Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by downisreallyup


You show me a video of a 12 inch long fatigue crack incident, and claim that's a normal wing design showing how easily wings can come off a 757?

I have news for you, wings are NOT designed with 12 inch long fatigue cracks. Planes, especially the C130, can develop fatigue cracks with age but that is not related to the pentagon crash unless you're suggesting that those wings also should have had 12 inch long fatigue cracks???

www.iasa.com.au...

“The cause of such fatigue cracking has been attributed to the age, time-in-service and flight cycles of the airplane,” the FAA’s C-130A directive said. “Such fatigue cracking, if not detected and corrected, could result in structural failure of the wings and consequent loss of control of the airplane.”


The C-130A was 46 years old and had 21,863 hours of flight time.

Stop arguing from such a narrow-minded perspective. My point was to show that wings DO come off airplanes, but wings DON'T disintegrate into dust. Just like tails fall off, engines fall off, etc. The point is, and if you were not arguing from such a "gotcha" mentality, you would clearly see that my point was to show that wings are attached to aircraft quite strongly, but not as strongly as the wing components are attached to each other.

If you are going to talk to me in a condescending way with accusatory tone, then I will give that right back to you, or anyone else who does that. If you talk with me in a gentlemanly way, trying to understand my point instead of looking for ways to shoot it down, then I will give you the same courtesy. Whenever I get miffed at people here it is because of their tone that they take first, or because of their bull-headed unintelligent contempt for reason and logic. If I make a mistake in some fact, and you point it out nicely, then I will respond in kind. If you point it out harshly or with contempt, then that is what you will get back from me. Quite simple really.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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.

Nobody is saying that ANYBODY said body and seat photos were found except for Dereks. Everyone is saying that he said that, and only him... so please try to follow the train of thought here... which is very difficult given the techniques used. This is exactly what happens every D*MN time this topic comes up and certain people get into the act.

Please... can somebody start a thread of discussion on this topic that somehow has only people who are willing to discuss this topic rationally, and with intelligence. Even if someone makes an error, I for one am fully willing to bring that up nicely, as long as everyone else is doing the same. It is possible? It is possible for a group of adults to discuss this topic as if we were in a courtroom where evidence is required?

We demand with impunity that IMAGES be produced for UFO's and we claim "no photo or video... it didn't happen." Well, let's use the same standard here! No images... it didn't happen.

WHERE ARE THE SEATS?

And, no, there was not a single RB211 engine found... there was a piece of an engine found, and that was surely not from an RB211 (please see the multiple places I embedded by analysis of that fact).

reply to post by rnaa

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

She most certainly did and she also taught me to call a lie, a lie.

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).

How many times do you need to be told you’re wrong? Even using your single source, everything is described as looks like, may be, etc. but no evidence, no proof. Aluminum doesn’t rust and primer doesn’t stop the formation of soot.

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.

Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!

www.asile.org...

Look at the last picture on the below link of the ”entry hole.”
No Boeing 757 crashed at the pentagon. Impossible! Notices the windows on each side and above the entry hole, the wings didn’t brake the glass, nothing.

The Pentagon Crash Site

www.serendipity.li...

Yeah. That's why the existence of the link he gave to the report can't be displayed on your browser

Another lie that some of you OS believers are saying because your phony evidences is not there in your internet sources.
My browser works fine and all the photos show up fine, except the photos that you claim that are not there.

Tell you what, I can start a poll on ATS and see how many people will agree with YOU if there is an ”undercarriage photo” in your source that you blindly defend.

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?).

There is nothing wrong with Lilydale's computer it is YOU and your evidences that ”you made up” that is not in your internet sources.
Insulting and ridiculing Truthers is a well-known disinformationist tactics;

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

Ok so what are you going to do, sue yourself?














[edit on 12-2-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Nobody is saying that ANYBODY said body and seat photos were found except for Dereks.

Once again, where in this thread did I claim there were photo's of seats?
Why do truthers keep lying about that?

Everyone is saying that he said that, and only him

Only truthers are telling lies, you mean!

It is possible for a group of adults to discuss this topic as if we were in a courtroom where evidence is required?

So what evidence do "truthers" have that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon? None at all!

Well, let's use the same standard here! No images... it didn't happen.

You realise that destroys all truther conspiracy theories, where are the pictures of explosives in the WTC......

And, no, there was not a single RB211 engine found... there was a piece of an engine found, and that was surely not from an RB211 (please see the multiple places I embedded by analysis of that fact).

Except you ignore the fact that you were wrong with that claim....

Originally posted by impressme
Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck. No reporters or independent aircraft experts have been permitted to examine any of the recovered aircraft parts and no subpoenas have been issued to hear public grand jury testimony from the "movers." SEE PHOTOES on this page.

