High detail image of the Pentagon - Where's the plane?

[DoYouEverWonder]

?sdgsdf

I don't want to paste this pic directly because it is huge. Also it has zoom in capabilities that you lose if you just paste the picture into the thread.

Apparently, this picture was taken soon after the crash. Can someone show me any evidence of an airplane, no less Flight 77 in this picture?

Thanks.

[medienanalyse]

1. Titanic

Mr. DoYouEverWonder,

when the Titanic sank, photos were made very soon after the incident from the ships which reached the place. The biggest ship of the world was not to be seen anymore - for decades. There was no ice mountain either.

You guys will have to learn how to pose questions. I find it intmidating to be asked for evidence when somebody else places HIS choice of basic material. It is the same way as the FBI works: they withhold all Fotos and Videos, all evidence, and on this base which is completely steered and prepared everybody else shall run.

It is a shame that so many people do not understand this cheap way of propaganda.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. The Titanic went down at night in the middle of the ocean

and considering that most people didn't have cameras in those days, I would not expect to see pictures of the actually event. However, now that we have the equipment to go look for such things, we do have proof positive that the Titanic sits at the bottom of the ocean.



I don't understand your beef with me? Do you believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? I don't.

BTW: I'm a she, not a he.

[medienanalyse]

4. Mrs.,

"I don't understand your beef with me? Do you believe Flight 77 hit..."

Take the verbs: not understand and believe.
That`s it.

Again:
1)you BELIEVERS show us the evidence which YOU select. This is exactly the FBI manner. Ot is not scientific, not reasonable, not fair.It is propaganda.

2.I remember some old pgotos from the Titanic site. But for sure I am not talking about the ship. I try to explain that a photo of the flat silent sea looks like a photo of the Pentagon wall: unable to explain anything and hiding the scene below or behind.

3) There is evidence and witnesses before and behind the wall. The small hole is explainable.

4) The consistantly posted photos here make me upset - they only document the ignorance and religion in times when we ned to clear the question WHO DID IT ?

5) FBI, CIA and other officials withhold ALL evidence they could get their hand s on. Not obtaning all evidence should make us cautious (we are in their hands in some way) and not sure that THIS or THAT explanation of a fact is clear.

6) If I were U.S. government I would clap in the hands and cheer to all the conspiracy theorists and their distraction from the WHO DID IT.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. I am posting speculation

and DU's 9-11 formum is one of the few places on the planet that I can post such speculation and have somewhat intelligent discussions with people.

The reason why I selected this particular picture was because of it's size. It is one of the highest res close ups of the impact site at the Pentagon before it collapsed that I have seen. It is a very valuable image for anyone trying to uncover what really happened that day. If you want more evidence, other pictures are all over this forum and on google. I assumed you've already seen most of them.

Out in the world with the average Joe, I would never try to discuss such things. When people ask me to prove MIHOP, I always give the same answer. Look at the behavior and actions of the Top Leadership that day. That is enough.

In the meantime, none of the rest of that day makes sense to me and so I come here to try to find answers. If that is a crime, then I am guilty.

[mirandapriestly]

9. Yeah I agree with you DYEW

although I see MA's point. This is a discussion forum; not everyone is a lawyer/writer/ or producer. (Lots of smart & talented people, though). I think of/notice things and I want to see what other people think about it and see what other people are thinking about/noticing. Like you said, there are not many places to do that. Unfortunately, there are many "information controllers" on this forum trying to tell posters what is ok, not ok to discuss. It really is not going to have a lot of consequences on the outcome what posters talk about here. What is needed is an independent investigation.

OTOH, I have a feeling "they" are throwing us a sucker punch with the Pentagon photos- get everyone talking about "no plane", then bam! show plane evidence (faked or not); then the more valid points of the unlikelihood of Hanjour being the pilot that day will all be squashed along with the "no plane" theory.

In any case, it doesn't look like there was a plane from what we have to look at. Someone posted a photoshopped picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon, done to scale, and it looked absolutely hilarious in view of the aftermath.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Flight 77 couldn't fit through a 13 foot hole.

