FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos

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

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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 ???

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

again? you've yet to explain it .. but sure feel free!

Di0genes wrote: »

People hearing explosions is not proof of explosives.

nobody said it was (while being serious) but it is evidence.
just like people saying they saw a plane flying low and an explosion is not PROOF of a plane flying into the pentagon.

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

oh, so now you are combining them? but still it's not proof right?
just like buildings falling down during a terrorist attack where dozens of witnesses state that they hear explosions might make a case for checking for explosives?

Di0genes wrote: »

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

no one can give you evidence for an alternative theory until you state your theory.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

again? you've yet to explain it .. but sure feel free!

Yes I did. Refusal to acknowledge it or understand it is your issue.

nobody said it was (while being serious) but it is evidence.

You can put the word in bold it doesn't mean you're not mangling the meaning.

People hearing explosions is evidence of people hearing explosions.

just like people saying they saw a plane flying low and an explosion is not PROOF of a plane flying into the pentagon.

Like I've said before you don't understand what these words mean.
oh, so now you are combining them? but still it's not proof right?

No eyewitness testimony, combined with physical evidence, and telemetry and blackbox information are parts of the evidence that prove flight 77 flew into the pentagon.

just like buildings falling down during a terrorist attack where dozens of witnesses state that they hear explosions might make a case for checking for explosives?

No. Things explode in fires all the time. CTR monitors, gas lines, power substations, compressed air or liquids, will all explode in a fire.

Hearing explosions isnt proof or evidence of explosives.

Incidently this thread is about the Pentagon. Please keep it on topic.

no one can give you evidence for an alternative theory until you state your theory.

Still haven't worked out the search function yet? Keep trying.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes I did. Refusal to acknowledge it or understand it is your issue.

i'm sure you did. just that no one can find it. but since you've done it before ...

Di0genes wrote: »

You can put the word in bold it doesn't mean you're not mangling the meaning.

i put it in bold so you can see it when you skim through the posts ignoring what you choose to.

Di0genes wrote: »

People hearing explosions is evidence of people hearing explosions.

ok

Di0genes wrote: »

No eyewitness testimony, combined with physical evidence, and telemetry and blackbox information are parts of the evidence that prove flight 77 flew into the pentagon.

(i think you meant "no, eyewitness testimony ...")
eyewitness testimony is evidence that people think a plane like object flew near the pentagon.
telemetry is evidence of telemetry.
blackbox is evidence of a blackbox.
mhh all this evidence is proof? ... proof that a plane has flowing into a building?
"I'm sorry this is a completely incorrect and frankly daft conclusion."

Di0genes wrote: »

Hearing explosions isnt proof or evidence of explosives.

who said it was proof?

Di0genes wrote: »

Incidently this thread is about the Pentagon. Please keep it on topic.

it is on topic, just that it proves you wrong by your own logic.
but then again you want it both ways.

Di0genes wrote: »

Still haven't worked out the search function yet? Keep trying.

can't find what does not exist, even though i did go and look for it.
but sure dodge it yet again.

meglome

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

See page 5, for the open plan ground floor of the Pentagon etc



The double layer brick back wall.



So plane goes through one reinforced concrete wall, some wooden partitions then a large piece ends up smashed through a brick wall.

See how much less like a conspiracy this is when you stop believing the bull on the CT sites.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i'm sure you did. just that no one can find it. but since you've done it before ...

You're also incapable of using the search function to find threads I've started.

I'm not responsible for your incompetence, or lack of ability.

i put it in bold so you can see it when you skim through the posts ignoring what you choose to.

This is purely argumentative, and has no merit or relevance to the discussion at hand.

ok

(i think you meant "no, eyewitness testimony ...")

I think you don't want to start with the grammar nazism. It will go badly for you.

eyewitness testimony is evidence that people think a plane like object flew near the pentagon.

No. Eyewitnesses clearly identified a plane not near the pentagon but flying into the pentagon.

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

telemetry is evidence of telemetry.

Okay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.

The telemetry of United 77 was tracked by several different air traffic control commands.

blackbox is evidence of a blackbox.

