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.

 

So What About These Pentagon Photos?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
You know what strike me as odd about photo number one?

No scratches no scaring no scoring no scorches.

When you blow up the S/N You can see its bent up but for surviving a fireball and the impact with the wall and all the plane debris flying everywhere that S/N identification looks like it came out rosy without so much as a burn.

I mean for being smashed by debris without getting scratched WOW thats uncanny.

Also did you catch the American Airline around the edge of the S/N on top..

That looks like its hand written too...then again it could just be bent... but I do not see it myself as a plausible explanation...

It looks like planted evidence to me.

It survived a super heated fire ball to gently land on the grass and it did not even turn the grass brown.

Too amazing for my two cents.




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


in the first picture wouldn't that piece of metal burn a bit of the grass around it?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO...adding up....totals 188,375! The actual numbers are in the American Airlines database somewhere. ALL weight & balance computations are computerized, nowadays (and then too).



Just for the record:

The 757-200 takeoff weights range from 220,000 pounds (99,800 kilograms) up to a maximum of 255,000 pounds...


sigh...I was responding to BoneZ to show why his impression of "250,000" pounds of debris related to AAL77 should be found is incorrect. The Boeing figures (220K - 255K) are simply MAXIMUMS for various versions. I showed a possible ACTUAL AAL77 weight, and noted that when you subtract the fuel you are left with about 140,000 pounds of mass, not 250K. It is related, since we're talkin' parts, here.




Also note:
... as well as by nearly 700 external suppliers.


Yes...I thought everyone knew that.

You showed a promotional blurb by Radiant, a sales pitch, really:

www.radiantpowercorp.com...



So the next obvious question would be if Radiant is the OEM of this part, then what in the heck is a written in, AA sticker doing on it?


Inventory tracking and ownership data. It's like sticking your name on a label on your pocket calculator. Airlines often share parts between companies, if they're compatible (for a price, of course!)

BTW, that photo you provided from the radiant company is a picture of the power supply, NOT a light housing. ONE Power Supply can handle several lights. AND the point of those sales blurbs is just marketing. The Emergency Exit lights are required equipment...if inop, it's no go. They are specifically designed to be self-contained, with own batteries, and have a minimum time of illumination (30 minutes, I believe) They are trickle-charged whenever normal power is on the airplane, except if they are turned on by a switch in either the cockpit or Forward Flight Attendant station. We are told for every minute they areleft 'ON', it takes over one hour to recharge to full capacity. Monitoring them is a maintenance function, although crews will do brief checks as part of pre-flight



Now do you see why I don't trust what those people over at JREF are talking about?


I don't know about trusting JREF... I do know there are many, many different configurations and designs for ELS components. There are the 'path' lights in the floors, or low on the sides of the seats, to direct you to an exit. There are ELS housings over exits, to display the word. Some are detachable, and can be used as an auxiliary flashlight. They are light (no pun) and could easily be dislodged in the crash sequence and ejected....it's deformation shows great forces applied, but NOT in a specific way...as in, it was not "pre-crushed" and planted.



[edit on 6/29/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Blundo
 



in the first picture wouldn't that piece of metal burn a bit of the grass around it?



Blundo (and titorite) WHY would the part have to be hot? The whole point is, it was thrown clear. Every explosion will have a preceeding blast or shock wave....air that is displaced by the fast moving heated gasses...

Really, this is just grasping at straws.

If ANYONE attempts to show examples from other crashes, whether they be a bus, car, train or other airplane, then certain blokes come swooping in and scream "OFF TOPIC!!" like it's a mantra, or something. ANY attempt by rational thinking is met with arcane and ever-increasing demands for "Chain of Custody" irrefutable, concrete, unassailable double-darned tootin' no crap absolutely positively 'PROOF' that what is shown or claimed is from THAT airplane, and no other, when such evidence would usually be accepted by any normal, clear thinking person in any other situation.

These same rabid, zealous and (at times) extremely irritating folk, however, blithely accept, WITHOUT QUESTION, the CT claims....swallowing them hook, line and sinker.

So, in essence, the BIG picture MUST be false, because a piece of thin aluminum was ejected from an airplane crash???



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
it's deformation shows great forces applied, but NOT in a specific way...as in, it was not "pre-crushed" and planted.

Could you please provide a materials analysis that conclusively proves this to be the case?

If this is just your unproven opinion, then that's fair enough. We all know how much importance we can give to unproven opinions when we shelve them on a thread.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 




There is only one known photo of that mysterious part with the handwritten numbers.

