Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Qcuailon

 

We all have different reasons for being here. I know I will never have an efficacious conversation with some of the OSers on here for various reasons. But, I am a Psychologist researching denial in traumatic events and worldview - every conversation/argument I have on here helps me to teach better, I get more insight into denial, more insight into reactionary behavior.

I know the scientific facts show it was an inside job - what I want is a way to bring those facts to the general public in a manner they can hear.

You're a psychologist? And you say the facts show it was an inside job.
Let me know when these facts have been peer reviewed and published in respect journals. Because what I'm detecting as an observer to these conspiracies are trust issues and a sense of paranoia for authority among these conspiracy theorists. I've heard all of their arguments from wtc7 (which sounded nothing like a controlled demolition) to no planes hitting the pentagon etc. When I add it all up the conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. What conspiracy theorists do is they take bits and pieces of information and formulate subjective opinions around that information. They don't take the time to correlate any of their findings into a sensible alternative theory.

Originally posted by backinblack
No pilot is allowed to even go close to testing that scenario,
but they are all more than happy to sprout crap on here about how easy it would be..

They have tested it on a flight simulator.

If you're not satisfied with that, then I'd say the claims that it's not easy and the claims that it's easy are both not backed up by personal experience with that aircraft at that velocity in that situation. So aside from the simulator, you may not have reason to give credence to the claim that it's easy but neither do you have any reason to give credence to the claim that it's hard.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

They have tested it on a flight simulator.

If you're not satisfied with that, then I'd say the claims that it's not easy and the claims that it's easy are both not backed up by personal experience with that aircraft at that velocity in that situation. So aside from the simulator, you may not have reason to give credence to the claim that it's easy but neither do you have any reason to give credence to the claim that it's hard.

lol, argue both sides, pretty cool...

It's never been done in real life so I guess the guy deserves an award or something..

reply to post by nwobro

They don't take the time to correlate any of their findings into a sensible alternative theory.

Why do truthers need to do that??
All they need to do is convince enough people that the OS is an impossible fairytale..
How it really happened can be sorted out later..
Hopefully when the murderers are in jail

reply to post by nwobro

Let me know when these facts have been peer reviewed and published in respect journals.

Ah, another genius who can't think for himself.

Because what I'm detecting as an observer to these conspiracies are trust issues and a sense of paranoia for authority among these conspiracy theorists.

I'm getting a strong hit of denial from where I'm sitting.

I've heard all of their arguments

Doubt it.

They don't take the time to correlate any of their findings into a sensible alternative theory.

You must have reading challenges confounding you too.

Originally posted by Yankee451
ah another genius who can't think for himself.

I don't claim to be a physics professor or a demolition expert.
In those situations I refer to academia. See I don't have trust issues.
I wasn't in Washington on 9/11 but I believe the people on the ground who saw a jetliner crash into the pentagon, conveniently on the same day 2 jetliners crashed into the twin towers. I believe American Airlines when they say they lost 4 planes on that day. I believe the photos I've seen with my own two eyes of the plane debris at the pentagon. I believe the authorities who say they've identified bodies from the plane in the wreckage of the pentagon, as well as id from some of the passengers. And do you know why I believe them? Because to believe anything else would be asinine in the face of all this evidence. To believe that a missile struck the pentagon would be to reject all of the evidence recovered at the scene in the form of bodies and plane debris, the eye witnesses who saw the plane, american airlines who say they cannot account for the plane they lost that day, or it's passengers. That is why I believe them.

reply to post by nwobro


Whatever helps you sleep at night...

reply to post by nwobro


I saw the ending to the 1hour 20min video on page 1, the coloured taxi driver dodging questions like mike tyson dodgers punchers....he denied the photo evidence that he was on the bridge saying it did not happen there...oh and it so happens his wife is FBI.....

they got him off camera admitting it was planned and he was apart of the act...

I believe a plane was in the area at the time low flying but I can make my own JUDGEMENT on the photos, not of the BS evidence your being spoon fed ...the entry hole of the twin towers is huge.....(even though they are different material building) in the photo of the pentagon outter face of the building is still standing after the hit weight and speeds of the plane.....surely the impact would have caused more damage....

But end of the day, we can talk argue and disagree, but we will never be told the full truth and given all the information and the videos that they kept in their private collection.....we will never know!

L

Originally posted by lukeUK
reply to post by nwobro

 

I saw the ending to the 1hour 20min video on page 1, the coloured taxi driver dodging questions like mike tyson dodgers punchers....he denied the photo evidence that he was on the bridge saying it did not happen there...oh and it so happens his wife is FBI.....

they got him off camera admitting it was planned and he was apart of the act...

I believe a plane was in the area at the time low flying but I can make my own JUDGEMENT on the photos, not of the BS evidence your being spoon fed ...the entry hole of the twin towers is huge.....(even though they are different material building) in the photo of the pentagon outter face of the building is still standing after the hit weight and speeds of the plane.....surely the impact would have caused more damage....

