Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Yankee451

 

The C-ring wall was "reinfoced concrete"????

Oh, do please, cite that source.....I see that constant hand-waved claim, with no corroboroation.

Hmmmmm....what is that called, again?????

This makes the third or fourth time you've demanded this. There is a link to the article from Structure Magazine which was doing a complete renovation...read it and reconsider your position. Yeah, like anything can get through the armor of your conviction.

I hope your set drops this time and you can find the courage to acknowledge my source:

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 Pentagon consists of five separate rings, each approximately 90 feet wide with approximately 30 feet between the rings. The space between the rings is known as the lightwells. Thus, we call the perimeter walls of each ring the lightwell walls. The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls.

www.structuremag.org...

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

reply to post by weedwhacker


So I ask again...what does the round hole in the reinforced concrete wall of the C ring light well have to do with the airline industry?

WTF are you jokers talking about planes for?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Varemia

 

That is an excellent video. Thanks for sharing it. I wish they had shown the lack of damage to the wall where they suggested the airplane went through, because the pictures shown in the OP of this thread show there are no holes there...

With all the water and steam in the only OP photo showing the intact wall, I don't see how you can determine that there were no holes. You can still clearly see the damaged generator.

What I have to wonder is that if this was a missile, wouldn't it have caused way more damage? In my experience seeing things blow up on mythbusters and in videos from war-time in various time periods, explosions from bombs do a lot of damage to structures, especially from the inside because they can create a nice 360 degree pressure wave to every wall.

On the other hand, you have impact damage by a high-velocity object which then explodes as a gas bomb, which is mostly a shock wave along with burning vapor (as everyone knows, it's the gas from the liquid that burns, not the liquid itself). The shock wave would be far less intense than an incendiary bomb of some sort, and the spread of fire would cause the most damage compared to the initial impact (though the compromising of supports and other components can allow fire to be way more dangerous, even if fought immediately).

I mean, this is my opinion as it makes sense to me. Take it as ye will.

reply to post by Varemia


aangirfan.blogspot.com...

"The evidence provides a paper trail suggesting that current high Clinton and Bush officials, members of Congress, and the New York Attorney General and Manhattan DA ... were and are aware of allegedly significant fraudulent banking activities at Goldman Sachs which is linked to transactions along the time-line of the 9.11 attacks - and an ongoing ONI intelligence probe where the investigators died at the Pentagon, information literally screaming for a separate grand jury investigation in and of itself...

Missiles could have been used for emphasis, but bombs would make sure the evidence was destroyed.

reply to post by Yankee451


I'm not denying that the government may have had a hand. I'm just saying it was most likely a plane, just as the official story says. I mean, wouldn't it be easiest to just use a plane, so that your story can't be refuted so easy? Every time I think about what "I" would do if I was setting up a false flag, I would use real hijackings with real planes, even using real terrorists. The big difference is that I position all my targets and such way ahead of time, so that when the terrorists "succeed" in evading security and "somehow" manage to take over their planes, they find the easiest flight path to be right into the spot where you want them to be.

Heck, you could probably write in some kind of auto-pilot program that engages once it's close enough to the target, and then guides it right where it needs to be.

WTC 7 is one I think was probably an accident. Even if a lot of the files kept there were incriminating, they were probably top secret, and the agencies in charge most likely had a heck of a time recovering afterward.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
you can look at a small number of photographs, many shot from hundreds of yards away with a telephoto lens...

Please learn from this...

Thanks for the lesson in photo analysis. Yes, I did learn something. I learned that is that you can show photographs to show what you want to show and think you've made a valid point.

Show something else to me, please. Find a fireman or any other easily identifiable object behind that water spray near the building and show the same detail as your zoomed in example. While you at it, zoom into all of that debris lying up next to the building behind the spray and under lots of foam with enough detail to determine what it is.

Also, while were looking at detail, what caused the obvious damage to the area of the wall above and to the right of the water spray. You should be able to see those chunks of missing concrete. Then explain what type of explosive one might use inside a building that would cause that kind of damage to the outside surface of the wall.

