Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

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

Then why can't you show me the proof? Is providing evidence too difficult for you?

How about this. Do you have some kind of background that would give you the ability to definitively make statements like that?

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.

So proving someone is wrong is redirection?

Originally posted by Tosskey

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?

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

What, you need an expert to think for you? You can't look at it and make your decision? Where's the hole-sized piece of debris, ala your picture of a car in the wall?

Let me phrase it this way...

The government claims a jet caused the damage to the C ring reinforced concrete walls after it went through a "forest" of reinforced concrete support columns.

Note how it is NOT MY CLAIM.

Since we're all laymen here trying to make sense of things, what do you think? Can a jet explain the damage better than a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit? No expertise needed, just read the below links and give me your honest opinion.

Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
The Pentagon Exit Hole

Originally posted by Tosskey

...The fact that people saw a jet hit the Pentagon lends credit to that being the most likely cause...

And who was that?

Please provide your evidence.

You could not see the point of impact from most of the road around the pentagon due to dirt mounds that were erected just before 9-11. There are people who claimed to have been at the gas station saw the hit, which was impossible.

Don't believe everything you read.





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Tosskey


FFS man. I'm asking if the evidence supports one or the other.

The implications are not part of the question. Just look at the damage and tell me what you think.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

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.

how 'bout you contribute something to this conversation. You challenged me to provide data about other airline crashes. It's painfully obvious you were just wasting my time because you OBVIOUSLY don't know at what temperature the Pentagon was burning.

you really think an airplane crashed through a solid wall, leaving the wall intact, then the plane burned up due to the heat of the fire, leaving no wreckage and basically no Pentagon fire damage. There are myriad pictures from inside the Pentagon showing just flash fire damage with pieces of office equipment, wood, intact walls, even a bookshelf that didn't burn up.

Why would say it burned for a long time?? Because you need that type of false data for this story to make sense in your head - it didn't burn for a long time, there were fire personell there almost immedietaly. Fail.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Since we're all laymen here trying to make sense of things, what do you think? Can a jet explain the damage better than a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit? No expertise needed, just read the below links and give me your honest opinion.

Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
The Pentagon Exit Hole

Problem is, you consider the C-Ring damage by itself, without consideration to the rest of the damage. So a plane/cruise missile/something hit the Pentagon, but they used a wall breaching kit on that singular wall?

Why was this necessary? Why does the damage seem consistent with a large object crashing through the building?


Do you see why I'm having a hard time following your thought process here?

Originally posted by ANOK
And who was that?

Please provide your evidence.

You could not see the point of impact from most of the road around the pentagon due to dirt mounds that were erected just before 9-11. There are people who claimed to have been at the gas station saw the hit, which was impossible.

Don't believe everything you read.





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

So the jet flew towards the Pentagon wall, and into a magical portal and disappeared, and the shady government agents set off the explosive charges?

Just trying to stay on the same page here.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
how 'bout you contribute something to this conversation. You challenged me to provide data about other airline crashes. It's painfully obvious you were just wasting my time because you OBVIOUSLY don't know at what temperature the Pentagon was burning.

So. obviously you aren't going to answer my questions or provide me with the facts I requested. That's what I got out of that paragraph.

FWIW, I am honestly not trying to waste your time. You, unfortunately, are wasting mine.

BTW, I am curious where your information about the temps at the Pentagon come from.

you really think an airplane crashed through a solid wall, leaving the wall intact, then the plane burned up due to the heat of the fire, leaving no wreckage and basically no Pentagon fire damage. There are myriad pictures from inside the Pentagon showing just flash fire damage with pieces of office equipment, wood, intact walls, even a bookshelf that didn't burn up.

There was all kinds of wrekage left after the plane hit. Some was recognizable, but most was not due to the fact that it was crushed by the impact of the plane, then had tons of debris crush it further, and then be subjected to hours of heat. That made the majority of the plane unrecognizable. But I am going to guess you'll through the BS flag on that statement without actually proving me wrong with facts and evidence.

BTW, did you happen to notice where the bookshelf was located in relation to the heat map of the Pentagon?

Why would say it burned for a long time?? Because you need that type of false data for this story to make sense in your head - it didn't burn for a long time, there were fire personell there almost immedietaly. Fail.

Really? Then why did it take days before they declared the fire out? Why couldn't the fire fighters get into the heart of the fire right away and attack it directly?

Originally posted by Tosskey
So the jet flew towards the Pentagon wall, and into a magical portal and disappeared, and the shady government agents set off the explosive charges?

Just trying to stay on the same page here.

Why do you feel the need to make things up? Just look at the evidence, and stop changing the subject when you are proven wrong.

You are not on the same page, not even the same book mate.

reply to post by COOL HAND


The temperature of ALL fires is known, did you even know that?

Do you think fires just burn at any temperature, or just keeps getting hotter until it's out?