Pentagon 9/11 Images
Mystery part

This photo was never publicly seen until it appeared on September 7 2007 in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9/11 book.

This photo was unknown publicly for almost six years. Even the FBI could successfully manufacture this piece in their labs given six years. They botched the parking lot videos because the still frames were leaked before they were finished.



Defense Historians Document 9/11 Pentagon Attack
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2007 – Nearly six years after a terrorist-controlled plane slammed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people aboard the plane and in the building, Defense Department historians have published a book on the incident and its aftermath.

“Pentagon 9/11” is a narrative history based on a multitude of information sources, including 1,300 oral histories gathered in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The book became available this week through the U.S. Government Bookstore at bookstore.gpo.gov... and also through commercial vendors.

“It’s the first scholarly study of what happened at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001,” said Randy Papadopoulos, a historian with the Naval Historical Center, who co-authored the book. “The 9/11 Commission Report, very rigorously researched, doesn’t really talk about the Pentagon very much and what happened here.”

Thanks to intensive interviewing in the aftermath of the attack conducted by personnel in Defense Department history offices, Papadopoulos said historians know more about what happened during the Pentagon attack than they do about what happened at the World Trade Center.

www.defenselink.mil...



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Blundo (and titorite) WHY would the part have to be hot? The whole point is, it was thrown clear.

Speculation about the alleged part being hot or thrown clear is absolutely pointless, when the part has not been proven to belong to the alleged Flight AA77.

The image provides absolutely no hint to the location of that grass. There is no chain of custody that indicates, in any way, that the piece of alleged wreckage was ever present at the Pentagon on 9/11.

I guess that you're within your rights to assume that a negative is true, weedwhacker, if it helps you to narrate the details of the official story.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



......materials analysis.......


:
:


Thanks for proving my point!

...'materials analysis'...that's a good one!
:


Tell ya what...crush a paper cup in your hand, then subject another one to hurricane force winds. NOW, using "materials analysis", (I'm sorry....that one just slays me!)....now....wiping tears of laughter....ahem. OK, now using this incredibly sophisticated scientific 'method', please differentiate as to which cup was damaged by what.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Thanks for proving my point!

No, on the contrary, thanks for proving my point!

You can't prove in what way the forces were applied by looking at a photo!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Only one known photo of the following alleged Flight 77 debris at the Pentagon.

Photographed by Congresswoman Berkeley


Appeared in Italy first


Pentagon 9/11 book


Pentagon 9/11 book


With all the hundreds and hundreds of responders and rescue workers and military personnel and high-ranking bigwigs at the Pentagon; why would there be only one photo in existence of the above alleged Flight 77 aircraft debris?

Was the FBI confiscating all cameras and all film at the Pentagon? Nobody snuck in a few secret shots? If Penny Elgas and Aziz ElHallan could steal alleged aircraft debris; then why couldn't somebody sneak a few photos?

Flight 93






Nobody snuck in a camera at Shanksville?

We have lots of photos of other alleged debris or damaged objects at the Pentagon.

Well, we don't have one single photo of a light pole through a taxi windshield which is a curiosity. Nothing. Not one photo. Not one video. Not one single eyewitness except for Lloyde the Liar. Nobody in all the world.

So why only one photo of these objects in the most terrible attack against our nation in history? Our people were traumatized repeatedly and daily for months with the Shock & Awe video footage; yet they only took one photo of the above alleged evidence? Anybody think something stinks?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Procedure, is procedure...Crash and crime scene investigations do not get to pick and choose what the reason(s) for a crash is based on what they think they know or hunches or what the media says.

That's why there are clearly laid out procedures and processes for evaluating and investigating anything, whether that is an aircraft crash or a car crash or whatever.

Bulldosing the 'evidence' against a wall, or the taking of photographic evidence without marking when, where and by whom the picture was taken or documenting where (exactly) the position of debris was resting prior to moving it away for scientific analysis, is NOT following procedure.

Investigators, especially in an event as emotive as an attack on the military 'heart' do not get to indulge in slack investigative procedure, based on hunch and media speculation. They follow set procedure, not arbitary and haphazard half arsed speculation.

Does 'Terrosists did it, so no need to follow protocol and procedure' sound reasonable to you or something?

As for the grass needing seeding as you suggest, i would say look at the photo again...does that thick, lush grass LOOK like it needs reseeding?



'



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by SPreston



Only one known photo of the following alleged Flight 77 debris at the Pentagon.