]

You must be joking, is that the best you can come up with? www.rense.com...

That is simply a tent being carried into the Pentagon lawn.... if that website tells lies about that, why believe any of the other lies that it claims!

If you want to call this article a lie, then YOU prove it is a lie.

I just did....

Either way it poke holes in your OS fairytales and these photos prove it.

No, they prove that once again truthers tell lies about everything!

Oh dear, here we have that website claiming that 757's use a GE CF6 engine.... unfortunately that site lies once again, as CF6's are used on 767's....CF6-32
The CF6-32 was intended to be a stripped-down version of the CF6-6 for the Boeing 757. It was never launched due to lack of interest from airlines
en.wikipedia.org...

You will not see these photos on your government websites because it incriminates them.

Funny how the photo of the blue tent was taken by the military, and released to the public then.... Date: 9/11/01 Time: Unknown
Photographer: Jim Varhegyi, U.S. Air Force, Tech Sgt. (RELEASED)

If you want to call Tomflocco, website fabricated lies

I just showed that they did fabricate lies....

So once again "truthers" are shown to avoid the facts and just make silly things up, like a blue tent carried into the Pentagon lawn was used to carry something out..... and 757's use a GE CF6 engine that was never developed!

This brings up a very interesting point - did the truther check the lies posted, do some quick research, found the site was full of lies and post it anyway, or just assume as it was a conspiracy site it was full of lies and post it anyway?

[edit on 12/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
showing that they are obviously NOT from the same engine type. For your convenience, I will attach the same diagram that I made here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/717afa785984.jpg[/atsimg]

oh dear, you are still persisting with that lie- why did you highlight the compressor blades comparing them to exhaust turbine?

You should have highlighted the part the man in the picture is looking at, which matches the 757 part found in the Pentagon!

If you are claiming that the piece the man is looking at is the same as the item in the right-hand photo, then you are totally without merit there... it is impossible to see what that piece the man is hovering over looks like. So, how can you say it matches perfectly?

reply to post by impressme

Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!

www.asile.org...

Ooooh! I like trivial pursuit.


Question Number 1

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

It didn't damage only the outsie of the Pentagon. But the walls of "D" and "C" ring didn't collapse so you can't see the damage in this photograph. In fact the damage went right through both "D" and "C" rings.The famous Punchout hole is in the innermost wall of "C" ring.



And here an image montage of a crash test showing how the body disintegrates.




Question Number 2

Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Again, it didn't. The flight deck took out the second floor.




Question Number 3

You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

No, it hit the second floor too.

Keep in mind that this photo is taken from under the flight path, the entire momentum is AWAY from the camera. That said, there is lots of Airplane debris in that pile of rubble under the collapsed building and scattered on the ground on the otherside of the fire trucks. This is shown in many other photographs. Why wasn't a photo from the other side used for this question? Oh, that wouldn't support the argument would it.

Question Number 4

Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Because the lawn was too soft for the heavy lift equipement that needed to be brought in. That isn't a serious question is it?

Question Number 5

Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

They were torn to shreds. They caused lots of damage.



Question Number 6

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Because he had never experienced this kind of event before. Because he is trained not to give off the cuff opinions to the media that may be wrong and misinform the public. Because he was in the midst of fighting a major fire and dealing with a lot of information and needed to sort fact from fiction before he could commit to comment. Because he is a professional that acted with utmost professionalism dealing with an unprecidented event.

Question Number 76

Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Not in the photos that have been carefully selected to hide the point of impact behind the fire fighting foam.

But in this photo I can. And please do take extra notice of all the "blast proof" windows that were knocked out.



Too easy.

OK. I've done your test. You do mine.

Explain what happened to this plane that DIDN'T hit a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph.

How many times do you need to be told you’re wrong?

I never need to be told I'm wrong. I thrive on validation.

Even using your single source, everything is described as looks like, may be, etc. but no evidence, no proof. Aluminum doesn’t rust and primer doesn’t stop the formation of soot.

OK. How's that "no evidence, no proof" policy working out for you?

Where is the 'rusted' Aluminum?

Where should there be soot that there isn't?

Where is the evidence of a cruise missile or whatever your favorite stalking horse is this week?

Look at the last picture on the below link of the ”entry hole.”
No Boeing 757 crashed at the pentagon. Impossible! Notices the windows on each side and above the entry hole, the wings didn’t brake the glass, nothing.

The 'hole' you are looking at is of the second floor where the flight deck went in, you realize that don't you? Its a blow up of the photo where the fire fighting foam is obscuring the main part of the entrance hole, the one that your 'side' prefers to use because it is useless for any analysis whatsoever?

If you look at the photos that contain the portion to the right of the central impact hole, without spray foam hiding it, for example the ones I have posted in the answer to your trivial pursuit quiz, you will see plenty of windows that were blown out.