However, the hole in the side of the Pentagon was much larger than 13 feet.

Much. As it had to be, because the bulk of Flight 77 went through it.

[libertypirate]

30. Of course you didn't look at the photo above before making such

a statement.

Look again you see the structural members on each side of the hole, how does an entire jetliner fit through that hole?

BTW, have you seen video that proves an airplane fit in there? Despite the fact that there were multiple camera angles we get five frames which show nothing.

Well almost nothing, the flash in the lens of the camera is actually something. You see when a jet crashes its fuel doesn't flash explode it explodes into a fireball like the WTC jet collision, the pentagon fireball is secondary to a bright white lens flare flash. Indicative of high temperature explosives not jet fuel.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. On the contrary.

I've looked, not only at that photo, which, when taken by itself, misleads someone into thinking there's a small hole.

I've looked at lots of pictures from every available angle, taken before the collapse of the building. I've seen them lined up and built into a more complete picture.

There is a large hole that the fuselage went through. That hole is flanked on both sides by a long hole that is at least 90 feet wide (the outside distance between both engines on the wings). There is visible damage corresponding to the tail fin and the exterior wings past the engines on the remaining facade.

The hole was large enough. Anyone flashing a single picture and saying different is confusing the issue.

[Americus]

53. What photographic evidence shows a hole at least 90 feet wide?

boloboffin says:  "There is a large hole that the
fuselage went through."

Would you please provide evidence for your claim?  

Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. No problem!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=90469&mesg_id=90576

That post in this thread shows a composite picture. It's made up of the various pictures that exist of the facade before collapse.
They've been stitched together in a way that negates the foam spray hiding the actual hole. The actual width of the hole is about 90 feet. A large 16' foot hole is well above the size needed to admit the fuselage.

[Americus]

55. That's just a "stitched together" composite, not a photo of a 90 ft. hole

A large commercial airliner wouldn't create a composite hole.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. It pulls from many actual photos without altering the evidence.

I'm sorry if you don't like it. I don't make up the facts, I just report them.

[Americus]

57. The UNaltered photographic evidence shows a very small (approx. 16 ') hole

Your facts (composite photo) do not support your claim of a hole anywhere even close to being 90 feet wide. A large commercial airliner would have created a much wider hole than the one shown in extant photos taken shortly after the Pentagon incident of September 11, 2001.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. The unaltered photographic evidence shows the composite hole.

The hole shown by combining pictures of various parts of the Pentagon facade is at least 90' wide. That's the measurement from engine to engine.

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

I am sorry that the facts don't fit your theories.

[Americus]

62. I asked for evidence of a REAL 90' hole, not a composite photo.

If a large commercial airliner had created a 90 foot wide hole in the facade of the Pentagon, the extant photographic evidence would show it. It doesn't.

Before I click on the link you provided, please tell me who/what "Oil Empire" is. Do they specialize in creating composite photographs? That is, are they in the business of selling manufactured evidence?

Is "Oil Empire" considered to be objective by most DU researchers?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. The composite picture was built by Sarah Roberts

I knew it was that one, but oilempire just confirmed that here:

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

There are two ways showing how that picture was built. The top of the page is a schematic using the pictures that were used, and then at the bottom of the page are Sarah's annotated pictures. The annotations do things like count the supports, so that you can clearly see where you are alongside the building. There are pictures that show the left side of the hole. There are pictures that show the right side of the hole. They are all labeled so anyone can clearly see that the first floor hole stretches for over 90 feet.

Here's another fun site for you to doubt:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[Americus]

65. Built = Manufactured. The actual hole isn't wide enough for a B767.

Is "Oil Empire" considered an objective, unbiased resource by most DU researchers? Ditto the other site you linked to.

Since you are unable to prove your claim of a 90 foot wide hole, I'm satisfied that something other than a large commercial airliner caused the small hole in the facade of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. I don't know what actually happened there and it's clear to me now that you don't know either.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Have we met before?

You have five posts here, and every one of them is addressed to me. Isn't that strangely...focused?

