can someone help with this photo?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3635cf7468d.jpg[/atsimg]

I saw this picture quite a few times and never noticed these other burned areas. I circled them in red. I also drew an arrow with what I thought was the planes projected path into the side of the building. My question is, if the plane entered the building on the path shown, then what exeactly caused the burned areas circled? It looks as if there was a second projectile that entered through the same area, but on a different path. Does anyone else see this, or am I just worng?

Ok this seems like an obvious answer to me so i feel like i'm missing something (but to be fair i'm not well informed on 9/11) but isn't it just fire spreading that caused those burnt areas that you have circled?

I'm also not very well informed on 911, yet, but coudl it be burning debris that flew from the point of impact?

you both may be right, I just thought with the construction of the pentagon, and the thickness of the walls, for anything to penetrate three rings, or 6 walls, it would have to be moving quite fast. And if the plane entered on the path of the red arrow, then the spots I circled, would be very strange to have been hit with some debris form the initial impact. At least in my opinion. I am with you two in the informed department. I have intrest, but little understanding of the physics involved in this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9968f9b57500.jpg[/atsimg]

In this photo I have shown the path that whatever caused these burned spots would have had to be traveling. As I said, this may be nothing and can be explained away very easily, I just don't know at this point.

In the middle of the lower red circle, why does the debris pile look like a perfectly straight line? Looks like manip to me.

Originally posted by SteveR
In the middle of the lower red circle, why does the debris pile look like a perfectly straight line? Looks like manip to me.

(Sigh( why does it not come as a surprise that a conspiracy theorist believes a photo had been manipulated?

The fact of the matter is, none of you are crash site forensic experts and none of you are architectural engineers experienced in how the Pentagon was built...and most importantly, none of you were there when the plane hit the building...so there's no way you can say with any intellectual honesty that the plane couldn't cause this damage. Also the fact of the matter is, hordes of witnesses in the vicinity specifically saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. Debating whether or not a passenger jet hit the Pentagon is therefore pointless and idiotic.

The debate is, rather, over how the passenger jet created to pattern of damage we're seeing in the photos. I eschew the rubbish these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out, but I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't mind knowing myself.

Look at this....

www.thepentacon.com...

Their conclusion as to where the plane really flew matches the damage to the pentacon, unlike the official claim.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Fact of the Matter is...


He didn't say whether he thought there was a Conspiracy here or not.

And, you don't have to be a Crash Expert to say a "Photo" of something has been manipulated....



Not saying it has or it hasn't, just saying people with photography experience can spot bull#...

From the looks of it I would tend to think it is the path of the right engine..if in fact it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. The engine could easily have been diverted to that direction and blasted its way through causing those burned areas.

reply to post by expat2368


Then where is that engine, and the other one? And all the other millions of parts that make up a Boeing?

But did you look at that link I put in my last post? Funny how their investigation with eyewitness accounts puts the Boeing on the left side of the gas station which lines up with the damage to the Pentacon, whereas the official flight path does not?

Is that not worth some further investigation, or should we just ignore it and go on with our happy day ignorance?...

Originally posted by Hmmm101

Fact of the Matter is...

He didn't say whether he thought there was a Conspiracy here or not.

So then if that's the case, and the plane really did cause the damage shown in the photo, then why would anyone feel the need to manipulate the photo...? Despite who you think really shot JFK, the Zapruder film still shows JFK had been shot, rather than blown up by a bomb.

This guy was attempting to create innuendo of impropriety with this accusation. You know that and so do I.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


not quite sure how to take your post. I don't think anyone here is trying to throw wild conspiracies at you. (lord knows that would never happen on a conspiracy web site) I was just noticing something I had never payed attention to before and thought it may be worth a look. If not, then by all means, Ignore away.

Can anyone say for sure if these are even burn marks? they sure look the same as the ones to the right of them to me. But following Newtons law of Physics about objects at rest and objects in motion, it would seem that the object in motion would travel in the same direction they started.

reply to post by ANOK


Guess what have a look here

911research.wtc7.net...

Have fun

reply to post by network dude


Was caused by fires burning under the slate roof covering - under the slate was a tarred felt coating (made of horse hair) which was burning

read the book "FIREFIGHT" by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman

Goes into detail of the difficulty the FF had in trying to break open the
slate covering to get at the fires underneath using just axes and sledge
hammers

reply to post by network dude


The 2 lowest floors of the Pentagon had no partitions between the outer E Ring wall and the exit hole at the C Ring wall. Plane had a clear path
though the building once had breeched the E Ring.


As for the "clean break" someone referred to - the building broke off
along a expansion joint


Here a link covering the damage area

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by wmd_2008


As I said in my other post if you were keeping up, that adds up to about 5% of the parts that make up a single turbo-fan engine.

Where are the rest?

reply to post by ANOK


Some claim there should be NO plane parts there was, people may be confused by what they saw re the plane path remember the plane was traveling fast.
They could be confused by the impact (no pun intended) of what they saw.

reply to post by ANOK

Then where is that engine, and the other one? And all the other millions of parts that make up a Boeing?

Inside the building, under the collapsed floor and roof. Are you still having problems with the concept that you can't look at a photo of the OUTSIDE of a building and make an absolute determination as to what is INSIDE the building?

But did you look at that link I put in my last post? Funny how their investigation with eyewitness accounts puts the Boeing on the left side of the gas station which lines up with the damage to the Pentacon, whereas the official flight path does not?

Wow, it is amazing the stuff you will take at face value because it feeds into your fanatasy.

Is that not worth some further investigation, or should we just ignore it and go on with our happy day ignorance?...

Tell you what - why don't you spend some time and investigate the nonsense that is posted in that link?

why is it that every 9-11 thread turns into a truther vs. Official story? Is the intellect level here that low?