Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Nefarious
I say:

A reaper drone prototype struck the building just milliseconds after a missile launched by said drone penetrated the building. I'm not as confident with the next part, but also think it's likely the drone was escorted or drop-launched by another aircraft.

edit on 22-3-2011 by Nefarious because: (no reason given)

And so what happened to AAL77 and/or the 757 seen by military and police along the way in, or that took off at Dulles?

reply to post by 911files

No actually I brought radar data, air traffic control audios (recorded as the events happen), police audio (recorded as the events happened), eyewitness accounts (from multiple government and non-government sources), math and physics (I linked a whole study completed by non-government 'watchdogs', one of which blew the whistle on TWA800), scientific modeling (Purdue University) and videos. Yet you claim all that is easily faked, but when someone posts a picture that is much easier to fake by anyone using photoshop you call it real evidence.

Yeah, you've provided a bunch of stuff that can't be corroborated by photographic evidence and much of it is at odds with other eye witness accounts. I am calling BS on the OS. Considering the OS is brought to us by the government, military and media, you'll have to provide evidence that is more reliable than a statement from suspect eye witnesses.

I've seen the MIT BS and several of the Bezant BS papers, etc. and I've commented on several, one even on this thread I believe. I would like a little reciprocity now and discuss the poured in place, reinforced concrete of the light well wall, and the images posted above which show interior damage and no jetsam.

As far as the 'stacks of bodies', what morbid person would take such photos and post them?

Oh here we go...have you not watched TV lately? I see dead people everywhere on TV and movies, but when it comes to justifying the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brown people, your tender sensibilities are outraged at the request for photos. Spare me your crocodile tears.

For the most part, the passengers on the plane are found in remnants, just like the plane.

BS. Prove it. You said they were found around the hole. Prove it or withdraw the claim.

And as I said before, I don't give a damn about the OS.

Ohh...the "skeptic" credentials. Snort.

If you want evidence to support it, go find it yourself. All I know is that there is absolutely no doubt based on the available evidence that a 757 took off from Dulles at 8:20 and disappeared at the Pentagon.

Who's making the claim here G man? I didn't invade a few nations based on these events. Show me how all those men, women and children deserved to die. Prove that plane took off and show me a speck of forensic evidence to match the wheels-off plane with whatever blew up the Pentagon.

It is you claiming that it did not hit. Now how about posting some evidence to account for that missing plane.

The original claim requires the proof, and it is because none is provided that I am calling BS. None the less, I HAVE posted evidence throughout this thread which keeps focusing on the hole in the poured in place, steel reinforced concrete walls of the C ring light well.

reply to post by 911files


That's the Trillion Dollar question...for some of the manifest.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

No actually I brought radar data, air traffic control audios (recorded as the events happen), police audio (recorded as the events happened), eyewitness accounts (from multiple government and non-government sources), math and physics (I linked a whole study completed by non-government 'watchdogs', one of which blew the whistle on TWA800), scientific modeling (Purdue University) and videos. Yet you claim all that is easily faked, but when someone posts a picture that is much easier to fake by anyone using photoshop you call it real evidence.

Yeah, you've provided a bunch of stuff that can't be corroborated by photographic evidence and much of it is at odds with other eye witness accounts. I am calling BS on the OS. Considering the OS is brought to us by the government, military and media, you'll have to provide evidence that is more reliable than a statement from suspect eye witnesses.

No its not. The photographic evidence is very consistent with the impact of a plane into the Pentagon flying at ~500 knots. Plane shatters into a zillion pieces (along with the passengers I might add). and creates a debris field at exactly the right angular area expected.

I have provided "evidence that is more reliable than a statement from suspect eye witness". You just chose to ignore it.

Originally posted by Nefarious
reply to post by 911files

 

That's the Trillion Dollar question...for some of the manifest.

Well, it must be answered before anyone can assert that the damage at the Pentagon is anything other than plane damage. At this point, there is zero evidence to indicate that it did not crash into the Pentagon.

reply to post by 911files


More BS. There is zero evidence to place it at the Pentagon, and proving it is the job of the person making the claim it's the same jet. What evidence was given to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands? Where's the rock solid evidence?

reply to post by 911files


that was a nice synopsis - interesting how many of the people you quote saw the plane approaching north of the Citgo gas station, which disproves the flight path from NIST and the FDR. Also intersting you don't into consideration that if this were a government plane on a bypass they would have jamming technologically to appear as though they had disappeared off radar.

If it were as simple and clear cut as your post we would never be having this debate.

Originally posted by 911files

No its not. The photographic evidence is very consistent with the impact of a plane into the Pentagon flying at ~500 knots. Plane shatters into a zillion pieces (along with the passengers I might add). and creates a debris field at exactly the right angular area expected.

I have provided "evidence that is more reliable than a statement from suspect eye witness". You just chose to ignore it.

Show me in pictures then, because according to the official story, the plane first disintegrated against the face, but not all of it, leaving the below damage caused by the wing:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd7ef961e453.jpg[/atsimg]

before it folded back as per eye witnesses and punched a hole in the wall. If you can prove that with math, physics and a graphic demonstration, lay it on me because the NIST report gave us the below graphic as a representation of what the wings did after they folded back and penetrated the building:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ce15bb7d874.jpg[/atsimg]

How can a reliable eye witness describe wings folding back and the official report show them disintegrating against a "forest of columns"?

