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.

 

Mystery Flt 77 ?Fuselage? Part at Pentagon

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada) captured this photo of a mystery 'Flight 77' fuselage part on her visit to the Pentagon on 9-13-2001 and posted it on her website. Apparently the alleged Flight 77 part had been on public display out on the lawn surrounded by yellow tape and tents and undamaged lawn for three days.

Original Shelley Berkley photo


Mystery part from Berkley website - blowup

How come this is apparently the only known photo of this mystery object? There should have been hundreds of photos of this piece if it was on display out in the open for three days. But just this one photo. Isn't that odd?

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley website containing Pentagon 9-13 photos

How come neither the FBI nor the Defense Dept nor apparently any other investigative body has attempted to identify this object? In fact it did not even appear in the official Department of Defense Pentagon 9-11 book. Why not? The 'C' and the 'N' made it into the book. Why did this object get dropped from the official evidence? Did somebody plant the wrong piece?

Images taken from official Defense Dept Pentagon 9/11 book



[edit on 10/2/08 by SPreston]




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
What do we know about this mystery object?

1. Congresswoman Shelley Berkley photographed the object at the Pentagon on display and blocked off with yellow tape on 9-13-2001 and placed it on her website

2. It was apparently ripped off at both ends and not broken off at the rivets

3. The sides seem to have a formed fit with what appears to be an undamaged hose or electrical conduit inside the object

4. There is no sign of an official crime scene evidence tag or aircraft accident seal on the object after two days

5. That is the only known photograph of the object

6. There is no sign of burning on the object

7. There is no apparent dirt or grass on the edges of the object from violent contact with the ground

8. The alleged Flight 77 object was kept on display out in the open at least two days after 9-11

9. The object was not included in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book

10. There is no sign of the lawn damaged in any way near the object - it seems the object was gently placed on the lawn

12. There has been no official attempt to identify the object

13. Another alleged aircraft object (the 'C' fuselage piece) was placed next to the helipad hanger and apparently not tagged as crime scene evidence

14. A 3rd alleged aircraft object (the infamous never riveted 'N' piece) was left out in the open in front of the helipad for days, never surrounded with crime scene yellow tape, and never tagged as crime scene evidence

15. This 3rd object also apparently did not damage the lawn nor did it have burn marks nor apparent dirt of grass from violent impact with the lawn - it too was apparently gently placed on the lawn

16. These last two pieces were included in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book while the supposedly much more identifiable object pictured was excluded

17. The mystery object did not make it into the Moussaoui trial exhibits

18. We do not yet know where the object pictured above was located and placed on display in reference to the alleged impact point - it was out among the tents

How come Congresswoman Shelley Berkley was apparently the only person in the entire world possessing a photo of this mystery object? Why are we always lied to by the Bush Regime concerning 9-11?

The 'C' fuselage piece which was placed next to the helipad hanger

The 'N' fuselage piece which also sat out in the open in front of the helipad for a long time

Where is that FBI agent carrying that piece of apparent aircraft fuselage with red lettering from? The van parked next to the hanger? Where is he carrying the piece to, without any visible tag on it? Is he planting the piece? Did he remove it from that van parked there?

Another view of the infamous 'N' never-riveted fuselage piece at the Pentagon

How is it that the engines and seats and baggage and wings and tail were allegedly totally disintegrated, but 3 pieces of fuselage showing red 'American' lettering survived?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
It looks like the airplane scrap found at aviation boneyards where they strip out the valuable components and parts and the fuselage is merely cut up into small pieces consisting of aluminum to be re smelted into recycled aluminum.

Just like a hollywood screen set. Another prop in the 9/11 Shock and Awe TV show.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   

posted by nh_ee
It looks like the airplane scrap found at aviation boneyards where they strip out the valuable components and parts and the fuselage is merely cut up into small pieces consisting of aluminum to be re smelted into recycled aluminum.

Just like a hollywood screen set. Another prop in the 9/11 Shock and Awe TV show.



