Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Wow! I didn't realize people were still active on tis thread!

Just figured I'd post since this very post happens to mark the 1200th post!

I'm not going to read the last 30 pages but I hope y'all are playing well together

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I am a little uncertain as to your exact question, there.

The Recorders, both CVR and FDR, are designed to certain standards, and expected to accomplish their function based upon certain accepted parameters of historically known impact scenarios.

Before they were implemented, how did they know how the designs would hold up? Did they just make some, hope they held up well in a crash and crossed their fingers?

IF one is to entertain the notion that they (the Recorders) are somehow 'miraculously' immune from damage that renders them unreadable, then one would be seriously misinformed.

You better find one and tell them that because that is not something I have said. I know you like to deflect and distract. Save that for people it works with.

Again, for clarity: Events of 9/11 were unprecedented. There is not going to be a designer of ANY Recorder who would, if pressed, say that he/she anticipated designing for such events as these.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

The requirements, as designed, for the survivability of the various on-board Recording devices are available online. The G forces they are expected to endure, and so forth.

NONE of this is 'secret' information.

Again, more rambling on about things that do not matter. Look, I know your game. I am pretty used to you by now. Youy reply and then fill your post with pointless periphery and bluster. You are not addressing what I asked or what I stated at all. You are just saying things; pointless things that do not have anything to do with it. I never said anything about any 'secret' information. Not even sure why that is in semi-quotes but then again, you are the technical writer

Still working on how 7's penthouse pulled the building down? BTW?

We are fortunate that we have at least the two FDRs, and the one CVR that DID survive the extreme circumstances.

Yeah, that is lucky and yet another sentence that has nothing to do with anything that I actually said. If you are going to reply to me, try addressing something relevant to what I said.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by rnaa
Not impossible to make it superficially look 'right', but highly unlikely that it would hold up to close scrutiny.

Why do you guys think repeating opinions makes them convincing? Why would it not stand up to close scrutiny? What would be so different that would be discovered. Can you explain or are you just hoping saying it a few times will make me believe you?

Yes, it is an opinion. I have not repeated that opinion. It is the first time I have ever commented on the subject. Why do you think being thick as a brick is a successful debating strategy?

I suspect it would not hold up to close scrutiny for the same reason that all those fake videos showing flyovers and missile attacks don't. Because fakes leave 'fingerprints'.

Even the passports used by the assassins in Dubai, which were perfect in every way and were, for all intents and purposes, 'real' and recognized as such by all security systems. But they were exposed quite quickly when placed under close scrutiny.

Now can you answer my question in a straight forward, adult manner without drawing the ire of the moderators. What makes you think being constantly snipped is a successful method of getting your point across?

I ask you again, why was faking a 757 crash easier that doing a 757 crash? Just one compelling reason why faking it was simpler than doing?

Why won't anyone address this issue?

Originally posted by rnaa

Yes, it is an opinion. I have not repeated that opinion. It is the first time I have ever commented on the subject. Why do you think being thick as a brick is a successful debating strategy?

Let me try to go over this slowly for you. Weedwhacker had just said the same exact thing that you said. When you said it, you were REPEATING what weedwhacker just said. Please get a dictionary and look up REPEAT. The point has been repeated (posted twice.) Who posted that repeat? YOU DID. Now explain to me all about how thick I am for knowing what words mean and how smart you are for not.

I suspect it would not hold up to close scrutiny for the same reason that all those fake videos showing flyovers and missile attacks don't. Because fakes leave 'fingerprints'.

I am not talking about a fake anything.

Even the passports used by the assassins in Dubai, which were perfect in every way and were, for all intents and purposes, 'real' and recognized as such by all security systems. But they were exposed quite quickly when placed under close scrutiny.

Right because a fake passport and using a testing facility designed specifically to apply the kinds of stresses that a real world crash can contain on a black box are exactly the same thing.

Now can you answer my question in a straight forward, adult manner without drawing the ire of the moderators.

You mean by doing something like calling you "thick as a brick?"

What makes you think being constantly snipped is a successful method of getting your point across?

LOL. Not sure. What makes you think lying is a successful method of getting your point across? I have no way to honestly answer that as I am not constantly snipped. Just make up stuff if it makes you feel better though.

I ask you again, why was faking a 757 crash easier that doing a 757 crash? Just one compelling reason why faking it was simpler than doing?

Why won't anyone address this issue?