But end of the day, we can talk argue and disagree, but we will never be told the full truth and given all the information and the videos that they kept in their private collection.....we will never know!

L

Except we do know the truth about what happened at the pentagon, and it sucks. Over 180 bodies were positively identified through DNA testing including those of the hijackers on flight 77. Now whether you choose to believe they piggybacked on a missile or crashed through the pentagon in an airplane is up to you, but almost all the bodies were identified, debris from the plane was collected, and their names were enshrined.

reply to post by nwobro


do you support the invasion of iraq? off topic but would like to know your views on this and whether you think that your leaders were right in doing this? even though they drilled it into us all that 100% sadam had those weapons...turns out he didnt....media played a big role in this and still does....I laugh to this day when I saw the terror threat meter on the news channel showing its threat level....making the people of your country anxious, on edge and in fear of their own shadows...thats a real nice way to live:S

its just gone down hill since the 9/11 job.....

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Firstly, YOU (and so many others who are setting up these "strawman" arguments, about the height above ground) are making false assumptions, and therefore leaving false innuendo. The period of time (total actual number of seconds, or fraction of seconds) that AAL 77 was actually close to the ground was extremely short. It id NOT travel for miles, not even for thousands of feet, at that low height.

...air currents and that air temperature and numerous things cause a bit of a jostling and non-uniformity in the air.

Oh, geeze....you're talking about thermals, and orthographic turbulence due to wind. The temperature that morning was mild....and it was early, so there had not yet been any heating of the ground/buildings, etc by the Sun, as yet. Hence, no thermal turbulence. (It is very common, to have the smoothest flight conditions, early in the morning....).

Also, the winds were light and variable...not nearly strong enough to account for orthographic turbulence, either. So, your attempted "point" is moot, in any case.

I'm sure you are taught about wind currents and air temperatures in flight school, yes?

Oh, gee..... Seriously??

reply to post by Thermo Klein

One more question to our resident pilots:

Could you fly down to 20 feet for the length of a runway, with landing gear up, at 400 knots, and hold a steady course?

Sure....piece of cake.

....if you were trying to hold at 20 but accidentally went up to 50, how much distance or time would it take to get back to holding at 20?

Varies....depends on rate, obviously. (Of climb/descent). But, what is the point?

You can envision any number of variables, different rates, ways of flying that are "smoother" on the controls, as opposed to being abrupt and sloppy, etc. There is no one answer, and it's a pointless question, really. Flying is dynamic, and is inter-active in real time, when you are doing it.

You might as well try to define driving a car, in so many words....compared to just "feeling" it, and sensing it, as a hand-eye coordinated activity.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Firstly, YOU (and so many others who are setting up these "strawman" arguments, about the height above ground) are making false assumptions, and therefore leaving false innuendo. The period of time (total actual number of seconds, or fraction of seconds) that AAL 77 was actually close to the ground was extremely short. It id NOT travel for miles, not even for thousands of feet, at that low height.

Of course, I knew the question was a bait in the first place. They only want answers that conform and agree with their world view and support their delusions, not true honest answers from someone qualified to tell them the truth.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that the answer that flying at low level whether it is 20' or 5' or even 2' Above Ground Level (AGL) is impossible or even difficult came from pffft or a similar truther oriented site. It can be dangerous and it can result in crashing just as AA 77 did into the Pentagon. Crashing an aircraft is not difficult. I'm surprised that any legitimate pilot thinks it is!!!!

Typical Airline pilots who have no military related experience have never flown at these altitudes at high speed because if they did they would be fired.

Notice there is no reason given that it is impossible or even difficult, only incredulity. Ground Effect has been explained in this and other threads and it has been shown based on PHYSICS/AERODYNAMIC FACT that it has little effect at high speed on any aircraft. It has been stated that heat thermals or wind turbulence was negligible on the morning of 9/11. There are no other environmental factors involved that would prevent ANY aircraft from flying inches above the ground where there are no obstacles.

It has been pointed out that my experience in low level flying was in a fighter aircraft not a large transport. That is true. What is the difference? One - I did it legally because it was a combat tactic and an approved endeavor. Airline or Large transports don't do it because it is not approved and unnecessary, not because it can't be done. Two - Fighters have a shorter wingspan that large aircraft and can turn to avoid obstacles whereas the longer wingspan of a large aircraft would result in dragging a wingtip and crashing if a significant turn were attempted to avoid obstacles. Three - Some fighters have aerodynamically a "high wing loaded" design making them less susceptible to thermals and minor turbulence caused by wind currents, others don't. Most large transport aircraft have a "low wing loaded" design which would make them more susceptible to thermals and turbulence resulting in a rough ride where these phenomena are present.

