Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
also we can see by the photo on this very page that there was no significant fire inside the first floor.

How can you post this

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I sometimes am totally baffled why people make claims with absolutely NO comprehension of material science and reality.

followed up by this, when you have already admitted that you don't understand fire science?

I mean, really? You see the irony in your post, right?

You see, I DO understand fire science quite well, and from what I see, it is exactly what I would expect to see from a hydrocarbon fire. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's a difference in not studying fire science and knowing a simple comparison. If, as alleged by some people in this thread, even some aluminum melted then certainly the tiny wires and general office debris would have melted also. I was asking you because based on your username and claimed experience I wanted your opinion; this doesn't make it an irony or that I know nothing about fires, just that you have more working knowledge and experience than I do.

I'm a little surprised you feel that scene is what you'd expect to see from a hydrocarbon fire, but I'll make sure I'm being precise in my question, again based on your experience.
* Based on any picture of the scene - the alleged airplane did not hit the ground outside the building because there's no damage to the ground.
* Based on the Original Post [OP] there is only a small hole easily hidden by a stream of whatever it is the firemen are spraying. For there to have been an airplane it had to hit at precisely ground level right into the ground floor where the fireball is in Picture 1, with the wings somehow following the airplane fuselage into the building because they're not outside. So, the picture we're seeing posted on the last page (page 70) would be the DIRECT impact site of an entire Boeing 757. The roof is still intact and roughly 6,000 gallons of fuel (thanks to Weedwhacker's astute estimate) burned up at that location.

In my opinion 6,000 gallons of fuel would char everything in that picture, especially the little wires and paper and wood that was not brought in later for supports. I recognize that based on the premise an airplane hit the Pentagon some of the fuel would have burned up against the outer wall, but most of the fuel is held inside the fuselage and wings which made it inside the building, so assume any amount of fuel you like but it must be at least several thousand gallons.

** In your opinion, does that picture look an like impact site for a large airplane and subsequent fire with several thousand gallons of jet fuel? And, have you ever been on an airplane crash site?

Just saw this thread and I never get involved with these. Anyway, I saw the title and checked out the pictures and I always thought this whole thing was shady. So, to appease my curiosity I looked for interviews of people who would have seen the approaching aircraft.

I was in Washington DC for two years and I know there is plenty of traffic around that building so I figured that there has to be some witnesses who saw a huge airplane flying that low and fast. I went to the archives in the news section and I couldn't find one paper that interviewed anyone who says they saw the approaching airliner.

There are no videos made public either. There are plenty of articles saying that no one saw debris from an aircraft and that no one thought a plane hit the building. I saw articles from Pilots for 911 truth refute the official claims right away. Why would the government withhold video evidence if they have it? There were more than enough cameras to get footage. That truly sucks.

Well anyway, does anyone know of any witness testimony to a plane approaching the Pentagon? If its already been covered in this thread, I apologize. Thanks in advance!

reply to post by jackflap


Welcome to the thread, glad you checked it out. so ur sayin' you didn't read all 70 pages!? What!

Here's a video called National Security Alert - The Pentagon Attack
It's a full-length video available free on YouTube. The Producers interview quite a few people who saw "a plane" that day, as well as a Pentagon worker on the non-explosion side... worth a look!
Many of the active people on this thread are from a group of people pushing for the original story at any cost and will grab on to any shred of misdirection, in my opinion, so be prepared for them to bash this video hard because it shows the flight path was physically impossible. Please don't take my word for it, or other people on this thread, watch it and make up your own mind.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There's a difference in not studying fire science and knowing a simple comparison. If, as alleged by some people in this thread, even some aluminum melted then certainly the tiny wires and general office debris would have melted also.

Some of it did. As you can see, the wires hanging down, those are usually made of high strength steel. I cant really tell if those from supporting HVAC systems, or from a suspended ceiling, but based on the fact that there isn't dozens of them, I am going to assume that they are for HVAC. Those supports are very strong.

I also see lots of other charred debris in the photo. Some uncharred, some completly burned. Not suprising considering the firefighters were there and spraying water within minutes.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I was asking you because based on your username and claimed experience I wanted your opinion; this doesn't make it an irony or that I know nothing about fires, just that you have more working knowledge and experience than I do.

No problem, and I apologize for jumping on you.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I'm a little surprised you feel that scene is what you'd expect to see from a hydrocarbon fire, but I'll make sure
I'm being precise in my question, again based on your experience.
* Based on any picture of the scene - the alleged airplane did not hit the ground outside the building because there's no damage to the ground.

