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.

 

364 new photographs of the Pentagon on 9/11 - These pictures have never been available on the intern

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

Theres the wreckage from the el al flight.

Heres the cvr:

www.youtube.com...

care to post either of those for flight 77? I don't think its going to happen.




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Compulsionist
..where's the plane ??


Mostly inside the building of course, exactly where you would expect it to be!


With that claim you need proof...pictures. Just as you ask the people arguing the other side of the argument. The jet fuel or the resulting fires can't evaporate the steel, so show your proof if you think an airplane struck the Pentagon.


Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Neither you nor anyone else can seem to find either remnants of a plane or the markings of a plane crash.


They have been posted many many many times before, here and many other places. Why post them once more, when it is so obvious "truthers" are not at all interested in the truth, or facts. Why would they look at them this time, when they have ignored all the other posts?


Again, provide a link to the photos you say are everywhere.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by thepixelpusher]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Hey folks, everyone is asking, where is the plane in the Pentagon! Well did everyone forget the fact that the area in question was BURNING for a while? What happens to an airplane when it catches fire intact?

Here is a Boeing 747 Air France which caught fire on the runway in 1999.


Where did it go? It burned up! I know what you are all thinking, "Hey we can still see the tail in that picture! Where is it at the Pentagon?" Well gee, didnt it just crash into the building over 400mph? What happens to an aircraft that slams into a building at high speeds? It gets shredded. And when you burn the remains for a day or so, not much is gonna be left. Mystery solved. But alas, they DID find aircraft debris there too. Engines, landing gear, seat cushions, people. Even shreds of the aircraft.

Here is another Air France A-340 crash and fire. Notice how the entire top of the aircraft is burned away? From just a fire alone.

www.airdisaster.com...
www.airdisaster.com...

Now lets have that same aircraft hit a building, and burn for hours inside. Whats gonna happen to all that aircraft material?



It's simple to answer everyones questions about this. Have the Pentagon release the full video footage from the many cameras they have around the Pentagon, and the video footage they confiscated from the surrounding cameras at private businesses. But they won't. Because there is something to hide. There is absolutely no reason to withhold that video footage. It's public knowledge where the strike area was and the damage caused, so there is no national security issue.

GenRadek, your photos prove my point that steel has a much higher melting point than the jet fuel fires have that would need to vaporize all of it. The impact of the airliner at 400 mph would still leave the engines mainly intact or identifiable. Yet no engines were identified or survived. This is a first in avaition history. Just like it was a first in architectural history that 3 steel buidlings fell, freefall speed, due to only a few hours of fires. With only 2 of those buildings hit by planes. The odds of all this happening is extremely suspect.



[edit on 19-1-2010 by thepixelpusher]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
bauer.imgur.com...

If the heat was so intense that most of this alleged aircraft just happened to "burn up", why are the two vehicles in the above photo still quite identifiable? From this photo, these two vehicles were in very close proximity to the area of impact and should have also "burned up", or at the very least, lost some type of form or shape due to the immense heat required to vaporize an entire commercial aircraft.

Wait...it gets even more absurd. Check out the right rear tire on the automobile in the foreground. This tire is in perfect condition. So basically what is being claimed is that these fires were hot enough to incinerate an entire aluminum aircraft, but not hot enough to burn a rubber tire.


bauer.imgur.com...

Also, take a look at the several blackened unbroken windows in the picture above. Can someone please explain how these windows did not manage to break with such a large aircraft allegedly impacting in the immediate area? The wingspan of a 757 traveling at the alleged velocity should have had no problem in shattering the glass into a million pieces.

So basically, we have the story of an entire large aluminum high velocity commercial aircraft burning up and disintegrating due to fire and heat, while at the same time, a rubber tire and glass windows in close proximity to the impact location remaining intact.

Back to the drawing board fellas.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
due to the immense heat required to vaporize an entire commercial aircraft


Why claim the aircraft was vapourised?


fires were hot enough to incinerate an entire aluminum aircraft, but not hot enough to burn a rubber tire.


Why claim the whole aircraft was incinerated?


Can someone please explain how these windows did not manage to break with such a large aircraft allegedly impacting in the immediate area?


research what they were made from...


should have had no problem in shattering the glass into a million pieces.