Photographed by Congresswoman Berkeley


Then contact Congresswoman Berkley!!

No, it's far, far better to sit smugly behind a computer screen.

BTW, the CT/NPT/CIT 'story' doesn't ever stay straight!

(from YOUR thread, posted 10/4/2008)

Originally posted by SPreston

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.


The photo you so cleverly just brought up again was the motivation for one of your (many) other threads...trying desperately to convince yourself of your delusion?

Because, now, 8 months later, the 'story' has taken another turn (pun intended). CIT has put out the video of actual eyewitness who saw an airplane hit the Pentagon, but never saw the "about 45 degree bank."

Your group cling to innuendo, by using these pictures so disingenuously, and twisting and turning as needed...constantly throwing up red herrings, deflecting valid questions with inane and suggestive "questions' in response. It would be considered childish if the circumstances weren't so serious.

Here's a fine example, from the post dated today:


With all the hundreds and hundreds of responders and rescue workers and military personnel and high-ranking bigwigs at the Pentagon; why would there be only one photo in existence of the above alleged Flight 77 aircraft debris?


NOW...no one, out of politeness I guess, choses to point out the most egregious sin -- the word that I placed in bold text, to show the continuing snide and insidious methods. It's like a bunch of kids, again, playing semantic word games, but without any real substance, just bluster.


Was the FBI confiscating all cameras and all film at the Pentagon? Nobody snuck in a few secret shots? If Penny Elgas and Aziz ElHallan could steal alleged aircraft debris; then why couldn't somebody sneak a few photos?


AGAIN!!! Childish. Rhetorical. NO BASIS in fact! Show the chain of command of the FBI confiscations! Show photos, get testimony, ... see? Anyone can 'play' your (not specific to one ATS member) little games. This is directed to all NPTs.

I'm sorry that the OP, after asking a reasonable question, has to endure the inevitable onslaught of the same pablum and misrepresentation spouted by the CIT crowd, who all seem to be marching in lockstep.

Rest of your post is off topic, so I because that is all it deserves...

[edit on 6/29/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


OK then...take one aircraft, plough it into the ground at 400 MPH.

What caused it to crash?

Take a piece of fuselage and subject it to micro analysis, and you may well find micro fractures and corrosion faults or you may find explosives residue or something else entirely.

What do you propose to replace scientific analysis in your world then WW?

Guess? Go along with whatever theory the media puts out?

You are one strange dude WW...it really beats me why you come and comment on this site. All you ever seem to do is take the piss out of people and proceed to attempt to convince just about everyone and his or her dog, that they are so rediculously and hopelessly wrong, whereas you are always correct (unless of course, they happen to agree with you).

Conceit and arrogance are actually character flaws...in case you didn't know, although you profess to know everything...so i'm guessing in your world, they are virtues.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
posted by SPreston

Only one known photo of the following alleged Flight 77 debris at the Pentagon.

Photographed by Congresswoman Berkley


Then contact Congresswoman Berkley!!


Congresswoman Shelley Berkley has been contacted multiple times. She refuses to comment on her trip to the Pentagon on 9-13-2001.

However she still maintains her website of Pentagon photos.

Maybe you can get her to take it down whacker?

Berkley Surveys Damage to Pentagon


posted by weedwhacker
(from YOUR thread, posted 10/4/2008)

posted by SPreston

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.


The photo you so cleverly just brought up again was the motivation for one of your (many) other threads...trying desperately to convince yourself of your delusion?


Bla bla bla. That was a post directed at the new FAA animation showing the actual aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and above the light poles and 3rd floor and banking at about a 45 degree angle. You can watch it again if you wish.

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive


posted by weedwhacker
Here's a fine example, from the post dated today:


With all the hundreds and hundreds of responders and rescue workers and military personnel and high-ranking bigwigs at the Pentagon; why would there be only one photo in existence of the above alleged Flight 77 aircraft debris?


NOW...no one, out of politeness I guess, choses to point out the most egregious sin -- the word that I placed in bold text, to show the continuing snide and insidious methods. It's like a bunch of kids, again, playing semantic word games, but without any real substance, just bluster.



Is the difficulty of your job getting to you whacker?

Since the aircraft actually has been PROVEN to have flown Over the Naval Annex

And since the aircraft flew high above the light poles and 1st and 2nd and 3rd floors

And since the aircraft could not possibly have knocked down the light poles

And since the aircraft could not possibly have flown level and inches above the lawn

And since the aircraft could not possibly have entered the 1st floor at the wall

And since the aircraft could not possibly have created the damage pattern inside

And since the aircraft could not possibly have created the Exit Hole into A&E Drive

And since there are zero serial numbers especially from the black boxes

Then the aircraft parts are alleged Flight 77 parts at the Pentagon

Pure and simple. How could you possibly object?

