Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by COOL HAND


You're guessing? What are you guessing for? How about examining the evidence and trying to explain it, rather than assuming a plane did it all and then guessing how hot the fires would need to get to vaporize it.

reply to post by COOL HAND


are you implying jet fuel was hot enough to melt the engines in this one unique case?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by COOL HAND

 

are you implying jet fuel was hot enough to melt the engines in this one unique case?

Why do you go on about the engines melting ? Plenty of recognisable engine parts were recovered from the Pentagon which have been identified as from Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to AA 77 :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

reply to post by Alfie1




I always found it interesting that every single bolted, welded, connected piece was so cleanly removed from this piece of an engine... just like how it would look in the American Airlines warehouse...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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?

Finally, there is something you're good at doing.....building strawmen.

Intact? You only see the front compressor section not the entire engine. I guess "they" were trying to hide something by not showing the entire engine, only part of it.

Who said or what is the source that the engines "disintigrated"? Is that the same as disintegrate?

Your contrived comparisons are bogus. First of all, a village in Scotland where photographers can roam about at will in a crime scene is not the same as the Pentagon . Secondly, the NTSB DOES NOT normally construct an aircraft from pieces after an accident. It is simply too expensive. They reconstruct sometimes where the cause of the accident can not be otherwise determined. None of the aircraft crashes on 9/11 were accidents, they were a horrendous crime and the reason they crash was an due to an intentional crime not an accident. You're so smart regarding all of these issues, I'm surprised you didn't know that, but had to ask.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


NONE of those other crashes are valid comparisons.

It is actually ludicrous to attempt to equate them.... the specifics of each were very different, each was unique.


Oh....and an engine that "falls" to impact the ground....per the last 'question'....Two things:

--That engine example was NOT RUNNING at the time it impacted, and;

--The engine was NOT attached to an airframe travelling at about 800-850 feet per second, at time of impact. It was in FREE-FALL!

Please try to get your physics lessons in order, before you attempt to "school" those who know a lot more about how the real world works.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Be careful weedwhacker there are some smart cookies here. In fact, they know more than all the experts about EVERYTHING

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Be careful weedwhacker there are some smart cookies here. In fact, they know more than all the experts about EVERYTHING

Hey guys, if you had been told that an Alien Spacecraft had caused the damage, would you want to see some evidence, or would you just accept it because some "expert" told you so on the TeeVee?

What's more.....during the cleanup there were THOUSANDS of PEOPLE PARTS scattered among the wreckage. And you have the audacity to demand every damn part of an aircraft be shown to you on the Interwebz. I suggest all of you who are arguing about photographs or the lack of enough to CONVINCE YOU get a life and stop the nonsense. You honestly think that people like weedwhacker and I are gullible and you're the smart ones. I'd suggest your wrong and if you transpose that phase in reverse you'll be stating it correctly. Sheeesh!

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Be careful weedwhacker there are some smart cookies here. In fact, they know more than all the experts about EVERYTHING

Hey guys, if you had been told that an Alien Spacecraft had caused the damage, would you want to see some evidence, or would you just accept it because some "expert" told you so on the TeeVee?

Just because that's where you get most of your information and also from Conspiracy Theory oriented Web Sites, that certainly doesn't mean that everyone else does too.

For a change, you ought to try getting information from the thousands of documents and photographs from legitimate Web Sites and from BOOKS found in Libraries as opposed to information from lackies just like you. You do know what a legitimate Web Site and a library are, don't you?

Originally posted by Reheat
What's more.....during the cleanup there were THOUSANDS of PEOPLE PARTS scattered among the wreckage. And you have the audacity to demand every damn part of an aircraft be shown to you on the Interwebz. I suggest all of you who are arguing about photographs or the lack of enough to CONVINCE YOU get a life and stop the nonsense. You honestly think that people like weedwhacker and I are gullible and you're the smart ones. I'd suggest your wrong and if you transpose that phase in reverse you'll be stating it correctly. Sheeesh!

Oh, here we go with the "audacity" argument...anything to avoid direct questions. Interesting they found all those thousands of body parts, but couldn't find one stinking serial number to match with a plane.

If it was my family member scattered around this crime scene I'd want to make damned sure the people responsible were brought to justice, and I damn sure wouldn't want them to be used as an excuse for killing brown people and taking their stuff.

Do you believe authority simply by virtue of their authority? If so, then I'm sorry to say you're being kind of gullible, yeah.

It is a simple question, does the damage to C ring wall imply explosives or a jet?

reply to post by Reheat


I am using the same reports given by the authorities to justify their conclusions. Their reports are full of contradictions and impossibilities which makes your steadfast and unshakable belief in them seem gullible indeed.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


How about you answer my question first and then I'll answer yours?

