Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Lillydale

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.

You might want to check out the originator of that quote, because it wasn't me. Sounds like one of yours actually, but there might have been a couple of you droning on about this. I couldn't be bothered to check it out.

Please feel free to apologize when you find it who it was.

Yes, just replace the tag of "atsimg" with "img" (I just delete the letters "ats" from each tag) and the scroll bar will appear like this.

What's amazing is I downloaded those same pictures yesterday and was going to post them today but you beat me to it. The funny thing is, I found them on a different site here:

911research.wtc7.net...

Where the author doesn't believe the official story at all. But even a truther who denies the official story can see that's the shape of the impact!!!!!

reply to post by Lillydale

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?"

What is your problem here?

Are you calling USA Today a liar or Sergeant Williams a liar or Dereks a liar?

Dereks just said there were reports of passengers strapped to seats and gave a link to the report. You obviously didn't pay any attention to his post because you went on for about 10 pages or something demanding something from him that he never claimed had. And you are just now surprised that the source was USA Today? How did you know that the link Dereks provided wasn't the holy grail of a photo of passengers strapped to seats if you didn't chase the link?

You are clearly not out to educate or be educated here, in fact you are behaving like a disingenuous agent-provocateur. You are simply trying to be as obstinate as possible in defense of an hypothesis you know doesn't have any possibility of describing reality.

And what does Brad and Angelina have to do with this?. Did John Travolta teach them how to fly and they were the pilots for the New York planes? The impostors running around on the gossip columns are just replicants I suppose?

[edit on 11/2/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by dereks

no physical evidence is actually needed

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

This thread is not about the WTC. Stay on topic.

Where is your evidence that you keep claiming passenger bodies and airplane seats?

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....

What? Never went inside the building? Do you just make this garbage up as you go?

Do you have a credible sources that says all our sources never went inside of the pentagon?

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

No proof it belongs to said plane. Can you show us the serial numbers of the757 wheels to see if they match and belong to said plane.

Can you proof they are not bone yard scraps that were “probably” tossed in later for the FBI disinformation photos Press release? On the other hand, are you that gullible to think your government is NOT capable of telling lies to you?

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

How do you explain only ONE engine being found. You ignore them.

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

You have never shown proof that a 757 undercarriage was found inside the Pentagon.
We keep telling you to show evidences and sources, and you ignore them.

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

What the little entry hole that you continue to ignore.

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

There are none , those are lies that you keep spreading.

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.

Prove 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!

No plane hit the pentagon, it is your imagination, and you cannot prove a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon. OS believers will believe in anything they are spoon-fed.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by rnaa


OK, I can see what you are saying now.

Thank you, I was mistaken.

Originally posted by rnaa
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!

At first I was confused as to why the numbers of 10,000 pounds were so different from the source that I found, which said the weight was between 40,000 and 50,000 pounds. When I wrote that post, it was 3:30 am here in New Zealand, I had just come home from a night out (only a little drinking), so I was not fully coherent I must admit. When writing the above, I had forgotten what the actual argument was... so in the post above I concluded that I must have meant a total weight, and that we were talking about the 747, not the 757. Now, I have taken the time to go back and review what was originally written, and to try and reconstruct what had happened in those early morning hours.

Now, I realize that the source I used for the information on the weights of each engine was incorrect. The writer of that information had mistaken the weight of the engines for the thrust of the engines, which are both expressed in pounds. The thrust of the engines is indeed in the range I said, which unfortunately was a mistake made by the source I had quickly used in the wee hours of the morning.

Now, the question is, can you continue the debate in good spirits and with a gentlemanly approach, now that I have given you my honest explanation of the mistakes I made?

If so, then let us use the correct weights of just under 10,000 pounds, and even with that we are still talking about substantial pieces of titanium, which is stronger than limestone or steel, and which would have remained largely intact as the engines hurled through the buildings. The force of those engines hitting the building would have inflicted more damage on the building given that the materials in the engine are stronger than the materials used in the building.

You posted a photo of supposed wing damage on the surface of the building. Those little scratches on the surface of the limestone are certainly not all the damage that would occur from two strong wings smashing into them. Plus, there were no mangled wings sitting on the ground outside the Pentagon, which would have undoubtedly happened, since the wings would come off fairly easily in such a massive and high-speed impact.

Also, in your outlines marking the place where damage occurred, you show a damaged area on the second floor, where supposedly the vertical stabilizer entered the building, and yet that area clearly has no damage to it... you can see the building still in tact behind that area (18 foot wide area).

