posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:10 PM
(This post is very sloppy of me. I apologize)
Lots of issues with this, most notably about the 911review.org link. Because of that, I say "you" a lot, and don't always mean the OP.
OP said "the US refused to release anything about the pentagon and it was very hidden from the media." So, your problem is that they don't go into
large detail about the actual structure of one of the most politically important buildings in the U.S.? The alternative would be to say "Anyone who
wants to try to attack again, here are some significant details about how the Pentagon is built/secured"? Granted, a lot of info already exists, but
doesn't mean they would willingly want even more to come out.
While it can be spun to say that it gave them time to change their story, I have a hard time holding it against them when they make claims about it 4
days after the event, even though they were obviously still in the investigation stage. During an investigation, many theories and ideas are both
presented and disproved later.
With the 911review.org items, it takes a massive amount of creative viewing to find what they are claiming.
While you could be correct about the photo chronology, there is no proof the timeline presented is accurate, nor in what timeframe they take place.
Most importantly, there is the claim of the plane not fitting in the hole pictured. The problem with that? They don't say which ring these photos are
from. It isn't the outermost ring. In what is labeled "second known picture," you can see another building on the right side of the picture. I do
realize there are some hints towards the end of the piece that say it was B ring, but this isn't made clear. And if it is B ring, it alone changes
everything about this hole and how it should be analyzed.
"Punch Out": It was a punch out, in relation to where the plane hit. Anything that extends out away from the target would be a punch out. If it
punched in, it would have blown out into the direction the plane came from. Like an implosion.
"The people I have spoke with that were on the scene and seem to get agitated when the subject of the exit hole comes up. One refused to discuss it
any further saying, 'A plane hit the building....ok?'" After you are asked conspiracy questions non-stop for days on end, you too are going to
start getting frustrated and will be answering in terse manners.
I don't see it:
Fire extinguisher in picture 1? Where? Not saying it isn't there, but I just don't see it.
"Perfect crisp edge": Be careful when saying "perfect". Even if you don't buy the plane story, that hole is not "perfect with crisp edges"
White board to the left will later have plane parts on it? How can you claim this when the whole white board isn't shown in the picture. That, along
with camera angles and shadows can be completely deceptive.
Content not on fire? You're shocked that the bricks aren't burning? There is a lot of other debris that might be able to ignite, but burn out quick.
Additionally, the smoke is from inside. So, it won't matter if you see fire.
Hose in picture 2? While I definitely am not an expert in fire hoses, sure looks like the fireman is actively using the hose.
Far right pole removed? No, it's standing right there. It is just photographed at a different angle than picture 1, giving a false impression of
it's relation to the scene.
"another bent pipe on the nearest side of the hole"? You can see that in picture 1 as well.
More smoke later in the day (The ones with one labeled "laying on white board)? steam from continued firefighting activities internally.
The smoke shown in "Second known picture"? smoke lingering in the air. Think of the 4th of July.
APU door not getting narrower? It's torn apart enough, you can't make an accurate claim of this, especially taking into account the angle of the
"Windows blown above" picture? There is no evidence in which direction the windows broke, either in, out, up or down.
Claim of no smoke coming out of windows, but smoke coming out of hole? Are you sure you aren't talking about the scorch mark and not actual smoke?
The "Houston we got a problem" picture? Again, based on perspective and camera angle, this is just misleading. You are misrepresenting the shape of
the debris. In the "laying on white board" picture, you can see the true shape of the object and how it blocks out what the later picture shows.
"Planted" picture: As you say, its in the middle of the clean-up process. Any similarity to what you saw in earlier pictures are immediately
irrelevant, due to moving debris.
No paint on the wall? Of course. The paint didn't show up until much later in the clean-up process. this is correctly noted in the captions, but then
conveniently forgotten when coming up with the cover-up theory.
The "now-solid" piece that was claimed to be broken in two earlier (When it was covered by the debris in the misleading picture showing the odd
perspective), looks the exact same as earlier. Again, was just a bad angle for the initial picture.
While I can't say that the person who said he took the pictures of the paint in the walls is lying or wrong, once again, the "punch out" comment is
misleading. It just wasn't an implosion.
Another possibility (though I don't believe it) is that in this case, "punch out" was used as a phrase for what needed to be done to the wall in
order to start repairs. "OK, we need to punch out this wall before we can start repairs." And that it is a coincidence that the same term was used
that would later cause problems.
Once again, the size of the hole is not easy to compare, since it's not the outermost ring.
Airplane tire? Don't see it.
There is the claim that the debris in the photos show that it was blown outward, not inward. What if all/some of that debris is NOT from the hole
shown, but is from the exit of the next ring out? Just blew across the space between rings.
Anyway, I really don't see any real evidence that can't be explained, even if just with "what if's" or "maybes."
Now, some comments on what others have said in this thread:
"Anyone heard of any relatives of people on that plane? No?" Take it the other way. They didn't make up a flight just for this operation. It was
pre-existing. In that case, why has no one come forward and said "I wasn't able to buy a ticket to that flight"?
"I thought there were only 19 ALLEGED hijackers??? Which official source states that there were 20 hijackers?" I think you are taking the words too
literally. What is talked about in this case is not who actually died, but that there was one other person who was supposed to be on the flight, but
wasn't. He was #20.
"Not a reliable website (911reality.com) to source your information from, it only supports the OS and nothing else." Without saying who is right or
wrong, don't the conspiracy websites do the exact same thing, but with the opposite target? *fill in your favorite site here* hardly ever (if at all)
admit when they are proven wrong. Both sides are guilty of this.
Oh well, I'm tired now.