What glass are you on about?


we have the story of an entire large aluminum high velocity commercial aircraft burning up and disintegrating due to fire and heat,


You really should not believe the "truther" lies...


glass windows in close proximity to the impact location remaining intact.


What glass window are you on about?

[edit on 19/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Neither you nor anyone else can seem to find either remnants of a plane or the markings of a plane crash.


They have been posted many many many times before, here and many other places. Why post them once more, when it is so obvious "truthers" are not at all interested in the truth, or facts. Why would they look at them this time, when they have ignored all the other posts?


Then just point us in the right direction. Repeating things that are not true have rarely proven to make them true. There are no such pictures and you know that. Keep claiming they are out there. So is the truth and I can also say that has been revealed several times in the past whilst offering no links. See how that works? Either back something up or stop repeating it for no good reason.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Then just point us in the right direction.


Once again here they are - hopefully you will follow links this time

www.rense.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.america.gov...
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


Repeating things that are not true have rarely proven to make them true.


That is what "truthers" do all the time!


There are no such pictures


Oops, once again "truthers" are proven wrong



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





Also, take a look at the several blackened unbroken windows in the picture above. Can someone please explain how these windows did not manage to break with such a large aircraft allegedly impacting in the immediate area? The wingspan of a 757 traveling at the alleged velocity should have had no problem in shattering the glass into a million pieces.


Really should do some research...

Windows did not break for simple reason that they were BOMPROOF - designed to resist force of car bomb and not shatter.

If fact were so strong that firemen could not break them with axes or
sledge hammers !

Windows and their frames help support the structure and prevent immediate collapse of damaged area




Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives.

The windows were being installed as part of a renovation operation which had been partially completed by September 11. At the time of the impact approximately 385 of the blast resistant windows were installed in the Pentagon near the crash site.

The glass panel sections consisted of several glass panels bonded together with plastic interlayers similar to automotive windscreens. They differed in that they had a thickness of almost 40mm and weighed over 200kg each. The window frames were manufactured by Masonry Arts Inc to fit in with the existing architecture. Masonry Arts Inc were also responsible for the installation work.

The blast resistant windows were thought to be have been beneficial for a number of reasons. These included:

The blast resistant windows are claimed to have supported the floors directly above the impact for an additional 30 minutes, providing vital time for thousands of employees to escape

More lives were saved by virtue of the fact that the glass did not shatter into lethal shards.

Workers lives were also preserved by the fact that the windows shielded them from the heat and fire from the blast.

In fact some of the windows near the impact zone did not even break.
The high levels of performance provided by the windows made their $10,000 per piece construction and installation cost a small price to pay. The entire renovation project will see a total of 1755 units installed in the Pentagon as part of several billion dollar renovation.


Operative phrase -



In fact some of the windows near the impact zone did not even break.


Long article about window design and installation

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





Wait...it gets even more absurd. Check out the right rear tire on the automobile in the foreground. This tire is in perfect condition. So basically what is being claimed is that these fires were hot enough to incinerate an entire aluminum aircraft, but not hot enough to burn a rubber tire.


How many car fires you been to.....?

Notice in picture that area around tire is not burned - even paint is intact

Explaination is that wind was blowing fire AWAY from that side and fire was doused before it could reach that area



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
It's fairly clear to me that many of the Truthers follow the same psychological patterns of logic and rationale in their arguments and it's actually quite fallible by presentation, although not entirely redundant by purpose alone.

What most of you Truthers on here are categorically failing to comprehend is that argument alone simply cannot be swayed in favour of the said Truther by merely demanding that which is circumstantial in its entirety and thus impossible to prove.

It could equally apply to the person on the other side of the argument demanding how the Truther can offer that they are competently trained and qualified to make an accurate assessment and furthermore, conclusion, on the said matter being discussed/argued.

What is also alarming is that the Truthers among you appear to provide no substantial or rational scientific thesis behind your arguments, only that you demand evidence from others. Furthermore the basis of your demands only serve to support your ideology that if evdience cannot be provided or presented in such a way that is perceived to vaildate your own theories it is therefore considered irrelevant and not plausible.

The specific link I have provided below offers VERY fundamental theories (now pay attention - I used the word 'theories' for a reason) AND explanations that are plausible and would SUPPORT evidence to suggest a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon structure.