Plus, if the aircraft only damaged the first floor with its body and wings, it certainly would have scraped the ground (especially the engines), and yet we see no evidence of damage to the lawn leading up to the impact area.

Please, do not divert from these points, do not choose just a single comment I have made and try to use that in your defense, and do not in any way bring other points into this particular exchange.

Please... respond to each point and provide a believable explanation that is not based on unprecedented unscientific claims (like wings bending back and being sucked into the buidling).

Please... address each point of the argument in its entirety.

If you do this, I will stay engaged and seek to come to some point of agreement. I am not adverse to changing my position on this IF, and I said IF, the evidence stands up to honest scrutiny. I have no vested interest in believing the OS is not true... I just can't see that it is from the evidence I have seen so far.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

reply to post by rnaa


As evidence of the fact that the wings would have made far more damage to the walls, even slicing through them, one only has to look at the damage done to the towers. Notice how the wings sliced through the steel outer framework of the twin towers? There you had the speed of moving aluminum alloy coming into contact with stationary steel, and what happened? The aluminum sliced through the steel like it was butter.

Now, you are asking me to believe that similar wings struck the limestone of the Pentagon building and merely scratched them, folding in at enormous speed against the fuselage, and got pulled into a hole made by the fuselage, dragging the large rotating engines with them? I mention the rotation because the gyroscopic forces created by the rotating mass in those engines is certainly quite substantial, and would have worked to prevent the wings from buckling backwards.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
As evidence of the fact that the wings would have made far more damage to the walls, even slicing through them, one only has to look at the damage done to the towers.

Do you realise how silly that statement actually is?

have a look at what that reinforced section of the Pentagon is made out of, then how the WTC was built. There is no comparison at all. guardian.150m.com...
americanhistory.si.edu...
www.masoncontractors.org...
www.azom.com...

Just how silly are the truthers getting? Comparing the WTC to the Pentagon!

[edit on 11/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by rnaa
What is your problem here?

Are you calling USA Today a liar or Sergeant Williams a liar or Dereks a liar?

Dereks just said there were reports of passengers strapped to seats and gave a link to the report. You obviously didn't pay any attention to his post because you went on for about 10 pages or something demanding something from him that he never claimed had.

After she asked him again to produce the pictures of passenger bodies he claimed existed, Dereks replies -

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

What is your problem? I see the word pictures pretty clearly.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
You posted a photo of supposed wing damage on the surface of the building. Those little scratches on the surface of the limestone are certainly not all the damage that would occur from two strong wings smashing into them. Plus, there were no mangled wings sitting on the ground outside the Pentagon, which would have undoubtedly happened, since the wings would come off fairly easily in such a massive and high-speed impact.

You do realize you're contradicting yourself here right? Your first comment is the wings are so strong they would have created more damage, and your second comment is that they were so weak they would have sheared off.

Which is it? Are they strong or are they weak? You can't even get your own confusing story straight.

I already posted a video earlier of how strong the wings are and how they can fold up without shearing off, and that explains both of your contradictory statements.

reply to post by impressme

You have never shown proof that a 757 undercarriage was found inside the Pentagon. We keep telling you to show evidences and sources, and you ignore them.

Didn't your mother ever teach you that it is impolite to demand things. Can't you be civil and ask for it?

OK, here is a photo of part of the 757 undercarriage just inside the "C" ring punchout fromthis source. (Please review that site for more photos of other debris from the plane inside the building).

What the little entry hole that you continue to ignore.

Do we need to repeat this again? The hole was EXACTLY the size and shape of a Boeing 757-200. The photographic proof is in the posts above, just a few post above not 15 pages or anything, just a few posts. Please scroll up and review them then get back to us with your evidence that the hole was too little.

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

There are none , those are lies that you keep spreading.

Yeah. That's why the existence of the link he gave to the report can't be displayed on your browser - the only browser on the planet that can't read the link (oh no, I exaggerate, Lilydale's can't read it either. Convenient don't you think?).

You really shouldn't accuse people of lying when it is emphatically untrue. That kind of behavior is called libel and defamation.

No plane hit the pentagon, it is your imagination, and you cannot prove a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon. OS believers will believe in anything they are spoon-fed.