I would also assume that.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

* Based on the Original Post [OP] there is only a small hole easily hidden by a stream of whatever it is the firemen are spraying.

That stream is AFFF, and it is a high-expansion foam designed to stuff out a fire by suffocating it. It works differently than most firefighting operations. 99% of the time, we extinguish a fire by removing the heat. (Spraying water directly on the base of the fire) but the AFFF works by removing the oxygen.

Now, I am assuming that it is Picture 2 that you are talking about here, correct?

Ok, now, what you can see is that there are actually 2 streams. One from the deck nozzle, and one from a bumper nozzle. I can tell you that the truck in picture 2 is from an airport, based on the color. Being yellow designates it as a ARFF (Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting) truck. It is also blocking some of the impact hole.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
For there to have been an airplane it had to hit at precisely ground level right into the ground floor where the fireball is in Picture 1, with the wings somehow following the airplane fuselage into the building because they're not outside.

Can we tell if some of the winds broke apart outside? Not really. You need moce closeup pictures. Due to the fact that alot of the debris was moved to allow firefighters and rescue workers access to the site, it is hard to say where the majority of the wings went. I am inclined to say a mizture of both inside and outside.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
So, the picture we're seeing posted on the last page (page 70) would be the DIRECT impact site of an entire Boeing 757. The roof is still intact and roughly 6,000 gallons of fuel (thanks to Weedwhacker's astute estimate) burned up at that location.

Without knowing where that picture is in relation to the building, I can't say one way or another. Do you know where that is in relation to the building?

Again, do you see the spalling concrete? This typically happens in very high temperature fires. It occurs when literally the water in the concrete boils, and causes the conrete to expand.

I find this very reasonable in this situation. I find nothing suprising about that at all. Most of the fuel remaining would have burned off very quickly, leaving the other items to burn.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
In my opinion 6,000 gallons of fuel would char everything in that picture, especially the little wires and paper and wood that was not brought in later for supports.

Also, you need to take into consideration that some "mop up" or cleanup operations have already occured at the time this picture was taken. We tuen things upside down, more things, tear things down all to make sure there is no fire still burning somewhere. Could those desks (If that is what you're talking about) been under more debris, protected from fire? Sure. Happens fairly often. Could they have been from above the area, and fallen there after collapse? Absolutely.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I recognize that based on the premise an airplane hit the Pentagon some of the fuel would have burned up against the outer wall, but most of the fuel is held inside the fuselage and wings which made it inside the building, so assume any amount of fuel you like but it must be at least several thousand gallons.

I would agree. I guesstimate somewhere in the area of 4,000 gallons.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
** In your opinion, does that picture look an like impact site for a large airplane and subsequent fire with several thousand gallons of jet fuel? And, have you ever been on an airplane crash site?

Yes, absolutely. Just because there is 6000 gallons of jet fuel in a fire, doesn't mean it's going to look any differently than another fire. They both produce about the same amount of heat and produce about the same amount of soot. They are both hydrocarbon fires. The one with 6,000 gallons of accelerant is going to have more stuff burning, but it isn't going to look any different.


I have been to the site of a few, yes. In fact, when American Airlines Flight 587, I was on duty that day, and responded.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Thermo Klein, in response to that (very terrible) video produced by the so-called "Citizen's Investigation Team" (CIT), you need to see this, and understand the way those guys (Craig Ranke, and Aldo whats-his-name) deluded and deceived their audience, in their crap video:

reply to post by FDNY343


Wow, great response! Thanks for taking the time to share your expertise and opinions on this.

alternatively, just on one point you made, I would never assume some parts of the wings are outside since they were never recovered. That's a big assumption given the point of the conversation is whether a plane hit there or not.

nonetheless, thanks for the great info and firefighter perspective

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, that's a great video. I disagree with some of the placements but it does bring some of the CIT video into question. Makes a difference seeing an overhead shot. In the CIT video the first several guys were 100% sure it was North of the road based on 100% placement, yet your video shows it basically over the road. If someone walks outside his store and sees a plane he would know, without doubt, whether is was north or south of the road.

Also a little funny how your rebutle video puts the whole thing on perspective vs cardinal, then his last statement was something like, this was not a direct quote and just used for example good video though, I'm glad all the witnesses in the CIT video can be subpoenaed if our government ever lets it reach the courts.