Maybe we should add BigSarge to the 20+ eyewitnesses?





[edit on 6/29/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPrestonPure and simple. How could you possibly object?

I'm hoping tezza will object, considering none of the list of 'facts' you have posted meet his criteria.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Procedure, is procedure...Crash and crime scene investigations do not get to pick and choose what the reason(s) for a crash is...


Certainly true, under normal circumstances. Pentagon is under Military jurisdicton, though.


...whether that is an aircraft crash or a car crash or whatever.


Sure, you've made the point about 'procedure'. I explained it.


Bulldosing the 'evidence' against a wall...


Well, really....what "evidence"? Landing Gear and engine components? The engines were not suspected as having caused the crash, so investigating them is pointless. The Landing Gear certainly didn't cause the crash!

I would infer that the main priority in the immediate aftermath of impact was S&R. I daresay they saved some lives of severely injured survivors, who might have died if not found quickly. I woud also think that the service roads between rings would need to be cleared for emergency vehicle access, and fire fighting efforts.

Remember, it's a Military facility...a Command Oficer gives an order, it is obeyed. He/She isn't thinking about accident investigation procedures at that instant.


...or the taking of photographic evidence without marking when, where and by whom...


Repeating, the priority that morning was to tend to wounded, and search for survivors. Taking a break to snap photos would certainly have been outrageously callous. You're making the mistake of thinking rationally, now whilst sitting at a computer and pondering, not reacting on adrenaline.

You just repeat yourself, so I'll skip to:


As for the grass needing seeding as you suggest, i would say look at the photo again...does that thick, lush grass LOOK like it needs reseeding?


Heck I don't know! I just had a suggestion...Jeeze! Maybe it was "thick, lush grass..." BECAUSE it had been seeded, and covered with mesh days or weeks prior?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by optyk phyba
sorry no.
the burden of proof is on those who claim that the part did not come from f77.

Given your relative inexperience on ATS and the 9/11 forum, I can understand why you might be a little confused with regards to burden of proof.


optyk,

To make it easy for you, the poster you were engaged with in a discussion of the burden of proof exists in a world where none of this happened, and as such demands proof for the most minuscule events or occurrences. In his world, judgement by a panel of your peers does not exist (or amounts to less than wallaby excrement) else he would understand that the Moussoui trial trial conviction was based on proof an devidence, much of it obtained from the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites.

He does not understand that the burden of proof is on *him* and his followers to overturn the Moussoui conviction based on their claim that none of the evidence presented was actually...well....evidence. He does not understand that in addition to the Moussoui trial and conviction, the very fact of the matter is that the status quo remains that an American Airlines 757 slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11 piloted by radical Islamic terrorists. It would be up to him and his followers to change the status quo, noyt the other way around.

If the Twoofers want to sit there and wave their hands saying "Proof! I want Proof!" and mimic those 17th century fools who threw Galileo in prison because he claimed the earth revolved around the sun, so be it. Don't let it bother you that this poster is rejecting any logical argument you put forth.

That is the Twoofer's best argument now - just plug their ears and say "It never happened". They are even restricting their board access so that only members of their Tree Fort can read posts, fearing anyone not in their immediate club might get wind of their denial of reality.

Keep up the good fight!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Hmm, interesting. Many of the other photos at that link exhibit the same "screen mesh" appearance. And since you said this comes from a book, then I would say it's probably scanning artifacts if they all have them.

So contrast that with what Swampfox says so authoritatively on the first page of this thread:


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
That "mesh" you see, is the backside of a circuit board that was part of the lighting assembly.




No, it's not the backside of a circuit board. :shk:

I suppose the backside of a circuit board covered the entire interior of the pentagon too as in this photo, where you clearly see the same exact mesh artifacts?



and in this one:



Ahh, no. Those are scanning artifacts, and they are consistent, showing they were all done with the same scanner and settings, probably in the same sitting, from the same book, at the same time.

