The Right & Left "wing Damage" On Pentagon Wall, Every action has an opposite reaction...
Merc
Posted: Sep 17 2006, 10:23 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



user posted image

First I want you to watch these videos:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...ane+crash&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...ane+crash&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=90...ane+crash&hl=en


Clearly when we watch this video, we can see that the plane tilts the same way the reported 757 did. Right wing up, left wing down. We can note that the plane's wing came off somewhat, but it still stay attached.

Now Flight 77 supposedly came in 6 ft above the lawn and hit the generator trailer(100 ft away), while dipping it's left wing it hit the ground essentially, hitting a retaining wall, before it hit the construction trailers and then ultimately hitting the wall.

user posted image

Obviously between hitting the generator trailer which allegedly moved to the right due to this impact, and allegedly hitting the retaining wall/ground then a couple of construction trailers, we can apply the similar physics to the Pentagon.

If the plane was to hit these object then they would A) Rip off the engine/wing assembly before it got to the wall B ) Change the angular path of the fuselage, essentially turning the plane sideways.

So would the impact hole of the fuselage and the left wing be legitimate considering this line of thinking? Wouldn't there be more and larger wreckage considering this line of thinking.

What about the right wing damage, it isn't even a hole. The columns appeared up and out, while the limestone facade seems to have simply fallen off.

Immediately people point toward the Sandia crash as example of a high speed impact with a wall. Yet they fail to show the huge difference in the crash test wall and 14-24 inch Pentagon wall and the huge difference between a 757 and an F4.


So with that in mind let's now turn to the wings and engines...

Let's now turn to the wings and engines...

THE RIGHT WING/ENGINE


This is probably one of the most damaging aspects of the Pentagon situation.

Reports had the right wing tilted up in order to supposedly accomodate this generator trailer.


QUOTE
"Where the plane came in was really at the CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE," says Jack Singleton, president of Singleton Electric Co. Inc., Gaithersburg MD, the Wedge One electrical subcontractor. "The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer. My foreman, Mickey Bell, had just walked out of the trailer and was walking toward the construction entrance."
 
http://www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp

 
Another witness: The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low," Sepulveda said. "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."

http://www.jimroche.com/pentagon_hero.htm



The only problem is, there is NO entrance for the wings OR the engine. It only shows damage of BLOWN *OUT* limestone facade columns. Meanwhile they want you to believe a 767 and it's wings and engine can slice through structural steel at the WTC, but NOT 2 feet of concrete, brick, limestone, and a kevlar cloth...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer..._/106-large.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...engine_fit2.jpg

BLOWN *OUT* limestone facade columns, no entrance hole:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer..._/074-large.jpg


A more defined shot:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...-foam-small.jpg

Remember this, is *supposed to be* damage from the 44,000 lb tilted right wing of a 757...

Note how the damage is localized, the "wing" damage has no continuity(red circle), It is confined in between columns 18 and 19. With Damage in beween 19 and 20, And 21 (Floor 2):

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...foam-small2.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...t-wing-gash.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...right-1-big.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...-wing-gash2.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer.../pentagon15.jpg

AGAIN, THIS WOULD ADD MORE PROBLEMS TO THE HEIGHT OF THE THIS SUPPOSED 757'S ATTACK PATH. Only placing the wing a few feet above the first floor window, but leaving no engine or wing behind as the engine would have hit the generator and or the wall and either entered or been left behind on the outside of the building. This also contradicts the supposed LEFT WING BURN/IMPACT MARK. But we'll get to that in a minute.


LEFT WING/ENGINE

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...sideoutline.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/10.jpg

This is one is a little trickier. This is proably what the right side SHOULD HAVE looked like. But maybe the explosives didn't go off as planned. Clearly you can see columns still intact...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...agon_347626.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...-66641853-1.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...agonDamage4.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...sn010914-12.jpg

Here's something you don't see everyday. Directly under the left engine/wing impact area. Straight out to the right from where the photographer is standing you would probably end up where the burning cars were. Note column 9A I believe, still intact...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer..._/100-large.jpg

Now note the burn/impact mark from the supposed left wing...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/3-8.jpg

IT IS PERFECTLY LEVEL!!! Completely contradicts the tilting of the right wing!

