Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by truthwilout
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?

Who planted debris?

Show me the proof. Don't make accusations.

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

formidable in your own mind isn't fact any more than pre-conceived beliefs on 9/11 are fact.

Please feel free to read the previous 72 pages and bring an argument if you like. Also, please take a moment to look at the pictures in the OP.

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

Only the largest investigation in history.
The Pentagon is a pentagon, 922 feet per side. The damage inside the Pentagon ran for 300 feet.
WTC tower, square, 207 feet per side, the aircraft speed and size gave a kinetic energy impact equal to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. Like two Big bombs.
Pentagon kinetic energy impact 1200 pounds of TNT.
The Pentagon section collapsed due to fire, and the fire was fought.
The WTC towers collapsed due to fire and the fires were not fought.

The WTC did not have 300 feet for the damage to run. The WTC were designed to take an impact of an aircraft going 180 mph lost in the fog, equal in kinetic energy to 184 pounds of TNT. The impacts on 911 were 7 and 11 times greater than the design was for. That is significant.

Both the Pentagon and the WTC suffered the exact damage you get with kinetic energy impacts by 767 and 757 aircraft. You can use physics to check.

We don't use 767/757 for weapons because they cost too much. 144 million dollars is too much for a bomb. Compare to the bomb McVeigh built using fertilizer and fuel. We have thousands of dollars for a bomb equal to 4,000 pounds of TNT, or a kinetic energy weapon for 144 million dollars without a guidance package (on 911 idiot pilots). A remote control system for a 767/757 would cost millions to billions for a few copies, unlike McVeigh park and kill kids, the kinetic energy steal a jet means suicide for the idiots doing the job. Saved on court costs. A 2000 pound bomb cost 3,000 dumb, and 70,000 dollars smart.

People smart off about using airliners as weapons. For the price of one 767 you could buy 2,000, 2,000 pound smart bombs. en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...

You missed the largest investigation in history. How did you do that?
www.fbi.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

The guys who did the attacks, died in the attacks, a note in-case you missed that fact too.

Originally posted by iSunTzu

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

Only the largest investigation in history.

iSunTzu - you should look up the term INTEGRITY and learn it. There has been almost no investigation... they spent more money finding out if Bill Clinton got pleasured by Monica Lewinsky than they did on investigating 9/11. More than half the people in the 9/11 Commission left the group stating the government was lying and trying to manipulate them!! (the source is all the books they've written) pulling what you call "facts" OUT OF THIN AIR simply gets you on people's ignore list and makes for a total waste of time. Almost everything you've said in this thread is a lie, please stop wasting our time, and LOOK IT UP!

disregard

reply to post by iSunTzu


Do you find it odd that the FBI's largest investigation ever didn't provide us with the VIDEO TAPES that were seized? or any PROOF of an airplane!!? This hurts your case... the FBI... can't prove there's an airplane there ROFL!

the link you provided proves absolutely nothing as it links to a 2001 press release and pictures of 19 men. If you're going to bring up the FBI could you please at least bring some information with it? The FBI page gives ONE paragraph of story with no proof, no details, nothing. I assume since you brought it up you've at least read it - what do you think the FBI has to say about this case?

reply to post by truthwilout


Where do you get this stuff?? Just blindly reading the crap websites that spew this filth, and believe it without any question, or logic or reason .... or research of YOUR OWN?!?

.... the Pentagon. A defensive structure that was built to withstand impacts.

Huh?? THAT'S a new one! Who told you that? Where are the sources to verify that? You see, first time the lie gets started, the rest of your "assumptions" from there build on a foundation of lies and misconception.

What constuction techniques were employed to withstand an impact, and what type of impact?

The bleeping building was built in the 1940s!!! What do YOU think? It is an office building!! Not a vault. (You can do the research for yourself)...

In addition, if the incident is a cover up of a missle impact....

Oh, not again!! IT ISN'T!! There are tons of valid eyewitness who SAW the airplane!! No one saw a missile. No one! Zero people saw a missile....:




Now, this?? Really.....you need to get some perspective (and STOP believing the crap websites that spread this stupidity):

what was said to the government agents who knowingly spread the airplane debris around the site within minutes of impact.

