Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by rnaa


Sworn evidence entered into the legal record. Supporting evidence given, under oath, in a legal hearing. To the extent that such evidence is public record, the details can be published. I do not believe this photo should have been published.

The plane wasn't turned to dust. It was ripped to shred's, the burnable part was burned, and the building collapsed onto the top of it. What makes you think it was turned to dust.

Well whenever I ask one of you guys where those shreds of the plane are, I am told it disintegrated, vaporized, vanished, is gone. You tell me why people say that? Where are those shreds of plane and why are they not in the pictures of supposed found wreckage?

If the plane was shredded, you still think that the people inside should be found whole? What kind of logic is that?

Newton's physics mostly. You have to define "pulverized". Do you mean that everything was reduced to a fine powder (because it wasn't). Or was it just torn to shreds, then the burnable bits burned, then the building collapsed on top of what was left?

Actually you all need to define it for me since it is not my claim.

You also might want to recheck derek's actual claim. He said they are picture of passenger bodies AS WELL AS PICTURES OF SEATS.

LOL! I know that is what he said. You might want to check again, as I pointed out, THERE ARE NOT PICTURES OF PASSENGER BODIES OR PICTURES OF SEATS.

Actually, Dereks is now claiming he never said there were pictures of seats. Are you even actually reading this thread?

Hey Dereks, Did you read that? Did you claim there were pictures of seats or not? If so, where are they? You guys need to learn to pick a line and stick to it.

You are contradicting Dereks to correct me only to say what I have been saying which Dereks is claiming he did not say now. My stomach literally hurts.

The published photo, linked in an earlier post, the one that I am complaining about being disrespectful to both the victim and his family, looks to for all the world like he is sitting in the burned out frame of a business class seat. I can't prove it, but that is what it looks like. Can you prove it isn't?

Hmmm. can I prove that it is not what you think it is based on nothing? Well if you are going to say I need to prove a negative because you have a feeling then logic is not going to work with you. I can not prove something is NOT anything but feel free to prove he is a passenger sitting in a seat.

I would be delighted if you could. The only reason to ask me to prove a negative is because it is the only argument you have when you cannot prove your positive.

I have not laughed this hard in soooooo long.

There are newspaper reports (USA Today) of passengers still strapped in their seats. They reported that:

“When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats.”

The USA today huh? They also reported that Brad and Angelina were having some marital problems on the inside of the front page. Good source. Have anything from "People?"

Look, I wasn't there. I didn't see it. I don't have photo's of it. Did Williams or anyone else take photos of that specific find? Maybe not, or maybe the photos haven't been published for some straightforward reason. Never the less, there is no reason to expect the destruction was absolute.

No, there is not. There is reason to expect to have some plane parts left over. Like you said, it was not complete destruction. Better tell your buddies who claim the reason there is no plane to find is because it was completely destroyed.

Have evidence of shredded remains of a plane?

Have any evidence you can shred a plane and leave the people inside intact?

Have any idea what you are saying?

What would 'still strapped into their seats look like anyway? Wouldn't the straps have perished in the fire along with the fabric from the seats? So we would be talking about a metal frame with a body in it with a buckle on its lap. Of course the building collapse would disturb that 'perfect' scenario a bit as would the fire fighting efforts.

If a body was found in a metal frame with a buckle sitting in its lap would you describe that as "still STRAPPED IN?" Seriously, if you came across a body holding a seat buckle, think about it. Would you turn around and claim you found a body STRAPPED IN? Honestly, would you use those words? I did not use them, DEREKS and YOU did. Explain this to me.

Some of the photo's of the bodies are pretty damn horrific. Does it really matter if they are in their seats? 64 of 65 passengers were positively identified from DNA results. The passengers died there.

That is a different issue altogether. This is about honesty and the TRUTH of the situation. If claims are made that there are pictures of bodies strapped into seats...then the lack of these pictures is kind of a big deal.

There don't seem to be conclusive photos of seats available on the web using a google search. The linked photo is inconclusive. To me it looks like a possible Business Class seat, but I could be wrong. That certainly does not equate to non-existent, and that means is not a lie, it is just an unsubstantiated claim.

No, it just means you think you see a seat. That is all that means and nothing else.

If part A was about the plane turning to dust, it didn't so part 'A' is not a lie.

