FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

a reply to: neutronflux

You are the one who said facedye was "beyond being rational"...

be·yond
1. at or to the further side of

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

it's not a logical conclusion.

it is not logical to assert that the 5 downed light poles came from this airplane when the official pentagon report, NTSB and 9/11 commission report all report different trajectories - trajectories that do not come anywhere near the lightpoles themselves.

oh, but, witnesses saw these lightpoles come down right! due to a plane, right? so why would all the official reports not show flight 77 hitting these lightpoles in their official accounts of the trajectory of the aircraft?

I say again - you choose to believe that you're concluding this issue logically, when in reality, what you believe is anything other than logical.

every single person in this thread, and ATS as a whole who wants to contend this issue on either side of the equation should be DEMANDING the release of the pentagon's tapes on 9/11 in their entirety. this would put this matter to rest historically, once and for all.

the engines don't prove anything, unless they prove that they came from flight 77. there is no available public evidence to conclude this at this time. you know that, I know that.

this is a game of riddles, good sir. people who sympathize with the truth movement, and people who consider themselves "debunkers" of the truth movement, both have huge gaping holes in their logical reasoning.

and lastly, you've completely tried to sidestep responding to the characterization I made about your understandings of how the landing gear made a punch out hole. you know it's ridiculous and doesn't make any sense, so you moved on to discussing the bodily remains.

again, the footage we all know the pentagon has would resolve this matter empirically. I would hope that empirical conclusions are what we're all looking for here.

all you and I have is circumstantial evidence, lack thereof where it should be evident, and logical assertions. that should bother you.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

You are so biased to the point beyond being rational.

That's what a healthy dose of cynicism for the federal government does to a person.

What does seeing individual eyewitness accounts backed by evidence have to do with the federal government.

Individuals that attest to jet wreckage.

Believing the accounts of the family members of flight 77 laying the remains of their dead to rest.

Having the commonsense to see a missle didn't cause the damage at the pentagon.

Or cordite whould have not produced the entrance hole without pushing half of the front of the pentagon into the lawn have to do with the federal government?

a reply to: facedye

Again, back to claiming it's all lies with no proof.

Going to explain how a missile or cordite caused the damage at the pentagon.

Going to discredit the Article that uses the scientific method to show a large jet hit the pentagon.

Going to comment on how the large jet deniers are killing the truth movement in the war of ideas?

a reply to: neutronflux

I have nothing to say to you.

stop responding to me before I bust out the images from a few threads ago where you made absolutely absurd assertions.

Hey, let's talk about the truth movement and....

Thermite, paint chips, and bogus peer review papers?

Nuke bombs with no signature fission products or bangs?

Impossible silent CD implosion with no shrapnel or fragmenting columns?

Lasers and holograms?

Drones?

Dustification?

Richard Gage and fizzle no flash demolitions.

Termite painted ceiling tiles?

Wonder why the public sees the truth movement as a desperate faction blinded to reason in its search for any smoking gun?

originally posted by: Salander

The official story is invalid. The government did not and cannot prove it, and neither can you.

The debate is over and you will never believe any of it, so there is nothing to prove sorry to say.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Hey, let's talk about the truth movement and....

Thermite, paint chips, and bogus peer review papers?

Nuke bombs with no signature fission products or bangs?

Impossible silent CD implosion with no shrapnel or fragmenting columns?

Lasers and holograms?

Drones?

Dustification?

Richard Gage and fizzle no flash demolitions.

Termite painted ceiling tiles?

Wonder why the public sees the truth movement as a desperate faction blinded to reason in its search for any smoking gun?

You forgot the best of the best from our own John Lear...

Alien technology

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: neutronflux
Hey, let's talk about the truth movement and....

Thermite, paint chips, and bogus peer review papers?

Nuke bombs with no signature fission products or bangs?

Impossible silent CD implosion with no shrapnel or fragmenting columns?

Lasers and holograms?

Drones?

Dustification?

Richard Gage and fizzle no flash demolitions.

Termite painted ceiling tiles?

Wonder why the public sees the truth movement as a desperate faction blinded to reason in its search for any smoking gun?

You forgot the best of the best from our own John Lear...

Alien technology

I have also come across the tower fire extinguishers filled with explosives.

And WTC 7 diesel tanks replaced with nukes.

a reply to: facedye

Sure it is a logical conclusion, just because you choose to ignore the evidence does not change that.

As for the light poles, I am not sure which conspiracy site you are getting your info from, but the "official" trajectory does account for either taking out the light poles by contact or by wingtip vortice...that they were not mentioned in the "official" report, means squat.

And no, I did not sidestep anything. The nose of the aircraft, keel beam/what was left of the cockpit/what was left of the avionics bay and yes, the nose gear and its associated mounting, caused the punch out.

My mention of the remains? Just more proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. See, those folks boarded the airplane at Dulles. The airline personnel who had anything to do with Flight 77 were questioned by the FBI. The Ground Control crew who gave Flight 77 instructions on taxiing out were as well. So were the ATC folks who handled the flight after takeoff, until it went silent. The radar tapes, examined afterwards tracked the flight from takeoff to impact. The tower crew at Reagan National witnessed the last bit of Flight 77's flight into the Pentagon. The crew of GOFER 06 watched above. The witnesses on the ground identified an American Airlines airliner. From the moment the gate agent closed out Flight 77, till its impact at the Pentagon, its journey is accounted for. That the bodies of those people and their personal effects were found in the mess at the Pentagon, should convince a reasonable person as to what happened.

Again, that you choose not to accept the evidence, by basing your beliefs on the non-release of non-existent videotapes, does not change reality.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Wolfenz

The reason for the Titanic comment was that it shows you cannot trust engineers with all their claims. As for Mr. Robertson, he has no problems accepting that the damage/fire killed the Towers.

