Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by hooper
Here, this may help you understand a little better, give it a good read.

www.fire.nist.gov...

Here's a few picture from teh NIST report. Many of the pictures in that report show a significant LACK of burnt roof and walls. According to NIST the airplane flew in at 400+ MPH directly parallel to the ground, hit the first floor wall and kept on going right through wall after wall. Yet the NTSB has attained the flight data, by FOIA request, which shows the airplane was in a steep dive for the last 4 minutes of the flight! They cannot both be right - they are contradictory, yet they are BOTH government documents stated as fact! ... so take a look at these two pictures from the NIST report.

SECOND FLOOR BREACH (from NIST report, p. 22) - this is an upward push from the first floor to create a bulge in the floor of the 2nd floor. (First floor floor for my UK pals).

So allegedly this plane hit the first floor straight enough to go through SIX enforced walls, yet popped this portion upward due to force?

FIRST FLOOR COLUMNS PUSHED OUTWARD (from NIST report, p. 14)

When I look at this picture I can't comprehend why ANYONE would argue an airplane hit here... there's no big hole, there's no airplane wreckage, and no damage to the ground... but ALSO the columns are pushed OUTWARD!!!! so obviously some sort of explosion went off INSIDE the buidling as evidenced by BOTH NIST pictures posted here.

This is three strikes against NIST in one post.
The NIST angle of flight doesn't match the information in the Flight Data Recorder
Both pictures show evidence of a large exploson from INSIDE the Pentagon despite there being no way an airplane couldn't have gotten in there.

That's what I think about your check out this NIST evidence, you might learn something

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Yes sirrrree folks, step right up and see this epic smack down by the notorious Mr Thermo Klein of a team of experts in their field who have provided a detailed analysis of aircraft damage to the Pentagon. Mr Thermo Klein chooses a couple of photographs, one of which was taken by a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away, expresses incredulity that what this highly qualified team of experts shows in detail is bogus and wants someone to take his comments seriously.

There are not enough Bwahahahahas in the English to express how incredibly hilarious this is.......

reply to post by Reheat

Yes sirrrree folks, step right up and see this epic smack down by the notorious Mr Thermo Klein of a team of experts in their field who have provided a detailed analysis of aircraft damage to the Pentagon.

And many experts from all fields have stepped forward and stated differently..
So I guess we just have to decide which experts to believe..

reply to post by Tosskey


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2918c5ecf577.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Yes sirrrree folks, step right up and see this epic smack down by the notorious Mr Thermo Klein of a team of experts in their field who have provided a detailed analysis of aircraft damage to the Pentagon. Mr Thermo Klein chooses a couple of photographs, one of which was taken by a telephoto lens from hundreds of yards away, expresses incredulity that what this highly qualified team of experts shows in detail is bogus and wants someone to take his comments seriously.

There are not enough Bwahahahahas in the English to express how incredibly hilarious this is.......

Finally someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about. You're right you know, we're really not experts, but then we didn't claim to be.

Since you've got it all figured out, can you help me answer a nagging question I've had?

Below you can see the damage caused by the right wing as it struck between floors 1 and 2. Clearly the wing didn't penetrate this part of the facade. Now, even though he's not a real expert, Thermo did compile an expert's sized pile of pictures, and I just can't see any pictures of the wing that must have bounced off. Furthermore, If you look lower, you'll see a representation of the wings shredding against the columns on the interior of the building. My question is a two part-er...first, where's the wing, and second...how could it bounce off the wall, as pictured below, and then show up in the graphic inside the building wreaking havoc at the same time its disintegrating against the "forest" of interior columns? Am I missing something or did they?

Throw me a bone, will you?

Page 29, Figure 5.12 Gashes from impact of right wing:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd7ef961e453.jpg[/atsimg]
www.fire.nist.gov...

This is from page 47:

Figure 7.4
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ce15bb7d874.jpg[/atsimg]
Idealized representation of impact on columns
www.fire.nist.gov...

Extra credit: is it just me, or does this sound like this NIST report is a rationalization of damage to support a predetermined conclusion:

From Pg. 47:

The reasoning in the preceding paragraphs is not presented as a prediction of an orderly process but as a preliminary rationalization of the distribution of severe damage to the spirally reinforced column cores immediately after impact.The important conclusion is that the observed distribution of failed columns does not contradict simple estimates made on the basis of elementary mechanics.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Am I missing something or did they?

Throw me a bone, will you?

Yes you're missing something, re-read the section of the report on page 47 that you pulled the illustration from. Re-read all of it, but here's a hint:

A frame from a physics-based simulation of an idealized airplane
loaded with fuel impacting a set of spirally reinforced concrete
columns (by Hoffmann and Kilic of Purdue University) is shown in
figure 7.4. Although completely notional...

Do you have any idea what "completely notional" means?

It means it's not intended to be an accurate model of exactly what happened.