It has been addressed by many people, many times. Unfortunately, I was now talking about applying damage to the black boxes when you jumped in. If you want to stay on one course, go for it but I myself have already address your question. You never refuted that answer so now you are jumping into another conversation, ignoring the answer to your previous question, just asking it again, personally attacking me and then lying about me.

How is that tactic working out for you?

Originally posted by rnaa

I ask you again, why was faking a 757 crash easier that doing a 757 crash? Just one compelling reason why faking it was simpler than doing?

Why won't anyone address this issue?

I think one overriding reason is that Truthers think in terms of isolated, unrelated components in constructing their conspiracy theories. They fail to understand the prerequisites, implications, and totality of the evidence that go along with their claims they make and are left making appeals to ignorance and incredulity.

Your example is spot on. Substituting a missile for a real 757 while claiming it was a real, scheduled American Airlines flight has many prerequisites and implications that make the idea absurd from a "plotter's" standpoint. Here is just one of them.

- There are hundreds of people outside the Pentagon at any one point during the day. A conspiracy plotter has no way of knowing who these people are or what they know about aircraft. For the plot to work conspiracy theorists have to assume implicitly that the plotter could guarantee that those potential eyewitnesses would not know the difference between a commercial Boeing 757 and a Global Hawk missile, a fact enhanced by the number of military people going in and out of the Pentagon.

The differences are not negligible.

- Size and profile difference.
- No engines on wings of Global Hawk.
- Engine sound difference.

The potential for eyewitnesses to know the difference is significant and cannot be dismissed by the "plotters." It is the foundation of the missile theory to be successful that no one could be fooled.

And dealing with eyewitnesses is just one component of the whole plot that would have to be successful .

It is the conspiracy theorist habit of looking at "theories" in isolation from the prerequisites and implications of those theories that undermine all of Truther claims about the 9/11 attacks.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Let me try to go over this slowly for you. Weedwhacker had just said the same exact thing that you said. When you said it, you were REPEATING what weedwhacker just said. Please get a dictionary and look up REPEAT. The point has been repeated (posted twice.) Who posted that repeat? YOU DID. Now explain to me all about how thick I am for knowing what words mean and how smart you are for not.

You should try reading the thread sometime. My reply to your question immediately follows your post that contains the question. My reply addresses your question and does not reference nor does it repeat any post I can find from Weedwhacker. Weedwhacker's response to your question is entirely different to mine and actually FOLLOWS your complaint to me.

I am not talking about a fake anything.

As far as I can tell, you are talking about the feasibility of FAKING the black box contents and damage and planting them in the ruins of the Pentagon after the FAKED 757 crash.

If that is not the case, please enlighten us as to just what in the heck you are talking about. Because that is the discussion we seem to be having, and if not then we are all just chasing our tails.

Right because a fake passport and using a testing facility designed specifically to apply the kinds of stresses that a real world crash can contain on a black box are exactly the same thing.

Of course not. Modern passports have much more rigorous security features than a black box. And Jews entering Arabic countries are held under much more suspicion than a flight data recorder found in the wreckage of a plane crash.

You mean by doing something like calling you "thick as a brick?"

Yes, that was a bit snarky (I was listening to Jethro Tull when I wrote that ). But what should we conclude from the following:

LOL. Not sure. What makes you think lying is a successful method of getting your point across? I have no way to honestly answer that as I am not constantly snipped. Just make up stuff if it makes you feel better though.

From just a few pages back in this thread a couple of your posts (I couldn't be bothered to go all the way to the front, this small sample will suffice):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the your response to me where you claimed I was repeating myself:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It has been addressed by many people, many times. Unfortunately, I was now talking about applying damage to the black boxes when you jumped in. If you want to stay on one course, go for it but I myself have already address your question.

Great! Can you point me to where that is? Because try as I might I just can't find it. I'm sure it must be there, because you say it is, and I know how trustworthy your assertions about your own posting history is . With all the 'credible' scenarios that have been put forth for how the fakery could have been achieved, I am sure you can come up with at least one compelling reason for the 757 crash to be faked instead of actually doing it.

You never refuted that answer

Because as far as I can tell, it never happened. I am happy to be corrected, however.

so now you are jumping into another conversation, ignoring the answer to your previous question, just asking it again, personally attacking me and then lying about me.

How is that tactic working out for you?

Well since I am not the one that is lying about you, it isn't my tactic. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

My only 'tactic' in this thread, from my second post, is to get someone to answer the question: why was the 757 crash faked? Go ahead, look it up, I have been very consistent about this. (I did look it up to verify that statement and found my first post was a challenge to someone to read the thread and respond to it instead of demanding something that is already there - I don't want to be throwing stones in a glass house).