And Flight 77 was a 757.

And why don't you click over to the links I've provided and evaluate their objectivity for yourself? You are qualified to do that, aren't you? You might actually learn something.

[Americus]

70. The 16 foot wide hole was too small to have been made by a 757 or 767

Nothing personal, but if a 757 doesn't fit, you have to acquit. The real mystery is what did cause the damage at the Pentagon and who is responsible for it.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. You need to check out the complete evidence.

Go check out the links. They won't bite. They only show the truth.

[Americus]

80. The complete, available, non-manufactured evidence proves no 757 crash

You need to understand that nonsense isn't impressive. No matter how many posts someone or some people are credited with.

[Bolo Boffin]

83. I'm sorry - did you actually go to the links?

I'm interested in this post "crediting" thing you are talking about. Are you suggesting that a)I'm credited with posts I didn't do, or b) your now-9 posts aren't the full extent of your posting here?

Did you check out the annotated pictures? That Sarah Roberts does a really thorough job, doesn't she?

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. If the image has been manipulated

then it's been manipulated.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. What's manipulation?

Using a single photo and placing it in a context you control?

Or

Taking all available photographs and carefully putting them together to find the truth?

[DoYouEverWonder]

59. I hope you're not holding your breath

waiting for a reply?

BTW: Welcome to the DUngeon :hi:

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. I was wondering what caused that flash

See the third to last frame in these screen grabs.



It is more startling on Video 2. I was running the video on my computer and I was glancing away at something else and my screen lit up like a Christmas tree. It was like, what the hell? The crash was already over and that's why I was distracted. I didn't think there was much more to see. It happens at about 34 seconds in on Video 2.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8

[libertypirate]

67. I hope a chart might help define the source

Less speculation this way...

http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm

[medienanalyse]

38. Sigh. Again and very very slow

Mrs. DoYou inserts a photo of a wall with a hole. That is more than the flat sea of the Atlantic which closed silently and completely over the "Titanic".

And now you dare to ask what the wall / the flat sea can explain. It will not reveal anything. It is no evidence at all. It is bullshit to talk about that. See the passengers in the life rafts aroundm and you have some evidence that there might have been the Titanic. See the radio messages "Mayday" - you have more evidence. And so on. The sea does not reveal anything.

Now the wall:

"If you got the balls try and explain to these people how flight 77 fit through a 13 foot hole? I am waiting but you will likely just turn on me; it's ok I know that is all you have left."

It is the wrong way around again. Not I must explain. You must explain. I know you shrug your shoulders. I mean it. YOU must explain why a plane AA77,
- existing befor and late not anymore
- seen by RADAR and eyewitnesses
- cutting lampposts BEFORE (in the width of a 757)and
- cutting the steel beams inside BEHIND the wall(in the width of a 757)
- leaving parts inside and outside the building
- leaving the bodies shown in the Moussaoui trial
- leaving identified crew and passengers

WHY this plane did not fit through the wall. I do NOT doubt that the hole is seemingly narrow. It it were so narrow as it appears to be: why did it crash after half an hour ? It is your task to understand the material equipment of the plane, its thrust and

THE MATERIAL OF THE WALL. Did you ever take KEVLAR as a wallpaper in your home ?

Do you really think you "have balls" when all you consiracy theorists constantly ignore physical facts like thrust, Kevlar, steel beams inside, Aluminium, Kerosine in a closed room and so on ?

It is not balls. It is idiotism. Begin to argue instead showing childishly on the holy pixels. Medieval popes used to say: I stand firm, and the sun moves around me and us. This was obvious, this was to SEE. The sun moves around the earth.

Go on like that, It is fun. No - it is sad.

[medienanalyse]

81. I bet asked for the above answer ...

... and not getting any response to my answer is cauased by something. :-)

[DoYouEverWonder]

82. I guess no one wants

to talk to someone who makes up evidence and then calls the rest of stupid?