Jim Hoffman's essay in this instance provides somewhat of a biased perspective toward the actuality of a Boeing 757 crashing into the structure. However, he has cleverly produced this using easily definable content and using good clear English for those with lesser understand of the language.

Whilst I personally welcome the proponents and Truthers among you to expand on your theories and challenge evidence to the contrary, I do not accept logic of ''where's the evidence, where's the evdience?'' based retort. Any logical, rational thinking person shouldn't either.

www.911research.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Then just point us in the right direction.


Once again here they are - hopefully you will follow links this time




I have actually had more than my fair share of what you seem to think is evidence? Anyone ever get around to telling me what part of the wing that is sitting in the middle of the lawn? You need to give up. You offer the same BUNK over and over again and each time I have told you why it is bunk. Now you are pointing to piles and stepping back. Please, pic a favorite pic or two from that mess and explain it to me. I would love to hear all about what parts of AA77 I am looking at in many of them. I even think I see some UFO wreckage on RENSE.COM so thanks for that, what ever that is.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
How many car fires you been to.....?

Notice in picture that area around tire is not burned - even paint is intact

Explaination is that wind was blowing fire AWAY from that side and fire was doused before it could reach that area


He was not talking about the fire, he was talking about the INTENSE HEAT so close by.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepixelpusher

It's simple to answer everyones questions about this. Have the Pentagon release the full video footage from the many cameras they have around the Pentagon, and the video footage they confiscated from the surrounding cameras at private businesses. But they won't. Because there is something to hide. There is absolutely no reason to withhold that video footage. It's public knowledge where the strike area was and the damage caused, so there is no national security issue.

GenRadek, your photos prove my point that steel has a much higher melting point than the jet fuel fires have that would need to vaporize all of it. The impact of the airliner at 400 mph would still leave the engines mainly intact or identifiable. Yet no engines were identified or survived. This is a first in avaition history. Just like it was a first in architectural history that 3 steel buidlings fell, freefall speed, due to only a few hours of fires. With only 2 of those buildings hit by planes. The odds of all this happening is extremely suspect.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by thepixelpusher]


No they did find engines at the Pentagon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A violent 400mph impact with a building like the Pentagon is going to do a lot of damage to the building, and obliterate the engines as well. The photos of the Air France fire and the 747 illustrate my point of why so little visible debris was found. Most of it was smashed to bits, then burned away in the fires. Lets not forget a chunk of the Pentagon collapsed onto it as well.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Wow nice red herring there. Was the car involved in a 400mph crash into the Pentagon, going inside and then burning up inside and getting crushed when a part of the Pentagon collapsed? No? Ok, then your little comparison there just had an epic fail. But I see that your fans are not interested in facts either.

I am not expecting for the cars OUTSIDE the Pentagon being a measure of the heat and fires INSIDE the Pentagon. But I guess a little something called common sense never spoke up either, nor its friend, critical thinking when you posted such nonsense.

Edit to add: Just of out curiosity, why did the 747 picture I posted show the entire plane burned away?

It landed whole in one piece, and a fire in the wheels set the whole aircraft alight outside. So why did the plane burn up on the tarmac leaving only a tail and the nose largely intact? Why is it so hard to THINK LOGICALLY and use that basic example of what happens in a fire on a plane, and transfer it to the Pentagon where the plane not only was on fire inside, but first had a 400mph crash into it, AND had a good part of the Pentagon collapse on it when it was all burning INSIDE?



[edit on 1/19/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Again how many car fires you been to?

Notice the unburned area is on side away from the fire at the impact hole

The two burned cars are what are called exposures - heat from primary
fire ignited them. Again unburned area is away from main body of fire



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Anyone ever get around to telling me what part of the wing that is sitting in the middle of the lawn?


It is so funny watching "truthers" avoiding facts that destroy their silly conspiracy theory.

Please show all of us that it is part of the wing on the lawn - who claimed it was part of a wing? What evidence is there for thinking it was part of a wing? None at all, but we all know "thruthers" avoid evidence...


Please, pic a favorite pic or two from that mess and explain it to me. I would love to hear all about what parts of AA77 I am looking at


As has been explained to you many times before (but you keep ignoring) you can see a 757 wheel, a 757 engine etc etc.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Was the black box found at the Pentagon site? I do believe so. I also believe that family members were allowed to listen to parts of it. Am I correct in this belief or am I wrong? I haven't really delved into this one too much.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Planes have a nasty habit of leaving marks when they crash.


