A refesher course...new photos some never seen before..... dialup warning

[ElsewheresDaughter]

Time for a reminder...FLIGHT 77, A BOEING 757, DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON:


This is the known trajectory of the "craft".





This is the 16 ft hole it entered, didn't even touch the grass:











One with the fire truck to give you some scale:








It flew over these spools:






Here's the inside after the outer ring collapsed after 45 minutes, the "plane" should have impacted back there in the corner, next the last set of braces on the bottom right corner of this picture!!!:




Do you remember the trajectory of the plane? Look at how the bottom two floor/walls are still intact:





Here is in between the first two rings. The entrance/damage/opening where the first two floors are still intact is to the left. The cameraman is pointing right where the plane should have smashed through...more or less in the right corner since we are looking straight ahead:




Yet look at how they say a landing gear passed through all that and made this:





Remember this:




Three holes total in that ring:




Here's the double blowout:




Then there's the book and stool...HOW DID IT SURVIVE? NOT MOVED...NOT SINGED?





THIS IS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES BOEING 757:




THIS IS NOT AN AMERICAN AIRLINES BOEING 757.THE SURVEILLANCE PHOTO'S:












Use your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[are_we_united_yet]

1. Holy Shit!

Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!

[lcordero2]

2. earlier during that day

there was a report of a car bomb.

[Nostradammit]

3. Ayup.

Fuckers.

[DianeG5385]

4. This is misleading BS

We all know how the plane impacted. The rest is fantasy. I don't buy much about this admin. I dispute them at every turn but your hypothesis is not valid.

[MrSammo1]

11. How

did it impact?

Please supply physical proof!

[MercutioATC]

17. Want to know how? Read this:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

...only like the 200th time I've posted this link...

[philb]

34. there was significant damage, more than 16 feet, but other anomolies

Radiation in debris at the Pentagon suggests depleted uranium involved
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon


Why does the collapsed area show little explosion or fire damage?


"By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage. The design team charged with reconstructing the Pentagon was assessing the building and preparations were being made to demolish the area for reconstruction. Consequently, the BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire."

[philb]

35. Two researchers with analysis that official story is bogus

Discussion
I discussed somehow with Eric Bart this DU penetrator hypothesis. Eric is convinced, also, that a 757-200 hit the Pentagon and that an explosion occured during the crash. He argues that it is a shaped charge, and that all the damage can be explained in this way. Though I respect his point of view, I disagree on this particular point.

The first damage, near the entry point could be due to a solid explosive, like a shaped charge explosion. The other damage, deeper inside the building up to the "punch out" hole, are more likely due to a depleted Uranium penetrator. The fact that the damage trajectory is deflected by pillars 1 K and 5 N shows that it cannot be the plasma influx of a shaped charge which did this, but that it is a solid mass which is deflected unpon impact with pillars.

But, whatever it is which made the damage deep inside the Pentagon, Eric and I agree on the fact that the plane contained a military charge (bomb) before taking off. Just a disagreement on the model...

Conclusion
The witness accounts, the damage inside the Pentagon and the available data about this crash, ASCE report and CCTV video frames, prove a conspiracy and a cover-up. The plane had been prepared with a military charge on board, and was used as a missile. The complexity of the approach trajectory, along with this "missile-like" use makes it probable that it was under electronic control, at least for the last part of the trajectory. This sophisticated attack scheme, with the use of the more recent high technologies, cannot be the product of "arab terrorists armed with box cutters". There seems to be some cover-up of facts, as well in the ASCE report as in the reports made by specialists of seismic detection.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html
(pilot/engineer/professor)

[MercutioATC]

36. Too many inaccuracies to catalog...

I'll just start with the fact that this "evaluation" mimics several other CT arguments I've seen that have proven to be inaccurate. For example, look about 2/3 of the way down when the author discusses the punch-out hole. The common CT (bogus) claim was that there was no evidence of smoke at the hole. This author is especially suspect because he couldn't even crop his "evidence" pictures correctly. There's obvious evidence of smoke residue in the upper left-hand corner of the picture that he claims shows no evidence of smoke.

Of course, you've been around here long enough to know what my next question will be...how did they rig a commercial plane with all of these explosives without anybody noticing?

Care to take a stab at either issue?