I can't explain exactly why those windows were blown and not the central ones on the third floor. Maybe not all the windows had been replaced with blast proof windows or maybe the 'entrance' by the nose was sharper and cleaner than the smacking the wing and vertical stabilizer impact on the right. It was essentially a chaotic event, weird things happen.

Explanation of Confusion

Apparently, there has been a great attempt to do just what the MSM does... misquote people by only pulling part of what they said. There has been a controversy here as to whether there was any evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon. Originally, I made the following statement:

I'm sorry, but there just wasn't enough evidence that a plane had crashed... NO SEAT REMNANTS, no BODY PARTS, no MAJOR ENGINE PARTS, no Flight Data Recorder... Had a real plane crashed, we'd see all these things, and the damage would have been MUCH WORSE.

Now, clearly from the context of my comment, each thing I listed is to be interpreted as relating to a plane crash, so obviously any BODY PARTS I mentioned would have to be proven to be PASSENGER or CREW body parts, and SEAT REMNANTS would have to be 757 aircraft seat remnants. Also, anything purporting to be these things would have to pass the test of EVIDENCE and not just hearsay or unsubstantiated accounts.

With over 150 seats in a 757, surely someone would have taken a photo of one, as nothing would have proven more conclusive that an aircraft had crashed there. Instead, people take closeup photos of silly pieces of scrap metal, and who knows where those photos came from since there is no background context for much of it.

Then, in response to my comment about nothing being found that absolutely connects a 757 to the Pentagon site, the following comment was made:

and again we have a truther telling lies....

seats seen
www.usatoday.com...
When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him. "It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."

body parts, pictures of and where they were found
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

So, when I said there was no EVIDENCE of SEATS, BODY PARTS, and LARGE ENGINE PARTS, I was obviously talking about these things in relation to passengers and aircrafts. That is just too obvious.

And that is when the other member claimed two things:

1) Some first responder CLAIMED to see passenger bodies strapped into their seats... no photographs, just a claim, which is NOT evidence.

2) Body parts, pictures of and where they were found... in other words, PHOTOGRAPHS of BODIES, and given the context of what was being responded to... BODIES OF PASSENGERS.

To then claim that photos of bodies that are NOT PROVEN to be passengers some how proves that my statement of NO BODIES found is untenable, given that I was clearly talking about PASSENGER bodies, and not just any dead bodies.

To then claim that I did not stipulate passenger bodies is to fully ignore the context of my statement, since talking about any other kind of bodies would have been pointless and not germane to the subject at hand.

Hopefully this clears things up.

reply to post by rnaa


Reporter, stating on 911 no airplane visible.


www.freedomfiles.org...[1].Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon what did, and how?

Two emails received by Signs of the Times about one year ago, (identities concealed to protect the correspondents) are quite informative:
Email #1
Greetings, I have stayed out of this arena for a reason, but can no longer. I am a Maintenence Mechanic here in the assembly plant in [XXX] where we build these great aircraft. 747's-757's and 767's.
Lets do some math for a minute, because those who believe a 757 hit the pentagon, must also believe in the tooth fairy.
The melting temp for brake shoes on a 757 is about 3000 degs., the landing gear struts are solid cast aluminum; the center shafts for the engines are solid titanium. The flame temp for low grade kerosene, (jet fuel) is around 800 degs.
If the 757 was full of fuel, thats 14 pounds of aircraft per one gallon of fuel. Its impossible to "completely incinerate" a 757 at that fuel-to-material ratio. It would be the first time in history it did, and would defy the laws of physics, period.
No 757 hit the pentagon. Where's the engines, landing gears, APU's, stringers, fuel cell walls, wing join assemblies? These are impervious to fire, and, all have survived the worst fires ever seen on aircraft, and I've seen them all.
Oh by the way, if the 757 was "completely incinerated" as the gov't would have the lemming masses believe, how did they come up with DNA from the ashes for every passenger on board. DNA from ASHES!!!?? What a crock of #. Once you do the math, you'll quickly know that no 757 hit that building, those who say one did, are liars, or have been told to be liars lest they end up like Vince Foster and a few hundred others like him.


Shocked? Outraged? You have every right to be, but not at us, or anyone else that points out the logical explanation of the problem. There exists overwhelming evidence to show that, as a general rule, corrupt people in positions of great power do not flinch at murdering their own citizens if it serves their purposes to do so. In some cases, they will murder their citizens - and others - because it gives them pleasure. Such people also, historically, are advocates and practitioners of torture. If you disagree then you disagree with historical fact. Welcome to the real world.


The US government claims that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this, yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes that would put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit the Pentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"
There is one very obvious answer.

www.kasjo.net...

