Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Thanks, I appreciate the repartee...whenever I post something here I brace myself for the barrage, it's a pleasure to get a rational response.

It looks like a shape charge to me but I say that with a caveat I haven't examined it in detail yet. Could you post a large or close-up of the damage ring, from the inside?

I'm looking. I don't think there are any more detailed photos, which should be another clue. There would be tight closeups of landing gear or anything to support the OS if such shots existed. We'd all be well aware of them by now.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
My opinion on it: it makes sense,

No doubt, it would.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
there needed to be an exit into open air both for placing or removing of various airplane and missile parts, respectively,

Missile??? Why don't you explain how a Fork Lift got in and out of that hole to plant some of those parts. You obviously don't have a clue about how much that stuff weighs. Just that landing gear and wheel. How much do you think it weighs?[/quote

reply to post by Reheat


Why the ridicule? Would you rather we talked about planes?

reply to post by Reheat


it goes along with your solid belief in the OS ya know... no such thing as shape charges, and if there were they'd all be the same size. All forklifts look exactly the same and wouldn't fit into that hole... somebody saw an airplane and somebody saw an explosion so an airplane exploded there. must ... not... think... outside the... box.

reply to post by Reheat

Just that landing gear and wheel. How much do you think it weighs?

Why don't you tell us Reheat ??

I didn't see any huge parts that couldn't be manhandled onto a low trolley..
But you may have other information..

reply to post by Thermo Klein


(before you come up with some smart ass denial, since we know you are NEVER wrong... my "evidence" is NOT "that they are used in movies so they must be real...")

hehe, that may not be your evidence, but it is his.

Apparently, posters here at ATS are not aware that to my knowledge there are only two truther groups supporting the nonsense of "no plane at the Pentagon (NPP). They are CIT and PFT, two of the most toxic organizations that refer to themselves as truthers. ALL of the major truther groups have abandoned support of them and have abandoned support of the myth that a Boeing 757 did not strike the building. In addition, several of the more prominent individuals that are not affiliated with any group have also abandoned the premise of NPP.

This certainly is not a popularity contest, but it does call attention to the FACT that some individuals even within the truth movement have indeed "woken up" to reality.

Also, members of CIT and PFT have been banned from more and more truther Web Sites with 911 Forums to include the top dog of PFT here at ATS. Their credibility is questioned from within the truth movement more and more.


So WAKE UP FOLKS, SPREAD SOME TRUTH.

reply to post by Reheat

Reheat that's an interesting observation. I wasn't aware there were only two major groups left still sticking to the no plane at pentagon claim, but I can certainly understand why. All the evidence seems consistent with a plane to me but even setting aside the evidence, nobody has explained to me why, even if it was an inside job by TPTB, they still wouldn't just crash the plane into the pentagon. The whole premise that it wasn't a plane and then they tried to fool us into thinking it was a plane has never made any sense to me even from a conspiracy angle. I don't see any motive to do anything but crash the plane if they wanted us to think it was a plane crash. I don't know if that's why the other folks have abandoned the idea or not, but that's a big question that puzzles me.

reply to post by seism
There are also people that swear that it was a small plane that flew over too. A cruise missile could easily be mistaken for a small plane. We can't discount their
testimony either. There were also people that said they could smell cordite.
I just can't get passed the exit hole. It's, to me at least too perfect to be an exit hole from a passenger plane. That and where were the holes the engines should have left?

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by seism

 

There are also people that swear that it was a small plane that flew over too. A cruise missile could easily be mistaken for a small plane. We can't discount their
testimony either. There were also people that said they could smell cordite.
I just can't get passed the exit hole. It's, to me at least too perfect to be an exit hole from a passenger plane. That and where were the holes the engines should have left?

Out of scores of witnesses only 2 thought they saw a small corporate jet and none saw a missile :-

911research.wtc7.net...

I cannot imagine what would be the relevance of anyone saying they smelt cordite. Cordite is an obsolete British propellant and would have nothing to do with a 2001 US missile.

reply to post by Reheat


What are you saying Reheat?

I thought we were just trying to rationally discuss the damage.

Weren't we discussing the light well punch out hole being reinforced concrete lined with brick and limestone? I thought we were talking about how the damage could be made. What can form a round hole in reinforced concrete on the inside and a somewhat squareish hole in the brick on the outside. I provided some input on what I thought could cause it.