Okay, I really do have other things to do beside laugh at you folks. Some of you seem to be intelligent individuals with a firm grasp on reality, unfortunately others would not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon if they were standing there watching it happen. And the later I simply do not have time to respond to amateurs who have no clue about structural issues or ballistics.

I will leave you with this though. Kevin Shaeffer who worked the flights for the 911 Commission professional staff was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit. If it was anything but Flight 77, or if he uncovered any evidence to that effect, it would have been investigated throughly.

I have made three trips now to the Pentagon area to talk to the eyewitnesses in the area. CIT made a similar number of trips. Yet, no matter who you talk to, one thing is common. A large plane flew in over the Navy Annex/VDOT area and crashed into the Pentagon. CIT wants to argue NoC and P4T wants to argue it was not AAL77 that took off from Dulles, yet EVERY eyewitness has the plane (that they all agree on) impacting the Pentagon. Not one saw it fly over, under or around.

So good luck talking fantasy land stuff. But keep in mind that every thread you do, you take the rest of the truth movement with you and make us all look foolish. When real evidence comes in (which it has) that demonstrates one or more government agencies 'covered up' or 'lied' about something, then it gets dismissed as just another crazy CT from folks like you.

If any of you really are serious in materials and documents for real research, then don't hesitate to contact me.
[email protected]

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by 911files

No its not. The photographic evidence is very consistent with the impact of a plane into the Pentagon flying at ~500 knots. Plane shatters into a zillion pieces (along with the passengers I might add). and creates a debris field at exactly the right angular area expected.

I have provided "evidence that is more reliable than a statement from suspect eye witness". You just chose to ignore it.

Show me in pictures then, because according to the official story, the plane first disintegrated against the face, but not all of it, leaving the below damage caused by the wing:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd7ef961e453.jpg[/atsimg]

before it folded back as per eye witnesses and punched a hole in the wall. If you can prove that with math, physics and a graphic demonstration, lay it on me because the NIST report gave us the below graphic as a representation of what the wings did after they folded back and penetrated the building:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ce15bb7d874.jpg[/atsimg]

How can a reliable eye witness describe wings folding back and the official report show them disintegrating against a "forest of columns"?

Darn, I must have missed the NIST report on the Pentagon. It is a combination of factors and when you show me you are capable of understanding math and physics I'll be happy to throw some at you. All you are doing is demonstrating that you don't understand the forces at work.

double duplicate

duplicate

reply to post by 911files


I am acknowledging your superiority then. Please correct my misconceptions.

Is the account of the jet wings folding back reliable when compared with the damage and the official graphic I posted?

reply to post by vault13er


I appreciate your opinion and point of view of what we should focus on.

I feel pictures are one of those ways of gaining information about the events of that day. I also believe the preponderance of nano-thermite and molten iron at the WTCs are a major scientific aspect leading toward proof that it wasn't a hijack-crash situation.

reply to post by 911files


That is a fallacy - not knowing one truth does not negate another, though I can understand awaiting a completion of events prior to relinquishing one's predisposition.

Originally posted by 911files
No actually I brought radar data, air traffic control audios (recorded as the events happen), police audio (recorded as the events happened), eyewitness accounts (from multiple government and non-government sources), math and physics (I linked a whole study completed by non-government 'watchdogs', one of which blew the whistle on TWA800), scientific modeling (Purdue University) and videos.

radar data
from the alleged plane, which never stopped at the departure gate...

air traffic control audios
that prove someone was behind the scenes telling the C-130 to get out of there...

police audio
where they saw a plane, then saw smoke, and assumed it was a crash situation

eyewitness accounts
some show the northern approach, one even sees a coommercial airplane fly low over the other side exiting from the Pentagon area - guess you missed the ones that don't work for you.

math and physics (I linked a whole study completed by non-government 'watchdogs', one of which blew the whistle on TWA800)
(I don't have a comment either way on these)

scientific modeling (Purdue University)
right, that would be the model where the wings without engines flew the unbroken windows, then took out all the columns...

videos.
that shows an airplane fly through a wall that remained intact! picture evidence disproved your video in this thread.


The fact that something exists does not make it proof unless you question the facts.

reply to post by 911files


We don't know you from Adam. Provide a convincing argument please.

Originally posted by 911files
...keep in mind that every thread you do, you take the rest of the truth movement with you and make us all look foolish. When real evidence comes in (which it has) that demonstrates one or more government agencies 'covered up' or 'lied' about something, then it gets dismissed as just another crazy CT from folks like you.

If any of you really are serious in materials and documents for real research, then don't hesitate to contact me.
[email protected]

I appreciate your work and obvious effort you've put toward this. We each have our own ways of reaching the public. I believe that as this thread has more than 200 flags there is some positive "public" opinion toward seeing pictures of the event. Keeping 9/11 in the public eye is a benefit toward eventually getting to more government action and bringing the issues to court (again). I agree that there are a lot of crazy conspiracy theories out there... I try very hard to not promote one.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by vault13er

 

I appreciate your opinion and point of view of what we should focus on.

I feel pictures are one of those ways of gaining information about the events of that day. I also believe the preponderance of nano-thermite and molten iron at the WTCs are a major scientific aspect leading toward proof that it wasn't a hijack-crash situation.

In another thread you just blasted someone for not sticking to your photo top. Now, you have the gall to bring up WTC issues. Your freaking nano-thermite was paint and there was no molten iron.]

reply to post by Reheat


Fair enough Reheat, how about we discuss how the OS fits with the photographic evidence?

Let's start with the reinforced concrete walls of the light wells.