Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by COOL HAND

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?

Do you even think past your first reactionary thought!!? being in a warehouse does not imply it is a new piece of equipment LOL

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
TWA 800 was BLOWN UP - so it was likely hotter than a AA 77 for a moment before it crashed into the ocean.

Geesh, this man doesn't have a clue regarding the difference in heat energy generated between a blast and deflagration of thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel that's atomized in an enclosed space. @@:

I'm outta here. This is a huge waste of time and energy dealing with a bunch of know nothings......:

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
TWA 800 was BLOWN UP - so it was likely hotter than a AA 77 for a moment before it crashed into the ocean.

Geesh, this man doesn't have a clue regarding the difference in heat energy generated between a blast and deflagration of thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel that's atomized in an enclosed space.

I'm outta here. This is a huge waste of time and energy dealing with a bunch of know nothings......

And the winner is THERMO KLEIN!

(the crowd roars)

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
[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.]

The only thing here that is irrelevant are your answers.

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...)

It's the duration of heat exposure that is key to the arguement. You manage to dance around it without ever actually discussing it.

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.

Proof? Evidence?

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

Parts of it probably were due to the amount of heat that it experienced over the total time that it experienced it. It also had the heat confined to a relatively small area (compared to say an outdoor environment).

So there you have it.

Have what?

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

Easy, there was a sufficient amount of heat over the time that it was exposed to it to make parts of the plane melt. Just look at the pictures of the area before the hauled away the debris and you can see evidence of that.

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

Ahh, you have to resort to insults to prove your point. Obviously that was all you were left with since you have shown no facts to support your claims.

Originally posted by Alfie1
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...

For the record, Alfie1, I think that site is the BEST evidence of airplane parts at the Pentagon. It's clear, precise, is referenced with technical data, shows pictures of parts on the scene...

Now... you tell me how those parts flew through a soild wall that didn't collapse for 20 minutes after the explosion, and we may have a conversation.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Do you even think past your first reactionary thought!!? being in a warehouse does not imply it is a new piece of equipment LOL

I never said it was a new piece of equipment. Did you look past your own reactionary thought?

Do you really think that planes don't contain recycled parts from other planes that can no longer use them? How much do you want to bet that most aircraft operators have all kinds of used parts in warehouses waiting to be installed on planes that are in use.

Originally posted by Tosskey

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?

[sarc]9/11 was already being planned in 1969, so all of those photos you posted are easily explained as false flag incidents trying to prepare the sheeple to not see any debris after a crash, which of course all the debris we see in those photos was planted exactly the same way it was planted after the pentagon incident.

You see as far back as 1969, they planned ahead to 2001 when they thought someone like you might come along and post these old photos, so that's when they really started planting debris so the sheeple would think a plane really could disintegrate when it hit the pentagon.[/sarc]

And if you believe that, can I interest you in some prime real estate for sale in south Florida? Some people have accused it of being swampy, but that's just the OS. Never believe the official story

reply to post by Thermo Klein


First misconception:

TWA 800 was BLOWN UP - so it was likely hotter than a AA 77 for a moment before it crashed into the ocean.

If you bothered to look more deeply into the specifics of TWA 800 (and , rest assured, I have) you would see why that assertion is invalid.

The fuel/air explosion in the EMPTY center fuel tank was NOT "hot".....not for long. What it did accomplish, though, was to break up the airplane....think of it as "snapping its spine", if you will. The section of the fuselage forward of the wing leading edge broke off, and began an immediate arcing free-fall to the ocean.

The rest of the airplane was left as an uncontrollable, and unbalanced mostly wings, four engines, and the rest of the aft fuselage and empennage.

When it lost the weight of the forward fuselage, this caused a severe AFT C/G condition...and the aft portion, still with engine thrust mind you, pitched UP and climbed for a bit, until the wing naturally stalled (as the pitch angle was too great, and the speed dropped, simultaneously).

Then the aft section, with wings and all, fell to the ocean too....likely breaking apart in various ways as well.

There is NOTHING similar to American 77's impact with the Pentagon....as AAL 77 was under control and moving MUCH, MUCH faster at impact. And, any "heat" that was exhibited on TWA 800 was very, very brief, during the accident sequence.

Really....this is such basically understood (my MOST people) information, it is a bit sad to see these attempts to "spin" it into something it's not.....



Pilots can intuitively comprehend that....laypeople? Apparently not......(the FDR data stops, where it does, because that was the point where power to the unit was lost).

Just as today....SO MANY BAD "eyewitnesses" thought they 'saw' something(like a "missile") that, even in 1997, "conspiracy mania" was in full swing...in its childhood, compared to nowadays, though!!

Originally posted by Yankee451
Can you tell me if the damage to the C ring can be better explained with explosives or a jet?

Ridiculous question because you're not in a position to claim one way or another.

Unless you have some expertise with explosives that you've been withholding from us?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
It's the duration of heat exposure that is key to the arguement. You manage to dance around it without ever actually discussing it.

