FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos

Daithi 1

Newly released FBI 9/11 pics.

First one is very telling. No wing marks.

http://cryptome.org/info/fbi-pentagon/fbi-pentagon.htm

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

First one is very telling. No wing marks.

Is it?
Where did the aircraft debris in the later pics come from?

Daithi 1

whatstherush wrote: »

Is it?
Where did the aircraft debris in the later pics come from?

Someone/s put them there.

I think it's more strange that there are no wing or tail marks from an existing plane, than there were tiny bits of debris from a non existant plane.

One could put debris there, but one cant remove wing and tail marks from a buildings face.

So yea, It is telling.

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Someone/s put them there.

I think it's more strange that there are no wing or tail marks from an existing plane, than there were tiny bits of debris from a non existant plane.

One could put debris there, but one cant remove wing and tail marks from a buildings face.

So yea, It is telling.

What do you mean by non existant plane, that the plane that officially hit the pentagon never existed or just that plane didn't hit the pentagon.

Daithi 1

whatstherush wrote: »

What do you mean by non existant plane, that the plane that officially hit the pentagon never existed or just that plane didn't hit the pentagon.

It never hit, or it was a wingless & tailess plane.

I woud expect to see some broken windows etc where the wings and huge engines supposedly hit.

Keeping in mind, this is what it looks like when an actual plane hit a steel building.

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It never hit, or it was a wingless & tailess plane.

I woud expect to see some broken windows etc where the wings and huge engines supposedly hit.

So what happened that plane?

Divorce Referendum

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Newly released FBI 9/11 pics.

First one is very telling. No wing marks.

http://cryptome.org/info/fbi-pentagon/fbi-pentagon.htm

The first one is a picture of a fire beside where the plane went in. Look to the left for the real entry point:pac:

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It never hit, or it was a wingless & tailess plane.

I woud expect to see some broken windows etc where the wings and huge engines supposedly hit.

Keeping in mind, this is what it looks like when an actual plane hit a steel building.

The pentagon was of an entirely different construction to the twin towers.
The towers were clad in aluminium and glass.
The pentagon was hardened concrete.

You cannot seriously expect to see the same type of damage.

Daithi 1

whatstherush wrote: »

So what happened that plane?

Whoa there lad, not so fast. One step at a time.

Why were there no wing, tail or engine indents on the building. There were no tracks on the lawn either.

Can you explain this ? You said it wasnt "telling". I presume you have the answers...

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Whoa there lad, not so fast. One step at a time.

Why were there no wing, tail or engine indents on the building. There were no tracks on the lawn either.

Can you explain this ? You said it wasnt "telling". I presume you have the answers...

You have convinced me no plane hit the pentagon, so what happened it?

Daithi 1

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The first one is a picture of a fire beside where the plane went in. Look to the left for the real entry point:pac:

The right wing indentation should be visible no the left on the first picture.

King Mob wrote: »

The pentagon was of an entirely different construction to the twin towers.
The towers were clad in aluminium and glass.
The pentagon was hardened concrete.

You cannot seriously expect to see the same type of damage.

If not, I would expect to see the wings, engines and tail on the grass, in some condition.

Oh and broken windows etc.

Daithi 1

whatstherush wrote: »

You have convinced me no plane hit the pentagon, so what happened it?

I really have no idea.

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I really have no idea.

Surprise surprise, once again a conspiracy theorist, won't theorize what actually happened.

Divorce Referendum

Daithi 1 wrote: »

The right wing indentation should be visible no the left on the first picture.



If not, I would expect to see the wings, engines and tail on the grass.

Why should it. You are only seeing the very edge of the point of entry and also there is a generator obscuring the view. Perhaps a picture showing the full extent of damage would be more valid. I wouldn't be expecting to see the wing indentation but you aren't even looking at the picture properly to say otherwise.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

The pentagon was of an entirely different construction to the twin towers.
The towers were clad in aluminium and glass.
The pentagon was hardened concrete.

You cannot seriously expect to see the same type of damage.

