Conclusive Evidence of Explosives, Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation

a reply to: Salander

At least some of the backups for said investigations data were at the WTC too...

At the very least it's incredibly interesting that the main site and the site with the off site backups both got hit.

a reply to: Salander

By way of the high explosive devices detonated in that part of the pentagon.

More of these silent explosives?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


How were the records destroyed?

By way of the high explosive devices detonated in that part of the pentagon. That was the same mechanism that killed the congressional auditors there.

Been over this before. 100 plus witnesses attest to a jet pushing into the pentagon. All the contact damage from the wings. Very little of the pentagon was blown out into the lawn. No windows or shrapnel blown out...

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

The Overall Damage Path
As related by most eyewitnesses, a large plane flew low from the highway over the Pentagon lawn and hit the Pentagon West wall. Descriptions from various witnesses, photographs and FDR data fill in details that include:
 The plane knocked down several light poles
 The left wing finally was tilted down
 The right engine struck a generator trailer
 The left engine struck a low concrete wall
 The plane mostly disappeared into the building
 There was a large fireball
 The façade had a hole 18 ft wide where the plane body is presumed to have hit
 There was a gash 96 ft wide where plane wings would have hit
 The lawn was untouched afterwards except for debris
 Windows above the 18 ft wide hole were unbroken
 The internal column damage indicates the path direction of material and debris flow from the exterior
inwards
 There was a hole in the C ring wall that was roughly circular
 The downed light poles, trailer damage, low concrete wall and façade damage, interior columns
damage, and hole in the C ring are in a straight line
 The direction of this line is in accordance with the radar reports and the FDR file.
The overall appearance of the damage trail is consistent with the passage of a large plane. The façade can be viewed as a giant shredder (steel plus concrete) through which a plane has passed at high speed, further shredding itself by impacting the interior supports and by the edge-on impact with the second floor, and creating inside the building a high velocity flow of material that builds up pressure on the C ring wall until it gives way. A substantial amount of debris flows out through the hole created.
The overall damage trail weighs against the “flyover” theories, the small plane theory (separation of light poles in a direction perpendicular to the path is about 100 ft), and the missile theory. The direction of the damage trail is contrary to a north-of-CITGO path for the plane. To continue to be viable, one must add a staged event to these theories.
In theory, well-placed explosives or bombs might have been used to create the damage trail, but additional staged events are still needed to explain the eyewitness testimony and airplane debris.
Requirement: Those who hold to the above alternative theories must produce a credible alternative explanation for the overall damage trail, in order to still claim that these theories are viable. If no credible evidence or explanation can be produced, these theories must be discarded.
Status: Requirement not fulfilled.

a reply to: Salander

Cite credible evidence of bombs at the pentagon?

a reply to: Salander

There were no Congressional auditors there that day. And the only branch that was affected was the US Army. So again, the 2.3 trillion is a non-starter when it comes to 9/11.

a reply to: samkent

Silent explosives would be a helluva neat trick.

Nano pitch shifting thermobaric munitions.... Massive overpressure minimal sound signature!

a reply to: cardinalfan0596


LOL, judging from the consternation in your posts and NF's, it's a major starter.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Cite credible evidence of bombs at the pentagon?

You cite credible evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon.

originally posted by: Salander


You cite credible evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon.

He did. It's 5 post above yours.

Don't reply with your usual show evdence of this or that, I'll tell of the two live broadcasts saying not enough debris to fill a suitcase by ABC....then a chopper with video.....then the same at Shanksville from a chopper crew with video

No way a jetliner went in....the floor is unscratched at the entry point....I could sell the remodel without touching the floor .

rethink it neutronflux, baby

le59bc9389.jpg

a reply to: waypastvne


That's not proof of anything. It is but pictures proving nothing and government talking points.

Too many facts contradict your talking points and pictures, way too many facts.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne


That's not proof of anything. It is but pictures proving nothing and government talking points.

Too many facts contradict your talking points and pictures, way too many facts.

Like to list them in an actual argument, or you just believe?

a reply to: neutronflux


I'm following your lead sir. You offer pictures, opinions and statements that are contradicted by the facts.

At least I'm offering the facts--AA77 didn't hit the pentagon. You can't prove it did, and neither can the government prove it. The FDR they offered years ago was bogus. The maneuver supposedly made by Hanjour was impossible.

Let's see how the shoe might fit on your foot: present your 'argument' that proves AA77 hit the building.

a reply to: Salander

offering the facts--AA77 didn't hit the pentagon. You can't prove it did,

Delusional

originally posted by: Salander
The maneuver supposedly made by Hanjour was impossible.

The maneuvre made by Hanjour was BFD.

a reply to: Salander

The maneuver supposedly made by Hanjour was impossible

January 2001 Hanjour took course in piloting a jet airliner in a simulator at JET TECH in Mesa Az

Hanjour already had a pilot license with a commercial rating

His instructor signed off the section for "TIGHT TURNS" ........

a reply to: Salander

To contradict the facts flight 77 hit the pentagon, you neede to come up with a credible alternative explanation to supersede flight 77 hit the pentagon. What is that explanation?

I have repeatedly quoted from these articles and and linked to them for you to refute the facts presented.

Articles that cite much of the proof you ask for, and explains how weak the truth movement talking points are. Just for you, again. Most of the material from a group that is not pushing the official narrative.

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
Based on Analysis of the Flight Path

By Frank Legge
(B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry)
and
David Chandler
(B.S. Physics, M.S.,Mathematics)

September 2011

stj911.org...

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
Introduction
www.journalof911studies.com...

AA77's Aircraft Debris at A-E Drive Between the Pentagon Rings C & B, Wedge 1 and 2
m.youtube.com...

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Editor's Picks, Essays, Science, US |

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

a reply to: Salander

In addition, people you like labeling supporters of the official narrative with no proof have repeatedly answered your questions and provided the evidence you claim does not exist. Thread after thread. People you cannot even quote they totally by into the “official” account. While you cannot discredit the scores of civilians documented, attesting to a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

So, what alternative explanation should I buy into to supersede a large commercial jet caused the damage at the pentagon?

neutronflux A 757 plane hit but was coming in from an NE direction, not SW direction.

The Eyewitnesses saw the plane approach from NE of the Cisco petrol station. This would rule out SW directional path.

Gopher 6 took off from Reagan airport minutes before impact. The pilot of military cargo jet was asked to follow the plane and he said I see the plane sprawled out in NE direction.

The FAA animation has the plane tracked on NE flight path. FDR returns places the plane NE of the Navy Annex and Cisco station

9/11 commission places the plane SW to hit 5 light poles. The evidence does not support their version.

The landing gear was actually removed from inside the Pentagon, it was buried underneath the rubble. A French photographer photographed it before it got removed. There no evidence at all that C hole was caused by the landing gear.