Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

So basically a charge similar to 100lb's of C4 was placed in desinated rooms and infrastructure in the Pentagon? Do you think it would be the same group responsible for placing charges in the concrete walls beneath the world trade centres before they detonated?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


DNA was spread throughout the Penta-gone grounds.
Much survived the intense heat.
This should Ap-pEErrrrr obvious to any trained 'Eye'.
The evidence 'was' for the taking.

The rest is in 'the' hang-RRRRR.....clawing at the public Conscious.....Ambiently reaching for the Light.....of day.....

Who possesses the pictures of the close ended 'containers' used to carry off the evidence in violation to proper, legal, and Just crime scene investigation protocals? These pictures are archived on this site for the finding.....
.....though I believe the case is 'logically' closed for Discovery.

Facts-Are-facts as ius-natural is to natural law.....
.....as Prakrit is to Sanskrit.
.....word Up?

ATS folk are quite Aware of this.

and.....Action.....
Feel free to Be candid.....
The 'scales of justice' Are to equilibriate.
It Is to Be as the Golden Ratio to a Golden Mean.

This is One of my personal favorites:
Pentagon sent missiles to Taiwan by mistake.

Just who was/Is the Penta of the Gone?
Who were the 'authors'/Execute-tioners of PNAC?
Seems like a logical path for Dis/cover/E.

Crickets.................................

Chirp.


Quack
Chirp, chirp






quack, quack
Chirp, chirp, chirp
quack, quack, quack






Ducks Unlimited?
Perhaps the quacks where 'stranded' and were in need of a helping hand?
May it Not be.....of the hands.....that 'rocked' the cradles.


"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
The 'Golden Rule' Is.....
.....and Was the 'Set' of Judgement itself.

One Is to Live/Die by the Conscience.
The Conscience is 'the' scale of mind.
The meter of one's Consciousness.
The natural, autonomic 'measure' of Man.
There is No 'juris-diction' unto Jurisprudence.
It Is.....always.....On time.

Where are You going?
Up or down.
Your choice.


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Perseus Apex]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

No one suggested going to the library. I gave you a public database of all published research, both biological and otherwise.

Whatever, I will get to it when I get to it. Do not accuse me of ignoring it so fast. Is this really a difficult concept for you?

The reason I can't give you a simple answer is because it isn't a simple situation. How hot was it, exactly? Were ALL blah blah blah blah.

Now you are just playing games and not even a good one. Give the most extreme example, whatever. There are limits and that is all I was asking for.

I am sorry you cannot answer it but then maybe you should not speak so definitively about the matter then.

Hello, pot. This is kettle.


[edit on 2/7/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Hmmm, what is it that I am speaking so definitively on? Is it anything I cannot back up with real answers? Thanks. Now I see you are like the rest of them. You just want to argue. Have fun with that.

[edit on 2/7/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by malcr
And what about the plain fact an airliner flying that low over a city would have been seen by thousands of people so where are the thousands of witness statements?

In fact given the number of witnesses that should have been, at least some would be able to snap a photo on their mobile........

At the distance from Reagan National that the Pentagon is, aircraft using the Runway 18 LDA/DME or the Runway 15 ILS/DM would be below 900 feet above ground.

In a search today I happened to find this video... it is actually quite convincing, in my opinion. I'm incuding here - although it goes against all the pictures and the main premise of my thread. Anyone feel free to take it and start a new thread. My main interest is truth on this - I gain ZERO ego satisfaction from being right anonymously on a web site, specially with all the pain involved in all this.



On the other hand, and what nearly all evidence points to is this: No airplane.





***

That first video, with only 6000 views, is of things I've never seen before so I've included a few pictures of still frames (below). All the eyewitnesses and hearsay mean nothing without proof. The video states aluminum melts at 1220 degrees F but the Pentagon fire was 1800 degrees F - why would that be? No reason the well known facts from other aspects of 9/11, that jet fuel burns at 1100 degrees, should NOT hold true at the Pentagon? More mysterious facts to muddy the waters.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e274b0b793a.jpg[/atsimg]
Two guys carrying wreckage with apparent fuselage part in the background. This single picture shows more proof on the side there was a crash than I've ever seen before.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/246cc39b9401.jpg[/atsimg]
Not so impressed with this one but could be part of the wreckage.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Anyone who has spent time around an airport can tell the difference between a landing aircraft and one screaming in at full throttle.No landing gear,no flap out,just coming on in in a descent at full speed.A tight corkscrew,no less.