And here is the exif data from that photo:

ExifTool Version Number : 7.81

(personal data deleted)

File Size : 1337 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2009:06:29 13:23:23-04:00
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
JFIF Version : 1.02
Exif Byte Order : Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 150
Y Resolution : 150
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Modify Date : 2007:09:15 14:36:52
Color Space : Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width : 975
Exif Image Height : 691
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset : 324
Thumbnail Length : 5618
IPTC Digest : 00000000000000000000000000000000
Displayed Units X : inches
Displayed Units Y : inches
Global Angle : 120
Global Altitude : 30
Copyright Flag : False
Photoshop Thumbnail : (Binary data 5618 bytes, use -b option to extr
act)
Photoshop Quality : 12
Photoshop Format : Standard
Progressive Scans : 3 Scans
XMP Toolkit : XMP toolkit 2.8.2-33, framework 1.5
About : uuid:f079d518-63c2-11dc-b0dc-e79535befc5b
Document ID : adobe:docid:photoshop:f079d516-63c2-11dc-b0dc-
e79535befc5b
DCT Encode Version : 100
APP14 Flags 0 : [14]
APP14 Flags 1 : (none)
Color Transform : YCbCr
Image Width : 975
Image Height : 691
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Image Size : 975x691
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 5618 bytes, use -b option to extr
act)

Note the original modified date of September 15, 2007, as well as a couple of other things that are different from the previous exif data I posted from the other source on page 1 of this thread.

And ww, I have another problem with your explanation. There are literally million of parts on a 757, probably over 5 million, considering there are over 6 million on a 767. Again, straight from boeing's website. A more appropriate analogy would be going into my car, pulling out a bearing from deep inside the engine, and sticking my company logo, serial number, and model number on it.


Nuh uh. Sorry. I am not going to believe AA is going to do that for every single part on a plane.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Good find on the scanning artifact issue. Puts that to bed. Swampy was wrong, but like me I suppose he guessed. AND it probably depends a lot on the monitor each of us uses.



And ww, I have another problem with your explanation. There are literally million of parts on a 757, probably over 5 million, considering there are over 6 million on a 767. Again, straight from boeing's website.


Well, perhaps I was too brief, in my explanation.

Certainly there are millions of parts, as you say. BUT, when quoting the Boeing literature (they are using a bit of hyperbole there) you must take into account the definition of "part".

Each rivet in the arframe could be considered a 'part'. Every screw, washer and nut, also. Every hose, fitting, bellcrank, seat track, wingtip, navigation light bulb...well, you get the picture.

Of course every little piece like that, and millions others, won't be individually labelled. It is the items, some of them assembled components, that I was referring to...those that can be removed and replaced rather easily. Each component is, of course, constructed of many parts...and the overall assembly will, then itself, be assigned a specific 'Part Number' to indicate it is complete.

Airlines have HUGE....and I mean HUGE!!! inventories, vast warehouses of spares, especially at Maintenance Bases. (Except, of course, the one piece you need when it breaks....THOSE they have just run out of!
).

So, to use your analogy, the bearing in the engine isn't labeled....it isn't accessible until the engine is torn down, and then it is in a location where it's not going anywhere but either back in an another engine, or into the bin if it's not up to specs.

[tags]


[edit on 6/29/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Good find on the scanning artifact issue. Puts that to bed. Swampy was wrong, but like me I suppose he guessed.


Well, do you suppose the guy over at JREF who claimed so authoritatively that this part was the power supply for the emergency lights was guessing too?

You see, that's the problem here. We need more research, and less guessing. On BOTH sides of the argument. And that's one reason why I respect CIT so much. They are going by real evidence, with very little, if any, speculation or guessing. And the more they stick to real evidence, the more I will continue to respect them, and the potential that their conclusions are correct.

I checked out that link you gave me in u2u, btw, and I have to say that the landing gear does appear to match those in the photos. I also went and got actual pictures of the F77, zoomed in, and saw that the wheels appear to match what we see in the photos at the pentagon. So that was helpful, thanks.

But for a story to be accurate, then it should be accurate across the board, from all angles of attack. And that's where the problem is coming in. The official story is not accurate from many angles. And particularly with the research CIT is doing. It is leading me personally to believe that what CIT's witnesses saw could not have been F77, because CIT's arguments hold some serious water.

I don't know if you have ever seen Terral's arguments that the pentagon was hit twice, by two different planes. And possibly in combination with explosives in the building. But at this point in time, to me it is making some sense, because it would explain why other witnesses saw a SOC flight path. Honestly I am not sure what to believe. The light poles are a real problem. It's hard to imagine any flying craft taking those out and still being able to hit the building and cause the damage stated by ASCE. I stay just as confused with this as anyone else, but I remain open to real research.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join