I can't 'prove' gravity works either, but I don't think I'll act on any doubts I might have about it. You don't need proof for an observed fact, but you sure need proof that that this cockamamie 'no-plane' idea is even remotely possible.

And it ISN'T.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
After she asked him again to produce the pictures of passenger bodies he claimed existed, Dereks replies -

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

What is your problem? I see the word pictures pretty clearly.

and there are pictures of body parts there - as you would know if you visited the website!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
After she asked him again to produce the pictures of passenger bodies he claimed existed, Dereks replies -

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

What is your problem? I see the word pictures pretty clearly.

and there are pictures of body parts there - as you would know if you visited the website!

I did visit the website. I did not say there are not body parts there. Please pay attention. What I said was what I read. After Lilly clearly asked you to again post the pictures you claimed to have of passenger bodies, this was your reply.

I visited the website and found not one picture of a passenger body. There are pictures you seem to think might be and have not been proven not to be but that is your problem.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I visited the website and found not one picture of a passenger body.

Just how do you know that none of those pictures are passengers?

Originally posted by dereks
Just how do you know that none of those pictures are passengers?

What makes you so sure they are? Because you want them to be?

The point being made, that you keep missing, is you don't know that they are passengers but you're claiming you do. There is an element of doubt, that you keep ignoring, and you state your opinion as if it's verifiable fact, when it isn't. Then you insult people who don't buy into your claims, that you cannot support with any facts.

We're not saying they are NOT passengers, just that you can't prove they are, which just creates another element of doubt to a story that is full of it (doubt that is )

If you could prove it there would be no argument.

Originally posted by ANOK
We're not saying they are NOT passengers,

As some people claim no plane hit, according to them how can they be passengers?

If you could prove it there would be no argument.

You are wrong there, it has been proven that a 757 hit the Pentagon, but some "truthers" refuse to accept that!

reply to post by downisreallyup

Now, the question is, can you continue the debate in good spirits and with a gentlemanly approach, now that I have given you my honest explanation of the mistakes I made?

Sure, as long as you can keep a gentlemanly attitude and acknowlege that being called out on your mistakes is not the same thing as being called a liar.
But don't appologize to me, you accused Dereks of calling you a liar, I just stuck up for him.

If so, then let us use the correct weights of just under 10,000 pounds, and even with that we are still talking about substantial pieces of titanium, which is stronger than limestone or steel, and which would have remained largely intact as the engines hurled through the buildings. The force of those engines hitting the building would have inflicted more damage on the building given that the materials in the engine are stronger than the materials used in the building.

And there are several photos of several pieces of the engine that survived the impact. But the engines are not solid lumps of titanium or any other kind of material. They are made up of thousands of small pieces. Those pieces, no matter what they are made out of, will break apart.
I get the impression that you are looking for a complete engine in one piece with shroud, engine casing, and probably mounting brackets intact. That can't possibly be right can it?

The shroud is flimsy sheet metal (aluminium or something I suppose) , the fan blades are thin pieces of whatever they are made of. Tubing is some kind of high pressure hose. What ever the materials are these pieces will be torn off and scattered in many little pieces upon impact. They are designed to function during normal flight cycles, not to crash into concrete reinforced walls.

The engine itself is called a 'triple spool' design. Meaning that it is actually three different compressors in a daisy chain configuration. Those stages are going to snap apart and links to photos of 2 of those stages and part of the casing have been posted in this thread.

Here is the image that explains the location of those parts (www.aerospaceweb.org...).



In summary, the engine is nothing like a automobile engine block. It is is an assembly of many parts, which individually may be very strong and nearly indestructible, but which cannot be expected to stay together in one assembly during a crash into a reinforced concrete building at 500 plus miles an hour.

You posted a photo of supposed wing damage on the surface of the building. Those little scratches on the surface of the limestone are certainly not all the damage that would occur from two strong wings smashing into them. Plus, there were no mangled wings sitting on the ground outside the Pentagon, which would have undoubtedly happened, since the wings would come off fairly easily in such a massive and high-speed impact.

You need to look at the full image. The one I posted cut off the right side of the image, and this is probably a bit misleading. The 'scratches' you refer are from just the wing tips and other debris. The hole you see further along is from the main wing structure, and possibly from the remains of the port engine after it had struck the heavy generator in front of the building.
The sheet metal on the ground next to the car is identified as part of the skin from the wing, but the caption is on the right side of the image that was cut off.

Just to repeat, the bit of the hole closet to the camera is the main wing damage hole, not the 'scratches' on the side of the building.