[neebob]

15. The Titanic is a very bad analogy

Plane, ship ... building, iceberg floating in ocean ... 1912, 2001. And, as someone else pointed out, the Titanic has since been proven to be sitting on the ocean floor, if anyone ever thought it wasn't. You're kidding, right?

[Liberal In Texas]

41. The ships arriving on the scene after the Titanic disaster found a lot of

floating debris...and bodies.

Captain Lardner was aided by other ships in finding the disaster site as the 'Mackay-Bennett' drew closer to where most of the wreckage and bodies would be found. Few ships, after the Titanic went down, chose to navigate in or around the area where the Titanic sank. Those that did, came upon hundreds of bodies and wreckage. Most ship captains considered this site a graveyard and chose to not subject their passengers to the grim sight in that area.
-http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/howardl/titanic.htm

Approximately 320 bodies were recovered, many buried in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
-Titanic Historical Society

"medienanalyse" needs to pick another historical analogy, if there is one.

[neebob]

46. Good point. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

3. Thanks for the pic n/t

[KJF]

5. Well,

I see:
(1) A hole where the top of the fuselage went in, the rest of the hole is obscured by the water/foam from the fire engine;
(2) The facade has suffered damage where the right wing hit it - you can see the limestone facing is knocked off;
(3) The plane hit the generator and spun it around, and made two holes in the fence;
(4) The plane clipped the utility vault retaining wall.

Plus, there's a few pieces of debris on the lawn.

[Klimmer]

7. You are right. It is a very simple matter of observation . . .

The released video this past week shows no 757 hitting the Pentagon, because a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. However, the 2 videos released to "Judicial Watch" do show an exhaust trail or vapor trail nearly at ground level. Commercial airlines do not do this at ground level. The jet also would be bigger than life in the video, we see nothing like that. What we see is something very small, that is completely blurred, that leaves an exhaust trail. Their own evidence they have released, completely invalidates their own conspiracy hypothesis.

And with this very famous image you have posted, it shows that no 757 hit the Pentagon. Where is the wreckage on the outside of the Pentagon, because it didn't all go through a 16 ft. hole? Solid doesn't go through solid without leaving appropriate damage consistant with the visual evidence. Where is the damage from the vertical stabalizer? Surely those windows would all be blown-out from the massive force and destruction, yet they are whole and unbroken, with fire fighting foam all over them.

In science when your hypothesis is invalidated by the evidence of the experimental outcome, you must reject your hypothesis. The official 9-11 Commission Report conspiracy hypothesis, is invalidated by the the physical evidence. It must be rejected. Yet other conspiracy hypothesies from the 9-11 Truth Movement are fitting the observed evidence.

So who is more right? We don't have a complete and final picture of what exactly happened on 9-11 but we are getting close and working it out. The official 9-11 Commission Report is a fairy tale. Sorry, but I just am not into fiction. The truth and the real world inspire me.

I'm a Physics teacher, and I say bullsh*t to the official conspiracy hypothesis.

[KJF]

8. 3 points

(1) The hole was 90 foot. Link:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

(2) The windows were reinforced to resist a bomb, that's why they didn't shatter. Your point is nonsensical, if the Pentagon were hit by something other than a 757, why would that leave the windows in?

(3) The video certainly shows a vapour trail, but how do you know the video is real?

[Klimmer]

10. Why do I answer such nonsense Qs?

1) Biggest bull crap ever! One is a 16 foot hole, the other is blast-out damage along the 1st floor. The wings on a 757 are far wider than the blast-out zone, the vertical stabilizer would have left a vertical damage pattern above the 16 ft. hole to a significant height, easily smashing any bomb proof windows or not. The engines themselves would have left massive gaping holes to either side of the 16 ft. hole and much larger than the small blast-out zone along the ground level. The engines are made out of high strength alloys with very high melting temps. far above temps ever reached in the blast. The fragment of an engine has already been identified as belonging to a much smaller military jet aircraft smaller than any commercial jet aircraft. The blow-out blast on the far interior wall that we have all seen countless images of is classic blow-out damage from a missile.