They modified an existing 757 into a drone armed with 2 cruise missiles. You can clearly see the missile bays under the 757 when freezing frames in many of the trade tower videos.

So basically they got the 757 drone up in the air armed with 2 cruise missiles. The first cruise missile was launched at the pentagon followed by the second at the WTC 1. Then they used the plane as the missile loaded with explosives to eliminate tower 2 along with all the evidence.

You can see the aerial command and control plane which was coordinating and carrying out the attack in the following video.




[edit on 7-2-2010 by libertytoall]

9/11 = Biggest cover up of modern times
Turns out the only people who personally saw a plane were government officials or the media. Everyone else just heard a loud boom or noise, they didnt see anything.

All the so called amateur footage was clearly scripted, odd delays in acting, odd sound overs (different plane engines or looped fire engine sirens)

The truth will never be found of 9/11 and everything that happened afterwards because the ones behind it are dead, documents burnt and shred and any real witnesses or footage silenced by money or death.

if 4 planes were hijacked , and it wasnt a plane that hit the pentagon, then where is the flight that hit the pentagon, where are all the people..., probably landed nicely @ area 51, and are now being used as test specimens..., NO hard feelings to anyone who lost family members in the crash though, just very very fishy

One last thing, Americans still vote for a president, and to have someone in power for what reason, so that they can be ruled and told how to live life, The land of the free... Every man and every woman should seriously live for themselves, to think all this happen, 9/11, america has weapons of mass destruction, and are looking for ways to use them, i dont think anyone should have power and dominance over anyone else...

The damage from a real airplane does not lie.

Ask anyone who has any background in law, or better yet, an expert on eye witness testimony.

Eye witness testimony is terrible at best. I cringe when I see a person get sentence to life, or the death penalty solely on the back of one or two persons eye witness testimony.

They accuracy of eye-witness testimony goes WAY down the more Scary, Stressful, and Fast-Paced the incedent they were eye witness to is.

As for Sean Boger (a north side witness mind you), I don't believe for one second he saw a plane the size of a 757 actually make contact with the building.

Given his proximity to such a HUGE aircraft basically heading straight toward him (for all he knew) I have no doubt that he hit the deck of his Heli-tower before the plane had even made it past what used to be the Citgo Station.

I mean are we really supposed to believe that he stood watching this Huge AA 757 roaring its way over the hotel, past the Citgo, and screaming across the pentagon lawn and exploding into the side of the pentagon some 100ft away from him, all whilst he calmy watched, never takeing his eyes off it, and not ducking for cover??? NO FRIGGING WAY. Sorry Sean, you seem to be a good guy but no way you din't duck for cover. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

The same goes for mostly all the witnesses who were withing 100 yards of the "supposed crash sight". The sheer volume of noise this plane made more than likely force everyone in thier cars on the Turnpike where Lloyds cab was speared by a light-pole to bury thier heads between thier knees.

I mean if this jet was low enough as the thing shown in the released pentagon security camera footage was, heck I'd expect some of them cars to be flipped over, or at the very least forced to slide a bit , how come no reports of that?

Either way, I'd throw out all the "eye witness" testimony. Those that corroborate the OS, and those that oppose the OS.

Because last point people who didn't see the plane hit the pentagon, more than likely assumed it hit it, since they had already heard on thier radios or tv's or whatever means, that planes had "hit" the buildings in NY. Plus I'm sure MSM reporters only put witnesses on television that said they saw the plane hit the building. Now, who doesn't wanna be on TV? Another flaw of "eye-witness" testimony, being on TV.

Not to mention eye-witnesses tend to embellish a little , some alot.

There's also the peer pressure of the group around you, you don't wanna be the only one saying something different from the other 6 people who are all saying the same thing, and that goes on and on, and a snowball effect happens.

So now that we've thrown out eye witness testimony. We are left with the cold hard facts.

Is the damage comparable to that of a Boeing 757? not in my opinion.

Is the amount of plane debris comparable to that of a 757 hitting a concrete building? not in my opinion.

Then there's motives as they say follow the money ect.

Motives- Who had the most to gain by the attacks that took place on 9/11?