Here is the photo again, with (hopefully) the cropping fixed (you will need to operate the slider to see the right side of the image).

Also, in your outlines marking the place where damage occurred, you show a damaged area on the second floor, where supposedly the vertical stabilizer entered the building, and yet that area clearly has no damage to it... you can see the building still in tact behind that area (18 foot wide area).

Some clarification here, it isn't my markup. I copied the photo from another site, and the source site was linked. And that photo also suffers from the cropping problem I described above.

I am not sure what they are trying to imply with the narrow vertical markings, perhaps they are just trying to indicate the height of the stabilizer. But personally, I wouldn't expect the stabilizer to make much more of a hole that the wing tips on the other photo. It isn't structural, it just has to stay in place during flight, needs to be flexible to withstand expansion and contraction from the cold, etc. Also keep in mind that the plane didn't strike straight on. It hit at a 50 degree angle. The tail was probably coming around (yawing) and by the time it hit the wall it may have been almost parallel. I don't know, that is just speculation on my part.

So I expect a reinforced concrete wall hitting it at 500mph would probably snap it off like a tooth pick. But while I would not necessarily expect the stabilizer to make a hole, I would expect that the wall would be severely damaged and cracked, not just the facing stones knocked off. And that makes sense out of those markings, they are showing the cracks caused by the stabilizer impact. Unfortunately the markings serve more to obscure this than to highlight it.

I agree that it was a bad idea to do it that way.

Edit 3: looking at the image again, I don't agree that the photo in question marks out anything to do with the stabilizer. The above discussion is wrong.

Compare it with the montage diagram below, especially the one that shows how the plane fits into the hole which is exactly the size and shape of the 757-200 that made it. And remember that the plane hit at 50 degrees to the wall, not 90 degrees.

Plus, if the aircraft only damaged the first floor with its body and wings, it certainly would have scraped the ground (especially the engines), and yet we see no evidence of damage to the lawn leading up to the impact area.

There is no evidence that the plane hit the ground. Why do you think it must have? The hijacker was crashing the plane not landing it.

Look at how the plane fits onto the montage drawings of the building and the damage hole (again the image is cropped in my post - please go to the original source to see the right side of the image).

Edit 2: Oops. The drawing shows the plane with landing gear down, but of course the landing gear were not down at the time of the crash.

Edit1 : now that I know how to embed properly, I'll reimbed the montage I'm talking about. See my original post for the source site.






[edit on 11/2/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 11/2/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 11/2/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks for that.

I was pretty sure there had to be a way, but I just couldn't see how.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by downisreallyup
You posted a photo of supposed wing damage on the surface of the building. Those little scratches on the surface of the limestone are certainly not all the damage that would occur from two strong wings smashing into them. Plus, there were no mangled wings sitting on the ground outside the Pentagon, which would have undoubtedly happened, since the wings would come off fairly easily in such a massive and high-speed impact.

You do realize you're contradicting yourself here right? Your first comment is the wings are so strong they would have created more damage, and your second comment is that they were so weak they would have sheared off.

Which is it? Are they strong or are they weak? You can't even get your own confusing story straight.

I already posted a video earlier of how strong the wings are and how they can fold up without shearing off, and that explains both of your contradictory statements.

No contradiction... the strength of the wings is quite different from the strength of the wing connection, via the wing spar in the wing box.

The fact that wings can fall off a lot easier than the wings themselves can disintegrate is shown in the following video:



So, no, those wings will not stay attached to the aircraft. That is not how wing connections are designed. Each wing is a strongly built unit of a spar, ribs, stringers, and skin. They are connected with large bolts to the wing box, which itself is the heaviest single part of the plane.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the fuel for the aircraft is stored in the wings, so they are extremely heavy, possessing a large part of the aircraft's mass. Not only would this mass make it harder for them to move quickly (as in collapsing against the fuselage), but this would also make the fireball occur as the WINGS hit the building, exploding the wings into a mass of metal outside the Pentagon. The fuselage of the aircraft really has no fire-causing potential at all... it's all in the wings.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Another thing to keep in mind is that the fuel for the aircraft is stored in the wings,

More "truther" disinformation, fuel in a 757 is stored in 3 fuel tanks, left main, right main and center, the Center tank being larger than the 2 wing tanks combined.... and the center tank is in the fuselage and wing inboard of the 2 engines
www.boeing.com...