No 757 hit the pentagon.




[edit on 12-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by rnaa


No photos of passenger’s bodies.
No photos of passenger’s seats.
No photos of passenger’s luggage.

Only one engine found.
Engine not identified properly.
Engine serial numbers not recorded.
Some engine parts do not match 757 engine.
What happened to other 757 engine?

Entry hole to small for 757 to go through.
Windows on the side and above of impact hole were not broken.
Early pentagon crash photos show no airplane debris on lawn.
No video evidences of a plane hitting the pentagon.
To many credible witnesses say plane didn’t strike the pentagon on government flight path.

These are the question the OS believers avoid, because it will prove the OS is a big fat lie.
Without passenger, seats or passenger bodies or the other 757 engine being found or video of a plane hitting the pentagon, you have absolutely nothing to prove the OS of flight 77 is true, absolutely nothing.





[edit on 12-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by rnaa


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f015acdcc9b.jpg[/atsimg]
So.... in your mind, an airplane wing (full of jet fuel) can crash into a building and disintigrate?

There is no airplane wing in this picture, and a few feet below your alleged wing impact site there are pieces of WOOD!!!

So logically the aluminum and steel wing dissolved because of the speed or fire damage? but those pieces of wood didn't get burned.

I just don't get why you continue to argue these ridiculous claims?
The wood didn't burn but the jet fuel and the wing dissolved - what world are you living in?

You hold onto this belief that a plane hit so tightly! If you step back for a moment, forget your theory for a second and REALLY analyze this picture (that you provided)... what do you think? Does wood stay unburned while metal burns away to nothing? relax with it - you can always go back to your airplane belief in a minute.

Part of making a logical decision is letting go of your belief, so you can see all sides involved - that's wisdom.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

I think people may be focusing on the wrong area to prove something fishy was going on. (well done, btw, on some of these)

You can debate ALL friggin' day about plane debris, concrete strength, inability of novice pilot to direct the plane, impact & exit holes, building damage, eyewitness accounts, etc...

You only need to examine ONE THING to know you are being lied to, and there is a coverup of massive proportions going on.

Video footage.

The brains and headquarters of THE most powerful military force on the earth, and as a result one of the most protected and surveiled buildings on the planet, produced precisely ONE recording of this horrific incident.

One recording. Poor quality. Obviously edited/tampered. Short in duration. Crappiest of angles. Delayed release.


End of debate.







[edit on 2/12/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Hopefully this clears things up.

One would hope. It is quite obvious that the only way to win their argument is to misquote people and then try and transform the conversation. I guess they do not understand the nature of an internet forum. I am starting to think they believe that writing a new post makes all old ones go away.

We can all read what was said on this thread and what was not. It is quite clear that the claim was made that there are photos of passenger bodies and offered a link. The link contains no such thing.

A logical person would wonder why their own link does not contain the proof they claim it does. A logical person might wonder why their OS is even missing these facts. Instead, the OS pushers here have decided to attack other posters by twisting their words in order to protect the false claim made about having pictures of passenger body evidence.

I am not sure why anyone would stand by a story they have to put this much effort into being deceptive to try and convince people of. As much as people like dereks will not be sucking me into their little game...I doubt anything can suck these liars out of it.

reply to post by rnaa


After pages of reading, all the OSers have to offer as far as anything at all is this...

I can't prove it, but that is what it looks like. Can you prove it isn't?

I have little faith that logic will be entering into their minds any time soon.

Originally posted by dereks

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?

This is an easy one and I have an answer that I have no problem sticking by. The problem is that you came first with the claim that they are passenger bodies. So, before I give away my goods I think it is only fair that you explain why you think that they are.

You made the claim, you repeated it, you failed to explain it, you failed to stand by it, you have since tried to backpedal from it. Want my answer, give me yours. I will not go back and forth with you either. If you reply and fail to actually address my post, I will just ignore you.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
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.

Please also review pictures of the 757, see the wing and engine detail here.
www.mkrtraining.com...

Notice that approx 2/3rds of the engine is located significantly forward of the leading edge of the wing. Note also that the engines were at or near full power, so not only did the engines have substantial inertia, given their weight at around 4 tons but there was 40,000 odd lbs of thrust being generated at the same time.

Now gyroscopic forces are very powerful, two slowly spinning wheels keep
a bicycle upright with you on top, 4 tons of engine spinning at 10,000 rpm with 40,000 lbs of thrust is going nowhere but forward!

The planes wings are as strong, (if not stronger) than the fuselage, the wings and the engines are the force behind a moving plane. Simple common sense tells us that where the front of the plane makes a hole so to will the engines and the wings.

If the followers of the government line believe the story as given to them then please refute the common sense and logic above.

Please do not use "Harry Potter" magic to explain your view point.