You can't have it both ways: you can't have the jet vaporizing upon impact with the Pentagon which many suggest(which is total bull-crap) and leaving no wreckage, and then also have it puncture through something like 6 - 9 ft of concrete reinforced walls, which is also bull-crap.

The damage we do see is consistent with a smaller military jet with missile on board, or a missile alone.

2) Bomb blast resistant glass is somewhat resistant to forces from compression waves and small shrapnel, but not forces the size of commercial airliners going at cruise speeds slamming into them.

3) So now the video that they released is faked? And they would fake it showing exhaust trails?

I think when this video was first released shortly after 9-11 it was done so by mistake. I don't think they really originally wanted to release this. It shows exactly what they didn't want people to know. No flight 77, a 757, hit the Pentagon. It clearly shows something else did that was much smaller and that left an exhaust trail such as a small military jet or missile.

[KJF]

11. Why do you ask them?

(1) The impact hole is at least 90 feet, as is nicely shown by this photo:

Note the massive gaping holes where the engines went in.

You must have confused me with someone who said the jet vaporised on impact
and left no wreckage, although I'm not sure why you did that.

The actual thickness of the reinforced concrete walls penetrated by the
plane is zero feet zero inches. If you wish to claim the opposite, please
post a photo of a reinforced concrete wall.

(2) The windows that the plane hit on both the ground floor and the first
floor are missing, as is most of the actual facade where the plane hit. If
you wish to claim otherwise, please specify which window(s) you are talking
about.

(3) Of course.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. I hope you realize

that these measurements are not in scale with each other.

For example.

If the 18' measurement is correct on the print out it = 1/2" scale.

The measurement for 96' = 3". 6 X 18' = 108' not 96'. So I would conclude that the 18' measurement is not accurate and the hole is smaller then the artist claims.

Try again.

[KJF]

26. One can obviously quibble...

... over the exact dimensions of the hole. Indeed, you could also have pointed out that, presumably based on the same set of photos, the American Soceity of Civil Engineers claimed the ground-floor hole was 90 feet. However, I don't think a couple of feet here or there make a great deal of difference. My point is that the hole on the ground floor is at least 90 feet wide - wide enough to admit the fuselage and inner wing sections of a 757 (but not the wingtips). I would contrast this with the (false) claim that the ground-floor hole is only 15-18 feet wide - these are the dimensions of the first floor hole.

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. No problem

We can just make the hole bigger and the plane smaller and everything will fit perfectly.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Here's a close up of the picture you posted

Doesn't really look like one big hole but the support columns still are attached from the floor to the ground. Amazing how the plane cut through those columns but they're still there and the plane is not?

[mirandapriestly]

17. That is really weird I never noticed that before, great pic, btw.

So, the plane went through the building, but the columns were left standing?. That picture looks more like the result of an explosion or explosions.

[libertypirate]

22. Take a look at the NIST report page 32,

they actually show the damage path caused by an airplane crash to get smaller.

I don't know about the rest of you but I never seen anything crash apart into a tighter damage path.

[KJF]

27. "Remote linking of images not allowed"

Is what I see.

But I know what you're talking about - in one or two places there are things that look like columns hanging down, however:
(1) There is an argument that they aren't columns at all. Link: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html
(2) Additionally, or perhaps alternatively:
(a) The "columns" were inside the Pentagon; therefore, if you can see them, that proves that there is a big hole in the facade - thanks;
(b) The wings were less likely to sever internal columns than break through the facade because:
(i) The wings suffered mechanical damage on impacting the facade and travelling through over a foot of limestone and brick;
(ii) In addition, the wings clearly would have weighed much less when impacting the interior columns, because all the fuel that represented a large portion of the plane's wings' weight would have escaped on impacting the facade;
(iii) The interior columns were tougher than the facade, because they were made of reinforced concrete, not limestone and masonry.

[mirandapriestly]

33. right click on properties, then cut paste url...nt

[KJF]

35. Still doesn't work - bandwidth exceeded

Thanks anyway.

[mirandapriestly]

37. never mind, tried to repost pic, won't work.nt

[SidDithers]

85. Apparently MIHOP'ers don't know how to open a photobucket account...

and would prefer to steal bandwith by hotlinking photos.