[philb]

37. I thinkThat would be rather easy. Why do you think not?

Apparently the problem about the punch out is your ability to understand what he said, rather than what he said. What he said was that someone seems to have cleaned up the hole a bit comparing early and later pictures. I don't see anything obviously wrong with what he says. Are you saying he's wrong? on what basis?


How do you explain the radiation? You think the two witnesses who measured high readings were lying? Or was there a separate cause?

Can you answer the web sites points about the physical evidence supporting radiation involved?

I've read both the Gov't report and this guys; and can't see an obvious problem with what he says.

[rman]

21. Yes we all know the official story.

It's just that the physical evidence doesn't match up with it.

[ncteechur]

5. Call Oliver Stone but Shiitt! That is amazing. I doubted this

administation before--now I really do.

[texpatriot2004]

6. It was NOT what they say it was. I don't know what it was but I do

know what it wasn't - and you're right. Thanks for the pics.

[Skink]

7. The funny thing was Daschle wasn't in his office at the time.

[Tommy_J]

8. Please take off the tin foil hats

Those pictures are consistent with the sorts of things that happen in high energy impacts. It is important to realize that aluminum sheet can almost melt with the kinetic energy of such an collision. It will surely fragments into very small pieces. With that in mind is there anything in the pictures that still doesn't make sense?

[petgoat]

12. "is there anything in the pictures that still doesn't make sense?"

The cable spools don't make sense, Tommy. They show in the 9/7/01
aerial shot. After a 757 flew over them, they're still in the same
place. The wash of the jet engines should have blown them to the next
county.

Welcome to DU!

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. Every force has an equal and opposite reaction

No way jet wash is going to move those spools while moving at speed. Perhaps while stationary...if you understand physics at all.

Anyway that picture is misleading regards to their proximity. It is superimposed over one from a competely diferent POV.

[janedoe]

13. "...is there anything in the pictures that still doesn't make sense?"

Yes. Where are the bodies? As the story goes, they were flown to Dover, where they were all identified -- and identification wasn't a problem.

So, how could the bodies be identified from the remains while the plane was not?

[Kevin Fenton]

24. Bodies

They weren't all identified. None of the five hijackers were identified. Five of the victims could not be identified, the rest were.

Much of the plane was allegedly recovered, but it was never shown to anybody independent.

[philb]

38. Why not? Has any reason been given?

[MercutioATC]

9. Have you read ANY of the previous 100-or-so Pentagon threads?

All of this has been discussed (and debunked) numerous times.

So many pictures, so little content....

:tinfoilhat:

[MrSammo1]

10. Debunked?

There's no vertical stabilizer mark on the wall!

Do you supposed it ducked down for fear of injury?

[MercutioATC]

16. Actually, there IS, but it's only 25 feet high.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

So you're suggesting that a plane with the same wingspan as a 757 but a shorter vertical stabilizer hit?

[MrSammo1]

42. Too short!

http://9one1.150m.com/plane2.htm

[rman]

22. "debunked" by a hand full of the usual suspects

(you amongst others).
It's more accurate to say that in this forum there's no consensus on the matter.

[MercutioATC]

28. Yep, I'm one of those "usual suspects".

But you're right, there IS no consensus. Hell, this forum can't even agree whether the planes were real or holograms...

[rman]

29. Few here talk of holograms, and few here believe the official story

In fact if anything has been debunked here, it's the latter.

[MercutioATC]

31. No, they talk about drones and pods and missiles and fuel sprayers...

:eyes:

[AZCat]

32. We haven't seen much of that in a while.

I wonder why. Perhaps the popularity of such is finally waning.

[MercutioATC]

33. I certainly hope so.

Threads like that are still being started, but with much less frequency. Hopefully, it's a trend...

(I think it's also due to the loss of a couple of the former regulars here who were banned)

[vincent_vega_lives]

14. Welcome to the time warp

Back to 2001 because that's how long this discussion has been going on.

NONE of these pictures are new, just because YOU have seen them for the first time.

The problem is with people that don't know what they are looking at. You can do the same thing with pictures taken during the moonwalk combined with wrongheaded psudo-science and convince plenty of people they were faked.

