Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Forward this photo to any 911 Truth debunkers.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I stumbled across this picture tonight while surfing.




I do realise it's an oldie and has probably been discussed a million times before on ATS. However there is always the chance that someone hasn't seen it, or that you can forward it to any of your friends who are skeptical of 911 truth/Officail story.

I suggest saving it and enlarging it a little.

Follow the intact fence from right to left until it stops due to the impact.

I believe whatever hit the Pentagon took out the corner of the fenced area (follow the white concrete fence footings to see where the fence was before).

The wing of the supposed Jet must have stopped at the end of the intact fence (since we are told the plane came in a few feet off the ground) which would make the fuselage roughly where the fire is in the picture. But if you look at the windows and actual facade of the building it is still intact. Plus there is little damage to the building left of the fire where the left wing would have impacted (vertical columns and windows still intact).

Even with reinforced concrete there would still be some damage.

The Jet would have been at least three times the length of the fire truck on the left. If the end of the fence is where the right wing tip struck, then the left wing tip would have impacted about halfway between the fire and the outbuilding, but there is nothing, no damage at all.

If the plane impacted further to the right (for arguments sake) then the fenced area would be more damaged!

I know this is probably old news for most of you but I firmly believe in spreading the message to others, not just letting the world go by with a "Oh well what can I do about it?". The more people who are exposed to pictures like these the better. I think!

Arguments for and against welcome,especially against!

Foot


[edit on 22-3-2009 by kiwifoot]




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Thanks for posting the picture.

After saving the picture and enlarging, I have more questions now than I did before concerning the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
You dont have to save it to enlarge it. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and then use your wheel on the mouse to zoom in or out.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You dont have to save it to enlarge it. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and then use your wheel on the mouse to zoom in or out.


Cheers!!!!
Thanks for the tip RFBurns.

There is so much I don't have a clue about, but now, there's one less thing.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
On the roof of the building to the right is that a CCTV camera? come to think of it can any of you spot any surveillance equipment on that photo that would cover the shot of the "object" that did or did not hit the pentagon?

unfortunately i cannot zoom in with ctrl for lack of a "wheel" i'm a laptop user.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyaroura
On the roof of the building to the right is that a CCTV camera? come to think of it can any of you spot any surveillance equipment on that photo that would cover the shot of the "object" that did or did not hit the pentagon?


I'm not sure either if there are cameras visible..but it looks like there are what may be cameras at regular intervals along the top. Also at the entrance to the outbuildings there looks like security cameras which may have been pointing in the general direction. Doesn't really matter though..I mean it's the bloody Pentagon for god's sake. Are we meant to believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, the heart of the US military and the only cameras working or filming that day were in a gas station a mile away and one on the raod! ??

Be careful now...mind you stand in the b@%$£*t!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I think this video is very interesting.

They test crashed a plane into a 12 foot thick concrete wall.


If somebody can embed this I would appreciate it.

dsc.discovery.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Wow cool vid...I think the walls of the Pentagon may have been stronger than we all think..however in places where the wings must have hit (according to the offical account) there looks like minimal if not no damage-surely impossible!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


One of the many cameras around the outside perimeter of the Pentagon:




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Nice one...plain as day!

Thankyou!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


VERY interesting! not to derail this thread but that was just like the tin can experiment that was shredded as it was propelled into a block of steel, nothing left but shards of aluminium and bits and bobs.

Planes are not designed to punch holes through concrete and steel and therefor dont, and even the fuel blast would be way too rich to be of any effect kinetically on a building.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
I think this video is very interesting.

They test crashed a plane into a 12 foot thick concrete wall.


If somebody can embed this I would appreciate it.

dsc.discovery.com...



Yeah I uploaded another version of that video in our new video/media center a few weeks ago Here you go.

(click to open player in new window)



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Great shot of the camera! so what is the big deal about whats on the footage? We all have a rite to see the data if any.

Or if they do release it will it be fakery? what is the reason they hold back the footage? if its national security the event has happened so how can it be a threat?

or is the real threat that of one to the perpetrators of the whole operation.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Crew: 2
Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m)
Height: 16 ft 6 in (5.0 m)
Wing area: 530.0 ft² (49.2 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0006.4-64 root, NACA 0003-64 tip
Empty weight: 30,328 lb (13,757 kg)
Loaded weight: 41,500 lb (18,825 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric J79-GE-17A axial compressor turbojets, 17,845 lbf (79.4 kN) each
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0224
Drag area: 11.87 ft² (1.10 m²)
Aspect ratio: 2.77
Fuel capacity: 1,994 US gal (7,549 L) internal, 3,335 US gal (12,627 L) with three external tanks
Maximum landing weight: 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)


F-4 Phantom

767-200

Not the difference in wieght and potential engery.

41,000 LBs Vs 315,000 LBs. Walls of the pentagon were limestone not poured reinforced concrete designed to winthstand a nuclear blast.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Pretty big missile to take out all that fencing.

Plus if it's claimed it was taken out by the explosion wouldn't it be blown away from the building?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Nice pic can I ask a silly question - if the plane hit right there why are those trees still standing.
MJ2



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Walls of the pentagon were limestone not poured reinforced concrete designed to winthstand a nuclear blast.




Source

Construction Details

The Pentagon was built of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, and the floors consisted of a slab, beam, and girder system supported by ingenious spiral-steel-reinforced columns. The columns have both spiral and long-run steel reinforcement, while the beams only have long-run reinforcement. Because of WWII steel shortages, reinforced concrete was used instead of steel in most of the building’s structure.6 (See Appendix for more Pentagon maps and construction details.)

The Pentagon Renovation Project

In 1993, the Clinton administration decided to upgrade the Pentagon, due in part to the growing concern over terrorist attacks. Upgrades included heavy duty fireproofing in the walls, thus reinforced the walls, and improved its general security. The renovation strategy called for dividing the work into five “wedges”, each wedge is a corner and a rectangle of the building (each covers 1.2 million square feet). The first wedge renovated was the one facing west (Wedge 1).



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Pentagon the same day.[17] Among the design requirements, Somervell required the structural design to accommodate floor loads of up to 150 pounds per square feet, which was done in case the building became a records storage facility at some point in the future, after World War II.[13] A minimal amount of steel was used in construction, which was in short supply during World War II. Instead, the Pentagon was built as a reinforced concrete structure, using 680,000 tons of sand, dredged from the Potomac River, and a lagoon was created beneath the Pentagon's river entrance. To minimize steel, concrete ramps were built rather than install elevators.[18][19] Indiana limestone was used for the building's facade




Reinforced concrete does not mean all the walls were made of that.
It usually denotes a pillar sructure with reinforced concrete used and the primary material.

Also note that due to the lack of steel after WWII very little was used.


The Pentagon’s designers minimized or avoided using critical war materials whenever possible. They substituted concrete ramps for passenger elevators and used concrete drainpipes rather than metal. They eliminated bronze doors, copper ornaments, and metal toilet partitions, and avoided any unnecessary ornamentation


Source



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 


I used an official 911 debunking site I thought you would have liked that?

OK your source says the same thing



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I do not agree with all the 9/11 debunking sites. and think that many are over dramatic (just like many turth sites)

My point is that reinforced concrete does not mean heavy steel
and the outer facade was limestone







top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join