Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

NOW! NOW! Childern!

Enough is enough!

By now it should have become apparent to us all. The longer we remain divided on the particulars of this issue, the longer any justice will be delt out to those responsible.

I would like to propose a challenge to any and all those who will place a post after this one:

1) Are you posting in order to stretch out this discussion as long as possible in an effort to protect those responsible for these events?

2) Are you more concerned with details of the events or justice for the victims being served.

Or to put it another way; would you rather sweep this under the rug inorder to protect someone or would you rather stretch some rope?

reply to post by hdutton


What are you talking about? You didn't address anything that this thread is focusing on and it sounds like you are assuming that the Truthers are completely right. The fact is, we have differing opinions here, and until everyone understands each other's position and agrees to disagree, we will continue to post.

Interesting. My first thought is someone is getting nervous. To go to all the trouble to make a video to "prove" it was flt. 77. ( It was, it was, see I told you so) This seems like someone is beginning to get desperate and worried. It gives me a hint that somewhere in the disaster there is solid beliveable proof. Obviously, they are wanting the debate of plane or no plane to go away.

reply to post by Varemia


Please allow me to so humbly appoligize for the use of words and terms beyond your comprehindsion.

I assure you it was not my intent to lead anyone astray from this most enlightening intellectual discourse.

It will not make a tremendous amount of difference to my personal existance if those who were involved in the planning and execution of the events of Sept, 11 2001 are ever found out and granted their just rewards for the work they have done.

In closing might I suggest you could find someone to tudor you in reading so you can learn to better precieve the intent of the words you chose to read and not just the names and a few deffinitions.

reply to post by hdutton


Again, you are assuming that it is a conspiracy. You are also being highly condescending and have provided no actual information in your post. You apologize, but practically sarcastically. For that reason, my good sir, I must decline your humble apology and ask if you would, pardon my French, get the hell out.

I know a few people feel that how well a pilot can fly, or whether or not I can name 500 pilots by name make a big difference in the facts, and that somehow using gigantic letters to call me names makes a difference in the facts... or whether an excellent quality video created by a defense contractor might or might not be created by tax-payer money is relevant.

A truly epic effort to avoid the facts doesn't make any difference at all - if you choose to believe an airplane can fly through a tiny hole, and not even break a window while doing so, you are denying reality. Maybe it's an effect of feeling patriotic, or simply a concrete means of being right - I don't know, but when you look at the facts, no airplane flew through that wall.

There are a million ways to avoid that one simple fact, but it still remains a fact - a giant airplane cannot fly through a small hole...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There are a million ways to avoid that one simple fact, but it still remains a fact - a giant airplane cannot fly through a small hole...

No, it needs a hole just about the size we find in the Pentagon.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

C'ya

You were too happy to see me go, so I just had to drop back by

Back to the subject at hand, the hole in the side of the Pentagon is just about the size one would expect. The debris field is also exactly what one would expect (angular towards the helipad). The resultant debris is exactly what one would expect considering the speed of the aircraft and the reinforced concrete wall that it hit. The blast resistant windows installed during the last renovation also worked as designed and remained intact. Even the bodies (parts actually) recovered were distributed as would be expected (with remnants of passengers found to the northwest of the helipad).

So this whole thread is about a silly psychologist who wants to play mind games with people who does not possess the basic skills to even assess the topic at hand. We have hundreds of statements from people inside and outside the Pentagon and every one of them either saw (either eye or ear gate) the plane or the remnants of the plane, before, during and after impact. So why the waste of time covering something that is pure silliness?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I know a few people feel that how well a pilot can fly, or whether or not I can name 500 pilots by name make a big difference in the facts, and that somehow using gigantic letters to call me names makes a difference in the facts... or whether an excellent quality video created by a defense contractor might or might not be created by tax-payer money is relevant.