Indeed. Can anyone explain why there is only one photo in existence of this mystery object? If this object came off a 757 which is highly unlikely, shouldn't we know what part it is? That mystery object which allegedly came off an aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon, was surrounded by construction workers and military personnel and visiting officials and yellow tape for three days. Surely even the FBI would not be so stupid as to plant this mystery object out there with the yellow tape two days later just for a visiting Congresswoman. Would they? How come Congresswoman Shelley Berkley was the only person with the cohones to photograph this mystery object on 9-13-2001?

How come the FBI did not identify this mystery object? In any other actual aircraft crash, real live 'aircraft crash investigators' (which were not allowed at the Pentagon) would have identified and tagged it by serial number. I guess the FBI is unfamiliar with that process. Or maybe they were ordered not to.

Angle of official aircraft destruction through the Pentagon which 1st came through the 5 light poles

Of course we now know all these different alleged AA 757 parts were planted because the real aircraft flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo and could not possibly have taken out the 5 light poles and carved that particular path of destruction through the Pentagon. So those three pieces with the red lettering, two of which the FBI agents are moving around, never came off that aircraft and were planted probably from that van sitting next to the hanger. Seems logical does it not? That piece he is carrying is not even tagged. So it must not be officially 'discovered' yet. Correct?

FBI agent planting that red letter fuselage piece somewhere?

I wonder if that same FBI agent carried that infamous never-riveted red letter piece from that van to its spot out in front of the helipad where it sat not surrounded by yellow tape for a long long time? Why would they surround the mystery object with yellow tape and not the never-riveted piece, both of which allegedly came off the same aircraft, and both of which sat out in the open for a long long time? OUR illustrious FBI makes no sense at all do they? But they are certainly good at confiscating videos and bullying eyewitnesses within mere minutes after an alleged aircraft crash aren't they?

Never-riveted fuselage piece sitting all by its lonesome out in front on the helipad

The 1st responder Reagan National fire crews who arrived just a few minutes after the explosions never mentioned seeing that piece and they almost drove right over that exact same spot in front of the helipad.





[edit on 10/3/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
how much would you guess that rather large piece of scrap weighs?

how many "perps" would it take to carry it out there?

how many people were out on the lawn that day?

How many people saw it getting placed there?


answers:

- a lot

- a few

- a lot

- ZERO

Loose Change may buy this BS. You will be hard pressed to find ATS'ers to swallow it.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

posted by Throat Yogurt
how much would you guess that rather large piece of scrap weighs?

how many "perps" would it take to carry it out there?

how many people were out on the lawn that day?

How many people saw it getting placed there?

How many dents do you count in the lawn where that heavy piece allegedly 'landed'? Do you see a lot of dirt and grass on the edges where that heavy piece tore up the sod where it 'landed'?

Original Shelley Berkley photo showing the undamaged lawn and no dirt or grass on the mystery object

Perhaps they carried it to that spot inside a tent and then removed the tent sometime later after enough personnel were transferred away from the area. You people who were there; was there a tent surrounded by yellow tape for a while?

Blue tent

Is that mystery object inside one of these tents hidden from photographers?

How come none of you took a photo? How come there is only one photo of this mystery object? How come this mystery object never made the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book? How come there is no evidence tag nor part serial number hanging on the mystery object after three days? How come so much BS from the Bush Regime?

Images from the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Couldn't the holes in the "N" piece be where the rivets pulled right through?

If the supports beneath the skin pulled away at a right angle then the skin would not be torn, and the holes elongated. They would be round for the most part.

2PacSade-



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

posted by 2PacSade
Couldn't the holes in the "N" piece be where the rivets pulled right through?

If the supports beneath the skin pulled away at a right angle then the skin would not be torn, and the holes elongated. They would be round for the most part.


Nah. I don't think so.



This piece of fuselage debris is from a plane crash in New York. As you can see, all of the rivets are still in place and the thin fuselage skin had to be ripped off the rivets. Each hole should be torn.