"within minutes"??? Are you serious? DO you know how many cars were stopped, in morning rush hour traffic, on the many roads all around the Pentagon, with FULL views of the area?? Yet none...not one person from any of those vehicles reports "government agents spreading debris around the site" within minutes!

Are these fictional super-agents fireproof, too?? How did they allegedly "plant" debris in the middle of the raging infernos???


I just marvel at the ability of otherwise seemingly intelligent people to fall for this "truther" crap, time and time again......


"There are three types of 'truthers'; the confused, the paranoid and the profiteer."

(Anon.)

reply to post by weedwhacker


OHH CRAP and FILTH wow such strong words for an unknown person with an obsession for debunking .

So sad that you spend your spare time amongst people you label lunatics .


You can spend all the time you want here your opinion means nothing to most of us here .

Get yourself a new hobby because you suck at this one .

You Mr weedwhacker are not gaining any allies whatsoever .

Originally posted by Doomzilla
Get yourself a new hobby because you suck at this one .

You Mr weedwhacker are not gaining any allies whatsoever .

That's not true. Weedwhacker is a lot better at this debate than you are. He discusses actual facts and topics, like this one:

Originally posted by weedwhacker

.... the Pentagon. A defensive structure that was built to withstand impacts.

Huh?? THAT'S a new one! Who told you that? Where are the sources to verify that? You see, first time the lie gets started, the rest of your "assumptions" from there build on a foundation of lies and misconception.

It's a valid point. The only thing I know of that was built to withstand such an impact is the containment vessel of a nuclear reactor which is something like reinforced concrete 8 feet thick. (I'm sure there are other things like bunkers too but the nuclear reactor containment vessel happens to be a structure I'm familiar with built to resist impacts). I think we all know the Pentagon wasn't reinforced concrete 8 feet thick even after the structure was strengthened, heck even the new blast resistant windows were only something like 2 inches thick. That's pretty thick for a window, but still a far cry from 8 feet of solid reinforced concrete.

So while WW discussed facts and evidence, all you have done is attack him with with ad hominems. Not only is discussing the facts and evidence more in compliance with ATS terms and conditions, but it's also a more effective and convincing debating tactic, to people interested in the truth as deduced from facts and evidence anyway. For people that already have their mind made up irrespective of the facts I suppose it doesn't matter what anyone else says.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No the guy is here to derail , antagonise , abuse and divide people nothing more nothing less .

Regarding the Pentagon ?
I don't believe the os, sorry !
Try as you may we dont trust the government or those who protect it .

Have a great life

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here's a little research I did on my own.
Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
The Pentagon Exit Hole

So far my encounters with you have been pretty similar to this post...you bluster and rage about some minor point or the audacity to suspect that planes didn't hit the pentagon, and then you're gone. You don't stand your ground and defend your position much, or at least you haven't with me.

From what I can tell, for you and many of the OS faithful, certain subjects are off the table and when pressed about those subjects, you disappear. That tends to make me think we're on the right track.

So what do you say about that inner "punchout" hole Weedwhacker? Explosives or disappearing landing gear?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/973656435d12.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Yankee451


Here, this may help you understand a little better, give it a good read.

www.fire.nist.gov...

By the way, I don't know who is labeling your photos for you, but thats not reinforcing bar in those photos.

reply to post by Yankee451


Huh??? Look at the timezone hack....

..... and then you're gone.

According to my settings (for my LOCAL timezone) your post time reference is 0049. Sorry I didn't "dance" to your own amusement into the early AM of 0100.....

BTW....when you are wrong, you are wrong. My points stand.....unless or until there occurs a better way to re-state the same thing, in a different (and, hopefully....educational) manner. When trying to teach, it is that "Ah Hah!" moment that you strive for.

Also....have learned the ineffectiveness of "P.P.P." on this Board (Ping-Pong-Posting). Best to let the lesson plan sink in for a bit.....


"How do I reeeeach these 'keeds'!!!"

(Eric "Cartmenez").....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Viola...

Did you answer a simple question? Nope...you laid down some nonsensical gibberish and ran away.

Look at the evidence and tell me whether explosives explain the damage better than a jet.

It can even be a one word answer; Jet or Explosives?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Here, this may help you understand a little better, give it a good read.