The flight recorder recovered at the scene, matches the telemetry. The flight recorder was United 77s flight recorder.

mhh all this evidence is proof? ... proof that a plane has flowing into a building?

This evidence, combined with physical evidence at the crash scene, forensic evidence of passenger remains, builds a compelling and overwhelming case that United 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

"I'm sorry this is a completely incorrect and frankly daft conclusion."

Pure argument with substance. Unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value.

who said it was proof?

I think we've established that in this context proof and evidence can be used as having the same meaning.

it is on topic, just that it proves you wrong by your own logic.
but then again you want it both ways.

The topic at hand is crash into the pentagon. "proves you wrong by your own logic?" You're not even making sense now.

Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the pentagon, and evidence of flight 77s crash, or I will report you to moderators for derailing yet another thread.

can't find what does not exist, even though i did go and look for it.
but sure dodge it yet again.

And this is where your logic lets you down badly.

You looked for it and could not find it therefore you presume it does not exist. Much in the way someone would refuse to believe in the existence of Lions or the Nile, if they could not see it for themselves. It says volumes about your mindset that this is how you think.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You're also incapable of using the search function to find threads I've started.

that must be it, but since you can't reproduce it here, it appears that you are making it up.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not responsible for your incompetence, or lack of ability.

damn straight you are not, you are responsible for your own.

Di0genes wrote: »

I think you don't want to start with the grammar nazism. It will go badly for you.

go for it, but ...
This is purely argumentative, and has no merit or relevance to the discussion at hand.

Di0genes wrote: »

No. Eyewitnesses clearly identified a plane not near the pentagon but flying into the pentagon.

ah so they claim to have seen a plane flying into it. ok.

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.

along with proof, evidence, an argument, reading a report ...
sure good swipe there.

Di0genes wrote: »

The telemetry of United 77 was tracked by several different air traffic control commands.

really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane?

Di0genes wrote: »

The flight recorder recovered at the scene, matches the telemetry. The flight recorder was United 77s flight recorder.

coincidence (that the recorder matches same).
i'm not sure how you can tell that the blackbox was not from another plane.

Di0genes wrote: »

This evidence, combined with physical evidence at the crash scene, forensic evidence of passenger remains, builds a compelling and overwhelming case that United 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

what physical evidence? the plane?
it might build a compelling case, but overwhelming, well i'd like you to prove that one please.

Di0genes wrote: »

Pure argument with substance. Unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value.

ah like how you do. got-cha so here goes "unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value."
but just to be sure ..
just because people think the saw a plan fly into a building does not mean that a plane flew into a building.
just because people found little bits of plane, does not mean there ever was a whole plane.
clear enough

Di0genes wrote: »

I think we've established that in this context proof and evidence can be used as having the same meaning.

just in your head. like thousands of tons of explosives and the fact that logic is proof.

but it is strange one moment you were saying they were the same, then next you are using evidence in all your responses instead of proof ... strange that.

Di0genes wrote: »

The topic at hand is crash into the pentagon. "proves you wrong by your own logic?" You're not even making sense now.

is it? i don't know your theory .. you keep running away about it, so i have no idea what topic you are on about.

Di0genes wrote: »

Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the pentagon, and evidence of flight 77s crash, or I will report you to moderators for derailing yet another thread.

oh a threat, seriously? tell you what go and report me if it makes you feel better. i'm just asking questions that you keep dodging ...

Di0genes wrote: »

And this is where your logic lets you down badly.

it sure does otherwise i'd be saying logic is evidence and stuff. but "unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value."

Di0genes wrote: »

You looked for it and could not find it therefore you presume it does not exist. Much in the way someone would refuse to believe in the existence of Lions or the Nile, if they could not see it for themselves.

indeed or unicorns, since i asked you to present it and you failed, several times again and again, making excuses ... much like there being unicorns..

Di0genes wrote: »

It says volumes about your mindset that this is how you think.

it sure does, it means i did not forget that you have yet to present your theory despite that you attacked another poster for theirs.
maybe you should ask yourself what does it speak about your mindset that you refuse to provide your theory???

(ps quote me properly - not just with quote boxes)

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

See page 5, for the open plan ground floor of the Pentagon etc

<pic>


The double layer brick back wall.