Sid

[libertypirate]

20. What are you doing, using a clearly doctored image that has

straight shade lines on the face of the pentagon to make your point. Are you mental? I am wondering since the image first one taken of the pentagon crash, the link above shows the framing on either side of the hole.

You are just wasting peoples time with fake evidence...

For the ass clowns who don't know this there are no straight lines in nature...

[KJF]

28. The image is annotated, not doctored

"there are no straight lines in nature..."
It's a building, it didn't grow there organically all by itself.

[libertypirate]

32. No, those shaded rectangle areas between the face and

the art work...

Don't change the subject, that photo has been darkened in areas.

The original pentagon incident photo as posted above shows the supports on either side of the hole, yours the "enhanced" darkened version makes the hole look as wide as an airplane.

I wasn't talking about the building being the result of nature, don't try and move the discussion away from the point.

[KJF]

34. What areas have been darkened?

What "original Pentagon incident photo posted above"?

If you're talking about the "columns", whatever they really are, they're inside the Pentagon. If you can see something inside the Pentagon, then that's proof of a hole in the facade.

The photo I posted doesn't show a hole wide enough for the whole plane to go through (it's 90 feet wide, a 757's wingspan was about 125 feet) and you know it, so why you're trying to imply this is a mystery to me.

[DoYouEverWonder]

44. This picture with the lines drawn has been manipulated

Look at the big transparent rectangles over the image. There's a light rectangle over the middle and then another one that starts just to the right of the yellow line. It happens when you select an area for manipulation and leave the rest unselected. If you adjust lightness, contrast, color balance you will still see the original image in the unselected area.

I look at graphic images all day, so stuff like this is glaring.

[greyl]

48. "there are no straight lines in nature"

That is an absolutely, totally, utterly, ridiculous statement.

[libertypirate]

51. Great, can you show me?

I am ridiculously serious about my request.

I am not trying to prove you wrong, as much as understand what evidence exists of a liner relationship naturally occurring.

I am willing to be wrong on this, please don't leave me hanging...

[greyl]

52. Yes, after you define "straight line" for me

so I can be certain that the evidence I provide meets your requirements for proof.

But first, check out the posts in this thread relating to right angles in nature.

[libertypirate]

66. Are you mental? BTW you left me hanging...

Because I asked and you deluded the conversation....

Go outside look around, when you find something crafted in nature that you can report develop in a consistent liner relation come back and let me know about....

[greyl]

68. You're wasting my time.

The link I supplied has all the photographic evidence you should need. Unless you're the one who is mental. ;)

[libertypirate]

72. Wasting time you sent me to looking on another planet

what not enough different things on this one, or you too busy trying to figure out how 19 stripper loving, gambling(Abramoff's casino boats), anti-devout Muslims turn Bush and his administration into patsies?

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Abramoff's casino boats?

I'm going to need a link for the 19 brothers (that's what Osama called them in the last audio, right?) gambling on Abramoff's boats.

[greyl]

75. Earth is "another(sic) planet" from where you're hovering?

No matter, at least that establishes our frame of reference to be some planet.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neebob]

14. The plane IS there, in pieces

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

This is an outstanding analysis with lots of supporting pics, some of which I'd seen before but had been lost in the clutter of all the no-plane stuff I've seen since. Totally cleared it up for me.

[boastOne43]

18. count the holes in the rim...

this one, found in the Pentagon, has 8 holes.


this pic of a 757 has 10 holes.


smaller rim means smaller plane.


also, take a look at the same firetrucks from the Pentagon next to a 757. the damage shown at the pentagon did not come from a jet that size.

[libertypirate]

21. This is a great plane size comparison thanks, great post! /nt

[FogerRox]

23. new to me, comparing the firetrucks, good one.

[KJF]

29. No, it doesn't

757s have different types of wheels, some have 10 holes, some have 8. It's all explained here:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/082.html

btw, your first two pictures say "image linking not allowed".