While you're at it, what type of explosive would make an obvious long line of kinetic energy damage to the inside.as show in diagrams I'm sure you've seen. I guess all of those guys on the Building Performance Study were deceived or are lying, Which do you think it was? If you can think of another reason that I can't please list it.

grade: F
it wasn't a lesson in photo analysis, it was a lesson in why telephoto shots can be valid evidence. Please stop using your little tag line "from a telephoto lens and hundreds of yards away"; it is ignorant and purposefully avoidant.

reply to post by Reheat

But, he thinks there is something magical about "thick air" and all of the lift that would be produced at low altitude. Many here are truly swimming upstream in something thick, but it ain't air! They're not using a paddle either!

Hard to believe you are a pilot sprouting BS like that..
Like atmospheric pressure means nothing in aerodynamics..

Man, you should get into the chemtrail threads..
We only get most contrails to form from planes flying above 30000' due to less of that "air stuff" allowing them to fly faster...

I want to leave a gift for Thermo Klein because he's taking too long time to respond to my last post and it's past my bedtime. I've decided to post the comments from the Federal Judge who dismissed a Law Suit regarding the very subject under discussion. That Law Suit used some of the photos shown in this thread which Mr Klein included in the OP. The Law Suit also used an Affidavit from the infamous Pilots for 9/11 Twoof referred to in this thread

The .pdf can not be posted in it's entirety, but here are the Judges' comments.

Even assuming the factual allegations of the complaint are true, Gallop's claims are not plausible. It is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and other high-ranking officials conspired to facilitate terrorist attacks that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans. If anything, the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy. A court may dismiss a claim as "factually frivolous" if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless", that is, "fanciful", fantastic" or "delusional" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325,327,328 (1989)) Courts have not hesitated to dismiss complaints asserting delusional claims of conspiracy.3 Indeed, courts have dismissed other cases alleging delusional conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11,2001. Because Gallop's claims are factually baseless -- indeed, because they are fanciful, fanatic, and delusional -- they are dismissed.

Here's a link to the .pdf file.....

sites.google.com...

Attorney's tell me it is very rare to see such strong comments of dismissal in a Case of any kind.

ETA: The claims in this thread are factually baseless -- indeed, because they are fanciful, fanatic, and delusional -- they are dismissed.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
grade: F
it wasn't a lesson in photo analysis, it was a lesson in why telephoto shots can be valid evidence. Please stop using your little tag line "from a telephoto lens and hundreds of yards away"; it is ignorant and purposefully avoidant.

Oh, I see you only addressed SOME of my comments. No, I won't stop using that phrase because that's precisely what you did it is certainly not ignorant. I disagrees with your Headline and it's disagrees with your premise. That does not make it wrong no matter how many times you state that it does. Your thread of deceit is toast....

reply to post by Reheat

Attorney's tell me it is very rare to see such strong comments of dismissal in a Case of any kind.

My gawd, I think you're on to something,,!!!!

A government appointed Judge sides with the Government...
Who'd have seen that one coming.

reply to post by Varemia


You think the government might be involved, so why do you believe their story without checking the evidence?

Forget the side show supplied by the pilots who are trying their damndest to keep the topic on planes...that's all they have to work with so its imperative they keep it there.

For a plane to cause the damage, it had to penetrate the facade, which it didn't do completely, causing the wings to fold back:

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

Then the wings unfolded and proceeded to disintegrate through a "forest" (the official term) of exceedingly strong spiral-rebar reinforced concrete columns:

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

Before encountering the reinforced, poured in place, shear and load-bearing wall of the light well, which also appears to be brick faced:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a58caa041bd6.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is what a Wall Breaching kit will do:

www.rense.com...

What does the evidence for the C ring hole better support; Jet or explosives?

reply to post by Varemia


First I would like to say thank you for bringing an argument that is actually on the topic and to the point! It's honestly a breath of fresh air to be discussing the facts instead of minute detail about some possibility or whether I typed something correctly. Secondly, I am not averse to changing my mind - I believe part of getting to truth is having a meandering path toward it, and truth cannot be reached by utterly sticking to the same argument and defending it as if your position is and will always be right. I am a truther because I feel the evidence points that way, if the evidence leads the other way I will change my mind, my main interest is justice.

I'm putting my daughter to bed, and I'll be back in a while with pictures and response to the video - we'll see how it goes.

This video actually made me question my belief in 9/11. I watched it a second time and recognized some major flaws. The video is brilliant and worth it's own thread. It's a lie, made by government defense contractors, but don't take my word for it - take a look at the thread that explains bit by bit.

