Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

page: 1
249
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+195 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
ABSOLUTE proof is hard to find but it is utterly necessary in some cases, a murder for example, a robbery, something where people's lives are at stake.

I have found that proof, thanks to a valiant effort by, and my opposition to, some very diligent believers in the Original Story given to us by the media on 9/11. Take a look!

PICTURE 1

A picture by Daryl Donley who was on the scene at the time of the explosion. This shows the center of the explosion site minutes after it happened. (The round parts in the center of the picture are rolls of cable, see close-up on Picture 5)

PICTURE 2

A wide-angle view of the explosion site; notice the entire Pentagon wall is standing and intact. The media told us this was the site of a crash by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, weighing around 200,000 pounds and 125 feet across at wingspan. A photograph from the (now unaccepted) NIST report shows the same spot as the center of damage.

PICTURE 3

20 minutes AFTER the explosion the wall collapsed. The previous hole was about 12-15 feet high. Notice in the previous picture the hole in the Pentagon was entirely hidden behind a 15 foot high spray of water.

PICTURE 4

After the explosion the hole was about 12 feet, after the wall collapsed the damaged area was about 70 feet across. A Boeing 757 has a 124'10" wingspan. Can a 125 foot wide aircraft fit into a hole 12 feet high? No.

PICTURE 5

This picture is a closeup, also by Daryl Donley. Note the pieces of the Pentagon blown outward, indicating the explosion came from within the Pentagon building itself.
There was never an airplane inside the Pentagon, because the original damage was only about 12 feet high.

PICTURE 6

Whatever made the damage to the Pentagon made a tube of damage about 12 feet high, and caused circular holes smaller than the fuselage of an airplane, in concentric wings of the Pentagon. This is also visible in the NIST picture, the hole in the second wing is also circular and small.



*** THE COVER-UP ***
It's clear from the first six pictures that no airplane hit the Pentagon and the explosion came from inside the building (speculation indicates either set explosives or possibly a missile).
The media was provided with very little "evidence" of an airplane crash:
* a surveillance video that shows the explosion in action, with a section cut out that would show what hit the Pentagon.
* They also received a few pictures of random aircraft parts.

PICTURE 7

A single piece of unburnt airplane material lying on the grass. This was obviously placed to "help the case" of the original story. Many people want to believe we were told the truth on the 9/11 broadcasts and this helps a few people hold onto the last wisp of that belief.

PICTURE 8

Allegedly a black box, Cockpit Voice Recorder. Since the wall was still intact after the explosion and no flight 77 debris is outside the Pentagon this is obviously not the actual black box (which would indicate the flight path, voices in the cockpit, whether the cockpit door was open, airspeed, etc.)


Synopsis:
An explosion happened that created fire damage and a small hole in the Pentagon
there was no airplane

The wall at the center of the damage site collapsed
there was no airplane

There are several concentric, small circular holes passing through the Pentagon
there was no airplane

A few random pieces of debris from an unidentifiable airplane were placed at the scene
there was no airplane


THE ORIGINAL STORY - THAT MUSLIM HIJACKERS STOLE AN AIRPLANE AND CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON WAS A LIE.



[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



+53 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I believe a bunker buster missile struck the pentagon ! I have yet to see any convincing evidence that an airplane ever struck the building !


+43 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Food for thought...

If four airplanes were hijacked on 9/11, but one of the four wasn't really a hijack/crash scenario - were the other three?

who benefitted by the events of 9/11? Are we having a "war on terror" because of these faked events?


[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]


+26 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Well done thread Thermo, interesting to note that the giant spools and the wire fence on the right managed to escape being hit yet they want us to believe that flight 77 hit at ground level.
Eyewitness testimony also contradicts the official story, why would that be?
Most importantly I refuse to believe that the Pentagon has no surface-to-air missle defences. Our MOST important military building had no means of defense besides scrambled fighters? BS!!
My last question is has anyone done a detailed study of just thelight poles, the distances between them and an examination of the damages dones to them. Care to bet they don't match up with the OS as well. I pray one day we will get the truth. Too many innocent people were murdered to ever say "case closed".


Just thought I would add that it's also incredible that the supposed aircraft part has no burn marks or discoloration on it. More laws of physics died on 9/11 than on any other day.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Asktheanimals]


+15 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
If you showed somebody pictures 2 & 3 without them knowing what happened would they say a plane hit the pentagon ? my guess is no.
it was a sad day for america & indeed the world but IMO a plane did not hit the pentagon,i'm not sure what did but it wasn't a plane.
pictures speak a thousand words


+30 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Should have been huge pieces of airplane wing laying around, and if that piddly little hole in picture 6 is the only exit hole then I would agree that it was probably a cruise missile and not a large aircraft.

Until recently I did not believe any of the truther stuff, but after some of the things I have seen recently, I smell the CIA, Daddy Bush (son is too stupid) and the Mossad.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Probably a cruise missile.

The same one that they found in Iraq and claim to be a WMD XD.


+15 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I personally know someone who watched the plane fly over the highway and it hit some lamp posts as it was coming through. We talked about 2 days after the event and he was sure it was an airliner.


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
It's been obvious ever since it happened that the Pentagon attack was indeed a missile. The fact that anyone believes in the US government as some sort of credible, truthful, altruistic entity is absurd. They abandoned the US citizenry DECADES ago!