How hypocritical! You can attempt to downplay the FACT that you lied all you want, but it is very relevant to what is still being attempted. You couldn't even name 5 pilots to support you assertions while using "500+" in an attempt to denigrate those pilot who are here at ATS. So, it's an excellent quality video, yet it's wrong. That's known as DOUBLE TALK in the real world. Here you go again. Lots of companies are defense contractors so why did you refer to that term in the OP and here if it's not relevant. You still have not proven that the animation is in any way sanction by the US Government, but you keep trying imply that it was. That's known as deception.

You keep referring to facts, why didn't you list any?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
A truly epic effort to avoid the facts doesn't make any difference at all

Again, what facts?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
- if you choose to believe an airplane can fly through a tiny hole, and not even break a window while doing so, you are denying reality. Maybe it's an effect of feeling patriotic, or simply a concrete means of being right - I don't know, but when you look at the facts, no airplane flew through that wall.

You keep referring to facts without listing any facts. The size of the hole (which is NOT SHOWN in any of your deceptive photographs was approximately 96' wide on the first floor, yet you keep saying it is FACT that it was too small. Here's some information written by a truther who disagrees with you false assertions.

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
There are a million ways to avoid that one simple fact, but it still remains a fact - a giant airplane cannot fly through a small hole...

Wow! Finally, you get something right.

Here's some more reading for those who care....

Finally, some facts....
www.911myths.com...

This needs to be dealt with...

911flies, you call me a "silly Psychologist who plays headgames" because I'm questioning how an airplane defies the laws of physics and fits through a small hole, leaving intact columns and unbroken windows behind; I have stayed entirely on subject nearly this entire thread.

I've tried very hard to avoid you and reheat's name-calling, avoiding the subject, constant refering to me as a liar... you guys are just childish.

I HOPE that when a mod removes this post he or she also removes your rude post 2-3 above saying I'm a silly Psychologist - what the **** is wrong with you??

you want to avoid the subject and fill page after page with worthless crap so people won't read it... congrats - you succeeded in avoiding the facts and filling the pages with junk yet again,

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
This needs to be dealt with...

911flies, you call me a "silly Psychologist who plays headgames" because I'm questioning how an airplane defies the laws of physics and fits through a small hole, leaving intact columns and unbroken windows behind; I have stayed entirely on subject nearly this entire thread.

BECAUSE IT DID NOT DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Read the PBPR

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
you want to avoid the subject and fill page after page with worthless crap so people won't read it... congrats - you succeeded in avoiding the facts and filling the pages with junk yet again,

I have avoided the subject. But when I give you information, you refuse to read it. Instead, you want a 'summary'. Then I give you a summary, and then you post a picture that is self-debunking and ask a question that would be answered if you read the report I gave you.

I cannot teach you math, physics and metrology in an ATS forum. If you can't grasp the subject matter, then don't discuss it and then call it junk because you don't understand it. Sorry, sometimes you have to study the subject matter to understand it.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
This needs to be dealt with...

911flies, you call me a "silly Psychologist who plays headgames" because I'm questioning how an airplane defies the laws of physics and fits through a small hole, leaving intact columns and unbroken windows behind; I have stayed entirely on subject nearly this entire thread.

I've tried very hard to avoid you and reheat's name-calling, avoiding the subject, constant refering to me as a liar... you guys are just childish.

I HOPE that when a mod removes this post he or she also removes your rude post 2-3 above saying I'm a silly Psychologist - what the **** is wrong with you??

you want to avoid the subject and fill page after page with worthless crap so people won't read it... congrats - you succeeded in avoiding the facts and filling the pages with junk yet again,

Well, what do you expect? Congratulations for continuing to post false information and referring to them as fact and constructing a strawman as you just did above. You keep referring to a small hole and it is in no way small. Your photo with water spray and smoke is deceiving.

You didn't read the link I posted either this time or the last time I posted it. It has been pointed out time and time again that you're using deceptive photos and placing false labels on columns and misleading everyone with only one obscured side of the actual hole. Here is a better photo. It is not perfect as it partial obscured the "hole". You are looking at pieces of concrete from the floor above hanging down and calling them intact columns. They are not intact and they are not columns. A BIG freaking B-757 went through there.

Here's a better photo again. You've only showed the extreme right portion of the hole with the remainder obscured by water spray and smoke.