So what hit the building in 1992 in Holland then....


Possibly a chemical explosion...


The 1992 El Al Bijlmer crash: a cover-up of a chemical inferno?
Lizzy Bloem, The Electronic Intifada, 4 October 2004

The aircraft crashed while attempting an emergency landing following the separation of two engines from the right wing of the aircraft. The aircraft impacted an apartment building vertically, killing 39 residents and four El Al crew members.

On Sunday, October 4, 1992, an El Al Boeing airplane carrying unspecified military cargo crashed into an apartment building in the Bijlmer neighbourhood of Amsterdam. Forty-three people directly lost their lives. More people have died since then, and many are still suffering from unidentified diseases.

The Dutch government denies any connection between Bijlmer residents' health ailments and the disaster, though hundreds of people inhaled poisonous smoke from the burning airplane and the apartment building. Some of the El Al plane's cargo is still unknown, but three of the four components of sarin nerve gas were present at the crash site. The flats contained asbestos and lots of plastics.

What is known is that the destroyed Boeing aircraft carried 75 tons of kerosene and 10 tons of chemicals. From the plane itself, at least 152 kg of depleted uranium counterweights are missing. Most probably, they burnt into particles. Because of the very sensitive cargo aboard the doomed aircraft, official investigations into the causes and repercussions of the 1992 crash have been shrouded in secrecy, denial and misinformation.

An EL AL Cargo plane similar to the one that crashed in Amsterdam.

Under a special bi-lateral agreement between the Netherlands and Israel dating from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israeli aircraft are granted special status at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. El Al, Israel’s national airline, uses the airport to refuel planes en route between Israel and the United States. Often on a daily basis, El Al's cargo planes land and take off, carrying munitions, military technology and other, often classified, loads.

One of El Al’s privileges at Schiphol are to undergo "different procedures" than other cargo carriers. The cargo of Israeli planes are checked on paper only, though frequently the airway bills do not match the cargo. Another privilege is known as "flying the El Al way." Because of fear of terrorist attacks, El Al aircraft may land and take off as they see fit. This may account for the pilot's choice of a route above a residential area on the evening of the fatal Octover 1992 crash. Schiphol's air traffic control tower apparently had a different landing track in mind, but the El Al pilot tried to return to the airport following a different landing track that exposed the plane's tail to buffeting winds. The pilot may have thought he had been hit by a missile; the landing track he chose was known to provide the best coverage against terrorists.

The cause of the plane crash was not an attack but sheer negligence: bad maintenance of the bolts that hold the engines to the wings. The plane's bolts had suffered so much metal fatigue that two engines broke off from one wing. The pilots lost oil pressure attempting to stabilize wing flaps on the affected side of the plane. And because the plane was unevenly loaded with heavy cargo, it rolled over.

The El Al plane's crash into the Bijlmer apartment building caused a huge fire plume. Eye witnesses describe flames in all colours of the rainbow, which indicates the presence of different chemicals. The odors and smoke from the fire were particularly suffocating, and lasted for days. Yet the Dutch authorities declared that only flowers, perfume and electronics were the on the cargo list.

Delayed death came within 48 hours of the disaster, beginning with small pets, such as birds. The first dogs died 3 weeks later. Samples of deceased pets and guard dogs were analysed in laboratories other than those tasked with examining and analyzing humans remains. In contrast to physicians and forensic specialists, veterinarians have confirmed that the animals' remains showed signs of poisoning.

A hidden epidemic gradually emerged among the surviving apartment block residents, professional and voluntary fire fighters, medical personnel, first aid workers, ambulance personnel, mounted police, their dogs and horses, army personnel, identification teams, Salvation Army volunteers and other relief workers. Journalists, too, have inhaled toxic and radioactive fumes, along with "disaster tourists," workers who sorted out the remnants of the crash, crane drivers, suppliers of containers, construction workers, etc.

A cluster of serious human health problems became evident six months after the crash. Many residents complained of similar health problems, such as chest pains, joint pain, hair loss, skin rashes, unusual fatigue, vertigo, nausea, red skin spots, sore throat, nephritis, and cancer. Physicians did not know what to do about it. The most common diagnosis was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The fact that relief workers who began spending significant time at ground-zero immediately after the disaster had the same health problems was ignored.

