Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Yankee451


What????

....got fake victims, fake witnesses and no plane....

Sorry, but after first encountering this same sort of "mindset" in the so-called "chem"-trail topic....I remember someone then who was equally bamboozled by the "online" garbage....taken in, fooled, and lost in the rhetoric ---- adrift in the disinfo.....

Here. (Oh, and "fake victims"??? Truly vile to make that statement. I dare you to come to this area, and speak to ANY of the family of just, for instance, the passengers/crew of AAL 77).

Here (again)....NO! There were no "fake witnesses"!!:



Pull your head up, please.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by 911files


In the context of the OS, can you explain how it feels to know that the eyewitnesses who described wings folding back are not reliable?

Can you explain as an OSer how it feels to come to a thread regarding a photo montage and you provide audio accounts from questionable eye witnesses?

Can you explain how that's not like bringing a knife to a gun fight?

reply to post by weedwhacker


In light of the fake witnesses provided, can you provide an explanation for the hole in the poured in place, steel reinforced concrete wall of the C ring light well?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

In the context of the OS, can you explain how it feels to know that the eyewitnesses who described wings folding back are not reliable?

Can explain as an OSer how it feels to come to a thread regarding a photo montage and you provide audio accounts from questionable eye witnesses?

Can you explain how that's not like bringing a knife to a gun fight?

One thing at a time. Still don't know what OS you are talking about.

Eyewitnesses to the same event can (and will) have different recall. Often when things happen rapidly that are beyond their experience, their minds will fill in the blanks on details. In the police academy they drove this home to us by having someone come into the classroom and 'shoot' the instructor and flee. Then we would all be asked to describe what happened and the suspect. There would be as many varied accounts as there were students in the class. However, one thing would remain pretty consistent. Someone came in the room and 'shot' the instructor! By taking the varied accounts and looking for the common themes, a fair description of the suspect. What is looked for is the Gaussian mean of the description population (I know, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about), not the individual variations.

There is nothing 'questionable' about the eyewitnesses. Some are military, some are civilian, some collected by military historians, some recorded as events actually happened and some recorded by me. They tell a common and unvarying story. A large plane took off from Dulles at 8:20 am and was tracked by both radar and eyewitnesses all the way up to the Pentagon and into the west side of it, never to be seen again aside from a zillion tiny fragments.

So far all you have posted is your opinion. You have shown no expertise to support that opinion, so I am really not sure there is anything you have said worth responding to.

reply to post by 911files


The Official Story of a plane.

Discredited eyewitness accounts describe wings folding back, when the Pentagon Building Performance Report clearly shows wings not folded back.

How does it feel, as an OSer to be put in a position of explaining that contradiction? Which one is wrong, the eyewitnesses, or the ASCE/SEI (don't call me NIST!) report?

reply to post by Yankee451


Huh??? First, "steel reinforced" sounds like an intentional misrepresentation....when the reality was the "steel reinforcements" you refer to were just a few rods of re-bar!

....provide an explanation for the hole in the poured in place, steel reinforced concrete wall ....

Gee....I have you ever seen a house being built?? One with a basement??

They build forms out of wood, and then POUR concrete in....hence, your "poured in place" concrete walls.

KEY to understanding is...HOW THICK is (was) that concrete (vertical) slab??

THREE inches?

FOUR?

FIVE?? (I wonder.....and, what about the re-bar???)

RE-BAR....about one-half inch thick? Or, was it of more substantial diameter? (If so, why?)

NOW.....do you know about torque? The forces applied that are torsional? Try using a bench-mounted vise, and clamp a length of re-bar into its jaws. IF you have enough length hanging out, you can use your own weight, and strength (gravity, for the weight of course) to bend that re-bar....as it is stationed at one end. It is torque, and leverage!!

NOW....one could, if one wished, use physics to calculate the joules exerted, for any set of examples....JUST form a Human, a vise, and a re-bar sample, and such. THEN....try, please, to examine the numbers of joules of energy exerted by a massive object IN MOTION....such as the airliner, and eventually its associated debris, as part of the impact sequence.

This is really, really easy to grasp.......basic of physics, motion momentum.....I would think the vast majoirty of thinking, rational adults can grasp these understand these basic concepts.......

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

The Official Story of a plane.

Discredited eyewitness accounts describe wings folding back, when the Pentagon Building Performance Report clearly shows wings not folded back.

How does it feel, as an OSer to be put in a position of explaining that contradiction? Which one is wrong, the eyewitnesses, or the ASCE/SEI (don't call me NIST!) report?

First of all, a plane is not an OS. It is a fact of history supported by EVERY historical data source, including the witnesses and the evaluation by the PBPR and ACFD After-Action reports. If you want to run around claiming something otherwise based on nothing but your unqualified opinion (or as we like to call them in the real world, delusions). Then suit yourself.

reply to post by weedwhacker


This is called "corroborating evidence". Watch and learn.

The one element of the Pentagon not constructed of reinforced concrete is the outermost perimeter wall. It is the limestone wall that everyone sees on the outside of the building. This article is primarily about the remainder of the 1,000,000 square feet of the lightwell walls which are now undergoing a complete Repair, Rehabilitation, and Protection program.