Well I know of alot of people and a certain country who got extremely rich off the events of 9/11.Whether it be put options, or loading up on your insurance against "Acts of Terror" just months prior to 9/11, then getting paid DOUBLE because you felt it was TWO seperate acts of Terror(I wonder how much of that money went to the families of the people who died making you rich you greedy slimeball.

Also that "certain" country got a bunch of money through oil/gold under the towers/ and crime scene evidence sold to the Asians. Not to mention all the evidence that was housed in WTC7 that was more or less, burned up, well not burned up, but exploded, and pulverized to dust to ne more accurate. And for the Cherry on top said country got some new Acts passed that would give them alot more power over thier citizens.

Pretty BIG motives if you ask me.

reply to post by Nola213


You call Sean Boger, who saw AA 77 impact the Pentagon only yards from his position, a liar on the basis of what you think you would have done in that situation ? Incredible !

Originally posted by Lillydale

Whatever, I will get to it when I get to it. Do not accuse me of ignoring it so fast. Is this really a difficult concept for you?

I provided you with a resource that would answer all your questions much better and more succintly than I could. You then proceeded to say I "coudln't answer your question", and called me a fraud, despite being given a resouce. This is what I was referring to when you said you were ignoring the research.

Now you are just playing games and not even a good one. Give the most extreme example, whatever. There are limits and that is all I was asking for.

I didn't use an "extreme" at all. The questions I listed are the standard questions you would face when publishing a study on DNA degradation and integrity. The people reading your study will want to know every condition, and how those variables were controlled for. You haven't given my any parameters to work with, so I can't give you a definitive answer. It's that simple.

Hmmm, what is it that I am speaking so definitively on?

Below are quotes from your posts, which are stating information definitive which you couldn't possibly know:

There was more than enough time to come up with exactly what they needed to drop off at the lab

I am having a hard time understanding how DNA survived more extreme circumstances than being cremated.

spent DAYS in fires that were 3-4 times the heat of a crematorium

Now, remind me again why you're able to make these claims with no source, but I'm not allowed to post general scientific information WITH a source?

Is it anything I cannot back up with real answers? Thanks. Now I see you are like the rest of them. You just want to argue. Have fun with that.

I'm not arguing anything. I provided scientific information, as well as a database full of supporting data on DNA degradation, DNA integrity, nuclear and mitochondrial sequencing, and forensics. You chose not to look at the source, and instead broke into ad hominems. That doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.
[edit on 2/7/10 by Lillydale]

[edit on 2/7/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by kooner69
The damage from a real airplane does not lie.

Nice pictures. But anyone who says real "airplane-like" objects did not hit the Twin Towers is a nutter.

People in the Truth Movement with any brains know that "plane like" objects hit the Twin Towers, there's no disputing that.

There was no TV fakery.

Perhaps putting a bit of an explosive warhead in the nose of the plane is one thing, remote controlled planes another, maybe a JASSM painted up to look like the plane that was supposed to hit the second tower.., doubtful(more likely used at the Pentagon, the Cruise Missle painted up like an AA).

But again:

NO PLANES or Plane Like Objects AT ALL! No, that is just CRAZY TALK.imo

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Anyone who has spent time around an airport can tell the difference between a landing aircraft and one screaming in at full throttle.No landing gear,no flap out,just coming on in in a descent at full speed.A tight corkscrew,no less.

*shrug* I don't think most people have spent much time "around" airports. All my time at airports was spent inside planes, so I'm not sure I would know the difference between a plane coming in quickly for a landing or coming in quickly to crash.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Nola213

 

You call Sean Boger, who saw AA 77 impact the Pentagon only yards from his position, a liar on the basis of what you think you would have done in that situation ? Incredible !

No I'm not calling him a liar. Most eye witnesses really do believe what they saw, and I'm sure Sean Believes he saw the plane impact the building.

What I'm saying is he saw the plane comeing more or less (straight toward him) I believe those were the words he used in the CIT interview. Paraphrasing him "The plane looked like it was head right at me."
So all I'm saying is he saw it heading toward him/toward the pentagon, then when it go near the lawn, common sense tells me he hit the deck, then 1 second later heard an explosion.

So he deducede, that the plane hit the building. Which his mind later turned into..I saw the plane hit the building. and I bet he truely believes he saw the plane hit the building. Plus with cameras in his face of course he wants to say Yes I saw the plane hit the building, any normal human would want to say that.