What I got from your video is that perspective can be misleading, as in the video you posted, so I want to check out National Security Alert again just in case.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Wow, great response! Thanks for taking the time to share your expertise and opinions on this.

alternatively, just on one point you made, I would never assume some parts of the wings are outside since they were never recovered. That's a big assumption given the point of the conversation is whether a plane hit there or not.

nonetheless, thanks for the great info and firefighter perspective

You're welcome.

Never recovered? There were pieces of airplane all over the Pentagon lawn. Now, I don't have an accurate accounting of all of the pieces, but I would assume that some of them could have been wing parts, since we know some of the fuselage was found there.

reply to post by FDNY343


We're getting into an area which has been discussed quite a number of times, which I don't really want to get in to again because I feel there's no positive evidence or proof either way and therefore any answer is just hearsay.

However... a few things that stand out to me is that there just happened to be a truck parked on the lawn next to the one unburnt, perfectly recognizable piece of an American Airlines plane (that didn't have any specific identifying serial numbers but had a very recognizable unburnt part of a letter from the fusilage). If I was going to plant something it's the exact piece I would plant. A data recorder didn't survive yet it's designed specifically to withstand HUGE amounts more damage, pressure, and heat. But, this part of the conversation just turns into hearsay and generally non-scientific re-hashing of what's already been seen in this thread.

I still feel the ultimate question to ask is HOW could a large airplane fit through a tiny hole and leave the wall intact as seen in Picture 1 & 2... the answer is, it is not physically possible; so any other little arguable ideas become moot.

reply to post by FDNY343


I'll tell you does have an accurate counting of the pieces of 'aircraft' found on the pentagon lawn. The guy who brought them to the pentagon, to be spread out after the missile hit, that's who. There must have been enough to fill the trunk of car.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hiya Weed, thanks again for posting that - I can always count on you for up-to-date counters to the truth.

I made a thread addressing Perspective 77 - I hope you'll drop by!

Pentagon VIDEO Battle - Perspective 77 vs National Security Alert - 9/11 Pentagon Attack

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
We're getting into an area which has been discussed quite a number of times, which I don't really want to get in to again because I feel there's no positive evidence or proof either way and therefore any answer is just hearsay.

Semi agree.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

However...

a few things that stand out to me is that there just happened to be a truck parked on the lawn next to the one unburnt, perfectly recognizable piece of an American Airlines plane

Which picture is that? None of your pictures show that scene. Are you talking about pciture 7? There is no truck next to that piece in that photo.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
(that didn't have any specific identifying serial numbers but had a very recognizable unburnt part of a letter from the fusilage). If I was going to plant something it's the exact piece I would plant.

To your knowledge it didn't have any other identifiable markings. There could have been. You don't know. Specualtion.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
A data recorder didn't survive yet it's designed specifically to withstand HUGE amounts more damage, pressure, and heat.

Which data recorder are you speaking of?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
But, this part of the conversation just turns into hearsay and generally non-scientific re-hashing of what's already been seen in this thread.

Ookkkkkkkaaayyyy.......

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I still feel the ultimate question to ask is HOW could a large airplane fit through a tiny hole and leave the wall intact as seen in Picture 1 & 2... the answer is, it is not physically possible; so any other little arguable ideas become moot.

You cannot see the impact hole clearly in either one of those photos.

Originally posted by dillweed
I'll tell you does have an accurate counting of the pieces of 'aircraft' found on the pentagon lawn. The guy who brought them to the pentagon, to be spread out after the missile hit, that's who. There must have been enough to fill the trunk of car.

Wow, please tell us more about this fantastic mythical creature!

This magical guy would have to be the fastest, strongest person on the planet to plant all that debris, including landing gear assemblies, engine parts, aircraft seats with passengers strapped in them, and small pieces of the plane across the highway, AND actually imbed aluminum into the masonry as well.

He's either too fast for anyone to see or invisible, please share with us how he pulls it off!

Oh, and he must also have a huge car befitting of one with such amazing powers! It must have quite a large trunk to fit all of the above into. Or, is it the car that's super fast and he just drives like a maniac tossing out debris and knocking down light poles while this "missile" no one reports seeing hit the building?

This sounds like some amazing comic book stuff here, we must know more!

reply to post by Soloist
Wake up and smell the coffee. The parts found in the pentagon, were already in the pentagon. Are you trying to tell me that the photographic evidence, immediately after 'impact', supports your claim that a 747 full of passengers and luggage crashed there? That's laughable. The reason there are no pictures of an airliner hitting the pentagon, is because there are none.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Soloist

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

It's going to something way more powerful than coffee to buy your little magical fairy tale, that's for sure.