So there is wreckage? Where is it?

If part B was about photos of seats, then that is unsubstantiated by the evidence in front of us.

No, there are not photos of seats. There are none. The claim was that there are. This means that either they can be produced or this is a lie. They have not been produced. This was a lie.

So the chances of (A + B = TRUE) is at minimum 50%.

No, it is still 0.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Lillydale

 

This, as you know because I have posted it before, is a picture of a part body, terribly burnt, recovered from the Pentagon. :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Please tell me how you know it is not a picture of a passenger from AA 77.

If you say it is because you don't believe AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon then you are simply taking a position without properly considering all the evidence. Not a way to the truth of anything.

We know for a 100% fact there were people in that section of the Pentagon when the attack occurred, but based on the evidence at hand, we do not know with 100% certainty that an aircraft hit the Pentagon, so it is most likely that it was a Pentagon worker.

If there were passengers in the wreckage, you would expect far more corpses than one single charred remnant. The real question is, where are the SEATS. The presence of seats would be far more convincing since we know the Pentagon doesn't have airline seats (like it has human workers), and we also know that missiles don't have seats.

So the presence of seats would be the definitive proof that an airliner hit the Pentagon... in my estimation. An equaling convincing find would be major engine parts from a Rolls Royce 757 engine... not just a single part that is clearly not from an RB211 (see my detailed analysis above).

Originally posted by downisreallyup
but based on the evidence at hand, we do not know with 100% certainty that an aircraft hit the Pentagon,

Yes we do know a 757 , Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. We have damage done to the exterior by a 757 sized aircraft, we have 757 engine found inside the Pentagon, we have 757 wheels found inside the Pentagon, we have 757 undercarriage found inside the Pentagon, all passengers and crew except the hijackers have been identified by their DNA from bodies/body parts found inside the Pentagon, so to claim Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon is just stupid.

The real question is, where are the SEATS.

Links have been shown to where people identified aircraft seats, with bodies in them. But the conspiracy theorists ignore these, as it destroys their sill conspiracy!

So the presence of seats would be the definitive proof that an airliner hit the Pentagon... in my estimation.

As we have airline seats seen by a first responder, you now know that a airliner hit the Pentagon!

An equaling convincing find would be major engine parts from a Rolls Royce 757 engine... not just a single part that is clearly not from an RB211 (see my detailed analysis above).

Your so called "detailed analysis" has been shown to be wrong, you ignore the exhaust turbine the man is looking at, that exactly matches the pisture of the RB211 part found inside the Pentagon!

[edit on 11/2/10 by dereks]

[edit on 11/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by Lillydale
Where are those shreds of plane and why are they not in the pictures of supposed found wreckage?

They are in the pictures, the pictures you ignore as they destroy your conspiracy!

You also might want to recheck derek's actual claim. He said they are picture of passenger bodies AS WELL AS PICTURES OF SEATS.

Show me where I said that in this thread - point to my post that claims that....

This is about honesty and the TRUTH of the situation.

Now that is funny, a "truther" talking about truth, and honesty!!

If claims are made that there are pictures of bodies strapped into seats..

Please show where in this thread I mentioned pictures of bodies strapped into seats.... come on, on what page did I make that claim? This is just another lie from you, as I never claimed that here!

No, there are not photos of seats. There are none. The claim was that there are.

Show me the post where I claimed there were photo's of seats in this thread.... I never claimed that, you are just lying again!

Why do "truthers" lie?

[edit on 11/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by downisreallyup

I absolutely resent being called a liar! I said that the engines weighed between 46,000 pounds and 50,100 pounds. This is mostly accurate as follows:

1) 747-400 using the Rolls Royce RB211 @ 9874 x 4 = 39,496 lbs.
2) 747-8 using the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 @ 12709 x 4 = 50,836 lbs.

I was not talking about the weight of a single engine, I was talking about the combined weight! So, Dereks, DO NOT call me a liar again!

You are aware that there is a difference between being wrong and being a liar aren't you? Refusing to acknowledge mistakes raises suspicions that you don't care about the truth, which implies that you would be prepared to lie, however, being wrong isn't a lie.

You were wrong about the weight of the engines. You clearly implied that each engine was 4 times its actual weight. Your argument makes no sense at all unless you were describing the weight of each engine.