Good information in that document. Have you read it? Its premise is a jet hit the pentagon and it then tries to explain the damage to the building based on that premise. I suggest you read it again, if you have at all. The question posed was not to explain how a jet could cause the damage (it can't), but to tell me what looks like it can better explain the damage to the C ring light well wall, explosives or jet.

I take it from your answer, you're saying "jet".

By the way, I don't know who is labeling your photos for you, but thats not reinforcing bar in those photos.

I edit my own.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6229d1d6f8d7.jpg[/atsimg]

The one element of the Pentagon not constructed of reinforced concrete is the outermost perimeter wall. It is the limestone wall that everyone sees on the outside of the building. This article is primarily about the remainder of the 1,000,000 square feet of the lightwell walls which are now undergoing a complete Repair, Rehabilitation, and Protection program.

The Pentagon consists of five separate rings, each approximately 90 feet wide with approximately 30 feet between the rings. The space between the rings is known as the lightwells. Thus, we call the perimeter walls of each ring the lightwell walls. The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls

www.structuremag.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source

These features were fairly typical of reinforced-concrete construction in the 1940’s, but are not as common today, having been jettisoned in favor of streamlined construction methods that meet safety codes but do not provide the extra protection given the Pentagon.

FDR had insisted that Somervall build the floors strong enough to hold heavy file cabinets; the general ordered them designed to support 150 pounds per square foot, twice the norm. Sixty years later, Roosevelt’s tinkering paid off. The extra steel and concrete and the close spacing of the columns-generally ten, fifteen or twenty feet apart-gave the building reserve strength that helped it withstand the blow. The plane disintegrated against a “forest of columns” on the first floor, the report noted.

The Pentagon’s columns were particularly strong because the builders used spiral rebar-circular coils of reinforcement steel that wound through the columns like a rib cage. Spiral rebar tends to be used more often in seismic zones, because of the added strength it provides when an earthquake shakes a building. Most modern buildings are constructed with straight reinforcement rods, which require less labor. Spiral rebar was more common in the 1940s…”It makes a strong column-strong as the dickens” recalled Donald Walker, the steel rodman who put the rebar into the Pentagon’s beams and columns.

Source " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">source

Originally posted by Yankee451
Explosives or disappearing landing gear?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/973656435d12.jpg[/atsimg]

Landing gear? Why are you asking about landing gear?

I see a hole that looks like it was made by a mangled fuselage. So a mangled fuselage from a jet seems to be a much better explanation for that hole because of its shape somewhat resembling a mangled fuselage.

I'm not sure why you think an explosive would create a fuselage-matching shape?

Here's a hole in a wall made by an explosive, it doesn't resemble the shape of a plane's fuselage:

Terrorist blast the girl’s primary school in Shabqadar.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5da5bffde0d5.jpg[/atsimg]

If that was the photo you showed, I'd agree that has little resemblance to the shape of a plane's fuselage, and I could understand your argument. But I don't even understand your argument. You show a photo that looks more or less like a fuselage shaped hole and then suggest it wasn't made by a fuselage?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Problem is, where is the mangled fuselage?

If it made that hole then it should be there somewhere outside the hole right?

What a plane it was eh, it flew through a reinforced wall, got mangled, went thought another wall and disappears.

That's one magic loogie Jerry.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

That's one magic loogie Jerry.

Now that's funny! I'm crying over here!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Because Anok's post put me in a good mood, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed this:

The plane disintegrated against a “forest of columns” on the first floor, the report noted.

And these links:

Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
The Pentagon Exit Hole

Now...tell me again, only this time please try to not presume there was a plane involved.

Look at the above links...

And look at the Punchout hole again...

And what do you think...jet? That's your final answer?

Hey guys, look at this hole.



Conclusive proof that it was NOT a plane. It was a flying car. There you have it folks.


Do you realize how ridiculous that is? You can't just post random images of holes in a wall as proof that it was a shaped charge, I'm sorry. As the guy in your link clearly states, he is NOT an explosives expert. All his proof is simply comparing random images of holes, as if that actually means ANYITHNG.

I'm willing to listen to actual proof, but that's not it. At this point you're just throwing whatever you can at the wall, and hoping something sticks.