DeMartini, was seeing signs of at least a local collapse. Conduct a senace ask him how he feels about that interview now.

I agree, you cannot Trust Engineers , nor Architects which De Martini is

but !! there is always a butt ,

I Happen to Know a few of the Steel Workers that Built them!

and there's Doubt that the towers went down by a Plane alone.

anyhow
Thomas Andrew's Quote

Ismay : This Ship Cant Sink!
Andrews : she's made out of Iron Sir! I assure you she can!

Ask him how ? well a dead man does tell tales ,

but whats the Non Tran-scripted Story ?

were the two with De martini that lived paid off ? or silenced ?


what did De Martini actually see ? what was the Signs the beams bending , on fire , molten metal ,??
all in very little time , elevator collapse can be anything ,

we are just going by someone's story
that was with him,

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Twin Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core

algoxy.com...

Cast Concrete ? any truth ?



Robertson said the same thing :

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners. Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.

A Description of the World Trade Center The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23). www.unc.edu...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

evidence? you'd like to discuss evidence?

As for the light poles, I am not sure which conspiracy site you are getting your info from, but the "official" trajectory does account for either taking out the light poles by contact or by wingtip vortice...that they were not mentioned in the "official" report, means squat.

And no, I did not sidestep anything. The nose of the aircraft, keel beam/what was left of the cockpit/what was left of the avionics bay and yes, the nose gear and its associated mounting, caused the punch out.

in that case, please cite your sources for the above quote.

Again, that you choose not to accept the evidence, by basing your beliefs on the non-release of non-existent videotapes, does not change reality.

oh, they definitely exist.

a reply to: facedye

oh, they definitely exist.

With such a grand and clever conspiracy that has been detailed, do you not think they would have put together some fake tapes to go along with the story?

How are you so sure that the video tapes exist?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You do realize that the majority of the engine is NOT titanium right? Or do you not know that?

I didn't know that. Either way the engines weigh over 7,000 pounds you would think 7,000lbs traveling at 400-500 miles an hour would make a hole in at least the first wall. Or some kind of scratch?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Why is there no holes or at least marks where the two 7,000lbs (3,181kgs) titanium engines hit the building?

The entrance hole of flight 77 was at least 70 feet wide and in places two stories tall. The remaining entrance hole into the pentagon was at least one story tall. One wing dipped and hit the ground on the way into the pentagon. The destruction of the columns in the first ring struck was at least 70 feet wide. I would say the engines were instrumental in helping the entrance hole maintain a minimum height of 10 feet tall. But being external, the first impact and first encountered rows of columns help to obliterate the engines. The frames of the landing gearr protected by being tucked into the fuselage gave them survivability to punch out the last hole.

The question is? How would a 16,000 pound missile 3 feet in diameter punch out a 70 foot mide entrance hole, take out columns in a path 70 feet wide, and knock out wall after wall with smaller and smaller holes. Pushing the debris in the path of travel?

If the missile exploded, the blast radius would grow in radius and lessen in shock wave.

Thanks, this answers my question. I didn't know the hole was 70ft wide. I couldn't tell that from the photos in the OP.

originally posted by: facedye

while you're at it, how about you provide any diagram or illustration showing exactly how a landing gear can traverse through this kind of distance, through these kinds of materials, and have enough force to be the sole reason for the punch out hole.

Do you even know what kind of "materials" you are talking about? Sheetrock walls? Wooden doors? Cubicle partitions? Desks? Early 2000-era computer monitors and other various office equipment?

Once the aircraft material breeched the outer wall, there was nothing but the above-mentioned materials between any aircraft wreckage, still traveling at a great velocity (Roughly 750 feet per second at impact. A .45 caliber bullet travels at 830 feet per second) and the most inner C-Ring wall on the A-E Drive that took the brunt of the wreckage impact. That C-Ring A-E drive wall was brick and masonry - no reinforcement in the least like the outer wall on the E Ring. There is no question that the aircraft debris, including landing gear and other heavy, dense parts of the aircraft, traversed that distance and impacted the wall, knocking the hole in it. What would slow it down?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

evidence? you'd like to discuss evidence?






oh, they definitely exist.

Prove it.

a reply to: D8Tee

how am I so sure that the PENTAGON has tapes of what crashed into it?

I can't help but laugh. the security booth outside? totally working and recording. the 4+ cameras directly on the side of the impact? probably all off and/or broken, right?



let's work with the evidence we have and make educated deductions from what's available - have you seen any verifiable information which would show that all of the pentagon cameras facing the impact were not working/inoperable/not recording?

and what's so "grand" about 9/11? the U.S. has engaged in far worse, with far more evidence to prove it.

by the same token, the 9/11 OS is a pretty "grand conspiracy" in and of itself. it's completely unbelievable, unscientific and without merit.

but i'll give you the benefit of a doubt on this - please show me anything that confirms the pentagon's cameras weren't working, even though the security booth was.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

you first. I've already shown substantial evidence in the 9/11 forums about at least 80 tapes in the federal government's possession, both internal and confiscated, that are not permitted to see the light of day.

if you'd like, I can pull up that information for you. but again, you first.

please show me the sources you're basing the below quotation on (this is now the second time I'm asking you to back up what you're claiming), and i'll happily show you the information pertaining to 80+ tapes the federal government refuses to release.

As for the light poles, I am not sure which conspiracy site you are getting your info from, but the "official" trajectory does account for either taking out the light poles by contact or by wingtip vortice...that they were not mentioned in the "official" report, means squat.

And no, I did not sidestep anything. The nose of the aircraft, keel beam/what was left of the cockpit/what was left of the avionics bay and yes, the nose gear and its associated mounting, caused the punch out.