[petgoat]

18. "NONE of these pictures are new"

Maybe they're not new to you. I guess you've been lurking since 2001,
but you only registered last year. Maybe some people who haven't seen
them have some fresh insights or "martian" questions. But no, there's
no point in that, because you have all the answers. Nothing to see
here, just move on.

I had a boss once who was constantly warning against "reinventing the
wheel"--by which of course he meant questioning or refining any of his
assumptions, policies, edicts, methods, jokes, aphorisms, or definitions.

Now if your experience qualifies you to present some arguments that can
maybe help novices like me avoid wasting time in unproductive
directions, that's great. But if you want to claim that every argument
has been argued and every thought has been thunk that's absurd.

[MercutioATC]

20. DU DOES have a search function...

...which would show if something was truly "new" or not.

I'll admit that I haven't seen some of the badly-Photoshopped superimpositions that ED posted, but the pics (and the claims) are all old news.

[Ferry Fey]

26. Only donors may search

Only donors may use the search function here.

[MercutioATC]

27. Oops...I didn't look for the star.

Suffice it to say, we've all seen these pics constantly for the past three years.

[sabbat hunter]

19. if plane did not hit pentagon

then where are all the passengers, crew that were on the plane?

[rman]

23. If there was no plane then how can there be passengers and crew?

[MrSammo1]

41. obviously

there wasn't any!

[Kevin Fenton]

25. Two pictures

You post this picture:



and ask
"Do you remember the trajectory of the plane? Look at how the bottom
two floor/walls are still intact:"
What are you talking about? The bottom two walls of the E ring section
where the plane hit are not intact. If you mean other walls, which
ones?

You post this picture:



and ask:
"Here is in between the first two rings. The entrance/damage/opening
where the first two floors are still intact is to the left. The
cameraman is pointing right where the plane should have smashed
through...more or less in the right corner since we are looking
straight ahead:"

We are in a light well which is three floors deep. The plane passed
under where the cameraman is standing. The impact damage was to the
ground and first floors, not the upper three floors. The damage we can
see is due to fire, not impact.

[Ferry Fey]

30. Poor presentation of information

"The problem is with people that don't know what they are looking at. "

These pictures are poorly captioned and poorly annotated. While the 911 Skepticism movement has a lot of passion, and often shows competent abilities to explain things verbally, generally we've had piss-poor graphics skills and concepts. The 911 Conventional Wisdom
movements have piss-poor graphics skills too, but with a 911 commission that says nothing about WTC 7 falling down go boom, they don't need to justify or defend anything they say. (sigh)

Edward Tufte is God. Edward Tufte is the master of visual information design. Those who spend some time exploring his website and books might find themselves with new questions or understanding about what we need to be doing to present our case so that people can better understand the points we're trying to make. One of these days I may find the time to sit down and make my wishlist of what graphic information we need (like confirmed, sourced seating diagrams of the planes), but until I can do this some of the rest of you might find it useful to get familiar with some of the ideas Tufte presents.

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

[philb]

39. I think the picture showing the whole collapsed area is more interesting

why did there not seem to be much fire damage where the plane entered, given the pictures of the huge fireball, etc.

Did most of the jet fuel burn up outside the building?

[Kevin Fenton]

40. Fireball

Which picture showing the whole collapsed area?

I'm sure the video stills are faked.

Assuming there was a fireball outside the building, then it shouldn't do damage to the building itself. The WTC fireballs used up 10-30% of the plane's fuel. If the right wing hit the generator, as the ASCE suggested, then that might have caused a fuel leak.

[philb]

43. This picture and others below it-

see picture with:
Here is in between the first two rings. The entrance/damage/opening where the first two floors are still intact is to the left.

and one further on; the fire damage seems to be very spoty- outside the building, the trees and trailer outside, a vehicle outside; and some rooms inside, some of which are far away from the impact and that I can't figure out how they would have caught afire.

(look at the areas that should have been exposed to explosion/fire if there was much such inside)

[Kevin Fenton]

44. North / South

The picture captioned "Here is in between the first two rings. The entrance/damage/opening where the first two floors are still intact is to the left." shows the fire damage in the first three-storey lightwell, but the cameraman is looking south and the entry hole is on his right, out of shot.

Aren't cold spots fairly common in fires? There was one in the South Tower.