So far no one has taken the challenge, unless of course you have done so and I missed it, I repeat that I am happy to be corrected on this (see stones vs glass house comment above). Oh yeah, one poster did suggest that it was easier to 'stage set' a crash to look real than it was to do a real crash - hardly a credible answer.

So please lets get off the personal back and forth and just answer the question (or point me to your response).

[edit on 21/4/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by rnaa


You should try reading the thread sometime. My reply to your question immediately follows your post that contains the question. My reply addresses your question and does not reference nor does it repeat any post I can find from Weedwhacker. Weedwhacker's response to your question is entirely different to mine and actually FOLLOWS your complaint to me.

I am so very sorry. Let me please apologize to you. I feel so bad now. I obviously did not go slowly enough for you.

When someone comes up with a way to thoroughly 'fake' the impact damage of an airplane's components, and fool the multiple investigators, then come on and show everyone....

Posted by weedwhacker on 19-4-2010 @ 04:23 PM

Not impossible to make it superficially look 'right', but highly unlikely that it would hold up to close scrutiny.
posted by rnaa on 19-4-2010 @ 09:45 PM

Now, please help stupid ol' me out. Since, as you say, I need to read it some more. Please explain how many times I will need to read it in order to make 9pm come before 4pm on the same day?



[edit on 21-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Reading comprehension 101:

You asked for an elaboration on Weedwhacker's statement asking why it would be impossible. I corrected the thrust of your question since Weed never said it was impossible. I responded to you to clear up your misinterpretation of what he said.

So OK. In that sense I repeated Weed's remarks by paraphrasing them in order to correct your misunderstanding, on Weed's behalf (which may have been presumptuous of me, but anyway there you have it) , but only after you specifically requested a clearer explanation.

There, I have admitted my guilt.

Will you now do me the courtesy of answering my question.

Please?

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Reading comprehension 101:

You asked for an elaboration on Weedwhacker's statement asking why it would be impossible. I corrected the thrust of your question since Weed never said it was impossible. I responded to you to clear up your misinterpretation of what he said.

Go back and read it again. I find it funny that before you can admit you were wrong, you still feel the need to pretend that it is my reading comprehension that is the problem. Let's see how the rest of your post stays consistent, eh?

So OK. In that sense I repeated Weed's remarks by paraphrasing them in order to correct your misunderstanding, on Weed's behalf (which may have been presumptuous of me, but anyway there you have it) , but only after you specifically requested a clearer explanation.

OK let me explain to you how reading works. I put down words and if you can understand them, they relate to you my thoughts. If you do this correctly, you will not have to do what you did and make incorrect assumptions.

WW did not answer my question. It was not a lack of understanding, it was just simply not an answer to what I was asking. You then answered with the same thing he did. It was hardly more detailed, elaborate, explanatory, or anything else. It was just shaped differently. It was still not an answer.

I never once wrote anything stating that I did not understand and wanted clarification. You take your snide 'learn to read' insults and stick them right up your RIF. When you have to assume what I am thinking and then not actually respond to what I said because the words I used were apparently worthless to you, YOU ARE THE ONE NOT READING CORRECTLY. Just stop insulting my reading ability while at the same time confirming that you have not been reading anything correctly yet. Want to get on topic or keep trying to insult me for your personal failures?

There, I have admitted my guilt.

Go back to the opening line of this post and see if your admission is warranted, justified, acceptable, or just plain contradictory. You decide for yourself. I am sure whatever words I just used will not make it into the thought you respond to anyway.

Will you now do me the courtesy of answering my question.

Please?

So you think that starting off by again telling me I do not know how to read and then going on to prove you made assumptions about me because reading was apparently too much trouble...


...and then saying please makes it all good eh?

I already answered your question somewhere in this thread. If I can find it easily, I am not answering it for you again.

...Oh, right. It was removed because it contained proof another member was lying.

Because with a real plane the chances of actually hitting exactly where they wanted and causing the precise damage they wanted would have introduced to many risky variables while something more easily controlled could easily give the same cover story.

I had no problem finding pilots that said that flight path was next to impossible. The only person that brags about how easy it would be to do is some nameless internet "pilot" with a poor track record of honesty and proof of claims.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Because with a real plane the chances of actually hitting exactly where they wanted and causing the precise damage they wanted would have introduced to many risky variables while something more easily controlled could easily give the same cover story.

Fine. Lets start there then.