There is no aerodynamic reason a large transport aircraft could not come close to tieing the record for low level flying. (There is no world record as all attempts have resulted in a tie!)

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
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.

The security cam also shows a fireball exiting the pentagon.

But why do you find this puzzling? Isn't that what you'd expect? Do you think the combustion of all that fuel is going to create an implosion rather than an explosion?

so.... take it just one step back... the plane must be INSIDE the building for an explosion to occur there. For it to BE inside the building the wall can't be standing and intact! You can't pick this one apart detail by detail

airplane INSIDE = explosion inside
airplane outside = explosion outside

Since there's no hole... it would be explosion outside, except there's also no wreckage = no airplane.

Originally posted by nwobro
I've heard all of their arguments from wtc7 (which sounded nothing like a controlled demolition)

a 47-story steel frame building falls universally at freefall rates, the ONLY evidence of damage is a small chunk missing from one corner and a few sporadic fires... then the whole thing collapses at once. Oh, and the owner of the building happened to say "so we decided to pull it" just before it fell.

You think that sounds nothing like a controlled demolition??

that looks exactly like a controlled demolition. and freefall of a steel frame building has never happened in history EXCEPT during a controlled demolition.

* please remember this thread is about the Pentagon - this post is a direct answer for discussion about denial *

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks again Weed - I appreciate your expertise and opinion

reply to post by Thermo Klein


exactly what I was trying to say!

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by nwobro
I've heard all of their arguments from wtc7 (which sounded nothing like a controlled demolition)

a 47-story steel frame building falls universally at freefall rates, the ONLY evidence of damage is a small chunk missing from one corner and a few sporadic fires... then the whole thing collapses at once. Oh, and the owner of the building happened to say "so we decided to pull it" just before it fell.

You think that sounds nothing like a controlled demolition??

that looks exactly like a controlled demolition. and freefall of a steel frame building has never happened in history EXCEPT during a controlled demolition.

* please remember this thread is about the Pentagon - this post is a direct answer for discussion about denial *

Translation of the bolded phrase above - I'm posting an off-topic falsehood and I don't want a rebuttal.

A portion of the facade of WTC 7 fell at free fall for approximate 2 seconds after the mechanical Penthouse fell through the center of the structure ripping away about 8 floors and their support. The total collapse of WTC 7 took approximately 18 seconds. This is free fall? No, it's the personification of denial!!!!! Look no further for your research. A mirror would be sufficient.

Originally posted by nwobro

Originally posted by Yankee451
ah another genius who can't think for himself.

I don't claim to be a physics professor or a demolition expert.
In those situations I refer to academia. See I don't have trust issues.
I wasn't in Washington on 9/11 but I believe the people on the ground who saw a jetliner crash into the pentagon, conveniently on the same day 2 jetliners crashed into the twin towers. I believe American Airlines when they say they lost 4 planes on that day. I believe the photos I've seen with my own two eyes of the plane debris at the pentagon.

edit on 15-3-2011 by nwobro because: (no reason given)

I didn't say you had trust issues...I said you had denial issues.

You also don't have your ducks in a row if you believe American Airlines lost 4 planes that day...reading is clearly not your forte.

There were no forensically matched plane parts at the crime scenes.

Can you identify fraudulent photos? Why would any single photo or video be fraudulent? Do you believe aliens invaded Earth because you saw the movie "Independence Day"?

I believe the authorities who say they've identified bodies from the plane in the wreckage of the pentagon, as well as id from some of the passengers. And do you know why I believe them? Because to believe anything else would be asinine in the face of all this evidence. To believe that a missile struck the pentagon would be to reject all of the evidence recovered at the scene in the form of bodies and plane debris, the eye witnesses who saw the plane, american airlines who say they cannot account for the plane they lost that day, or it's passengers. That is why I believe them.

Have you even looked at the "evidence"? Certainly not. The authorities' story is full of holes, inconsistencies and impossibilities and their evidence is decidedly lacking.

Eye witnesses didn't unanimously see a plane, and actually two of the planes weren't even in the BTS database. The only evidence given to justify the government's position were blips on radar, provably faked photographic evidence and the accounts given mostly by military and media affiliated "eyewitnesses".

It sure sounds like you believe the authorities because they're the authorities...and that was the extent of your investigation.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
so.... take it just one step back... the plane must be INSIDE the building for an explosion to occur there. For it to BE inside the building the wall can't be standing and intact! You can't pick this one apart detail by detail

airplane INSIDE = explosion inside
airplane outside = explosion outside

Since there's no hole... it would be explosion outside, except there's also no wreckage = no airplane.

Everyone admits there's a hole, I thought even you admitted that! And I thought that you just thought the hole was too small for the plane, but I noticed you completely ignored the rest of that post which explains why the hole is smaller than the plane with a good example...why did you ignore it?