Also you asked what happened to the wings. They were attached to the fuselage which entered the building, right? Why couldn't the fuselage drag the wings into the building after they buckled? You seem to think the only failure mode of the wings would be to shear off and remain outside the building after the impact, but metals don't always behave this way (though they can if they are brittle and the conditions are right). Metal is also capable of bending and therefore if the wings bend and fold up against the fuselage they would go inside along with the fuselage, wouldn't they?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What? They based their report on a model instead of facts? Don't they have pictures of the debris?

Where's their evidence that a plane hit the wall?

For that matter, where's your evidence the wings "buckled"...heck...where do you get the wild idea there were wings at all? From the security footage?

Who's in charge here?

reply to post by Yankee451
Did you read the report?

If you did you're intentionally misrepresenting what it says. If you didn't then you may want to read it.

The security camera was operating at a low frame rate not conducive to a clear visualization of the impact. Perhaps if a higher frame rate camera had been aimed at the impact point, as happened at the World Trade Center, the impact could be seen more clearly.

I don't know if the Snopes description of what happened at the Pentagon is completely accurate, but I haven't seen any evidence presented to refute it as a possibility:

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

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire.

There's nothing in the report you cited that contradicts that explanation, your attempt to take an illustration from the report completely out of context notwithstanding.

www.911hoax.com...
webfairy.org...
www.lestermillman.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

I post some links, as more and more material is removed from the network. There is not much left of the images that I found a few years ago. Why is all removed? I not gonna be supriced if all material is gonna be classified to the public in a couple of years.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Yankee451
Am I missing something or did they?

Throw me a bone, will you?

Yes you're missing something, re-read the section of the report on page 47 that you pulled the illustration from. Re-read all of it, but here's a hint:

A frame from a physics-based simulation of an idealized airplane
loaded with fuel impacting a set of spirally reinforced concrete
columns (by Hoffmann and Kilic of Purdue University) is shown in
figure 7.4. Although completely notional...

Do you have any idea what "completely notional" means?

It means it's not intended to be an accurate model of exactly what happened.

Thanks for the citation Arbitrageur, I'll be sure and use that every time an OSer points to that as a truthful represenation and tries to sell their case as they have hundreds and hundreds of times since NIST was published.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

If you did you're intentionally misrepresenting what it says. If you didn't then you may want to read it.

No, I have read it and I find it absurd, so I wasn't intentionally misrepresenting it, I was intentionally mocking it.

The security camera was operating at a low frame rate not conducive to a clear visualization of the impact. Perhaps if a higher frame rate camera had been aimed at the impact point, as happened at the World Trade Center, the impact could be seen more clearly.

Wow, only one security camera was working?

If they had any pictures of a plane, they'd be showing them (they don't), but if they didn't have any evidence of a plane on any of the multiple security cameras at the Pentagon and the surrounding area, they'd confiscate and classify all that camera footage (they did) to prevent the public seeing it. The silly footage they did release showed what? Solid fuel exhaust, but no gigantic jet? That you swallow that story tells me you're not being genuine, especially when explosives explain the evidence much better than a jet, for which there is still no evidence.

I don't know if the Snopes description of what happened at the Pentagon is completely accurate, but I haven't seen any evidence presented to refute it as a possibility:

As a "possibility". You're still talking hypothetical possibilities? Their own report shows a wing smacking against a reinforced concrete floor and your best explanation is that the wing kept its integrity and folded back on itself? What about their own graphic which shows the wings wreaking havoc INSIDE the building, taking out a "forest" of columns? You find that story easier to believe than considering the authorities might be lying? Why?

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire.

I challenge Snopes and you to prove this using Newton's laws of motion. You need to get together with FDNY343 and study Newton's laws...in fact, so do our major media, law enforcement and about 3/4 of the population. The authorities' own story contradicts itself. If the wing "folded back" (ridiculous), what caused the damage to the right of the scarred wall? And when they folded back, did they unfold inside the building?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ce15bb7d874.jpg[/atsimg]

You can't have it both ways even if this was cartoon-land and aircraft aluminum wings were able to maintain their integrity long enough to fold back after colliding with reinforced concrete. It's an absurd story you'll have to prove or withdraw. Claiming "official" sources won't do. Prove it...provide any forensic evidence of a wide body jet. There should be hundreds of serial numbered parts.

There's nothing in the report you cited that contradicts that explanation, your attempt to take an illustration from the report completely out of context notwithstanding.

Because the jet is the only explanation the report offered! That's why there's nothing to contradict it, they never offered any alternative explanations! IT'S CALLED A WHITEWASH and as I show above, it is certainly NOT out of context.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Its really remarkable to see in action...kinda makes a guy slack-jawed.

They cite this report like it's their bible and then they defend it by saying it wasn't intended to prove anything.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Wow, only one security camera was working?

No, not at all, however only one captured a very poor image of AA 77 prior to and as it slamed into the building.