I'm not dancing around it - the fire in the Pentagon was not hot enough to melt an airplane. If you think it was please provide the temperature and which wing of the Pentagon the airplane melted in. What do want from me, this? ... the fire was about 1100 F due to the mixture of jet fuel and office materials, and the pieces of an airplane with the highest melting temperature melt at over 3,000 F - there. Did I answer your question? Yes, and the answer is the fire was NOT hot enough.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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
Ahh, you have to resort to insults to prove your point. Obviously that was all you were left with since you have shown no facts to support your claims.

you do understand the meaning of "unless" don't you? You provide the comparison and I'll assume you're not a moron

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm just curious why anyone looking at the wreckage would automagically assume there was a jet and it seems that assumption wasn't unanimous, so why were the reports written to explain a jet only instead of considering any other explanations?

F-16 pilot Dean Eckmann, who was asked to fly over the Pentagon and report on the extent of the damage, said that he suspected that the damage had been caused by “a big fuel tanker truck because of the amount of smoke and flames coming up and ... there was no airplane wreckage off to the side.

Registered nurse Eileen Murphy, observing the site from the ground, said: I knew it was a crash site before we got there, and I didn’t know what it was going to look like. I couldn’t imagine because the building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, “Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn’t there.

Having run to the crash site right after the strike, Engineer Steve DeChiaro, the president of a technology firm, said: "[W]hen I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.”

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I'm just curious why anyone looking at the wreckage would automagically assume there was a jet and it seems that assumption wasn't unanimous, so why were the reports written to explain a jet only instead of considering any other explanations?

So are you claiming the hundreds of civilians who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon are lying and in on the conspiracy?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Do you even think past your first reactionary thought!!? being in a warehouse does not imply it is a new piece of equipment LOL

I never said it was a new piece of equipment. Did you look past your own reactionary thought?

Do you really think that planes don't contain recycled parts from other planes that can no longer use them? How much do you want to bet that most aircraft operators have all kinds of used parts in warehouses waiting to be installed on planes that are in use.

of course they do, that's why it was so easy to find things to plant at the Pentagon
what is your point?
my point was that a piece of an airplane engine that just crashed through 6 walls would look a little beat up and have other damaged pieces of debris connected to it... NOT basically unburnt with no pieces connected like the "evidence" we are being shown.

Originally posted by Reheat
Geesh, this man doesn't have a clue regarding the difference in heat energy generated between a blast and deflagration of thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel that's atomized in an enclosed space. @@:

the term is actually "conflagration"...
and the term "moment" is utterly different than a long burn.

great job reheat, yet AGAIN you managed to totally waste time and re-route the conversation to something irrelevant. btw, I didn't know you work on Sundays - you're not actually getting interested in this are you?

reply to post by Tosskey


Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate and not all eye witnesses reported a jet anyway. And those are only the ones the media chose to report, so they can all be taken with a grain of salt...there may be far more eye witnesses reporting otherwise for all we know.

But come now...

I am asking if the crime scene evidence supports a jet or explosives, particularly in the C ring lightwell wall.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I'm not dancing around it - the fire in the Pentagon was not hot enough to melt an airplane. If you think it was please provide the temperature and which wing of the Pentagon the airplane melted in. What do want from me, this? ... the fire was about 1100 F due to the mixture of jet fuel and office materials, and the pieces of an airplane with the highest melting temperature melt at over 3,000 F - there. Did I answer your question? Yes, and the answer is the fire was NOT hot enough.

Really? Where is the proof of that? I wasn't aware that they were able to take accurate temperature readings throughout the Pentagon on 9/11.

Show me conclusive proof that the fire never exceeded "around 1100F" at any time and I'll start to think you have something. While you are looking that up, you may want to research what the temperatures were recorded at during several of the reflashes at the Pentagon.

reply to post by Tosskey

So are you claiming the hundreds of civilians who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon are lying and in on the conspiracy?

I hadn't heard it was hundreds but anyways, scale is a hard thing to judge..
Most,even truthers, believe "something" hit the pentagon..

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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.

Proof? Evidence?

Are you joking? an airplane crashes into a remote mountain and you can't figure out it burned longer than AA 77?

don't worry, give it a few years practice and you'll be just as good at redirection and avoiding questions as the other hireable OSers.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey

 

Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate and not all eye witnesses reported a jet anyway. And those are only the ones the media chose to report, so they can all be taken with a grain of salt...there may be far more eye witnesses reporting otherwise for all we know.

But come now...

I am asking if the crime scene evidence supports a jet or explosives, particularly in the C ring lightwell wall.

You're the one claiming it was pre-set shaped charges. The fact that people saw a jet hit the Pentagon lends credit to that being the most likely cause. I mean, people are relating their eyewitness account of the events. Most all of them seemingly agree that it was an airliner. One persons testimony may not be entirely accurate, but (a tleast) dozens that are in agreeance seems much more likely.

Your evidence is a picture hole in a wall. And I've already demonstrated that, using your logic, that it could have just as easily been a car that drove through the wall.


So are you claiming that a plane/cruise missile/something hit the pentagon, but they still had a shaped charge planted on the C-Ring wall? Really?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


that was funny love the [sarc] [/sarc]