[neebob]

47. And though the holes were rather small, they had to count them all.

Do we know for a fact that plane wheels of a certain size have to have a certain number of holes?

[StealthyDragon]

76. Well, the neocons almost got it right!

You've got to give them credit for trying!

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. There is nothing new on that site

They use this picture to prove that this hole could fit a 757?



Ah, excuse me. The supporting column is still stand smack in the middle of the hole. So does that mean the 757 made half a hole? Or did the column miraculously rebuild itself after the crash?

[mirandapriestly]

24. That article

overlooks a lot. It doesn't show that the plane parts near that alleged "exit hole" move around a lot, which raises the question as to how they got there. You can see that at the below link
Here is a site that addresses issues not answered by that article :

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

why is that fuselage part on the lawn in such good condition?
Also how did the plane or leftover plane debris make it's way through these columns? Somewhere out there is a model that shows the plane going through and getting sliced by the columns as it moves forward like one of those tomato slice and dicers. Is that what happened? Also the Building Performance Report diagram below does not accurately describe the damage done to the columns, they are trying to make it look different why would they do that? In actuality the columns near the EXIT are more damaged than the columns near the center, that doesn't make any sense. You can see it on the photos at the above link
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/094.html

[KJF]

31. I have an idea...

... about "column damage falsification". The damage to the column whose damage he (www.pentagonresearch.com) claims is falsified was caused by the sort of rapid wall-breaching kit he mentions, not by the plane, and the diagram of the column damage then accurately reflects the damage done to columns by the plane. I'm not saying I believe it (I don't - it's just a thought). Would it work?

[mirandapriestly]

36. So you think that the chart recorded

the columns before the wall was breached? or that there was some sort of communication between the rescue/emergency workers and whoever created the chart? Then do you think originally the "exit" hole was much smaller?
Why wouldn't the report just say the hole was made by them? That's what I don't get , it's pretty obvious something is not right with the exit hole and path to it. Maybe because they weren't supposed to "mess with the crime scene" or they were covering up something that was done at the scene. Something has made me suspect that before, that the Pentagon cover up involved something done after the incident more than the incident, can't remember what..

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. Why would the Pentagon want to cover anything up?

Below is an excerpt from Rummie's briefing the day after the attack.

In the first part he claims he's just stopping to make two or three points before running off to the WH.

The first two points are what you would expect the SOD to say after such an event. However, point 3 is quite odd?

Point 3 is all about Rummie's obsessive concerns over classified information and leaks. He is adamant that people not divulge classified information.

The day after the biggest attack in US history and Rummie's biggest concern is making sure no one leaks? Wow! He shows absolutely no interest in finding out what really happened or who did it or anything. If this is what he was worried about in public, can you imagine behind closed doors? One thing is certain, Rummie sure acts like someone with a lot to hide.

Rumsfeld: Good afternoon.

I have taped a message to the people in the defense establishment across the world, which I understand is going to be available shortly. I'm en route over to another meeting in the White House in the next few minutes, so I thought I'd just stop down and make two or three points.

<snip>

Finally, I'd like to say a word or two to the men and women in the defense establishment, most of whom deal with classified information. Since the end of the Cold War, there's been a relaxation of tension, and the -- it's had a lot of effects. It's led to proliferation. It's led to the movement toward asymmetrical threats, as opposed to more conventional threats.

One of the other effects has been it has had an effect on how people handle classified information. And it seems to me that it's important to underline that when people deal with intelligence information and make it available to people who are not cleared for that classified information, the effect is to reduce the chances that the United States government has to track down and deal with the people who have perpetrated the attacks on the United States and killed so many Americans.

Second, when classified information dealing with operations is provided to people who are not cleared for that classified information, the inevitable effect is that the lives of men and women in uniform are put at risk because they are the ones who will be carrying out those prospective operations.

And I -- this is a message really for all the men and women in the United States government who have access to classified information. It seems to me that when they see or learn of someone who is handling classified information in a way that is going to put the lives of the men and women in uniform at risk, they ought to register exactly what kind of a person that is; it's a person who's willing to violate federal criminal statutes, and willing to frustrate our efforts to track down and deal with terrorists, and willing to reveal information that could cause the lives of men and women in uniform.