If they had any pictures of a plane, they'd be showing them (they don't),

Well, at least there is something correct in your post full of incredulity and nonsense.

Originally posted by Yankee451You can't have it both ways even if this was cartoon-land and aircraft aluminum wings were able to maintain their integrity long enough to fold back after colliding with reinforced concrete. It's an absurd story you'll have to prove or withdraw. Claiming "official" sources won't do. Prove it...provide any forensic evidence of a wide body jet. There should be hundreds of serial numbered parts.

Well, you get one more item correct. There is no evidence of a wide body jet because there wasn't one. The B-757 that slammed into the building WAS NOT a wide body jet. Your score is low, but two correct is not too bad for a truther.

Serial numbered parts prove absolutely nothing at all unless they can be verified with maintenance logs and aircraft history. What would you do with those besides contend they were fake anyway? DNA is impossible to fake and everyone has been identified via DNA except a small child. Demanding serial numbered parts which you know are not available to the public is simply an excuse to continue your delusion, that's all. You are unwilling to accept any other Gubmint evidence which proves AA 77 did, in fact, the building why would you accept a verified record of serial numbered parts. Don't bother, I know the answer already.

Originally posted by Yankee451
IT'S CALLED A WHITEWASH

Sure it is. So are the radar records that track AA 77 from shortly after it's take-off at Dulles to a very short distance headed toward the Pentagon until it was behind other buildings and could no longer be tracked. The radar data is backed up by the FDR found in the wreckage at the Pentagon, but that's not good enough either.

The hundreds of people who witnessed AA 77 on it's known heading toward the Pentagon, many of whom witnessed the impact with the building. Even the outlier witnesses fraudulently quoted by frauds of CIT indicated the aircraft impacted the building. But, that's not good enough.

The literally hundreds of firefighters, rescue, and military personnel who help fight the fire and participated in the rescue and clean-up as outlined in Firefight to save the Pentagon. Many of those folks were trained in forensics and some of the military personnel have more knowledge of explosives and their effects that you or anyone else not in their profession could gain in a life time.

This is certainly not all, but you are able to reach a valid conclusion of a conspiracy from in front of your monitor looking at grainy, poor quality photos, or utube videos than all of these experts and validated evidence.

Then you have the sheer audacity to demand Serial Numbered parts that you know are not available to the public in pretense that you would accept what they might tell you. Throw me a bone indeed!

You've already choked on one and obviously couldn't handle another one unless it were force fed down you gullet.

reply to post by Reheat


Are you in politics?

You managed to fill up a page without saying anything.

Please paraphrase, because from what I read you're hanging your hat on a blip on radar as proof (its not), and you're trying to distract from the subject by highlighting a misnomer on my part (I should have said "big-assed" jet instead of "wide-body" - my bad, sue me).

You're still avoiding the question of what the evidence supports better, a jet or explosives?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Reheat

 

Are you in politics?

No, in fact, I'm not in politics. However, thanks for showing that you have very poor reading comprehension skill, a poor ability to articulate anything sensible and are unwilling to accept anything that does not match you delusion. Indeed very typical and it is no surprise that you are unable to understand and comprehend the events of 9/11 even after 9 years.

reply to post by Reheat


Interesting story.

Care to tell me what the evidence supports best? Jet or explosives.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST:

TWA 800
blew up mid air, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, and THIS MUCH was retrieved and re-constructed.


AA 965 (Boeing 757)
Crashed full speed into a mountain. A mountain is a little tougher to move the a wall, yet huge portions of the craft remained intact AND there were 4 survivors! Many pieces of the airpane were scavanged and sold on the black market, to be picked up in Miami over the next year or so.


Pan Am 103 (Lockerby Scotland crash)
This plane BLEW UP at 35,000 feet, fell all that way to the ground (hitting faster than the alleged AA 77 into in immovable object), check out what's left.


RE-CONSTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE is usually part of an airplane crash situation.


If you believe in the Original Story of 9/11, please explain THIS!. An engine from this Boeing plane fell from 35,000 feet and crashed into solid ground.Freefall terminal velocity can be as high as 600 MPH and engines are made to be aerodynamic, this thing was flyin'!! (pun intended)


What do we see?
As the story goes, an airplane crashing into the Pentagon basically dissolved with NO effort to reconstruct the craft.
Numerous other Boeing crashes: freefall at up to 600 MPH, full speed into a mountain, found at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean... and they were re-constructed, most pieces found, whole engine imbedded in the ground.

There was little ivestigation into the Pentagon explosion, because there was NO AIRPLANE there!

reheat - very specific question for you...

The Boeing engine from the above post fell 35,000 feet into immovable ground yet remained intact.

here's your question:
HOW did the engines from AA 77 disintigrate?

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Can you tell us how much heat they were exposed to and for how long in your cases? I'm guessing it was nowhere near what was expereinced at the Pentagon on 9/11.

There are better comparissons to be made. Take a look at the damage to the empire state building after the B-25 hit it and you will see.