Why did it have to hit exactly where it did? What part of the conspiracy to crash a plane into the Pentagon in order to convince the People that we had to go to war depended on hitting the Pentagon just exactly right?

How was getting it in exactly the right place so important that they had to fake so much, bribe so many people into silence and perjury, take so heavy a risk that they would be found out?

Why would a real plane crash, in almost the right spot, have served them just as well? Why would they care about the precise damage?

I had no problem finding pilots that said that flight path was next to impossible. The only person that brags about how easy it would be to do is some nameless internet "pilot" with a poor track record of honesty and proof of claims.

And yet I have heard pilots who say that it would be straight forward. I have also heard other pilots say they've had a hard time doing it in a simulator. So the pilot got lucky and hit it low instead of high. So what?

The difficulty of doing it on purpose in exactly that spot is irrelevant. As a conspirator, who cares where exactly it hit? The point is that it hit, period. As a conspirator, who cares about the exact damage, the damage should look like it got hit by an airplane, period.

So, the question remains, why is faking it easier than doing it for real? What possible motivation would they have to exposing themselves to such a pointless deception when they could just do it for real and be done with it?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Because with a real plane the chances of actually hitting exactly where they wanted and causing the precise damage they wanted would have introduced to many risky variables while something more easily controlled could easily give the same cover story.

From where does your assumption come that the intent was to hit the newly reinforced section of the Pentagon?

Man forget the towers the pentagon is the real story. There is one gas station that sits in front of the pentagon were the plane "crashed" and that gas station is for pentagon personel only, on the other side is the freeway. Now if you have a 747 fully loaded with fuel and passengers traveling several hundred miles per hour at an altitude of less than 100 feet flying over the freeway the thrust from the engines alone is going to throw cars of the road like they were made of papper. The street lights would have been blown down, and were in the hell are the people that would have seen it making its decent over the road. You know were they are..no wear because it never happened! What happened to the video footage from the gas station..the FBI came in and confiscated it. Know why? Because no plane crashed into the pentagon. All the talk is about the towers, no media ever really talks about the Pentagon..BECAUSE IT IS A LIE.

reply to post by CharlesBronson74


And, yet again...a claim with no validity in actual fact.

Now if you have a 747 fully loaded with fuel and passengers traveling several hundred miles per hour at an altitude of less than 100 feet flying over the freeway the thrust from the engines alone is going to throw cars of the road like they were made of papper.

Please provide the reasons for this belief. Show examples. There are plenty of videos of low-flying, large passenger jets. No cars are hurt in the filming of those videos.....

NOW....IF this idea of cars being tossed about as if made of paper is out there in people's minds, it's largely because of HOLLYWOOD MOVIES.

A motion picture, especially an Action/Adventure genre film, goes out of its way to be visually exciting, and THEY constantly break the rules of physics, in order to provide a stimulating visual experience for the audience.

You may reasearch into this...a good program that covers this in some detail is the "Mythbusters" TV show. I know it's on Basic Cable here in the U.S., and I think it's syndicated all over the World, too.

Check clips online, as well.

Oh, and I didn't correct your typo, there. Boeing 757. NOT "fully loaded" (not that that matters, for this discussion anyways).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For your enjoyment. Real life:









[edit on 22 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by CharlesBronson74
Man forget the towers the pentagon is the real story. There is one gas station that sits in front of the pentagon were the plane "crashed" and that gas station is for pentagon personel only, on the other side is the freeway. Now if you have a 747 fully loaded with fuel and passengers traveling several hundred miles per hour at an altitude of less than 100 feet flying over the freeway the thrust from the engines alone is going to throw cars of the road like they were made of papper. The street lights would have been blown down, and were in the hell are the people that would have seen it making its decent over the road. You know were they are..no wear because it never happened! What happened to the video footage from the gas station..the FBI came in and confiscated it. Know why? Because no plane crashed into the pentagon. All the talk is about the towers, no media ever really talks about the Pentagon..BECAUSE IT IS A LIE.

Here is the cctv video footage from the Citgo gas station you referred to. It was released years ago:-

www.youtube.com...

What does it show ? People filling their cars and paying at the counter. Surprise surprise !

Why didn't you make the most elementary check before implying something sinister about it ?