Don't refer to pieces of concrete flooring hanging down from above as columns.

You want to control the discussion and keep the attention drawn to your deceptive photos. When it veers to include other conclusive evidence you either avoid it or you LIE as you did by using non existent 500+ pilots that agree with your conclusion. You are not searching for the truth, YOU ARE AVOIDING IT because it destroys your delusion.

reply to post by Reheat


Uh, where is the "big hole" you are referring to in that picture? Big in regards to what, an RC plane? Come on man! You know when you go to the airport and are waiting in the terminal to board the plane, have you ever noticed how high you are in the air? No way a 747 or larger made that hole, that's just my common sense talking. Also, why is it that this is the only case ever where a plane crashed and everything broke into pieces small enough to be carried by 1-2 people? It may have well been a plane, but it wasn't the plane we were all told it was. That's exactly why they won't show us the video.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Reheat

 

Uh, where is the "big hole" you are referring to in that picture? Big in regards to what, an RC plane? Come on man! You know when you go to the airport and are waiting in the terminal to board the plane, have you ever noticed how high you are in the air? No way a 747 or larger made that hole, that's just my common sense talking. Also, why is it that this is the only case ever where a plane crashed and everything broke into pieces small enough to be carried by 1-2 people? It may have well been a plane, but it wasn't the plane we were all told it was. That's exactly why they won't show us the video.

It's quite obvious that you don't understand "foreshortening" from a telephoto lens. You don't know the weight of some of those parts, do you? Absolutely, no clue. What was it, a missile? If that's your explanation why did only one person witness what he/she thought was a missile, but dozens and dozens saw an American Airlines aircraft, some even identifying it as a B-757. Remember that C-130 pilot who followed an American Airlines B-757 for several miles and saw it crash? How do those facts fit with you silly theory?

reply to post by Reheat


Jesus...calm down Beavis. I don't know what it was, but I'm pretty well convinced it wasn't a 757 at this point. How does the opinion of one of the pilots who actually flew AA 77 that the plane was incapable of the "official" maneuvers set with you? You know, where it exceeded all known limits in regards to airspeed and manueverability of every single other commercial airliner ever built in its class? How do you explain that the camera sitting directly above the "impact" point and another directly in the official flight pattern failed to see that BIG B-757?

reply to post by budaruskie


I'm not impressed with anyone from pffft regardless of what he says. I am quite familiar with the operational limits of a B-757, are you?

Why do you reckon NO Major Truther Groups support the idiots at pffft? Is it because they are honest, truth telling, lily white angels or is it because they are FRAUDS?

reply to post by Reheat


I dunno, why is Marge Simpson's hair blue and way too tall? WTF does it matter? Why do you avoid answering pointed questions yet expect everyone else to answer yours?

reply to post by Reheat



About your picture that you linked - here's the picture you linked, with the window from the video marked. Since your picture only goes just above the 2nd floor and the left part is covered with smoke it's sort of irrelevant (probably why chose it ) but there's your answer: the "tail" went through the part that's marked, and the engies damaged the spots circled. This is according to the video that follows NIST airplane location. Since the picture you insist on using just shows SMOKE where the plane allegedly went through it's pointless... please don't think that just because you can't see the wall, that it's not there... it IS there, as other photos show.



Have you wondered WHY you prefer a smoke-covered picture compared to one that shows the portion of interest?? Since we're talking about the upper floors, it would be better to actually see the upper floors, even if the ground floor is covered by water/foam spray.


the 500 pilots thing - here's your final answer, even though I've already wasted time telling you twice... I had heard it somewhere on ATS over the years, I don't have a source, so please ignore it. I was not lying. I may have been incorrect and if you want to attempt to prove my information is false go for it, but stop saying I was lying. 500 pilots? I DON'T KNOW... forget it. I've said plenty of times to forget it, it's not sourced so let's scratch it from the conversation, please.
by the way - it had nothing to do with my conclusion, it was a casual statement.

For comparison to above, and to prove the wall is still there despite being covered by smoke in your photo.