Oh, and this is what happens a plane when it hits reinforced concrete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

The right wing indentation should be visible no the left on the first picture.



If not, I would expect to see the wings, engines and tail on the grass, in some condition.

Oh and broken windows etc.

http://www.911myths.com/images/0/07/Pentcomposite.jpg

So that was caused by...?

Daithi 1

whatstherush wrote: »

Surprise surprise, once again a conspiracy theorist, won't theorize what actually happened.

I'm not a CT'r. I can only work with evidence at hand. I could make assumptions but that all they would be.

But to assume a plane hit because you dont know what happened it otherwise is just, well, silly.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/images/0/07/Pentcomposite.jpg

So that was caused by...?

Fire.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Fire.

Ah, we're already jumping into the immature question dodging phase.

So then what caused the fire and the hole that looks like a plane plowed into it?

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I'm not a CT'r. I can only work with evidence at hand. I could make assumptions but that all they would be.

But to assume a plane hit because you dont know what happened it otherwise is just, well, silly.

Oh your one of those just say'in CT'rs. You are making assumptions, you are assuming that debris from a plane that disappeared somewhere else, leaving no trace, was spread on the pentagon site.

weisses

whatstherush wrote: »

Oh your one of those just say'in CT'rs. You are making assumptions, you are assuming that debris from a plane that disappeared somewhere else, leaving no trace, was spread on the pentagon site.

I made the assumption (in a different thread) that there were at least 86 cctv camera's and that there has to be more footage of the plane hitting the building .. And it was swept aside with the argument that in 2001 the equipment used was not capable to show the plane hitting the building

So instead of trying to paint everyone who has a different opinion a conspiracy theorist , You could actually try to engage in a normal discussion.

All you try to do is provoke people

whatstherush

weisses wrote: »

I made the assumption (in a different thread) that there were at least 86 cctv camera's and that there has to be more footage of the plane hitting the building .. And it was swept aside with the argument that in 2001 the equipment used was not capable to show the plane hitting the building

So instead of trying to paint everyone who has a different opinion a conspiracy theorist , You could actually try to engage in a normal discussion.

All you try to do is provoke people

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Someone/s put them there.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It never hit, or it was a wingless & tailess plane.

It requires a conspiracy for the above two statements to be true. If someone expresses those views they believe in a conspiracy, therefore they are a conspiracy theorist. I don't know why ye all so shy about not being CT'rs

davoxx

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Newly released FBI 9/11 pics.

First one is very telling. No wing marks.

http://cryptome.org/info/fbi-pentagon/fbi-pentagon.htm

who released this pictures?
and are they the full set?

have to say it does look like there are no wing marks, and i thought the plane itself almost fully penetrated the building?

weisses

whatstherush wrote: »

It requires a conspiracy for the above two statements to be true. If someone expresses those views they believe in a conspiracy, therefore they are a conspiracy theorist. I don't know why ye all so shy about not being CT'rs

It's impossible to raise a valid question, without being marked as a CT er or truth-er .. that's the problem in here .... The problem is that when a question is asked ... being able to answering your own question is almost required


Same with the CCTV camera footage ...just release it and you can give two fingers to every thruther around the globe

davoxx

weisses wrote: »

I made the assumption (in a different thread) that there were at least 86 cctv camera's and that there has to be more footage of the plane hitting the building .. And it was swept aside with the argument that in 2001 the equipment used was not capable to show the plane hitting the building

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Someone/s put them there.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It never hit, or it was a wingless & tailess plane.

whatstherush wrote: »

It requires a conspiracy for the above two statements to be true. If someone expresses those views they believe in a conspiracy, therefore they are a conspiracy theorist. I don't know why ye all so shy about not being CT'rs

i'll have to disagree there.

weisses wrote: »

I made the assumption (in a different thread) that there were at least 86 cctv camera's and that there has to be more footage of the plane hitting the building .. And it was swept aside with the argument that in 2001 the equipment used was not capable to show the plane hitting the building

the people holding the cctv that has not been released might have a very good reason for not releasing it.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Someone/s put them there.

this is possible, and once again the people arriving on the scene would have no idea of this, so they never conspired, they just worked with what they had.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It never hit, or it was a wingless & tailess plane.

also possible, or that the wings/tail had been shot/torn off.

i don't see how it follows it is a conspiracy?
you are assuming that someone knows/knew the truth and won't/didn't tell everyone.
or maybe you are just assuming a "non-conspiracy" theory.

the fact someone states a possibility does not mean that the think there is a conspiracy.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, we're already jumping into the immature question dodging phase.

