Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Problem is they didn't just want people to think a plane crashed they wanted to destroy that part of the pentagon, a real plane would not have done that damage, and may not have hit at all and ended up all over the lawn, either way they would have had a massive clean up operation to perform. The 'plane' that actually crashed was conveniently self cleaning.

reply to post by Thermo KleinGreat point, Thermo! Year after year their story can only be that, their story. Yet, year after year we find more and more instances that don't make sense, that are obvious lies. That's why they are so afraid of us, discouraging pursuit of the truth. Eventually, the mountain of evidence pointing to a cover up will be overwhelming. They will not win this.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
Wow. So a solid 6 tonne engine bounces off the wall

who said it bounced off the wall? You have not looked at any aerial pictures of the Pentagon, have you!!

Things can be ejected for hundreds of feet. Parts of the engine would be going all over.
Has everyone read the results of 77 impacting the Pentagon?
www.fire.nist.gov...

77 impacted the Pentagon. RADAR, FDR, DNA, and witnesses prove 77 impacted. The aircraft parts seen on lawn were not planted, they were ejected from a kinetic energy impact equal in energy to 1200 pounds of TNT. Energy is mass times velocity squared.

The reason we don't use 757/767 for weapons is cost, they cost too much money. Plus it is against the rules of war; who would think there are rules to killing. Explosives are less expensive.

A cruise missile can't do the kinetic energy damage a 757 at 488 knots can, and there was no explosion at the Pentagon from explosives, just fuel tanks.

In aircraft accidents, objects from the crash are ejected in many directions up to hundreds of feet. Sections of the skin of the fuselage would be ejected before the jet fuel ignites, and not be burned. The Jet fuel is mainly in the wings.

If the OP had real evidence to support no plane at the Pentagon, we would have a Pulitzer Prize winner in our midst. The OP is not evidence, it is only fuel for conspiracy, and will not be on the CBS evening news save as proof of crazy conspiracy theories exist due to ignorance, what we all have on occasion.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
If the OP had real evidence to support no plane at the Pentagon, we would have a Pulitzer Prize winner in our midst. The OP is not evidence, it is only fuel for conspiracy, and will not be on the CBS evening news save as proof of crazy conspiracy theories exist due to ignorance, what we all have on occasion.

pictures = real evidence. go back to class...

Great thread lots of info.

All I can add is that I was a Police Officer on duty that day, working in a Force Control Room not in the US.

We received an internal network alert on our screens to say a bomb had exploded at the Pentagon. This was not updated till around 2 hrs later when the message was updated to Aircraft.

It may have just been an early judgement before the facts had been verified.

So far I've read that:
* there were no grieving relatives at the airport... so there was no plane
* there was no plane so there was no crew and passengers to go missing.
* There was a plane, it landed safely and NASA took all the crew and passengers who have never been seen since...

Surely it couldn't be that difficult to assertain whether a plane full of people are no longer active members of society and whether any of them have relatives and friends who are missing them.

Once that is established... if there are missing people... where are they IF they did not die at the Pentagon?
Apart from "NASA taking them" for whatever reason... does anyone have an answer as to where they are?
One possibility is that they died at the Pentagon in a horrific plane crash. If thats wrong, then where are they?

Find the answer to this and you'll find the answer to what happened.

LOL

the most important proof of all is that

to this day, no one ever saw all the frames of the 300000 cameras that recorded the event

anyone that believes something when someone holds this kind of evidence is completely a zombie

I am not saying I know what happened, but come on, see above again

The pictures/video of this paticular incident are what caused me to begin to question the whole 9/11 explanation in the first place. Absolute proof....not so sure about that. Proof beyond a resonable doubt...even a shadow of a doubt, no. That said, I find it very hard to get past the fact that such minimal damage was caused by such a large aircraft crashing into an immovable object. It just seems to defy logic. However, this is the Pentagon. A defensive structure that was built to withstand impacts. What constuction techniques were employed to withstand an impact, and what type of impact? Was the constuction technique tested, is there any test data? If we are going to put the nail in the coffin on this one, I think these questions are going to have to be answered.

In addition, if the incident is a cover up of a missle impact, what was said to the government agents who knowingly spread the airplane debris around the site within minutes of impact? The fact that the debris was placed within minutes screams prior knowledge, ie they knew it was coming before it happened and were ready. If so, what would motivate them to engage such activity? Was it money or a sense of duty instilled in them based on what they were told, lies or truth?

reply to post by studio500


thanks for sharing! interesting experience

reply to post by Dragon33


I heard somewhere something like 60% of the people on the AA 77 passenger list had top secret clearances. I don't know if it's true, just passing it on for you to check out if you like - I don't recall the source and generally stay away from speculation like that.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Dragon33

 

I heard somewhere something like 60% of the people on the AA 77 passenger list had top secret clearances. I don't know if it's true, just passing it on for you to check out if you like - I don't recall the source and generally stay away from speculation like that.

sure you do

Your OP is fictional speculation, and you just did more.

www.fire.nist.gov...