The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6229d1d6f8d7.jpg[/atsimg]

www.structuremag.org...

reply to post by 911files


With the plane being an integral part of the OS, as a big proponent of the OS (regardless of the facts), how does it make you feel to be put in a position to defend the impossible?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

With the plane being an integral part of the OS, as a big proponent of the OS (regardless of the facts), how does it make you feel to be put in a position to defend the impossible?

Well, bring some 'facts' to the table and I might consider an alternative.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

With the plane being an integral part of the OS, as a big proponent of the OS (regardless of the facts), how does it make you feel to be put in a position to defend the impossible?

You are aware that the majority of the 9/11 Truth movement does believe the planes were real, right? They just think that there were pre-planned factors that eliminated specific variables which would be beneficial to a guilty party doing the deeds.

It's always silly how people like to focus on one detail and claim that anyone who thinks it is something other than you do is a full out OS believer/ disinfo agent. It's really not helping your case, man.

reply to post by 911files


Again?

Sigh.

Okay.

Since discredited eye witnesses described the wings folding back and punching a hole in the Pentagon, why do you not reconsider your position when confronted with these facts from the ASCE\SEI report?

How can the wings have folded back after smacking into this

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

and then unfolded as shown in the Pentagon Building Performance Report, wreaking havoc through a "forest of columns" (official term):

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

and then not cause terrible damage to columns around the light well hole:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/598e1fd1524b.jpg[/atsimg]

yet still cause enough damage to punch a round hole in reinforced concrete brick and limestone, yet not leave any evidence of what caused the hole?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2918c5ecf577.jpg[/atsimg]

I found an interesting site with the security footage and "enhanced" footage showing the scale of a 757 overlayed onto it, the two clearly don't tally.
Anyhow, take a look and see what you think.
Pretty interesting I think and I firmly believe whatever hit the Pentagon was NOT a 757.

Pentagon 9/11 Analysed

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

Again?

Sigh.

Okay.

Sir, I said facts. Not a bunch of pictures and your unqualified opinion as to what they show.

reply to post by Yankee451


Hasn't it been explained that the hole was widened by rescue/recovery efforts? That's not the way it looked right after the crash.

So, seriously, stop repeating that, or you'll start to look like a crazy person.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
I found an interesting site with the security footage and "enhanced" footage showing the scale of a 757 overlayed onto it, the two clearly don't tally.
Anyhow, take a look and see what you think.
Pretty interesting I think and I firmly believe whatever hit the Pentagon was NOT a 757.

Pentagon 9/11 Analysed

Sorry, but several highly qualified 3D artists/engineers have replicated that with 3D modeling. One with government associations and the other a French truther. Both with the same results, the Pentagon gate imagery does match at 757 at the appropriate location during that moment in time.

Here is Mike Wilsons version. Pierre took his stuff off-line.



Mike did his in Solidworks, an engineering software. He also makes his Solidworks materials online for anyone wishing to adapt/replicate his efforts.

Originally posted by Varemia


You are aware that the majority of the 9/11 Truth movement does believe the planes were real, right? They just think that there were pre-planned factors that eliminated specific variables which would be beneficial to a guilty party doing the deeds.

It's always silly how people like to focus on one detail and claim that anyone who thinks it is something other than you do is a full out OS believer/ disinfo agent. It's really not helping your case, man.

You are aware I couldn't care less what the majority believes about just about anything don't you? Have you never heard of Group Think? What are they teaching you kids these days?

Can you just admit that you let the TeeVee, Facebook and twitter do all your thinking for you and leave the hard stuff to the grown ups then?

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by 911files

 

The Official Story of a plane.

Discredited eyewitness accounts describe wings folding back, when the Pentagon Building Performance Report clearly shows wings not folded back.

How does it feel, as an OSer to be put in a position of explaining that contradiction? Which one is wrong, the eyewitnesses, or the ASCE/SEI (don't call me NIST!) report?

First of all, a plane is not an OS. It is a fact of history supported by EVERY historical data source, including the witnesses and the evaluation by the PBPR and ACFD After-Action reports. If you want to run around claiming something otherwise based on nothing but your unqualified opinion (or as we like to call them in the real world, delusions). Then suit yourself.

Are you trying to incorporate all those things into the term "Original Story"?? Not gonna happen, it's called the original story, because it's what people believed they saw on the day of 9/11, the originally understood hijack-crash scenario, nothing more - all we knew on 9/11 was that some planes had been hijacked by some guys and got crashed into buildings.
Your attempt at changing the meaning of "OS" is not gonna fly that easy.

reply to post by Yankee451


But, seriously, you have to assume that just about everyone is against you in order for your theory to hold water. You're saying that absolutely everything that we call evidence is fake, and that your assumptions based on angles and more assumptions makes you completely right.

I'm not asking you to suddenly start believing everything or even anything. I just want you to see what you're doing here. (which is ignoring everything which doesn't agree and accusing everyone else of lying/ being wrong simply because they don't agree)