Others have already chimed in with info, but I am still curious to see your logic train reach the station.

Originally posted by Yankee451
It is a simple question, does the damage to C ring wall imply explosives or a jet?

*snip*
Obvious answers are obvious. See how easy that was. I'm not surprised you didn't think of that yourself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
15a) Offensive Content: You will not Post forum posts, ...that are ... abusive, threatening, harmful, hateful, vulgar, obscene, and/or disruptive.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by COOL HAND

 

You're guessing? What are you guessing for? How about examining the evidence and trying to explain it, rather than assuming a plane did it all and then guessing how hot the fires would need to get to vaporize it.

What?

Can you try rephrasing your statement?

I think I asked a fair question. If thermo can't answer it why don't you take a stab at it?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I always found it interesting that every single bolted, welded, connected piece was so cleanly removed from this piece of an engine... just like how it would look in the American Airlines warehouse...

edit on 13-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)

So, are you saying you would be willing to fly with that particular piece installed (as is) in the engine of the plane you would be flying in?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
COMPARE AND CONTRAST:
...
There was little ivestigation into the Pentagon explosion, because there was NO AIRPLANE there!

As if random photos unequivocally prove that there should be larger, more visible wreckage.

But if you want to play that game...


1991 Nigeria Airways. The aircraft reported a wheel well fire shortly after takeoff from Jeddah. While attempting an emergency landing, the fire burned through electrical cables and hydraulic lines, leading to a loss of control and crash.


1994, American Eagle. While in a holding pattern to land at O'Hare Airport, ice accumulated on the wings, causing the aircraft to enter a spin from which the crew could not recover.


1996, U.S. Air Force. While performing an approach in poor weather conditions, the plane crashed into a mountain.


1996, ValuJet. Shortly after takeoff, a fire developed in the cargo hold from improperly stored oxygen canisters and spread, eventually severing control cables, causing the crash into swampy terrain.


1999, Air France Cargo. A fire broke out during landing and burned out of control.

Note: This plane didn't even crash. This just shows how much damage can be done simple by fire.


1969, Allegheny Airlines. This plane crashed after colliding with a small plane.


There you go. According to your logic, my random images prove I'm right and you're wrong. Because random images are absolute proof one way or another, right?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Yankee451
It is a simple question, does the damage to C ring wall imply explosives or a jet?

Someone told me when I was young that if you try to look up a goat's butt with one eyeball, you're likely to miss the fact that it's a goat. Obvious answers are obvious. See how easy that was. I'm not surprised you didn't think of that yourself.

edit on 13-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Fascinating account about your childhood and your goat, but anyhoo...

Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
The Pentagon Exit Hole

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

The Pentagon Lightwell Walls


Does the damage to the C Ring lightwell wall indicate explosives or a jet?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

How about you answer my question first and then I'll answer yours?

Others have already chimed in with info, but I am still curious to see your logic train reach the station.

original queston by COOL HAND
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.

Here ya go...
(When I say as in AA 77 I am refering to the alleged AA 77; for ease of discussion I will refer to it in the positive rather than continually say "alleged".)
TWA 800 was BLOWN UP - so it was likely hotter than a AA 77 for a moment before it crashed into the ocean.

[I feel like some sort of circus animal doing some insanely stupid act of the ring master... you're question is irrelevant, you realize this I hope... but we have a deal, if I answer your question you will answer mine.]

Pan Am 103 was blown up and fell to the ground so likely for a moment it was hotter than AA 77 (because explosives are probably hotter than a jet fuel fire...)

AA 965 crashed into t mountain, I don't know how hot the fire was but is was jet fuel and shrubs and trees. Probably a little cooler than AA 77 but burned a lot longer due to lack of fire response.

Your question is utterly NOTHING to do with this argument unless you're stating that AA 77 was somehow melted.

So there you have it.

Now answer my question. How did most of the plane dissolve?

Unless you are a complete moron you obviously wanted my answers for COMPARISON so how hot was the Pentagon fire?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by COOL HAND

 

You're guessing? What are you guessing for? How about examining the evidence and trying to explain it, rather than assuming a plane did it all and then guessing how hot the fires would need to get to vaporize it.

What?

Can you try rephrasing your statement?

I think I asked a fair question. If thermo can't answer it why don't you take a stab at it?

Take a stab at this?

Can you tell us how much heat they were exposed to and for how long in your cases?

No, I can't answer that, but I do see an engine in the picture, something not seen or forensically matched to flight 77 at the Pentagon.

Can you tell me if the damage to the C ring can be better explained with explosives or a jet?