+27 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


There are some great resources discussing the flightpath and damage to the poles. This video shows that the flight path, based on numerous credible witnesses, and that it would have defied the laws of physics for a plane to perform as the media alleges. Over an hour but VERY worth your time if you're interested in the Pentagon truth.




Here's a short video on the missing footage in the released video footage supplied by the Pentagon.




posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


Do you know this for sure.... Did you see the Missle ?


I'm all for finding the Truth's... But until we the people see what actually hit the Pentagon... We don't know...

Many people said they saw a plane....

Some Said a Helicopter......

Some said it flew over.....

Until a real unbiased investigation is done, and the 50 something odd video's that were confiscated and never released are revealed, then we cannot be 100% sure what it was.


+60 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Evidence folks. These photos are evidence. Not hearsay. Either claim the evidence is false and has been tampered with, or accept it.
If you accept it, you MUST come to the conclusion it was NOT a Boeing.
You can theorise what it really was, but it most certainly was not a Boeing. Therefore the OS is a lie. Face it.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rhynouk
 


From my experience in the military, I can think of a few things that could have done it. At the top of the list is a Hellfire missle. There are others, but this is the most likely as it is more commonly used.


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Ya know, using google is a wonderful thing, but claiming that you alone have all the evidence, then pulling photos from google image search, adding cliched text (not that you haven't thought the stuff before, only that it's been said a million times), well, um...no.

I believe the government had some hand in all of it, but I don't salute your weak efforts at explaining the pentagon deal, and I also don't like your title "Absolute proof".

You know, I found better photos, and more of them, with perhaps slightly more reveling bits on google. Eh, better luck next time.

Folks: This is why college students can't use "Google.com" as a source for their reports. Do some real homework, get information directly from as many sources as possible. I really shouldn't have to repeat this every time a thread like this is started.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by seism
I personally know someone who watched the plane fly over the highway and it hit some lamp posts as it was coming through. We talked about 2 days after the event and he was sure it was an airliner.


There are a few witnesses like that - there are also witnesses who saw "the plane" fly away from, and very close above, the other side of the Pentagon. A well-timed explosion and black smoke hiding the plane's escape would definitely have been confusing. Our mind would naturally put two and two together indicating very truthfully in our own mind that we saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon.


[edit on 6-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



I've seen and watched the first film, and have watched all of CIT's stuff, and PFT, and it's quite compelling.

However the second video you posted. If whats happening on the actual security cam fottage is real (as the presenter says) thats wild stuff. The object is still on the right side of the screen as the explosion goes off??

Also the way it stays in that one spot and gradully gets clearer and vrighter WITHOUT moveing (again if thats true)that is CRAZY, and it's obvious the video has been tampered with.

Now unfortunately I don't now how toreproduce the methods he went through to find thing. I'm pretty poor when it comes to computer video analysis. Maybe someone else can confirm, or debunk what that guy said he found and is showing showing.

Lastly as far as the Helicopter footage, that's obviously fake, imo. Whether the guy in the video made it, or the media came out with it, it seems very fake to me, the way the object, pauses mid flight, then goes, then pauses again, then goes, then impacts the building, then there
s a big delay then you see a sizable explosion. I dunno. The helicopter footage "if real" I think would have been more widespread especially by people who don't buy into the OS. I believe they don't use it because even they know it's extremely fake, or extremely doctored footage.

But thanks for posting the Second video, at least the work he did (if true) with the security cam footage was very interesting and something I think I've seen before, but it was some time ago, and I forgot to archive it, so thanks.


+25 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
that we saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon.


Why didnt you post the pictures of a 757 undercarriage found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 wheels found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 engines found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 damage caused to the outside of the Pentagon before it collapsed?

Why didnt you post the evidence of where the body parts from Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 wreckage on the lawn outside the Pentagon?

All these pictures have been posted here many times before, but of course you ignore them as they destroy your silly theory that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon!



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Meesterjojo
 


I've looked at Associated Press, eye-witness pictures, books, NIST report, Google, maybe more and these pictures clearly show what needs to be seen - NO AIRPLANE. My "weak efforts," as you say, could maybe be helped with your pictures - feel free to post them.

You seem to agree with me but also seem offended - interesting. I'm well aware of what college students, from undergrad to PhD, can use as sources... and, I never claimed I "alone have all the evidence"


+29 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
that we saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon.


Why didnt you post the pictures of a 757 undercarriage found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 wheels found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of a 757 engines found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 damage caused to the outside of the Pentagon before it collapsed?

Why didnt you post the evidence of where the body parts from Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon?

Why didnt you post the picture of 757 wreckage on the lawn outside the Pentagon?

All these pictures have been posted here many times before, but of course you ignore them as they destroy your silly theory that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon!


WOW! If these exist, and I have spent a great deal of energy looking for these, please do post them. I would be forever grateful.

Cheers.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I would think that some sort of missile would do more damage than a plane. Plans are made to fly, missiles destroy things; as are as destruction is concerned the missile wins.

Also, we can fly unmanned vehicles in foreign lands and take out targets by remote control. If their story is that a plan hit the building then they could make a plane hit the building. Why use a missile?




new topics
top topics
 
249
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join