As you can see, this piece was never riveted to a frame. One hole is ripped and the rest have not been compressed by a tightened (peened over) rivet head. The holes were pre-formed on a punch press.




posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
My “opinion” is, this is a plant from an aircraft bone yard.
It does look like a piece of an airplane wing, however it cannot be part of flight 77 here is why, it looks to small to be a part of the wing and to small to be any part of the rudders or flaps. Further more there is nothing burnt on this piece of debris. Remember the wing is where the fuel tanks are. So let us say it was part of the wing of the plane and the plane slammed in the pentagon, first you will have an explosion on both wings. Oh ya! That means you will have severe fire damage on anything that was blasted away from the airplane on impact, and while pieces of airplane debris was been hurled to the ground, it would defiantly been on fire, infact it would have been soaked in jet fuel, that would mean the ground under the falling debris and around the debris would have been scorch or burnt.

Don’t you all see what the Government did that day, with in minutes after what impact the pentagon, the Government had people line up with garbage bags and where picking up debris on the lawn (WHY?) They were disturbing a crime scene! It seems they needed to hide something right away, or were they actually planting debris on the lawn?
I do know this; some of the big piece of the so call flight 77 that was found on the Pentagon lawn was not burnt.
No! I am not buying the planted pentagon photos; these liars can go fool someone else.
There “that’s” my opinion.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

posted by Throat Yogurt
how much would you guess that rather large piece of scrap weighs?

how many "perps" would it take to carry it out there?

A guess? It's not very big. Maybe 8 feet long. If it is truly from an aircraft, then it is likely made from aluminum. I would guess about 75 lbs. One person should be able to carry it unless they wanted to hide it inside something. Then it would take two FBI agents.



But the real questions are what is it, why is it not tagged as evidence after 3 days, why is there only one existing photo of it, and what happened to it? Oh yeah, and why is Congresswoman Berkley getting away with posting it on her website? Is she endangering National Security?




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Yet another piece of unidentified, scrap wreckage that some people might claim came from the alleged Flight AA77 - without proof, of course.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Im pretty sure that 911myths believes this is a cargo hold door, or some "door" (not passenger) to f77. Its listed under the "proof of f77" section.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Nah. I don't think so.


This is pretty odd behaviour SPreston. This thread has been done at least twice, at LCF and at JREF. Here is the LCF thread: s1.zetaboards.com...

You posted this image, which clearly shows deformation around many rivet holes and shows some rivets still remaining in the holes.



In the JREF thread, Mangoose also posted this image, from AA587:



Do you think that this debris was planted also?



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

posted by exponent
You posted this image, which clearly shows deformation around many rivet holes and shows some rivets still remaining in the holes.



Do you think that this debris was planted also?

You see rivets in the holes? Wow. The rivet heads have to be bigger than the holes to firmly hold the fuselage skin on. How could there possibly be rivets in the holes if they were broken off the frame on the inside? You would see the rivet heads on the outside of the holes. Do you still see them now? No? Maybe a piece of insulation behind the holes sort of like that piece you can see behind the torn hole? Incidentally, all of the holes should be torn or warped if they were once riveted and this piece was torn violently off its frame and rivets.



That very slight deformation is made by the punch press forming the holes. Tightened rivets leave a much more definite deformation of the aluminum.

This piece? Of course I know this piece was planted also. All the aircraft debris was planted because no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. The aircraft now officially flew over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo and impacted the Pentagon wall at about a 45 degree bank. That puts the starboard wing and engine below the ground and the port engine up in the 2nd story IF it impacted the 1st story as alleged. Of course that all still seems possible to you? No problemo?

Oh yeah, I forgot. It completely missed all 5 light poles; so I guess they just fell over on their own from old age.

New official Flight 77 flight path;
aren't you guys happy they updated this?
Controversial FAA/NORAD animation made by AGI's daughter firm STK:
1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
aal77.com...




[edit on 10/4/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
That very slight deformation is made by the punch press forming the holes. Tightened rivets leave a much more definite deformation of the aluminum.


Then why is there more deformation visible in the pictures of AA77 debris than there is in the AA587 picture? Is the AA587 debris faked or do you have any particular experience to be able to explain exactly how aircraft skin rivets are constructed and applied?



