So What About These Pentagon Photos?

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

NOT to hard to imagine, if you think about it.

Poles are frangible, at the base. Designed to break away from an automobile impact, correct? Here's a paper I found, published in 1978
pubsindex.trb.org...

NOW...consider leverage. If a motor vehicle can cause a pole to fracture at the base (well, the pole doesn't fracture, the mounting does) then if you apply force at some distance above the base, your leverage is an advantage, no?

THEN, we can consider momentum. This is a factor due to mass and velocity. Comparing the large difference in masses, between a pole, and the airplane, I believe the more massive airplane will win. I'm not saying it won't cause some damage to the leading edge of the wing(s) at point(s) of contact, because it will. But it won't be aerodynamically significant for the remaining second as the airplane crosses the Pentagon parking lot before impacting the building. (Even if we say that the airplane is slower than the 'official' 535 MPH, and just call it, say, 400 MPH, that is still 587 fps. How wide is the parking lot?)

Since this is about photos af debris, there's little point in debating the 'eyewitness' accounts here...

Ed: I'm looking at your Pic #1 again, after reviewing that post in the 'randi' forum. Again, as many have pointed out, an undocumented photo is not 'proof positve' --- but really, when it's easier for some grand 'conspiracy orchestrator' to simply not show ANYTHING, rather than get "caught" planting evidence, which route would you take, if you were planning a cover-up? Especially, this late in the 'game'???

OK, that was logic, here's some more w/observation: That piece could very well be a housing for a power supply to the ELS. Looks like a small circuit board is attached...the grey/black shape. It doesn't necessarily have to be supplied by the radiant company --- there are other vendors available.

(link)

[edit on 6/29/0909 by weedwhacker]

You are correct. As far as we know, the original photos for those paper photos in the Defense Department Pentagon 9/11 book do not exist. Swampfox was just trying to BS everybody.

The only copies of those two alleged parts from Flight 77 seem to only exist on the pages of the 9/11 book.





This too seems to be the only known photo. In some photos only the wheel is
there and in some only the tire and in some both tire and wheel



And this. Only the paper photo has been seen publicly
The FBI guy is not carrying away or planting untagged evidence in this photo






[edit on 6/29/09 by SPreston]

The mesh on the AA s/n picture and also noticed on other photos here, is from artifacts from scanning a cmyk halftone print from a book or any other lithograph printed media like a leflet or brochure.

which only means the pics were scanned from a printed book and are not a digital variation from a camera, and so any usefull exif data is useless.

are there any helicopter photos from above shortly after the crash (impact)??

the AA s/n pic seems a little planted as its so badly mangled yet you can clearly read the pen writing on the label and a very clear AA logo that seems hardly damaged at all?? they should have built the plane out of whatever that label is made out of!!!!!!!!

infact the whole peice is totally clean! just like some one spent hours crushing it in a vice!

that has IMO never seen a fireball.




[edit on 29-6-2009 by TrentReznor]

With regards to the first image in the OP...

In this thread, GoodOlDave finally conceeded that he could not prove that the alleged part came from the alleged Flight AA77. He has withdrawn it as a piece of evidence.


Dave has recognised that his 'belief' can not be proven, for which I congratulated him.

reply to post by tezzajw

---

Point noted, thanks- but that thread is not specifically about these pics in my OP. And I am not saying that you are saying that thread is specifically about these pics...

I merely still waiting for TD to come up with thread that specifically addresses these photos, so that a determination can be made whether to shut this thread down or not- because the content, or in depth analysis, is already posted. The way he came off about it was I had no business posting this thread, so that's the only reason I say this. From what I am seeing so far, this thread has some validity- even though you guys have been stingy as hell with the flags. Thas ok, don't need em!

I have major problems with Pic 1 as evidence, and I don't believe the guy at JREF.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

I can roughly recall at least three other threads where that first picture has been presented. That's going back at least 18 months, so my memory is a little faded and may not be accurate. I spent some time yesterday searching some way-back threads, but I couldn't recall which threads were likely to have posted that image. If I find any of them, I'll link them in this thread.

I don't recall any specific thread dedicated to discussing those pictures, like this thread is.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

Yep, I was looking at the piece itself and not at the grass. Oops.

911 reminds me of a bad magician - the kind that says "& look very carefully ladies & gentlemen, I have absolutely nothing up my sleeves."

As soon as he says that you know that he definitely has got something up his sleeves.

Bad magicians do this because they are not very good at misdirection, and for me a lot of the peripheral evidence to 911 looks exactly like it was put together by a very bad magician.

You want to make sure that people believe it was a group of hijackers - hey I know, lets pretend a passport fell out of one of the hijackers pockets, flew through a fire hot enough to melt steel, and landed on the sidewalk at the scene of the crime - winner!

You want to make sure people think it was flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon even though there's no sign of a plane - hey, I know, lets drop a piece of metal on the lawn with "American airlines" written on it - winner!

You want to explain why there was no military reponse - hey, I know, lets pretend there was an exercise going on where some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into the WTC & the Pentagon & we got confused - winner!

You want to explain how 3 steel structured buildings fall down when it's impossible - lets interview a passerby on the street so he can nonchalantly say "it fell down, due mainly to strucutral failure because of the intense heat." - Winner!

It's like they're trying to drop a few breadcrumbs for us to follow to lead us to the right answer, but they're about as subtle as a sledgehammer.


It's this kind of convenient crazyness that makes me thing somethings fishy more than anything else.