The parts found in the pentagon, were already in the pentagon.

Uh huh. Who witnessed these parts prior to the attack? Anyone? Or is this just more of your "make believe"?

Are you trying to tell me that the photographic evidence, immediately after 'impact', supports your claim that a 747 full of passengers and luggage crashed there? That's laughable.

What's laughable is that you say I'm claiming a 747 crashed anywhere. If you don't even know what kind of plane we're talking about here maybe you shouldn't be playing imagination land with the story, mmk?

Why did the Underwear Bomber wait until the plane had landed to set off his underwear?

I have a simple theory regarding this scenario. If the Underwear Bomber had been allowed to detonate his underwear, Mainstream Media would not have had something to show people on TV to scare them into accepting the Full Body Scanners. Think about it. If the Underwear had blowed up over the Atlantic, Mainstream Media would not have been able to keep repeating the words "Underwear Bomber" in your face for several weeks.

Remember how almost every state in the nation was opposed to the Full Body Scanners? Then all of a sudden there was a complete 360 turn around when Mainstream Media began to bombard the public with images of the explosive Underwear.

If there had been no Underwear to show on TV, there wouldn't have been no place for Full Body Scanners at airports.

It was known that the scanners had already been manufactured and were sitting in storage accumulating dust because almost all of the 50 states did not want them.

Awman 71 pages, oh well here it comes anyway.

I must say on this one I did not know what to think, both sides made a good case. But given that only very few debries of an airplane have been recovered, landing gear, part of the Turbine a few pieces of the body, when there should have been bodies, a large number of seats, luggage and more wreckage to go with it, I am warming up to the planted debries theory. At this point it seems to be more likely than a plan crashing in the pentagon and for some mysterious reason leaving only a fraction of its pieces behind.

reply to post by FDNY343


there was a truck parked next to the piece of unburnt debris shown in picture 7. It doesn't prove anything either way... not sure it's in this thread but Google pentagon pics and I'm sure you'll find it if you want.

The picture of the burnt pancake of a black box/data recorder thing from the OP (Don't know the precise name of it off the top of my head) - there's a whole discussion of data recorder stats and the things they're built to survive in this thread somewhere, lasted a few pages if I recall. Basically those things are built to withstand immense amounts of pressure and heat for long periods of time. It's been covered quite completely by both sides in this thread already.

reply to post by Cassius666


Glad to hear it Cassius! Lots more people are changing their mind to join the "truth" side because it's unavoidable - the Original Story is the same old thing year after year, the Truth movement is constantly checking more and more minute details and finding the myriad ways the story proves to be a fraud.

Originally posted by Cassius666
I must say on this one I did not know what to think, both sides made a good case. But given that only very few debries of an airplane have been recovered, landing gear, part of the Turbine a few pieces of the body, when there should have been bodies, a large number of seats, luggage and more wreckage to go with it, I am warming up to the planted debries theory. At this point it seems to be more likely than a plan crashing in the pentagon and for some mysterious reason leaving only a fraction of its pieces behind.

If you set ALL the facts of the crash aside, there is still a huge problem with the planted debris theory.

Setting the facts aside, assume for a moment the government wanted people to believe a plane crashed into the pentagon. The easiest and simplest way to do this, is to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon. With all the powers "The Powers That Be" TPTB have, surely they have the ability to do this, and it solves about a million problems with the alternative theories being suggested, like for example, if the plane didn't really crash into the Pentagon, how do you go about killing all the passengers, disposing of their bodies, planting all the debris, etc.

I'll grant you some of the brain power of TPTB isn't that great, but even the dumbest person would suggest if you want it to look like the plane crashed, then just crash the plane. You'd have to be dumber than dumb to try something else, and TPTB ain't that dumb.

I don't believe everything officials tell me. But I have much less reason to believe anyone who suggests they wouldn't just crash a plane if they wanted it to look like a plane crash. The planted debris suggestion doesn't even make any sense at the most basic level of logic.

And then there's the evidence. For people lacking expertise in crash analysis (which include over 99% of the population and posters in this thread) we just have varying degrees of ignorance and misunderstandings about what is and is not possible in a crash. But the idea of some guy running around right after the crash planting "evidence" is just so unrealistic and comical, when all they had to do to avoid all those complications was to just crash the plane.