Many professional workers didn’t even rate a medical diagnosis; they were just ignored. The physicians treating fire fighters, police officers, and other service professionals denied or minimized the complaints of dozens of their patients. All these healthy men and women, in the prime of their lives, suddenly fell ill. As their health problems were not acknowledged, they had no one to whom to turn. Several committed suicide. Meanwhile, if asked about possible links between the crash and health ailments, Dutch officials knew only one phrase: "There is no connection with the disaster."

In 1993, Annemie Ummels, a peace activist, and the Laka Foundation revealed that the El Al cargo airplane had been furnished with depleted uranium (DU) counterweights. Yet, the scientific spokesperson for the Dutch government, Keverling Buisman, stated that these counterweights stay intact during a crash and could not have burned in the fire afterwards. According to him, there was no possibility whatsoever that people could have inhaled DU.

The company that worked on salvaging the remnants of the aircraft had detected DU in the dust of the wreckage within 3 days. Also the Civil Aviation Authority (former RLD), the National Transportation and Safety Board (US) and the Federal Aviation Administration (AAA) all knew that not all DU counterweights from the doomed plane had been recovered. Meanwhile, radiation was also detected detected by a civilian working on airplanes parked in the same hangar as the damaged plane's parts. The government managed to deny or ignore all of these issues for years.

Yet, one local politician decided that something had to be done for the residents, and asked for a medical investigation. The question was whether Bijlmer residents and others could have inhaled DU at ground-zero, and if there could be any connection with the inexplicable health problems of Bijlmer residents. The resulting investigation comprised an interview with five residents, phone calls with some Bijlmer physicians, and a survey among a bigger group of physicians. No one, except for one voluntary firefighter with a terrible rash on his foot due to standing in crash-related sludge, was diagnosed with a disease related to the disaster.

In 1994 the Amsterdam Research Service on Environmental Protection and Soil Mechanics (Omegam) took soil samples to search for DU. They found increasing pollution towards ground-zero, but below the health norm. But governmental institutions were losing their credibility, when it was revealed that Omegam had taken samples from already remediated soil.

Still, the government had to address the issue of the missing depleted uranium. In 1994, the scientific spokesman for the Dutch government admitted that the DU counterweights might all have burned after all. Despite this admission, Dutch officials, ministers and spokespersons from the aviation council would repeat the government’s earlier assurance that this was not possible for years to come.

Meanwhile, a physician in the Bijlmer noticed that many more miscarriages, stillborns, chromosomal aberrations and auto-immune diseases were occuring in his area. He compiled a complete dossier, but no health agencies responded. Also, the health minister denied a proposal for a health survey in 1996, supposedly because there was only one patient. The minister kept denying the proposal until 1997, when she finally promised to launch an investigation as soon as possible. After more than a year, a hotline was established at a hospital in 1999. A questionnaire, most about mental problems, had to be completed. The official result was that the complaints were considered too diffuse, offering no further options to investigate.

In 1999, the Visie Foundation took dust samples from the hangar where the aircraft’s parts were kept. It proved the presence of DU dust around the wreckage, which was later confirmed by governmental organisations. By then, the media were focusing on the disaster, reporting about the ongoing health problems and the missing DU.

Some began to question secret flights made by El Al in the days following the disaster, and soon journalists discovered fraudulent airway bills. Even the official flight route of the plane did not match eyewitnesses’ reports. These and other discoveries finally forced the Dutch government to launch a parliamentary inquiry.


Full Story

Peace



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Again how many car fires you been to?


Two. This was not about a car fire though. This is about heat so intense in made an aircraft vanish mere feet away from the rubber.

Have a point about how many car fires I have been too? How many have you been to? How does it apply?

How many fires have you been to that are hot enough to make an airplane completely go byebye?


Notice the unburned area is on side away from the fire at the impact hole


Again, heat not fire is what was being discussed.


The two burned cars are what are called exposures - heat from primary
fire ignited them. Again unburned area is away from main body of fire


Sigh.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
thanks for the pics op! that hole in the Pentagon always bothered me not to mention the sate of the lawn.Now we have the photograph of those cars if the heat from the fires were so intense then why are the two cars still in one peice?


ps: the windows are bomb proof so they are not a factor here.The hole still looks like either a cruise or a tomahawk missle impact to me.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join