Again they want you to not only believe that an entire 757 fit UNER THE FIRST FLOOR. They want you to believe wings and an engine fit under this first floor...

The engine, RB211:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/73.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...211535e45tl.jpg


And the wing..

Into and under this:


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/4548.jpg


http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...agon-flag02.jpg
(Note the level burn mark from the supposed wing)

Under this:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...Windowering.jpg


A 8-9ft engine diameter, coming in at 6 ft above the ground. Tilting in milliseconds, enters into a 12-14.1 (there appears to be a slight grade) ft first floor section while missing a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and several columns. All while the wing absolutely does not fit, and the wall does not show signs of being hit by a 44,000 lb wing section...

QUOTE
American Society of Civil Engineers
According to Boeing engineers, the weight in each wing was composed of the following:

Exposed wing structure: 13,500 lb
Engine and struts: 11,900 lb
Landing gear: 3,800 lb
Fuel: 14,600 lb
Total: 43,800 lb
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 17 2006, 10:29 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



The FDR shows right wing down, left wing up. 6 degrees IIRC.. wink.gif

My .02


cheers.gif
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 17 2006, 10:35 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



Gee, and I wonder why that is?

Quite bizarre.

cheers.gif
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 02:40 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



The following photo shows a tremendous hole through the only actually 24 inch thick part of the Pentagon wall. It is right in line with the generator damage and the path of the right engine.

user posted image

You can see where the 24 inch thick wall was breached by a solid object. The panel immediately to the right of it was left open as a construction entrance. There were three of those. The panel above that was a window panel. It had 8 inches of brick and 6 inches of limestone facade in a steel tube frame around the window bolted to the 5.5 inch slab above and the first floor slab below. The missing window was blast resistant and weighed approximately 1600 pounds. The whole panel was backed with Kevlar cloth.

user posted image

This photo is precollapse. You can see that there is no wing damage preceding the hole from the direction of the fuselage or any wing damage extending beyond it. That would indicate the engine had been separated from the tremendous impact with the generator trailer. Note the position of column "A" as being straight prior to the collapse. The cross member support "B" is essentially horizontal but sagging.

user posted image

This is after the collapse. You can see how "B" is now vertical and in fact has kicked "A" to the right and broken it at the top. This is why some people think the column was going in the wrong direction from the impact. You can also see the limestone has fallen off.

user posted image

Starting from the fence you can see what looks like an engine profile. This damage lines up to the width between engines and the retaining wall damage that is supposed to be from the left engine.

user posted image

Here is the generator pulled forward and pushed sideways on its pad right in line with the fence damage and the hole through the 24 inch thick wall. The yellow line represents the length of the trailer if it were pulled back into place. The red line represents where the front of the torn edge near the top would be. The blue line represents the available opening. It appears two poles are missing which allows for approximately 12 feet.

The generator also received some unusual damage across the top of it. You can go back up to the aerial of it and see it.

user posted image

That damage lines up to the outboard flap track of a 757 wing. You can see one below with the faring removed.

user posted image

The following photo gives you a chance to see the overall area. All of the marks up on the wall I believe are pieces of the disintegrated wing and trailer debris. We have two pieces of engine debris at the Pentagon too. One is identifiable as a component for an RB-211 and one is not identifiable to anything.

user posted image

So here is my question. How did all of this starting with the fence on through a tri-axle semi-sized containerized trailer containing a large diesel generator right through a 24 inch thick wall happen?

Night or day? How many people? Explosives would have blown something back onto the lawn which we don't have. What tool was used to carve a flap track simulation in the top of the generator? Did they do that just for the aerial photo.

If somebody could start with the fence and give me a cohesive, logical explanation you might change my mind.

Russell




Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 02:49 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 17 2006, 10:40 PM)
The following photo shows a tremendous hole through the only actually 24 inch thick part of the Pentagon wall. It is right in line with the generator damage and the path of the right engine.


Is that for an airplane with a 163' wingspan..? a 130' wingspan..? an airplane with a 124' wingspan..? or all 3?