Science knows the max burn temp of almost all materials (min, max, flash point etc., all known), so it wouldn't be hard to figure it out now would it?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Tosskey
So the jet flew towards the Pentagon wall, and into a magical portal and disappeared, and the shady government agents set off the explosive charges?

Just trying to stay on the same page here.

Why do you feel the need to make things up? Just look at the evidence, and stop changing the subject when you are proven wrong.

You are not on the same page, not even the same book mate.

Well please enlighten me. Witnesses see the plane fly at the Pentagon, seemingly into it, creating a massive fireball and smoke....

...And your response is that there was a small mound in the way.

So where did the plane go? It flew right at the Pentagon and disappeared? I'm curious.

Originally posted by ANOK
Science knows the max burn temp of almost all materials (min, max, flash point etc., all known), so it wouldn't be hard to figure it out now would it?

Okay.

So then why is it so hard for anyone here to produce that kind of information? Can you?

reply to post by Tosskey

So where did the plane go? It flew right at the Pentagon and disappeared? I'm curious.

Most witnesses saw "something" fly into the Pentagon..
Not all said a commercial jet....

reply to post by Tosskey


I don't know where the 'plane' went, I was just responding to your witness statement. Those dirt mounds are not small, they block the view of the pentagon from the road, stop dismissing things you don't like. You obviously didn't even bother to look did you?

Do you have that witness statement or not?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by ANOK
Science knows the max burn temp of almost all materials (min, max, flash point etc., all known), so it wouldn't be hard to figure it out now would it?

Okay.

So then why is it so hard for anyone here to produce that kind of information? Can you?

Maybe you could do some research and post it instead of asking others to research for you..
It's not that hard..
You want the answers, you do the research...Simple..

Originally posted by COOL HAND

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

Then why can't you show me the proof? Is providing evidence too difficult for you?

If you're going to have a conversation you should at least try to offer SOMETHING! I already showed a picture of AA 965 crashed on a mountain. now you want proof that no fire crew was there to put it out? The proof they were not there is that airplane picture.
What proof would YOU use to prove no firemen put out a fire??

Here's a wiki article (with appropriate references and pictures) about AA 965.
en.wikipedia.org...

For the record I was working for American Airlines in 1995 and actually AT WORK at the moment of this crash. I've posted this other places on ATS before this conversation. You want proof of that I suppose? it's irrelevant to our conversation, I'm just pointing out that I have some interest in this and was well aware of the incident.

In case this is not PAINFULLY clear - an explosion and fire at a government building with a close proximity fire crew WILL be put out before an airliner that crashed on a remote mountain in Columbia. Please tell me you can comprehend that? some things simply don't require proof - which fire would be fought faster one on a remote mountain or one at the Pentagon?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
How about this. Do you have some kind of background that would give you the ability to definitively make statements like that?

What definitive statement? that a fire on a remote mountain will take longer to put out than a fire at the Pentagon??
yes my background is that I have a brain that works... who wouldn't be able to tell that!?

COOL HAND, I believe you're just wasting my time. I can't imagine this line of questioning you're pursuing actually has any merit concerning the events at the Pentagon. I hope you're done with the whole Cali Columbia flight, I know I am.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tosskey

 

So where did the plane go? It flew right at the Pentagon and disappeared? I'm curious.

Most witnesses saw "something" fly into the Pentagon..
Not all said a commercial jet....

Well this is the problem with debating with Truthers. Everyone believes something different.

Yankee451 seems to be arguing they're using wall-breaching kits.

ANOK seems to be arguing that nothing hit the Pentagon because there were a few mounds of dirt.

You think people would really have hard time discerning between a 231ft Airliner, and a 20ft Cruise Missile.

reply to post by Tosskey


You can't follow the thought process?

Let me spell it out for you.

The evidence doesn't support your thought process; it does however support a wall breaching kit, implications be damned.

Follow?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by ANOK
Science knows the max burn temp of almost all materials (min, max, flash point etc., all known), so it wouldn't be hard to figure it out now would it?

Okay.

So then why is it so hard for anyone here to produce that kind of information? Can you?

I can't talk for anyone but myself mate so I can't help ya with that.

Go look up the burning temps of the materials involved, I'm not going to do your research for you.

Originally posted by backinblack
Maybe you could do some research and post it instead of asking others to research for you..
It's not that hard..
You want the answers, you do the research...Simple..

I'm not the one trying to sell my point here.

If it's so easy why don't you post the information? I'm now up to asking three people for it, and so far I am still waiting for something.

I've done the research, but I am sure that whatever I post would be immediately discredited as made up hogwash to support my point.

reply to post by COOL HAND

I've done the research, but I am sure that whatever I post would be immediately discredited as made up hogwash to support my point.

Post away mate..
Don't be scared about being questioned..