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SPreston
That very slight deformation is made by the punch press forming the holes. Tightened rivets leave a much more definite deformation of the aluminum.


Then why is there more deformation visible in the pictures of AA77 debris than there is in the AA587 picture? Is the AA587 debris faked or do you have any particular experience to be able to explain exactly how aircraft skin rivets are constructed and applied?

I have no idea if that alleged AA587 photo is faked or not. Perhaps the aircraft was carrying a load of new fuselage panels when it crashed. I'm not about to take the word of an Ilusionist JREFer on anything.

Do you still see your rivets sticking out of the holes on the alleged Flight 77 fuselage piece? No? Yes? You don't want to talk about it?



And while we are the subject, do you like the new official flight path over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo and finally impacting on a big big bank? Doesn't that make your job so much easier?




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
In the JREF thread, Mangoose also posted this image, from AA587:
Do you think that this debris was planted also?

What has AA587 got to do with a thread about AA77?

Please, try to stay on topic, exponent.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

posted by baffledon911
Im pretty sure that 911myths believes this is a cargo hold door, or some "door" (not passenger) to f77. Its listed under the "proof of f77" section.



A poster on another thread claims the mystery object is a torn off part of an aircraft wing flap.

Posted flap photo

Why couldn't the FBI determine that the mystery object was a flap piece? If that was a piece of Boeing 757 flap, then why wasn't it announced to the world? Why stick it out there in the open surrounded with yellow tape for three days without an evidence tag? Why only one known photo posted on a Congresswoman's website? Why did it not make it into the official Defense Dept Pentagon 9-11 book? Because it was a flap off a different type of aircraft? Somebody planted the wrong part? They had to get rid of it?

And cashlink also mentions flaps and thinks the mystery object looks too small to be a Flight 77 (757) flap or rudder. There appear to be no burn marks on the mystery object which one would expect from a part located so near to and directly behind the wing tanks. Also the grass around the mystery object does not appear to be damaged or burned from a hot mystery object landing on it. It appears the mystery object was just gently set down on the lawn.


posted by cashlink
My “opinion” is, this is a plant from an aircraft bone yard.
It does look like a piece of an airplane wing, however it cannot be part of flight 77 here is why, it looks to small to be a part of the wing and to small to be any part of the rudders or flaps. Further more there is nothing burnt on this piece of debris. Remember the wing is where the fuel tanks are. So let us say it was part of the wing of the plane and the plane slammed in the pentagon, first you will have an explosion on both wings. Oh ya! That means you will have severe fire damage on anything that was blasted away from the airplane on impact, and while pieces of airplane debris was been hurled to the ground, it would defiantly been on fire, infact it would have been soaked in jet fuel, that would mean the ground under the falling debris and around the debris would have been scorch or burnt.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
I have no idea if that alleged AA587 photo is faked or not. Perhaps the aircraft was carrying a load of new fuselage panels when it crashed. I'm not about to take the word of an Ilusionist JREFer on anything.

If you are going to ignore or deny any evidence I present, I simply won't bother responding to you. It's pointless to try and debate with someone who's bias prevents them from analysing evidence. I will remain civil, but I will respond in the same way I did with ULTIMA, unless you present new evidence or a new perspective, I have no good reason to reply to you after this post.


Do you still see your rivets sticking out of the holes on the alleged Flight 77 fuselage piece? No? Yes? You don't want to talk about it?

Yes. Your personal conjecture regarding rivet formation is irrelevant, you can clearly see blocked holes, indented [ed: incorrect wording] holes and torn holes in this image.



And while we are the subject, do you like the new official flight path over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo and finally impacting on a big big bank? Doesn't that make your job so much easier?

This is not a topic for this thread. The animation is obviously meant as an illustrative version, not a forensically accurate reproduction. There are many other threads to discuss this in.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
What has AA587 got to do with a thread about AA77?

Please, try to stay on topic, exponent.

This debris shows none of the features SPreston is using to claim proves AA77 debris was faked. Therefore either AA587 was faked, AA77 was not faked, or some mitigating factor exists. Therefore it is on topic. If you believe otherwise, please contact a moderator.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join