So then what caused the fire and the hole that looks like a plane plowed into it?

nobody knows for certain. now if we had footage of the plane flying into it like the WTCs then we'd know it was a plane.

meglome

weisses wrote: »

I made the assumption (in a different thread) that there were at least 86 cctv camera's and that there has to be more footage of the plane hitting the building .. And it was swept aside with the argument that in 2001 the equipment used was not capable to show the plane hitting the building

So instead of trying to paint everyone who has a different opinion a conspiracy theorist , You could actually try to engage in a normal discussion.

All you try to do is provoke people

I said to you that cameras point towards the ground. This is a fact. How do you think these cameras will see a plane that for most of it's approach is higher than all the buildings? You see the flaw in your thinking there?

There are hundreds of eyewitness that saw the plane, it went right over a highway in rush hour. I wonder why the CT sites only ever quote the two or three people that say it was 'like a missile'?

davoxx wrote: »

nobody knows for certain. now if we had footage of the plane flying into it like the WTCs then we'd know it was a plane.

The many many eyewitnesses who saw it clear as day?

whatstherush

weisses wrote: »

It's impossible to raise a valid question, without being marked as a CT er or truth-er .. that's the problem in here .... The problem is that when a question is asked ... being able to answering your own question is almost required


Same with the CCTV camera footage ...just release it and you can give two fingers to every thruther around the globe

In two quotes From Daithi1 I posted what question did he ask?

weisses

meglome wrote: »

I said to you that cameras point towards the ground. This is a fact. How do you think these cameras will see a plane that for most of it's approach is higher than all the buildings? You see the flaw in your thinking there?

My flaw?? fine ... point me to statements about the fact that they were facing the ground (all 86 off them) and your claim that they were not able to catch the plane even when they were facing the right direction

And if they are useless ....RELEASE the tapes ..... Conspiracy debunked .. end of discussion

It makes sense that one of the the most important buildings in the USA only has camera's pointing towards the ground .... bit of sarcasm yes

meglome wrote: »

There are hundreds of eyewitness that saw the plane, it went right over a highway in rush hour. I wonder why the CT sites only ever quote the two or three people that say it was 'like a missile'?

there were also credible witnesses claiming the plane was more northerly then claimed by the NTSB report

meglome wrote: »

The many many eyewitnesses who saw it clear as day?

I agree with you there ..... this part of the 9/11 is THE opportunity to expose all the thruthers .. But they fail to do so

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

The many many eyewitnesses who saw it clear as day?

are these the same unreliable kind that heard explosions?

or are these so reliable that video evidence would fail in comparison?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

are these the same unreliable kind that heard explosions?

or are these so reliable that video evidence would fail in comparison?

Lots of people heard explosions theres no doubt of that.

Its whether those explosions were caused by explosives.

However at the Pentagon people identified the object a plane, a 737, and indeed recognised the airline markings.

The Plane flew over a 8 lane highway at 9:30 in the morning, so low that it clipped lamposts.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

The pentagon was of an entirely different construction to the twin towers.

The towers were clad in aluminium and glass.

The pentagon was hardened concrete.

You cannot seriously expect to see the same type of damage.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Oh, and this is what happens a plane when it hits reinforced concrete.

(video you conveniently skipped past)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM

So, we see the damage done to the tower, then we see what happens to a plane when it hits (and I quote) "hardened concrete", which coindidentally is what the pentagon is built with.

How come the plane managed to get through 7 (i think) outer "hardened concrete" walls ? and got knows how many inner walls, and leave an exit hole ??

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/010914-F-8006R-004.jpg

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

So, we see the damage done to the tower, then we see what happens to a plane when it hits (and I quote) "hardened concrete", which coindidentally is what the pentagon is built with.

How come the plane managed to get through 7 (i think) outer "hardened concrete" walls ? and got knows how many inner walls, and leave an exit hole ??

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/010914-F-8006R-004.jpg

Well first off you can see that the pentagon's walls aren't a thick as the one in the video and is broken up by windows.
And secondly the lower floors the plane crashed into was open plan so it didn't have to crash through seven walls, let alone 7 hardened concrete walls.
And thirdly the plane didn't make it all the way through intact.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Well first off you can see that the pentagon's walls aren't a thick as the one in the video and is broken up by windows.
And secondly the lower floors the plane crashed into was open plan so it didn't have to crash through seven walls, let alone 7 hardened concrete walls.
And thirdly the plane didn't make it all the way through intact.

You stated it was hardened concrete.

It went through 8 exterior walls.

Mob, you dropped yourself in it.

There is no way on this earth that "plane" would pearse 8 exterior hardened concrete walls, not even 2, not even 1. Judging by the video demonstration of a jet hitting reinforced concrete.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You stated it was hardened concrete.

It went through 8 exterior walls.

Mob, you dropped yourself in it.

There is no way on this earth that "plane" would pearse 8 exterior hardened concrete walls, not even 2, not even 1. Judging by the video demonstration of a jet hitting reinforced concrete.

Yea and you can see in the videos and pictures you posted the difference in thickness and structure of the two examples of hardened concrete.

The plane didn't pierce 8 walls. It pierced 2, one of which was not reinforced.

And you've yet to actually explain what caused the damage in the picture I posted.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Well first off you can see that the pentagon's walls aren't a thick as the one in the video and is broken up by windows.
And secondly the lower floors the plane crashed into was open plan so it didn't have to crash through seven walls, let alone 7 hardened concrete walls.
And thirdly the plane didn't make it all the way through intact.

that kinda makes sense, the space lasers melted the windows then the walls ... just like you claimed King Mob.

you are right the photos are fake, that must be why you have not provided proof and chosen to ignore my posts as well as Ramocc's.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Lots of people heard explosions theres no doubt of that.

so err is that evidence?
or is it just evidence that people think they saw a plane, but not that there was a plane?
so there is no proof of the plane based on what people said ....

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Yea and you can see in the videos and pictures you posted the difference in thickness and structure of the two examples of hardened concrete.

The plane didn't pierce 8 walls. It pierced 2, one of which was not reinforced.

And you've yet to actually explain what caused the damage in the picture I posted.

Not good enough. Hardened concrete, aluminium plane.

You stated I shouldnt expect the same damage as when the plane hit the tower, now you are stating that i should.

Make up your mind.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And you've yet to actually explain what caused the damage in the picture I posted.

simple, space lasers ... like you said technology for space laser maybe created in the future and this will cause the damage ....

i think you need several tonnes of explosives for the reinforced walls, though i'm going to hold off on this as you're obviously the expert on how many thousands of tons it takes.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Not good enough. Hardened concrete, aluminium plane.

You stated I shouldnt expect the same damage as when the plane hit the tower, now you are stating that i should.

Make up your mind.

But I'm not saying that you should expect the same damage at all.
Nowhere did I say or imply it.

In fact you are still committing the same fallacy with your example of the plane hitting the concrete slab.

The wall was made of hardened concrete, but is significantly thinner and contains window which makes it weaker still.

Are you seriously going to argue that the thickness of a wall has no baring on it's strength?

RMD

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Not good enough. Hardened concrete, aluminium plane.

You stated I shouldnt expect the same damage as when the plane hit the tower, now you are stating that i should.

Make up your mind.

So tell me what did do the damage then? These walls aren't anywhere near as reinforced as that video demonstrates. They were reinforced to withstand a small bomb attack, not a Boeing 737 at full throttle.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

In fact you are still committing the same fallacy with your example of the plane hitting the concrete slab.

Which fallacy? that lasers were used?

King Mob wrote:

Lasers could have been used to cut the walls down.

see, lasers

King Mob wrote: »

Are you seriously going to argue that the thickness of a wall has no baring on it's strength?

Yeah but the tons of explosives that were required was enough to weaken it.

But we don't need to worry about this, as in your next post, you present the evidence that we were promised ... right?

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Yea and you can see in the videos and pictures you posted the difference in thickness and structure of the two examples of hardened concrete.

The plane didn't pierce 8 walls. It pierced 2, one of which was not reinforced.

And you've yet to actually explain what caused the damage in the picture I posted.

Are you lying or do you really just not have a clue ???

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Are you lying or do you really just not have a clue ???

Your image link does quite work, but copy pasting does. edit Nevermind, fixed.

And in your picture you can see that between the first three rings there's a roof over what is the ground floor on each.

This is because that area of the the building was open plan.
So at most the plane had to get through one reinforced wall, then maybe some interior ones and partitions, then a simple brick wall.
But then not all of the plane actually made it that far.

Daithi 1

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Not particularly arsed to watch a video you posted because you aren't arsed to make a point yourself.

The first floor of that area of the pentagon was open plan.
Your claim that the plane had to break through 8 reinforced walls is simply untrue.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

This is because that area of the the building was open plan.
So at most the plane had to get through one reinforced wall, then maybe some interior ones and partitions, then a simple brick wall.
But then not all of the plane actually made it that far.

obviously ... you've stated this.
the open planned for the plane to come through. otherwise they would have needed thousands of tons of explosives, but that was all used up in WTC7

if you have time to talk rubbish, please reply to my posts, and Ramocc's posts.

though you can continued to ignore them because you've been proven wrong and ... you can't find that proof/evidence you were meant to bring along.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Not particularly arsed to watch a video you posted because you aren't arsed to make a point yourself.

so you are just partly arsed :pac:
nah i kid, why watch a video when you can deny it without even watching it.
we all know unicorns are not in the video so there is NO NEED TO WATCH IT.
it's not like you are cowardly avoiding the points.

King Mob wrote: »

The first floor of that area of the pentagon was open plan.
Your claim that the plane had to break through 8 reinforced walls is simply untrue.

it's all in the video that you will never watch, just like that pesky NIST report that you will never read, because you can't be arsed, but you sure can argue over it.

if you are not arsed why bother coming here to get attention?

whatstherush

Daithi 1 wrote: »

So, we see the damage done to the tower, then we see what happens to a plane when it hits (and I quote) "hardened concrete", which coindidentally is what the pentagon is built with.

How come the plane managed to get through 7 (i think) outer "hardened concrete" walls ? and got knows how many inner walls, and leave an exit hole ??

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/010914-F-8006R-004.jpg

Last time I checked hardened concrete isn't a scientific unit of measure. So here we have another assumption from you, that the hardened concrete wall in your video has the same strength as the pentagons hardened concrete wall. Well I going to assume there not the same strength and as far as I'm concerned my assumption has as much validity as yours.

davoxx

whatstherush wrote: »

Last time I checked hardened concrete isn't a scientific unit of measure. So here we have another assumption from you, that the hardened concrete wall in your video has the same strength as the pentagons hardened concrete wall. Well I going to assume there not the same strength and as far as I'm concerned my assumption has as much validity as yours.

you are right isn't a scientific unit of measure, hardened concrete is a specification (maybe not the exact word) => info

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

so err is that evidence?

Do you really need me to explain what the word evidence means again?

People hearing explosions is not proof (or evidence) of explosives.

or is it just evidence that people think they saw a plane, but not that there was a plane?
so there is no proof of the plane based on what people said ....

Dozens of eye witnesses stated that they saw a plane, combined with the physical evidence of the plane crash (large amounts of wreckage on the lawn of pentagon) combined with radar telemetry, and flight recorder information make the incredibly strong case for a plane crash at the pentagon.

I've yet to hear credible evidence for any alternative theory.