Even your 'correction' above is wrong. AA 77 was a Boeing 757-200 with two Rolls Royce RB211's So 9874 x 2 = 19748. So you are still out by a factor of two.

Are you arguing that somehow both these engines (plus, according to your defense above, a mysterious extra two) struck the wall at the same position, at the same time, so that somehow their combined mass would magically make them impervious to Newtonian Physics?

Here is a photo (source) of the rebuilt Pentagon wall with some commentary on where the damage occurred. Notice the heavy damage area on the right side where the starboard engine impacted. Notice the replaced generator on the left side where the port engine impacted.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9c341cb06da.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is a photo of the entire face, (same source as above), with the damage, and without the firefighting foam obscuring the parts you don't want people to see. Notice how the damage is just the right size and shape for a 757 impact, but not a cruise missile or a drone reconnaissance plane.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5dda5a846f96.jpg[/atsimg]

Finally here's another photo, (same source as above), showing damage from the left wing across the building face.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e17592c2a4b7.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Thermo Klein

I don't generally label myself into a group, but, because my purpose here is to analyze pictures and show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a large plane to fit into a tiny hole

The hole was EXACTLY THE SIZE AND SHAPE of a 757-200.

Source for both pictures below.

I recommend you go to the source site for these photos, as they are getting cut off on the right side. I'm not sure how to correct that (I know I should be able to shrink them, but I am loath to do that, I would prefer to find a way to get ATS to scale them to the window width, or at least put on a horizontal scroll bar - anybody know how to do this?)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5741fba92312.jpg[/atsimg]

I'll repeat this photo just for good measure so you can related it to the diagram above:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5dda5a846f96.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by rnaa

The bottom picture,would,according to text,show damage where a wing slammed into a wall and left window frames intact and even maybe a window even and not much debris like a wing to show.If this is the case,and you are seriously saying this is so...I;m at a loss for words.Are you joking?

reply to post by rnaa


The bottom picture makes no sense. Looking at the line is claims to be damage from the left wing, follow it right to where it should attatch to the plane. Did they have the wings on top of the plane of AA77? What funky design is this that has the hole that is supposedly the body of the plane entirely below the line that is supposed to be the wing?

reply to post by rnaa


Help us out here a little

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c88ca47f7bf.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Lillydale

Actually not it is not circular at all. You do not understand.

1. There was no passenger jet.
2. A picture of a body is claimed to be from a jet that was completely destroyed in a collision - this is hard to believe especially since there was no proof of thejet.
3. The picture does not claim to be of a passenger body.
4. There is no reason to believe it is the body of a passenger.
5. Why do I need to explain this to you?

You don't. You are just wrong. It is most certainly circular a circular argument.

It is unequivocally a photo of a person killed at the Pentagon from the explosion of what ever occured. If it is a passenger from flight AA 77 the what occurred was that flight AA 77 crashed into the pentagon. Your contention that the explosion was not AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

Therefore IF the photo is a passenger, then your argument is completely lost. You are now asserting that photo is not the body of a passenger on the sole basis that it is your contention that there was no passenger jet.

You are refusing to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of counter evidence solely on the basis of your personal point of view and that is a tight feed back loop.

In fact the photo is just inconclusive. Period. There is nothing about it that claims it is a passenger or that it is an office worker. It is just a person killed on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

Sworn testimony, in court, is evidence however. And that evidence asserts (as I understand) that they identified all but one of the bodies from the plane and all but 4 of the bodies from the Pentagon staff.

They claimed to do that through the DNA collected, not bodies found. Do you honestly think they had family members come down and identify bodies from that incident?

Yes, absolutely. They got DNA samples from family members to help with the identification. How do you think they did it? Took it from the secret Gummint DNA Database they've been collecting since the days of the Salk Vaccine?

Talk about missing logic.

What would we talk about in a discussion of that sort?

reply to post by Lillydale

Whether the OS is true or not, there is NO REASON to assume any of those photos of complete human bodies are from the airplane.

I know. That is what I have been saying all along. The photos are inconclusive about whether they are of passengers or office workers and do not purport to be anything other than persons killed at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Dereks never made more of a claim than that either. He just provided a link to photos. That is where this whole misunderstanding started: you misinterpreted his post that provided the link.

