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

Originally posted by TrgiclyHip
The only question I have left- Why would the government feel the need to have a "forensic audit" of the situation close to 10 years after the fact?

The animation was produced and published YEARS AGO. A truther is just getting around to bringing it up again because he thinks it shows something "fishy".

reply to post by Reheat





Here's an exact comparison from real life to teh video. The windows where 911 CS says the plane entered the building ARE STILL THERE.... There is also a column remaining at the exact locaton they say the fuselage went through it's a lost cause.... NO AIRPLANE crashes through a wall leaving unbroken windows and columns remaining.

The "blast resistant" argument is a ruse, because the plane made it inside the building according to the Original Lie.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


www.integratedconsultants.com...

www.integratedconsultants.com... for the CNN footage from the company.

I had to open the videos in a separate window to make it work.

Peace

reply to post by Reheat
Soz I missed it, what year did it come out, the animation?

Plus quote "A truther is just getting around to bringing it up again because he thinks it shows something "fishy"."

That sounds like what a scientist would do. Isn't all science based on people going hmmm, how do things work?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat

 

Here's an exact comparison from real life to teh video. The windows where 911 CS says the plane entered the building ARE STILL THERE.... There is also a column remaining at the exact locaton they say the fuselage went through

it's a lost cause.... NO AIRPLANE crashes through a wall leaving unbroken windows and columns remaining.

The "blast resistant" argument is a ruse, because the plane made it inside the building according to the Original Lie.

Have you selected the right window in the large photo? The glass appears to be missing, but it is impossible to tell exactly because of the lens and the smoke obscuration. The window next to the one you've selected is obviously broken.

Sure, that column is still there hanging by a thread. If you'd read comments about those columns you'd know that, but it would also destroy your delusion of ---no hole.

Now, you are pretending to be an expert on BLAST RESISTANT windows. Why was the Building Performance Survey Team fooled by this? Yes, I know. They were paid shills in on the conspiracy. The ever increasing Inflationary Model of a delusion.....

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


thanks Y! you think if he spent 300 hours researching he would have noticed the windows weren't broken...

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

www.integratedconsultants.com...

www.integratedconsultants.com... for the CNN footage from the company.

I had to open the videos in a separate window to make it work.

Peace

reply to post by Reheat

 

Soz I missed it, what year did it come out, the animation?

Plus quote "A truther is just getting around to bringing it up again because he thinks it shows something "fishy"."

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
That sounds like what a scientist would do. Isn't all science based on people going hmmm, how do things work?

Sure they do and there is not a thing wrong with examining the material. The difference is that most scientists are highly knowledgeable and qualified to perform an analysis in their field. They publish their results in a "peer reviewed journal" allowing other experts to verify their conclusions. They don't publish their material along with propaganda type comments on a Conspiracy oriented Web Site on the Interwebz where there are other like minded conspiracy theorists. Major difference and absolutely NO COMPARISON of the two....

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

thanks Y! you think if he spent 300 hours researching he would have noticed the windows weren't broken...

Your photo doesn't prove it and silly comments don't either. Some of the windows were broken and some weren't. The windows were blast resistant and the results are not at all surprising to those who understand the type of windows that were installed.

reply to post by Reheat


the purpose of blast resistant windows is to keep things out, and since some of these blast windows remain (you can tell because they have foam sprayed on them)... so obviously nothing entered the Pentagon - you once again have proven the Truth.



Here's a close-up. It clear the windows remained intact, and it's clear this is the crash location from 911 CS, AND it's clear those columns are NOT hanging by a thread.

It literally can't be more clear... airplanes do not fly through walls and leave them intact.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Here's a close-up. It clear the windows remained intact, and it's clear this is the crash location from 911 CS, AND it's clear those columns are NOT hanging by a thread.

I am truly impressed by your eyesight. It's absolutely amazing that you can reach these conclusions from your chair. Just how many people had a close-up view of that hole? Would it be in the 10's of people or would it be in the hundreds of people. If you want I can list all of the organizations that were actually there.

Guess what? None of them, absolutely NONE of them agree with you.

reply to post by Reheat


The "Crash site"



there comes a point when a person should reassess. What would be mandatory for an airplane to have actually crashed into the Pentagon and blow through numerous internal walls?

1) an airplane
2) a hole in the Pentagon
3) enough kinetic energy to allow the debris to crash through each successive wall.
4) wreckage - since this is a crime scene we would need to have enough wreckage and serial numbers to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

agreed?

If ANY of those four are absent then we don't have a conclusion that an airplane crashed here.

The above picture and associated video show WITHOUT DOUBT that no airplane entered the Pentagon in that spot. An approximately 12-foot wide airplane fuselage traveling at 300+ MPH would at very least crack the cement.

reheat, I'm not sure why you can look at that picture of the crash location and still think an airplane crashed there, or why if the blast proof windows kept the airplane OUTSIDE the explosion happened INSIDE, or why you choose to keep that side of the argument... that's up to you and not really my problem.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reheat, I'm not sure why you can look at that picture of the crash location and still think an airplane crashed there, or why if the blast proof windows kept the airplane OUTSIDE the explosion happened INSIDE, or why you choose to keep that side of the argument... that's up to you and not really my problem.

An obvious strawman is obvious. Who said anything about windows keeping the airplane OUTSIDE? One would think that you have enough proof based on your commentary as opposed to inventing obvious strawmen like that.

Among several other questions you conveniently haven't answered; what do you think caused that obvious round gouge in the right most column? What kind of explosive caused that kind of gouge? Apparently, you don't realize that the wings did not enter the building in their normal configuration, but were folded back against the fuselage and ripped to shreds as the distorted fuselage entered. You obviously want to see a Wily Coyote hole there and I can't help you with that..

I don't blame you for not answering some of my earlier questions. One might think you don't have a valid answer. Since I have other things to do you'll have time to come up with answers to those, I'm sure.

The "Crash site"


This is a picture of the "crash site"... some people actually believe an airplane crashed here

nuf said.

I watched with great interest up to the point where it shows the still from the security camera. This is the Pentagon yes? Quite an important building. Very sensitive security wise no doubt. If I stood outside the perimeter and attempted to walk the flight path of the plane, how many cctv cams would be following my progress? I would take a good guess and say my every step would be recorded from many different angles. So having said that, to prove to the doubting world that it was actually a large passenger airliner that impacted the building they have one still. One still in which the plane is completely hidden behind a metal casing. Whether I think that this incident was an act of terrorism or a government plot of some kind is neither here nor there. My point is that if this evidence was used in a court of law it would be a laughing stock. If the makers of this asked me to preview it before release I would at this frame, turn to them with a smile and ask, You're kidding? Right?

reply to post by JohnGeeTee


I agree with you - the so-called evidence would never hold up.

This has become a question for Psychology because the question isn't whether there's no evidence, it's about peoples denial of the Original Story and their fear of changing a worldview to include a corrupt government,

I don't know who's behind 9/11 but the Norm Mineta video about Dick Cheney says A LOT; "the plane is 10 miles out, do the orders still stand?"... Cheney "Of course they still stand, have you heard otherwise!?"

O K. Let's all agree that four (4) planes were highjacked on the morning of Sept. 9, 2001.

Two were flown into the towers 1 & 2 of the WTC, one was flown into the Pentagon in
Washinton, D C, and one was "shot down" or crashed into the ground in Penn.

It has now been over ten years and no one has indicted in connection in any way for this
"CRIME".

W H Y !!!

I have heard and read all the hype about bin Laden but he, at first, denied any involvement
but later videos say something else. ( By the way, many of these have been shown to be faked.)

There were so many "very convient coincidences" that morning, it had to a lot of planning for it
to work out as it did, and someone made a lot of money in the process.

At this point I don't really care who was involve or what their part was; I just want to know who
they were and how high they will hang!!!

reheat I will happily try to answer any valid, specific questions you put forth. I obviously don't know the weight of the alleged debris inside so can't answer your kinetic energy questions, but go for it.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


I implore you to look at the photos on this site:

911research.wtc7.net...

You can clearly see the hole in a few of the photos, and they even have imagery of the plane on the inside of the building as well as bodies of the passengers.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
The "Crash site"

This is a picture of the "crash site"... some people actually believe an airplane crashed here

nuf said.

Not quite nuf. Why do you keep deceptively keep showing only the very top portion of the entry hole? Do you have something to hide?

Originally posted by hdutton
O K. Let's all agree that four (4) planes were highjacked on the morning of Sept. 9, 2001.

Sorry can't agree with that

Otherwise great thread thermo. I rarely post in the 9/11 threads/section but I'm always sure to check them out and I have to commend you for your many posts and points. The work of you and a few others on both sides of the fence have given me much to think about and research on my own time, which was my goal all along. Thank you.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

I implore you to look at the photos on this site:

911research.wtc7.net...

You can clearly see the hole in a few of the photos, and they even have imagery of the plane on the inside of the building as well as bodies of the passengers.

I'm sure you can guess why he does that. He only wants to show what he can deceptively label with his conclusions. Kinda like the "sleigh of hand of a magician". You only see what he wants you to see....