It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The power generator oddity at the Pentagon

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
What could have knocked down the barbed wire fence, smashed through the floor of the wooden deck, smashed through the upper front port-side section of the power diesel generator and created a rear gouge in it's top in front of the Pentagon?




CatHerder says it was Flight 77's right engine and flap track fairing under it's right wing that did all this:


Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane... (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building...

Closeup of generator smashed in the front and gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both of these. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator, part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something very large, and very heavy smashed into this extremely heavy diesel generator.

Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of the impact area, including the large diesel generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degrees from the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towards the building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion could ONLY have spun it away from the building.

- CatHerder: Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11



However, the NIST report seems to say that only Flight 77's right wing hit the generator and that it's right engine missed the generator and just knocked down the fence:


3.2 EYEWITNESS INTERVIEWS

The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1. The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator.

The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane’s path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.

6.1 IMPACT DAMAGE

This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure.

- Pentagon Building Performance Report



If you look at damage to the generator, you can see that the front damage is above the middle of the generator (purple dotted line) which I measure to be about where the top of the fence line is:




If my measurements are correct and if the right engine hit the top part of the generator, then the right engine could not have hit the fence and the gouge on top of the generator could not have been caused by one of the plane's flap track fairings even if Flight 77 came in level:





Note that officials have Flight 77 coming in with it's right wing tilted upward which would seemingly make it more improbable that the flap track fairings caused the gouge on top of the generator:




So the remaining questions would be:

1) If CatHerder's correct in that the planes right engine struck the generator and spun it 45 deg towards the Pentagon, then how could the right engine have also struck the fence and one of the flap track fairings gouged it's top?

2) If NIST is correct that the plane's right engine just struck the fence and only it's right wing hit the generator, could the small area of one of it's wings have enough force to spin the heavy diesel filled generator 45 deg toward the Pentagon and could one of it's flap track fairings have gouged a straight line in it's top while the generator was spinning towards the building?



Seem more about Flight 77 and the power generator oddity.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

could the small area of one of it's wings have enough force to spin the heavy diesel filled generator 45 deg toward the Pentagon


The generator was a trailer mounted one on wheels, you can clearly see that in those pictures.

The weight is generaly balanced on the wheels with only a small portion on the tongue.

So, IMHO, the answer would be yes, It wouldn't take much force to spin the generator.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

could the small area of one of it's wings have enough force to spin the heavy diesel filled generator 45 deg toward the Pentagon


The generator was a trailer mounted one on wheels, you can clearly see that in those pictures.

The weight is generaly balanced on the wheels with only a small portion on the tongue.

So, IMHO, the answer would be yes, It wouldn't take much force to spin the generator.




So then hypothetically a missile could have spun the generator?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Or a UFO tractor beam. We really have to include this theory also.

Personally, I like the idea that it was an invisible balrog.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Honestly... are people still debating the pentagon plane/missile thing? Come on people think about it. If you were the government trying to stage all of this why would you fly a missile over in full view of a busy road... it just dosen't make sense. If they were staging it they would have used a plane because people could see it!



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown






Is there an original unedited source of this photo?

This one i see around the traps has had quiet a bit of work done to it in photoshop (not talking about the text and arrows).



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Or a UFO tractor beam. We really have to include this theory also.

Personally, I like the idea that it was an invisible balrog.



Thanks for the laugh!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note on one liners, read here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-3-2008 by NGC2736]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
Honestly... are people still debating the pentagon plane/missile thing? Come on people think about it. If you were the government trying to stage all of this why would you fly a missile over in full view of a busy road... it just dosen't make sense. If they were staging it they would have used a plane because people could see it!



Maybe they flew something that looked like a plane but wasn't to fool the witnesses? Sure would explain the lack of damage to the lawn and other oddities that don't fit a 757 doing the unusual damage there.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   



Is there an original unedited source of this photo?

This one i see around the traps has had quiet a bit of work done to it in photoshop (not talking about the text and arrows).




www.defenselink.mil...



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   


I had this one kicking around I have blown it up but I don't think it is much help.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown



Is there an original unedited source of this photo?

This one i see around the traps has had quiet a bit of work done to it in photoshop (not talking about the text and arrows).



www.defenselink.mil...


Ah, cool, thanks for that.

Check it out, it's like one of those newspaper 'spot the difference' photos.
I'm not sure how or if this changes anything but there is obvious edits to the photo for some reason or another.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Ah, cool, thanks for that.

Check it out, it's like one of those newspaper 'spot the difference' photos.
I'm not sure how or if this changes anything but there is obvious edits to the photo for some reason or another.






Kinda looks like there has been some color enhancements and the original one seems to show a "grey pole" that the one from Eric Bart's site does not.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
It's just had it's lighting and sharpness increased in areas.
Oh, and that pole thing, you can even tell where they shopped it out; they did a real bad job of it too.

[edit on 14/12/05 by Nventual]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
It's just had it's lighting and sharpness increased in areas.
Oh, and that pole thing, you can even tell where they shopped it out; they did a real bad job of it too.

[edit on 14/12/05 by Nventual]



It's kind of disappointing that someone would remove something from a photo. I don't know if Eric Bart did this, but even though removing that pole doesn't really change the important parts of the photo, it leads one to think if whoever removed the pole, what else did they remove?


Also since you seem good with photos, perhaps you can give your 2 cents to my question that 3rd from the bottom of my generator page:


On the photo to the left taken from an aerial shot, doesn't the rear gouge into the roof seem relatively deep and the beginning of the gouge in upper portside facade seems crushed in pretty good, yet on the photo to the right taken from the ground, doesn't the beginning of the gouge look like it's just a relatively small dent?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The bar you see in the original isn't in the ground shot, so maybe the bar was an error in the photo and that's why it was removed.
killtown.911review.org...
Or maybe it's just the angle it was taken on makes it look like it's not there.

I'm not photo expert though, but it does look like it's caved in a bit on the other photo, but on the ground shot it's only dented. I don't know. There's people on here that are good with photos though.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
It just looks to me like the dent on the top side of the generator (yellow circle) from the ground shot looks very minor compared to the dent seen from the military's aerial shots. Evidence of photoshopping?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
wow thats really weird, even the defense.mil one looks suspitious.
What is that pole? what is it doing there?

[edit on 15-12-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
wow thats really weird, even the defense.mil one looks suspitious.
What is that pole? what is it doing there?


I'm going to guess that pole is a bent fence post.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
The defense.mil picture has been processed, it's far from the RAW image i would say.

If you look at it closely in Photoshop you can see that it's had a layer of 'noise' added to it - a fine grain that is even throught the picture.

This is usually done to mix edges that can be left from airbrushing or cloaning. Adding to that the jpeg compression and it's a very good way to hide edits when doing graphical work.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

The defense.mil picture has been processed, it's far from the RAW image i would say.

If you look at it closely in Photoshop you can see that it's had a layer of 'noise' added to it - a fine grain that is even throught the picture.

This is usually done to mix edges that can be left from airbrushing or cloaning. Adding to that the jpeg compression and it's a very good way to hide edits when doing graphical work.




I've wondered if the "gouge" on top of the generator could have been photo shopped on there. I know that sounds really conspiratorial to some, but I noticed all the aerial pics that show the top gouge comes from the military's website.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join