on the makeup of the Pentagon" as you put it. All it means is that I didn't check the frame of reference by looking at the link, and assumed I knew what "outside the building" meant. Jumping to obnoxious conclusions in order to insult me or anyone else who doesn't agree with you adds not a thing to either the discussion of the issues or to the validity of your points.

But neither does stating things in all caps or ending with a line like "case closed" so I will not post like that again.

edit to fix quotes and paragraphs

[edit on 2/11/10 by without_prejudice]

Originally posted by aristocrat2

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Food for thought...

If four airplanes were hijacked on 9/11, but one of the four wasn't really a hijack/crash scenario - were the other three?

who benefitted by the events of 9/11? Are we having a "war on terror" because of these faked events?

Quite possibly.

The "Truther" movement generally suffers from a handful of silly imbecile assumptions:-

...

NONE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MAKE THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF SENSE AND TOTALLY DISCREDIT ANY ATTEMPT TO REACH THE TRUTH.

Who on this thread is a representative of this "Truther" movement, in your eyes, and where did they promote any of those particular points?

Actually, don't answer that. My point is that you are being insulting by characterizing people with honest questions and serious doubts as imbeciles, despite the fact that no one in this thread has made any of those points and you are ignoring other more important arguments that might further the discussion at hand.

I think those in the Truther movement are mainly motivated by a desire to get at the truth. How strange! In fact, after Iran Contra, Viet Nam, the Kennedy coup, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, Vince Foster, Mena Arkansas, Waco, the OK City bombing, the War on Drugs, US support of Kadahfy, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Allende, Noriega, the squandering of the 20th century budget surplus in the first 5 months of Bush's first term, and then the WMDs, The Valerie Plame affair, the PATRIOT Act, people have a reason to doubt what the ruling administration says about an event like 9-11, especially when they obstruct the investigation they promised to undertake and tampered with all the scenes instead of following standard protocols.

We have been lied to a-plenty by the ruling administrations in my lifetime. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the Bush family has been an anti-American dynasty for three generations, and that they have been involved in so many criminal activities that next to them Al Capone seems like Mr. Rogers. Under those circumstances, I don't think it unreasonable to question the evidence presented, or ask for a more complete telling of the story by releasing the tapes that could clearly show what happened and end all this debate. Having every avenue of compelling the administration to fully disclose the evidence from the event cut off also adds to the questions and doubts of many. None of this is a cause for derision. We the people have not made the rules to the game so that it is us vs them, but they have created an arena of mistrust and set the stage to acquire more power over us as individuals, and fighting amongst ourselves only makes them stronger, and us weaker.

[edit on 2/11/10 by without_prejudice]

If the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would also have destroyed DNA evidence.

Please show me the official reports that the bodies in the Pentagon are from AA77.

As already stated the FDR and CVR would not be accepted as evidence in court.

Originally posted by rnaa
I recommend you examine the photo sequence and text inthis thread.

It has much more detail and answers many of the questions raised in this thread and more

I would point out especially the analysis of why the main hole is the size it is, and the photos of the engine damage to a wall and the damage to an external equipment (a large generator) caused by engine strike.

There is no mystery about the size of the hole.

There is no mystery about what happened to the engines.

There is no mystery about what hit the Pentagon.





[edit on 10/2/2010 by rnaa]

You know, the author of the thread you referenced makes some interesting points. I will take the time to read it more thoroughly, and reassess some of my assumptions about the Pentagon attack. I don't think however, that the crux of 9-11 being a false flag attack rides on whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, but evidence is evidence, and the OP on that thread seems to have covered some points with a very comprehensive lay out of available photos and reasoning. Star for you!

reply to post by Lillydale


You are reading too much into my question. Someone implied that this was the photo of a passenger. You are adamant that it isn't.

I can't tell one way or the other.

I just want to know how you can be so sure.