(by the way.. did you fix that 130' wingspan "scale" 757 yet?)
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 02:58 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



Referring to an admitted past error that I attempted to correct is NOT addressing the facts presented above.

I hope you are not going to do this again in this thread. Doing this too often will become transparent and people will catch on.

Everybody watch and see if this gets personal instead of addressing the evidence. Also watch for series of posts to distract and separate your attention from the real discussion.

The light pole thread, the flight path analysis, the trailers thread and the flyover comparison threads will all give you examples of how this pattern works.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 03:10 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



We are addressing facts based on govt data provided.

You are showing us pictures of holes in the walls.. square holes. We know they are there Russ.

Now.. your first plane with 163' wingspan lined up "perfectly".

Then your 130' wingspan lined up "perfectly".

And im sure your 124" wingspan airplane lines up... can we all guess?... yup.. perfectly...

And yes. you did correct them all... and they all line up "perfectly". Its so..... perfect!

wink.gif
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 03:39 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



Repitition again.

Here is a challenge for you then.

Take the satellite photo of the Pentagon on 09-07-01 you can get here: http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/#

It's on the far left of the bottom row. click on it and it takes you to a page to get the hi-res.

Then overlay it in Google Earth. Make it from the helipad north and a little past pole 1 south. Show a little of the impact wall east and a little behind pole 1 west. Then somewhere out of the way put an approved 124 foot line with the measure tool. I would need the whole image about 800 pixels wide with the orientation being the same as I have it now. I will scale and match everything to that from now on.

If you don't mind doing that then it will save both of us a lot of time and keep these threads about facts.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 03:43 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Russell... i have enough to question the govt right now. Thats what im trying to do.

If you want to play with your pictures and line up the impact to support govt theory... be my guest.

Personally i want answers as to why the FDR provided by the NTSB is in conflict with the official story. I want the truth.
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 03:43 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 02:40 AM)
The following photo shows a tremendous hole through the only actually 24 inch thick part of the Pentagon wall. It is right in line with the generator damage and the path of the right engine.

user posted image

You can see where the 24 inch thick wall was breached by a solid object. The panel immediately to the right of it was left open as a construction entrance. There were three of those. The panel above that was a window panel. It had 8 inches of brick and 6 inches of limestone facade in a steel tube frame around the window bolted to the 5.5 inch slab above and the first floor slab below. The missing window was blast resistant and weighed approximately 1600 pounds. The whole panel was backed with Kevlar cloth.

user posted image



Those are not accurate representations Russell.

One is pre collapse, the other post collapse.

Look at the pre collapse, it is still a solid wall section compromised because it is about to collapse.

Then look at the post collapse, that is with the compromised solid wall already failed, crumbled to the ground. Do you concur? In other words it is not a "hole" from where the engine entered, it only became a hole because the section collapse, compromising what integrity was left in that damaged section.

I've already explained all that damage is easy with an understanding that these people were trying to simulate a specific amount of damage to reflect a 757.

-Fence: Clip links down center of fence section with perforated snips down fence cover. Unwedge side fence posts prep for explosive/percussive blow, or naturally it was simply blown.

-Generator trailer: Turn at angle, plant explosives in end of generator trailer. Dent/gash is pre fabbed or a simple random anomaly. Or simply exaggerated in certain images versus other ones. Generator trailer could contain a projectile which since it would be pre positioned at angle, fires a projectile at the impact zone. Which could also propel the side portion of the fence.

-Retaining wall: Random/simple anomaly from blast occuring from construction trailers wall. Or a pre fabbed feature to simulate the specific crash.

-Construction trailers: Loaded with explosives or projectiles to be fired at left wing portion of damage zone, note they are postitioned in exactly this spot. Perhaps they were in front of the wall to cover the explosion coming from behind the walls. A good possibilty is that they were simultaneously blown with the walls, blowing planted debris that was in the trailers onto the lawn.

-Wall: Multiple explosives packed behind the wall in the shape of plane. Walls blown in to tiny pieces.

Poles: planted on highway by vans and phony VDOT employees, original poles removed days to weeks earlier.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 03:51 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



The photos had the following descriptions below them.