The Best animation video for Pentagon Proof ever made - and why it's wrong



I feel invogorated after having a challenge like that! I truly let my mind free from what I believe (Truth) and said, hey, maybe I'm wrong... I really wish some of the OS proponents could allow themselves to see both sides for a while; it gives you new perspective.

reply to post by Reheat

The performance of your aircraft depends on air density: which has a direct effect on lift, drag, engine performance and the propeller. When air density decreases, aircraft performance decreases.

www.experimentalaircraft.info...



Not magic just physics, it's funny how people who don't understand call it magic.

Originally posted by backinblack
Man, you should get into the chemtrail threads..
We only get most contrails to form from planes flying above 30000' due to less of that "air stuff" allowing them to fly faster...

Bingo! You wanted an example of BS. How nice of you to provide one.....

Contrails are produced due to TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE AIR. They have nothing at all to do with speed. They were formed on some occasions behind lumbering B-17's during WWII.

Didn't have to wait long for that one did I!

Originally posted by backinblack
A government appointed Judge sides with the Government...
Who'd have seen that one coming.

My, my Conspiracies are EVERYWHERE!

Even assuming the factual allegations of the complaint are true, Gallop's claims are not plausible. It is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and other high-ranking officials conspired to facilitate terrorist attacks that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans. If anything, the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy. A court may dismiss a claim as "factually frivolous" if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless", that is, "fanciful", fantastic" or "delusional" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325,327,328 (1989)) Courts have not hesitated to dismiss complaints asserting delusional claims of conspiracy.3 Indeed, courts have dismissed other cases alleging delusional conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11,2001. Because Gallop's claims are factually baseless -- indeed, because they are fanciful, fanatic, and delusional -- they are dismissed.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I feel invogorated after having a challenge like that! I truly let my mind free from what I believe (Truth) and said, hey, maybe I'm wrong... I really wish some of the OS proponents could allow themselves to see both sides for a while; it gives you new perspective.

There is one of your major problems. Truthers REDEFINE the word truth. In fact, the word truth has been perverted and defiled by a group calling themselves truthers. They are anything but.
Another misconception producing delusion again. Those of us who have actually looked at the evidence and understand it have absolutely no doubt what occurred. I actually do see both sides of the argument and yours is WRONG..

Case in point..... You contend that one of your photographs shows the columns at the entrance hole that are hanging by a thread and appear to be pushed outward is proof of an explosion. But then, you think that means someone PLANTED EXPLOSIVES. The reality is there was an explosion, a large one caused by deflagration (that is the correct word) of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Bombs are not always the cause of explosions, but truthers don't seem to know that. Others don't under the tremendous effect of Kinetic Energy from a mass of moving stuff and concentrate on the punch out hole leading to the A-E Drive. There's one doing it right now over and over again as if it's something strange and mysterious. All he is doing is display a profound ignorance of Kinetic Energy.

reply to post by Reheat

Bingo! You wanted an example of BS. How nice of you to provide one.....

Contrails are produced due to TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE AIR. They have nothing at all to do with speed.

Your posts are almost pure BS..

Of course it has to do with speed...
Why do planes fly over 30.000' ?? Speed???

Learn some aerodynamics mate..You seem lacking for a pilot..

Now some of your,,,

reply to post by Reheat

My, my Conspiracies are EVERYWHERE!

Courts making decisions in favour of Government is NOT a conspiracy..
Even judges know who the boss is...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

Bingo! You wanted an example of BS. How nice of you to provide one.....

Contrails are produced due to TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE AIR. They have nothing at all to do with speed.

Your posts are almost pure BS..

Of course it has to do with speed...
Why do planes fly over 30.000' ?? Speed???

Learn some aerodynamics mate..You seem lacking for a pilot..

Now some of your,,,

Aircraft fly at the higher altitudes PRIMARILY because the engines operate more efficiently in the conditions found there and the aerodynamic design is optimized for that region during cruise. Of course, there is more speed in that region but, that is NOT WHAT PRODUCES CONTRAILS. I'll say it again..... TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE AIR produce contrails, not speed.

en.wikipedia.org...
cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...
www.aerospaceweb.org...

Now, go ahead and say that speed has anything at all to do with the formation of contrails. Put that BS in big bold letters and I'll preserve it in the archives along with all of the hundreds of Web Sites that PROVE you are wrong.