So no I'm not calling him a liar.

This phenomena happens to many eye-witnesses.

A short story....

I was recently watching a show about eye-witness testimony, false confessions ect.on CourtTV well (TrueTV or whatever it's called now), and this Law Proffesor set up a staged event, to test how good is eye-witness testimony really?

So the plan was to have a random guy(that no one in the class could have known), run into the lecture hall, grab the proffessors briefcase, then run up the middle aisle,(not even all that fast mind you), and the out the upper exit opposite of the door which he came in.

Shocked by what happened, the proffessor explained to the students it was staged and that he wanted everyone in the class to write down, the best description they could of the alleged thief.

The thief btw, was a shorter than average white male, wearing a baseball cap, and a red back, bluejeans.., and thats about all I remeber..hehe (as I got to see it replayed 3 times)


The results were horrible.


Out of the 40-50 students who got a decent look at the guy, again thier descriptions were horrible. Now mind you they arent trained police officers, who look for details without even thinking about it, it's like instinct for them.

Anyway, only a few even mentioned the backpack, about 10 or so said he had a hat on. One person even said it was an African American. Many said it was a Latino male. And Most all of them (about 90%) had his height at 6 feet or better. When the "actor" was only 5 foot 6 inches.

I'm just saying in a suprising/stessful situation such as a crime like that happening right in front of them, I bet most students, were probably just fearing for thier safety, let alone trying to look the guy up and down and try and remember what he was wearing, what he looked like ect.

This is again why I gag when I see people convicted and get HUGE sentences based on one or two peoples eye-witness testimony. Forget it when they are identifying someone of a different race. I'm not a racists, but I'd have a hard time picking an say a Chinese guy who commited a crime, that I only got a brief look at , out of a line up of 5 or 6 Chinese guys.

Same goes for them, they say all white people look the same. hehe.

I just don't put too much credence in eye witness testimony, unless maybe it's a police officer, but then again does he just wanna railroad the guy.

So if I'm on a jury, the D.A. better bring more to the table than a few eyewitnesses (basically the word of a person you know nothing about); or else I'm voting not guilty.

"*shrug* I don't think most people have spent much time "around" airports. All my time at airports was spent inside planes, so I'm not sure I would know the difference between a plane coming in quickly for a landing or coming in quickly to crash. "

The difference is ONLY about 380 MPH! If you cannot tell the difference between an airplane barreling in at 530 MPH (alleged speed of Flight 77 at impact) and one coming in at 150 MPH (average landing speed), you are not only blind, you are deaf.

The following is from the 911 Commission Report:

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour."

www.9-11commission.gov...

And by the way, a 757 was not designed to fly at 530 MPH at such a low altitude. They are designed to fly at that high rate of speed at a cruising altitude of approximately 30,000 feet due to differences in air pressure at the two different elevations.

So we have a claim by the Government of a perfect direct hit into the low standing Pentagon building with a hi-tech plane which wasn't designed to fly at a high rate of speed at such a low altitude by a guy who couldn't even fly a Cessna. Some people obviously have been watching too many action movies.

*shrug*




[edit on 7-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I still don't think I would know whether it was just coming in for a landing at Dulles (not far from the Pentagon) or not. I have no idea what the "average landing speed" is, and certainly couldn't watch a plane and tell you whether it was going above or below that landing speed. I personally have never watched a plane land in person, having always been inside the landing plane instead.

As for the "perfect hit", don't you think maybe they were just aiming for ANY part of the Pentagon, rather than just that particular wall? I don't think the hijackers had any vested interest in hitting that particular section of that specific side of the Pentagon, and were instead just looking to hit any part of the structure. That would seem to increase their chance of success quite a bit.

[edit on 2/7/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

"You are also basing your argument on a myth that the Pentagon is "The most secure facility in America." It is not, it is basically a huge office, an administrative centre."

Oh, is that what the Pentagon is? A run of the mill huge office building where unimportant people sit around with their feet on their desks taking personal calls all day?

Yeah, right...I'm sure anybody can just waltz right into the Defense Secretary's Office unannounced and have an informal chat with him. Who knows, maybe if you hang around long enough, he'll even invite you to lunch and show you all of the Government's military operations.