<pic>

So plane goes through one reinforced concrete wall, some wooden partitions then a large piece ends up smashed through a brick wall.

I can see any plane debris in those pics ... does the hole not look too small?
but why would they have wooden partitions on the ground floor holding up the building?
surely they should be concrete.

meglome wrote: »

See how much less like a conspiracy this is when you stop believing the bull on the CT sites.

or when i start following bull on NCT sites and stop asking question or reading reports for myself ....

MD11

davoxx wrote: »

really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane

davoxx wrote: »

coincidence.

I'd like to direct your attention to something Di0genes posted

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay we'll add aviation to the ever growing list of things you don't understand.

From those two statements its pretty obvious that you really do know absolutely nothing about aviation, which isn't really ideal when you're trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon.

Neither of your statements make any sense whatsoever. You should have a read up on SSR and transponders. Saying that the DFDR data and radar tracks from the ARTCC match up by coincidence is just, well.... Theres still a big red mark on my forehead.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

that must be it, but since you can't reproduce it here, it appears that you are making it up.

Or it appears you can't use the search function. I've told you it's on this board, I've directed you towards the search function. I have no inclination to help you any further than that.

ah so they claim to have seen a plane flying into it. ok.

They state categorically they saw a plane fly into a pentagon. Many go so far as to identify the model and airline.

along with proof, evidence, an argument, reading a report ...
sure good swipe there.

No it's a genuine point. Saying "telemetry is proof of telemetry" is a glib statement that means you don't understand that telemetry is verifiable recorded information on planes flight path.

really? so they tracked the signature of the plane, but not the plane?

The plane was followed by flight traffic controllers several different command structures. I don't really think I understand what you mean by signature. Perhaps you could clarify.

coincidence.

I'm sorry are you really saying that it's a matter of chance that united 77's flight data recorder was recovered from the Pentagon?

what physical evidence? the plane?

Of course.

it might build a compelling case, but overwhelming, well i'd like you to prove that one please.

Who is we? And why do I have to?

ah like how you do. got-cha so here goes "unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value."
but just to be sure ..
just because people think the saw a plan fly into a building does not mean that a plane flew into a building.
just because people found little bits of plane, does not mean there ever was a whole plane.
clear enough

Because people didn't find "little bits of plane" they found, huge chunks of plane"

What you fail to understand is this is how a argument, a position, or a case is put forward. You don't have a single piece of evidence, you have several different pieces of evidence combined together, and these make up your case.

just in your head. like thousands of tons of explosives and the fact that logic is proof.

You see those are all in your head. I never claimed logic was proof, or said anything about thousands of tonnes of explosives.

is it? i don't know you're theory .. you keep running away about it, so i have no idea what topic you are on about.

Firstly it's "your theory". And "you keep running away about it" doesn't make any sense. Finally the topic of the thread is the "FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack" Please stick to the topic of the thread, or again I will report you to a moderator.

it sure does otherwise i'd be saying logic is evidence and stuff. but "unless you can explain what I said is incorrect, your rebuttal is without merit or value."

I literally did in the next sentence.

indeed or unicorns, since i asked you to present it and you failed, several times again and again, making excuses ... much like there being unicorns..

You asked. I said no, and pointed you to the search engine. Its not my problem you can't use it.

it sure does, it means i did not forget that you have yet to present your theory despite that you attacked another poster for theirs.
maybe you should ask yourself what does it speak about your mindset that you refuse to provide your theory???

Search engine etc.......

In future I'm going to ignore all parts of your posts that are not about the specific topic of the thread

(ps quote me properly - not just with quote boxes)

Since you asked so nicely. No. No I won't.

davoxx

MD11 wrote: »

<stuff>

hello there mister new user!!

a kind word, don't say crap like " its pretty obvious that you really do know absolutely nothing about aviation, which isn't really ideal when you're trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon."
it might make you look like a silly troll.

firstly:
you have no idea what i know
seeing as you just joined (to help backup your friend as he can't provide proof) and this is your second post, maybe you should have just stayed quiet because ...

secondly:
i am not trying to disprove that a B752 hit the Pentagon.

i never said that a plane did not hit it.

so please be quiet.