I was hoping to hear a continuation of the conversation, not yet another distraction. I am not affiliated with any group. Are you? Are you a paid for shill who will do anything it takes to avoid discussing the evidence?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Reheat

 

Reheat that's an interesting observation. I wasn't aware there were only two major groups left still sticking to the no plane at pentagon claim, but I can certainly understand why. All the evidence seems consistent with a plane to me but even setting aside the evidence, nobody has explained to me why, even if it was an inside job by TPTB, they still wouldn't just crash the plane into the pentagon. The whole premise that it wasn't a plane and then they tried to fool us into thinking it was a plane has never made any sense to me even from a conspiracy angle. I don't see any motive to do anything but crash the plane if they wanted us to think it was a plane crash. I don't know if that's why the other folks have abandoned the idea or not, but that's a big question that puzzles me.

Actually, I suspect it's more akin to the fact that there is a mountain of evidence supporting the generally accepted version and NONE to support the alternative theories. At least no evidence that withstands even superficial scrutiny. Many truthers like to invent anomalies and then try to make it fit. More often than not the anomalies are simply due to a lack of knowledge in a number of areas. In some cases it simply a matter of LYING and that's mostly what happened to CIT and PFT. They have lied about many things from the very beginning and finally the general truther world caught on to the charade.

reply to post by Reheat


I haven't even seen a mole hill yet, much less a mountain.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by seism

 

There are also people that swear that it was a small plane that flew over too. A cruise missile could easily be mistaken for a small plane. We can't discount their
testimony either. There were also people that said they could smell cordite.
I just can't get passed the exit hole. It's, to me at least too perfect to be an exit hole from a passenger plane. That and where were the holes the engines should have left?

Out of scores of witnesses only 2 thought they saw a small corporate jet and none saw a missile :-

911research.wtc7.net...

I cannot imagine what would be the relevance of anyone saying they smelt cordite. Cordite is an obsolete British propellant and would have nothing to do with a 2001 US missile.

There will always be outlier witnesses for any event. It takes a trained investigator to match the witnesses with the physical evidence and evaluate what they say with that in mind.

Cordite has not been used in some 100 years. There are several things that might make one think of cordite, not the least of which is burning human flesh. Some people also confuse any explosive with cordite odor when it's likely nothing more than odors which can result from simply a fire. There were hundreds of folks in that area who had a wealth of experience with explosives of all type. It would take more than one or two describing an explosive odor before it's even worthy of investigation.....

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Reheat

 

I haven't even seen a mole hill yet, much less a mountain.

If you expect me to hold your hand and lead you to to do research, think again. I'm not being paid enough to do that. I have other more interesting things to do. Like finish mowing my yard.

reply to post by Reheat


Yeah, you'll need to wash your hair or pick belly lint too before you'll rationally discuss the circular hole in the reinforced, poured-in-place, load-bearing, shear, double brick-lined wall of the C-Ring lightwell.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Reheat

 

Yeah, you'll need to wash your hair or pick belly lint too before you'll rationally discuss the circular hole in the reinforced, poured-in-place, load-bearing, shear, double brick-lined wall of the C-Ring lightwell.

There is a hole. On the inside near the hole is where most of the passenger remains were found. Outside the hole the nose wheel was found. The hole was not necessarily perfectly circular originally, since it was enlarged as part of the rescue efforts.

Jerry Henson - page 9

Read Henson's account. The hole was in his office wall. Seeing as how he almost died, I'm not sure why he would lie about it.

Originally posted by 911files
Jerry Henson - page 9

Read Henson's account. The hole was in his office wall. Seeing as how he almost died, I'm not sure why he would lie about it.

There's this thing called "critical thinking"... in one paragraph the author says it's so dark he can't see his hand in front of him, but two paragraphs later he says everything shifted and the door was blocked, so no one could get in anyway... then the next page he says there's a hole in the wall.... it doesn't add up.

* so dark he can't see
* yet he CAN see the door is blocked
* then there just happens to be a hole to the outside air.
* and the BIGGEST issue I have... he interrupts his story to add ONE LINE, totally out of place, some of the guys went out and could see the cockpit - guess this piece of evidence disappeared as well.

When things in a story negate other things in the story you really should question the reality of it.


I don't know all the facts, and I really would love to know what happened on 9/11, but ironically every single alleged piece of information seems to have major flaws like this one: it's too dark to see, but I could see everything had shifted and the door was blocked... c'mon.

ETA:
I'm not doubting this guy was there and experienced the fire, etc. The main things I'm challenging are that one line, out of the blue, that some guys saw the cockpit, then on with his story; also that his being able to see or not see is not consistent. There's no wreckage from the cockpit, it doesn't fit the story or the wreckage retrieved.