Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos

Options
«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #3
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.

    6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi


  • Options
    #6
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #8
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.

    6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi

    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.


  • Options
    #9
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #10
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #11
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    whatstherush wrote: »
    You have convinced me no plane hit the pentagon, so what happened it?


    I really have no idea.


  • Options
    #13
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I really have no idea.

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


  • Options
    #14
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #16
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...?


  • Options
    #17
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://www.911myths.com/images/0/07/Pentcomposite.jpg

    So that was caused by...?

    Fire.


  • Options
    #19
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Options
    #20
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #21
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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:confused:


  • Options
    #23
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #24
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭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:confused:


    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


  • Options
    #25
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #26
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #27
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #28
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #29
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #30
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement