FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

a reply to: M4ngo

According to NIST, it didn't matter if the building had been hit, it would have fell anyways.

You could start by reading the official reports, you don't have to agree with them, but at least know of the findings they have concluded.

There's a link to the report on the following page.

www.nist.gov...

direct link

21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

Link

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: M4ngo

According to NIST, it didn't matter if the building had been hit, it would have fell anyways.

You could start by reading the official reports, you don't have to agree with them, but at least know of the findings they have concluded.

There's a link to the report on the following page.

www.nist.gov...

direct link

21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

Link

I am aware of what the NIST report had to say. A bit of common sense should tell you that this is just not plausible. It fact, it is just ridiculous.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).

a reply to: M4ngo

You've not included the entire answer to question 5 and 8, did you quit reading after your confirmation bias engaged?

If your common sense is telling you this narrative is wrong, what is your esteemed opinion on the causes of the building collapse?

Here's the entire answers in their entirety.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
On 3-23-2017, the FBI published to their vault archive 27 photos of scenes from around the Pentagon on or right after 9/11/2001. These include airplane debris, photos from inside, photos of FBI team members at the site, and other photos of that fateful day here:

vault.fbi.gov...

...

Oh but wait. Is that a light pole I see directly in front of that tiny little hole, before the side of the building collapsed. You know, those nasty light poles that all got knocked down by that big ole mean huge jet on the way in. Oh, ok. Yeah.

But hey, don't mind me. Just browse around through these photos and see what else you might find.

It seems like that light pole in fact is mounted on a truck - is this a huge crane? It does LOOK like a regular pole, but that most def looks like a truck underneath it. If that's the case, there was no pole there when the Pentagon was hit.

a reply to: M4ngo

so what caused the massive gash torn in south face of WTC 7......??

Why did the FDNY on scene report the massive gash, that the building was unstable and debris falling off it ...??

sites.google.com...

Again what damaged WTC 7 south face.....?

Black magic, space beams, mini nukes.....??

Look, while the data used to confirm the NIST report is still withheld and classed as for National Security then all this is bunk, the NIST report remain invalid because data to back its finding remains top secret..

As said so many times, if a plane hit the building then just publish the CCTV from all those camera's, that would be classic proof yet its still all top secret...

They have what they say is the proof but won't show it for no reason?

Any inquiring mind show be screaming WHY!!!

Just remember, they were not wire tapping Trump, well that is until they were but forgot to mention it..

Trust no one, not just a TV series motto but a valid point of real life..Look, listen, enquire..When it feels right then trust...But remain vigilant..

Wow..that pentagon building is a very big building. Must say something about the war machine that is 24-7-365 days operational. It will be a triump for humanity when that building closes its doors... and not continue in an even bigger building somewhere else..

originally posted by: zatara
Wow..that pentagon building is a very big building. Must say something about the war machine that is 24-7-365 days operational. It will be a triump for humanity when that building closes its doors... and not continue in an even bigger building somewhere else..

While war equates to money and power, that will never happen...

Yes WTC 7 was hit by by bits of the towers indeed, no argument from me there, was it enough to cause all the issues, no idea...

What I find more fun is the fact the vaults beneath all this housing lots of data and expensive stuff were, picked clean...

Odd that, stuff that could not have been done in the timescale of the plane hits...

And who had an office right in that building....

So many little coincidences...Too many perhaps.....

What with the government being so honest and all that...

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

Oh but wait. Is that a light pole I see directly in front of that tiny little hole, before the side of the building collapsed. You know, those nasty light poles that all got knocked down by that big ole mean huge jet on the way in. Oh, ok. Yeah.

It´s a crane.

a reply to: facedye

Simply pointing out that the combination of things that happened that day resulted in the final collapse. One or the other by itself would have resulted in a different outcome.

The engineers envisioned something like the Empire State Building crash, where a plane going slow looking for the runway hit the building. Not that someone would have slammed a plane into it at a high rate of speed. Different events, different impacts.

I realize I'm going back a few pages here, but the folks yammering on about how there had to be high quality video footage at the Pentagon in 2001...

Yeah, Hollywood is completely out of touch with real life. Remember in Boondock Saints where William Dafoe is incredulous that these guys came in through the ceiling vent and he says "Television is the explanation for this. You see this in bad television." I know in the movies and TV the military has all this futuristic hardware and can respond in seconds to any threat, but that's not reality. When I was stationed at Fort Bragg in 2014 our security cameras weren't as good as the cameras Truthers think must have been on the Pentagon in 2001. They were digital, but they still just recorded 1 FPS. They also panned, so sometimes they missed stuff. Like someone already pointed out, they're designed to record things like people and cars, they don't need to be ultra high speed and high def.

We also were still using 56K modems on our fuel tank monitoring equipment. In 2014. We were still backing up our data by burning CDs and keeping a giant book full of CDs. Now I realize these are anecdotal stories and Truthers are just going to think I'm making it up, but then I'll remind you that in 2016 our nuclear forces were still using floppy disks. And not the "newer" floppy disks from the 90s. These are the #in giant disks from the 70s. This is what our nuclear forces are still using. So yeah just because the military always has the latest high-tech stuff in tv/movies doesn't mean we do in real life. Most of our money goes into our actual military equipment, the planes, the tanks, etc. The ancillary hardware we buy is usually the cheapest stuff we can find that can do what we need it to do.

Truthers simply don't want to believe the OS. Most of them are smart enough to put the pieces together if they would open their mind but they're dedicated to the idea that the OS is false so nothing you can post will convince them otherwise. It's like trying to convince an alcoholic they have a problem. Until they realize they're messed up, you're wasting your time.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Wolfenz

A 707 trying to land lost in fog is a different impact than a 767 at high speed.

What ?

Why are you trying to win some Argument ?

yeah there is a differance in a 767 between a 707

size not all that much , speed is a factor

still The Towers were Designed for a Airliner Inpact of the Times
and that would be a 707 the Biggest they had at the TIME.

Here is a Chart for you

a 707 vs 767 Comparison
planes.axlegeeks.com...




Max 767 - 487 Knots 707 - 447 knots

Fuel : Cap : The 767-200ER can hold 125 more gallons of fuel than the 707 Advanced 707-320B.

Big difference is ::

the 707 is 67,000 pounds less the the 767

Max Payload cap: 767- 78,390 lbs / 707 - 46,200 lbs

Length The 767-200ER is 6.23 feet longer than the 707 Advanced 707-320B.
Wingspan The 767-200ER has a 10.43 foot wider wingspan than the 707 Advanced 707-320B. Height (At Tail)
The 767-200ER is 9.42 feet taller than the 707 Advanced 707-320B.

So Please tell whats the Huge Difference ?

Other then Fuel Capacity , and its Max Weight Capacity

and if the 767 Plane was at its Max for Weight
whos to say that the plane was carrying more
then just Passengers /Crew and luggage

A plane hit the pentagon, and the twin towers. I used to get sucked in to the conspiracy, but we have too many eye witnesses who saw the AA plane flyover a few dozen yards over their vehicles before it struck the pentagon.

The wings of an airliner are relatively weak and would have followed the fuselage into the building. An object in motion and all...one witness stated it was almost like the plane was 'sucked' into the building upon impact.

It seems strange when we think about it, and if the plane were traveling at slow speeds then I would expect wing parts to be on the lawn. I think when we try to apply our normal experiences of physics that is where the disconnect lies. We've experienced a variety of physical encounters at much slower speeds, such as cars crashing into buildings etc. this is an entirely different set of circumstances.

There was an account several decades ago of a 'genius' who attached rocket thrust engines of some sort onto his car in the desert. Predictably, he smashed into the side of a mountain. Nothing was left that was recognizable. The resistance of the pentagons walls to the great mass and speed of the airplane would have been like solid rock to the airplane, completely destroying it. Looking for wing marks on the building is silly when considering the incredible energy involved in the impact.

originally posted by: lambs to lions
It seems strange when we think about it, and if the plane were traveling at slow speeds then I would expect wing parts to be on the lawn. I think when we try to apply our normal experiences of physics that is where the disconnect lies. We've experienced a variety of physical encounters at much slower speeds, such as cars crashing into buildings etc. this is an entirely different set of circumstances.

This is a big part of the problem for most people. They simply have no practical experience with what happens when something that heavy going that fast hits a building or other stationary object. All they think they know is drawn from a lifetime of watching movies and TV that portray these events wildly inaccurately 90% of the time. Truthers will point to the "scholars and engineers" who question the OS, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to all the scholars and engineers that don't see any flaws in the physics behind the OS. In any given field you're going to have a small percentage of people who disagree. And some are no doubt just milking the cash cow that is the conspiracy industry. Others may be blinded by political motivations. Whatever their motives, they're a minority.

a reply to: Wolfenz

I'm well aware of the differences thanks. But you left out part of it. It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that was lost in fog trying to land. That means a less than full fuel load, at low speed.

What hit them was a plane with a large fuel load, at extremely high speed. The impact force was going to be much higher than a 707 at low speed, regardless of the differences.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Wolfenz

I'm well aware of the differences thanks. But you left out part of it. It was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that was lost in fog trying to land. That means a less than full fuel load, at low speed.

What hit them was a plane with a large fuel load, at extremely high speed. The impact force was going to be much higher than a 707 at low speed, regardless of the differences.

This is indeed an important distinction that many people ignore. There are numerous articles and videos about this. I wonder if any of the design documents contain the actual numbers they used, what specific 707 variant at what weight and speed. From there it would be a relatively simple calculation to show how much more energy the 767 that hit the building possessed.

originally posted by: face23785
Whatever their motives, they're a minority.

No they aren't.


Link

More lies from those pushing the official story.

a reply to: face23785

It almost certainly was a 707-320B. The -320C was slightly larger in terms of payload and fuel, but it was a passenger/freighter combination. At the time they were designing the Towers the B would have been the most popular version.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
Whatever their motives, they're a minority.

No they aren't.

Link

More lies from those pushing the official story.

15+7+7 = 29%

That's not a minority to you?