Originally posted by iSunTzu
Your OP is fictional speculation, and you just did more.

you clearly don't understand what "fictional" means.... those are PICTURES. Are you claiming those pictures are falsified? You did look at the OP before you started commenting didn't you?

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Your conclusions are fictional, like the The Da Vinci Code. You show photos and make up fictional stories. No big deal this is the place for 911 conspiracy theories, and you spin them like Rapunzel spins gold. Bravo, I love a good story, but 77 impacted the Pentagon and killed people due to the actions of 5 murderers.

Have you contacted the parents of the kid who died on Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon to tell them he is still alive? Have you taken action to publish your evidence? You don't have to, your claims are fiction, and your photos prove your conclusions are fiction.

The first floor of the Pentagon has no walls to the hole made by kinetic energy of the impacting 77. The energy of 77 impact was equal to 1200 pounds of TNT. No explosives, just kinetic energy. Physics, everyone should take physics.

reply to post by iSunTzu


I've taken physics and I know that airplanes cannot fly through a wall without leaving a hole...

totally ironic, you claim my actual pictures of the event are fiction, when you claim physics and various other proofs to say you're right? yes, physics is amazing - you should apply your expertise of physics to the twin towers and figure out why rivers of molten iron were left-over from the thermitic reactions.

By the way, you mention Flight 93 - everything you know is from that fictional patriotic hollywood movie... the hole was there BEFORE 2001! In a US Geological Survey picture from 1994 the hole already was there. The flight 93 wreckage dissolved. yet you think it happened!?? Which of us is in denial here

reply to post by iSunTzu


I'm sure you know by now, but as a reminder, you're up against a formidable opposition here!

This thread vividly illustrates that one can post photos shot from a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away and as long as the right caption accompanies that photo it can get accolades from 200+ posters on a Conspiracy Theory Web Site and solve the crime of the Century. Never mind that it completely ignores all of the other evidence. Yes indeed, you are up against experts here.

It also illustrates that one can post a photo of the former strip mine in PA shot from the early 90's that EVEN TRUTHERS AGREED in 2007 or 2008 WAS NOT THE EXACT LOCATION OF the UA 93 crash, but can say that it was anyway. So, be careful you might get embarrassed by experts.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Oh, THIS nonsense again????

... the hole was there BEFORE 2001! In a US Geological Survey picture from 1994 the hole already was there.

I see a B/W photo, with a color inset. Oh, please, DO point out the "exact" place where this mythical "hole" was already there, in 1994.

The B/W is from 1994, correct? There is a little black arrow, to indicate a common point. SO, why does the color photo, from 2001, look so different?? There is the GASH, the impact of UAL 93 from 2001....but, where is that same GASH in the SAME location, from 1994??

Is this hysterical blindness, on the part of "truthers"??

Really....has the entire so-called "9/11 truth movement" become
nothing more than a "Sheen Wreck"?? (®)....

Let's pretend that the official story of the Pentagon was and is true; with such little damage, explain to me then, how a plane can take down the twin towers? Makes no sense. One story contradicts another. Far too many coincidences and no proper investigation. My opinion and my gut tells me.. this was an inside job!

S & F

I hate when a post becomes a double.. another coincidence!

Originally posted by disfugured
Let's pretend that the official story of the Pentagon was and is true; with such little damage, explain to me then, how a plane can take down the twin towers? Makes no sense. One story contradicts another. Far too many coincidences and no proper investigation. My opinion and my gut tells me.. this was an inside job!

S & F

So little damage? Do you honestly think a 3000lb Missile (the weight of only 1 Jet engine), would have caused as much damage as was caused in the Pentagon? It's laughable to think a cruise missile destroyed 32 15" steel reinforced concrete pillars, through multiple rings of the building.

This idea that it was a bunker buster because the damage is in such a 'straight line' is ridiculous. As soon as a missile or munition hits one (let alone multiple) of those 15" pillars, the path of the bomb is going be unpredictable. It's sure as hell not cutting through dozens of them in a straight line. And lets not forget that Cruise Missiles (JASSM and CALCM respectively) are just 18-24 inches in diameter.

Also, the claim that it was a shaped charge is questionable in itself. Please show me a cruise missile in the USAF inventory that utilizes a shaped charge as a primary means of damage. Penetration weapons don't rely on shaped charges, they rely on a much thicker casing than your General Purpose munitions.

reply to post by Thermo Klein

WHERE'S THE MISSILE. I WANT PROOF.

I don't see a missile so sorry. Try again.