Never seen a plane blow cars of the road in a movie. A 757 creates 43500lb of thrust, the video's that you just posted to clear everything up showes planes landing, not comming in at 100 feet full throddle. And CCTV footage from the gas station.....well that totally clears things up. From the placment of the gas station to the pentagon and the cameras installed on the perimiter of the store you would have a plain line of sight. You would be talking about better footage than the planes crashing into the towers. Not talking about the video from inside the store. And if there is such video then Im sure I have not seen it nor has anybody that I know of. All we have is a 3 sec time lapse video from a guard shack. This is the Pentagon thats the only video there is come on.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by CharlesBronson74]

reply to post by CharlesBronson74

A 757 creates 43500lb of thrust, the video's that you just posted to clear everything up showes planes landing, not comming in at 100 feet full throddle.

That is the approximate rated static thrust for each engine, yes.

NOTE the word, "static".

Note the video of the military B-757 on the low pass, high speed, high power.

Note also (for the non-pilots out there) that an airplane, when landing, has the engines "spooled up" to fairlly high power settings. Big turbofan jet engines use the N1 rotation speed as primary power setting reference.

When "dirty", for landing, with gear down and landing flaps (30 degrees, on the B757) the power settings needed for a stabilized, controlled approach are in the 70%-80% N1 power setting ranges (depending on landing weight).

Inflight, at "full throttle" the N1 will be somewhere around 105% (there is a limiting controller, like a governor).

SO...landing airplanes, when stable and configured, are producing almost as much thrust as when at "full throttle".


But, anyway....NONE of that matters unless you are DIRECTLY BEHIND, and at same level, as the jet engine's exhaust gases!

AND, when the airplane is in motion, MOST of hte jet's exhaust energy is used to PROPEL the airplane forward!! I think a little look into a physics book, and Newton's laws of motion, would be helpful. Seems some people don't comprehend physics, anymore.

The only possible comparison to make, regarding the airplane passing, is the wake turbulence it produces. That is actually more substantial than the jet's exhaust force, for the airplane when in flight.

AND, for objects on the ground, it is minimal. Has greater effects on OTHER airplanes, in trail of course. At the same (or slightly lower) altitudes.

Google wake turbulence.

Or, here're some videos, showing a study using brightly colored smoke (since air is invisible, the smoke assists in seeing hte airflow patterns). Note how it has little effect on the ground:





Ain't learning fun?

Hi Weed,
Nice to see you are still at full throttle Of course you know about the police witnesses at the Citgo petrol station...they are the ones that said the 'plane flew over to the left of the station and also right along the Navy Annex, which is contrary to the cartoon of the FDR's flight pattern. Just a "little" inconsistancy, but of course we just gloss over these things, or just ignore them. I actually do think that a 'plane of some sort hit the Pentagon, but the FBI given footage has been doctored in some way, and they bear a grave responsibility for that, and also for the Citgo footage, the critical camera itself was removed, never mind the tape. As as was the hotel camera. The helicopter images..or rather the lack of them are contentious, but amazingly enough the direction of travel is more in keeping with what the policemen said, so more confusion there. Things just did not happen the way we have been told, and Presidential remarks in the aftermath of 9/11 in general, have many people very concerned. Even the original story of "duff pilots" is changing as we go along to suit the current thinking, as the original story itself changes subtly.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by Alfie1


Yes, it was released years ago, but the FBI seized it minutes after the Pentagon event. It stayed in their possession for months and the youtube resolution shows you absolutely nothing.

Your point is ...?


[edit on 25-4-2010 by AllIsOne]

I have become a little tied going over the physics of 9/11 and it's a bit like telling people at a chuch about the big bang theory when they want to beleive the earth is still flat.

it's no conspriacy theory that the offical 9/11 report did not convince a large proportion of the words population and yet the hidden hand of power puts both fingers in it's ears and wil not talk about let alone address many of the facts.

The same WMD propaganda is being told about Iran but this time they needed another team because we all found out that Bush/condi lies and Co were lieing and the MSM acts as if everyone has forgot about the lies.

If we want to grab the oil then lets say so and if they don't want countries to sell oil using euro's then lets say so but do stop treating people as stupid.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Yes, it was released years ago, but the FBI seized it minutes after the Pentagon event. It stayed in their possession for months and the youtube resolution shows you absolutely nothing.

Your point is ...?


[edit on 25-4-2010 by AllIsOne]

My point is that truthers frequently refer to these security tapes being confiscated or " seized ", as you have described, with the implication that this was something sinister and indicative of a conspiracy.

Fact is it is standard investigative procedure all over the world for law enforcement personnel to try and get hold of any cctv footage which might show something relevant to a crime scene.

The results are often disappointing because security cameras, as at the Citgo gas station, are sited to dissuade drivers from going off without paying or robbing the place. Scanning the skies for rogue hi-jacked airliners would not be part of a normal set-up.