I think it's time for all who deal with that information to treat it with the care and respect that it merits.

http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html

[mirandapriestly]

50. very weird for them to be concerned

with "leaks" at that point. Weird and revealing. That is a constant theme with this admin.,: "national security" , but it isn't our security, it's their desire for secrecy.

[KJF]

42. I was just throwing the possibility out for discussion

I'm not saying it's the right answer - I don't know the right answer in this case. It would solve a couple of problems, but give rise to others, as you pointed out.

[mirandapriestly]

63. well, the NTSB was not allowed full access until

October 4, and they were the only ones to issue a report weren't they? The FBI didn't say anything so where did they get their information? They weren't in the building until two days after 911 for a "limited access"
"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. ... Consequently, the Pentagon
BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately
after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire. "
(from Pentagon Research)
so..who was in that building doing what? IMO there was plenty O time to add/subtract debris from the plane as well, although the columns were probably the same.

OMG, "Lost" is on in one minute...

[mirandapriestly]

73. Actually their (mis?) information came from the FBI

they weren't allowed back near the "exit" hole. And NO ONE else investigated it.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/105.html

The pictures they got were not even directly from the DoD, they were from the AP from the DoD. How lousy is that? How can ANYONE say there isn't something very wrong here? What are they trying to hide?

The hole could have been made to plant evidence, there was two days before there was any kind of "investigation", anything could have been done.

[StealthyDragon]

77. The video Fahrenheit 911......

clearly shows the collapsed section of the Pentagon burning brightly on the night of 9/13......not a fireman or truck in sight.

It's obvious they were covering something up that was going on in there.

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. Seems they had no real interest

in actually putting out the fire.

9-11 was all about visuals.

[StealthyDragon]

78. Problem is........

the hole's too small.

[DoYouEverWonder]

84. Found one more good pic of the Pentagon

shortly after the explosion.



Still can't find Flight 77.

[Americus]

86. That's what happens when you have so much incompetence & negligence...

involved. Surely, the perps would have preferred not to have to use planted evidence (ONE engine part - of unknown origin, a shiny piece of aluminum painted the wrong colors for AA livery etc.)...
but because of the Administration's INCOMPETENCE, NEGLIGENCE, and INTELLIGENCE Failures, they had to do SOMETHING that would provide proof (cover) for that part of the OCT in which OSAMA's boys crashed a large airliner into the Pentagon...and did so without leaving more than a scintilla of evidence that it happened.

[leftofthedial]

87. what is the burning trailer with vents on the side in the foreground?

not conspiracy, just curious

[mirandapriestly]

88. It's a generator

which was not hit by the plane, btw.
http://911review.org/brad.com/Pentagonattackgeneratorphotos.html

[mirandapriestly]

89. More pics

You can see the destruction, and yet you can see a tree stump and tree branches right in front of the impact, not to mention the spools. This is such a fraud.
http://close.batcave.net/

[DoYouEverWonder]

90. Did you notice the fence around the 'generator'?

Funny it should be pushed down like that?

Also, the generator is pointing directly at the impact hole?


?jkdg

More smoke and mirrors.

[mirandapriestly]

91. "funny"on so many levels

1. why is it on fire, when there is a large gap between it & the impact that is not on fire?
2. They appear in no hurry to put the fire out (like everything else except the SUV which they used up a whole tank of foam on, I read)
3. It appeared to be "moved " overnight, it is in a slightly but noticeably different place in regards to the fence.
4. In some pictures it looks like a military guy is "guarding" it.

Pointed toward the hole - now that's interesting (rubs hands together). It's pointed at the same angle as the alleged plane, btw. (edited to add that)

[DoYouEverWonder]

92. Wouldn't be very hard

to convert one of these



to look like a generator.

[mirandapriestly]

93. those are so similar, weird.

Is that a replica of the real thing? Does a generator usually look like the one in the Pentagon pic? How did you think of that?