I find it extremely unlikely that any such photo would identify the individual. The mere existence of the photo published on the internet is fundamentally offensive to my respect for the deceased and their families.

reply to post by dereks

No plane hit the pentagon and 911 is an inside job.
In my opinion, OS believers love fairytales. Everyone knows the OS is a lie.
No proof of any plane hitting the Pentagon, no passenger bodies, no airplane seats nothing.
OS believers know this, now some of the OS believers are making up lies to evidences that is not there and that is a fact.

You have not giving us any sources, or any proof to photos of passenger bodies, airplane seats, or luggage, nothing.

If you had the evidences you would have eagerly posted the actual photos, so you can discredit the Truthers, but you have not, because there are none.

Originally posted by impressme
You have not giving us any sources,

I have, but you refuse to look at them as you know it destroys your silly conspiracy.

to photos of passenger bodies, airplane seats, or luggage,

A link to a possible passenger body has been given, as to the rest we have eyewitness accounts from a first responder etc, and according to you that is all that is needed, no physical evidence is actually needed.

so you can discredit the Truthers,

They do a good job of discrediting themselves.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Help us out here a little

I suspect that you think the circle you have drawn is the central hole where the fuselage struck. It is not. It is the hole from the major part of the wing strike, perhaps from the remains of the port engine after it impacted the generator. The 'extension' off to the left is the damage from the wing tips and debris shrapnel.

If you look at the montage damage chart a few posts up, you will see what I am talking about more clearly I think. The drawing of the plane is fitted into the 'hole' but the wing tips extend past the 'hole'

Please refer to the original source for the images. These are cut off on the right side due to ATS limitation and may be misleading. They are much better on that site.

reply to post by dereks

I have, but you refuse to look at them as you know it destroys your silly conspiracy.

I have looked, and there are no photos or any evidences to your silly fairytale.

IF there were, YOU would have been so delighted to have post those photos just to show us that we are wrong.

A link to a possible passenger body has been given, as to the rest we have eyewitness accounts from a first responder etc, and according to you that is all that is needed, no physical evidence is actually needed.

possible passenger body? That is not proof.

no physical evidence is actually needed

Wrong, I never made that claim! Typical OS lie.

We have eyewitness accounts from a first responder etc, which says the opposite to your OS fairytale.

No plane hit the pentagon and you have not shown any proof yet.
BTW I did read your sources!

Another photo from the samesource

Showing the right side damage. Here the damage from the right side wing is obvious and unequivocal.

How could a cruise missile create a 757-200 shaped and sized hole?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc464da7fdd7.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by impressme
no physical evidence is actually needed

So where is the physical evidence of explosives being used in the WTC's?

We have eyewitness accounts from a first responder etc, which says the opposite to your OS fairytale.

Who never went inside the building at all....

No plane hit the pentagon and you have not shown any proof yet.

How do you explain the 757 wheels found inside the Pentagon? You ignore them.

How do you explain the 757 RB211 engine found inside the Pentagon? You ignore them.

How do you explain the 757 undercarriage found inside the Pentagon? You ignore it.

How do you explain the damage done to the facade of the Pentagon by a 757 sized aircraft? you ignore it!

How do you explain the eyewitness acounts of plane seats inside the Pentagon, with bodies in them?? You ignore them.

How do you explain the DNA taken from the bodies/body pieces of the passengers and crew from Flight 77 that were found inside the Pentagon, that matches the passengers and crew of Flight 77? You ignore it.

So you ignore all the facts that show that Flight 77, a 757 hit the Pentagon as you know to accept the truth would totally destroy your silly conspiracy theory!

[edit on 11/2/10 by dereks]

Some have asked about the claims of nose cone and landing gear debris at the C-Ring punchout hole, and lack of photographic evidence. But there is no lack of photographic evidence.

Here is text and a photo from a different source to those above:

As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread.The following photo (by Fort Belvoir photographers) shows two pieces of fuselage debris (note the green primer) lying in front of the hole. Note a ring of 8 small holes on the larger piece. A similar ring of 8 holes may be found on a 757 nose (with an attaching piece), just below the cockpit windows -- but it is far from clear whether the configuration is a match. This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone" referred to by Lt. Kevin Shaeffer and Victor Correa.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9472d41264c3.jpg[/atsimg]

Please refer to the source link for more photos, of landing gear and wheels and tire tread photographed at the punchout hole.