"This photo is precollapse. You can see that there is no wing damage preceding the hole from the direction of the fuselage or any wing damage extending beyond it. That would indicate the engine had been separated from the tremendous impact with the generator trailer. Note the position of column "A" as being straight prior to the collapse. The cross member support "B" is essentially horizontal but sagging."

"This is after the collapse. You can see how "B" is now vertical and in fact has kicked "A" to the right and broken it at the top. This is why some people think the column was going in the wrong direction from the impact. You can also see the limestone has fallen off."

Go back and actually read them.





Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 03:53 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 18 2006, 03:43 AM)
Russell... i have enough to question the govt right now. Thats what im trying to do.

If you want to play with your pictures and line up the impact to support govt theory... be my guest.

Personally i want answers as to why the FDR provided by the NTSB is in conflict with the official story. I want the truth.

OK then we'll hear no more about my calculations!
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:04 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 17 2006, 11:53 PM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 18 2006, 03:43 AM)
Russell... i have enough to question the govt right now. Thats what im trying to do.

If you want to play with your pictures and line up the impact to support govt theory... be my guest.

Personally i want answers as to why the FDR provided by the NTSB is in conflict with the official story. I want the truth.

OK then we'll hear no more about my calculations!

Wrong.. someone has to keep you honest around here.

I'll be keeping a very close eye on your post Russ. Make sure you take your time with your math.

Seems Merc is keeping you honest on the eyewitnesses and impact damge...

So.. we got you covered..

cheers.gif
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:08 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 03:51 AM)
The photos had the following descriptions below them.

"This photo is precollapse. You can see that there is no wing damage preceding the hole from the direction of the fuselage or any wing damage extending beyond it. That would indicate the engine had been separated from the tremendous impact with the generator trailer. Note the position of column "A" as being straight prior to the collapse. The cross member support "B" is essentially horizontal but sagging."

"This is after the collapse. You can see how "B" is now vertical and in fact has kicked "A" to the right and broken it at the top. This is why some people think the column was going in the wrong direction from the impact. You can also see the limestone has fallen off."

Go back and actually read them.

I actually did read them.

I was referring to your hole.

And???

None of that is "indicated".

There is nowhere for that engine to enter. There is no proof it detached from the wing, other than your assertion. If it had detached from the wing we would see it outside the building.

You made that declaration by the way after I pointed out the localized damage and lack of continuity in the "wing damage". You hadn't even notivced it before, then of course, as usual, it made perfect sense and supported your theory of a wing hitting the trailer and "exploding" with only a piece of wing causung the localized damage.
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:38 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



"-Fence: Clip links down center of fence section with perforated snips down fence cover. Unwedge side fence posts prep for explosive/percussive blow, or naturally it was simply blown."

What was the backing to direct the explosion so that it neatly bent two poles forward at just the right width for an RB-211? Have you looked at Ingersoll's photos closely? Do you "snipped" fence or signs of an explosion?

"-Generator trailer: Turn at angle, plant explosives in end of generator trailer. Dent/gash is pre fabbed or a simple random anomaly. Or simply exaggerated in certain images versus other ones. Generator trailer could contain a projectile which since it would be pre positioned at angle, fires a projectile at the impact zone. Which could also propel the side portion of the fence."

How did 'they" turn it. There was a fence in front of it. The estimate for its weight was 20 tons. If the explosives were in the front how come there is no debris in that area? The flap track damage is exactly the same in all the photos. They delivered a brand new custom made trailer just for the Pentagon reinforcing project with a gash in it? A "projectile" would not have the time or distance to accelerate to the force required. Remember the wall was reinforced. The fence had an entry and an exit point diagonal to the front of the trailer.

"-Retaining wall: Random/simple anomaly from blast occuring from construction trailers wall. Or a pre fabbed feature to simulate the specific crash."

If the wall was blasted by something from the trailers there would be debris leading up to and behind the wall. Nothing out in the lawn in that area. The wall had been there some time from all of the pre-9/11 aerials. So they measured it long before and poured a fault into it that would line up with the anomaly in the roof of the generator?

"-Construction trailers: Loaded with explosives or projectiles to be fired at left wing portion of damage zone, note they are postitioned in exactly this spot. Perhaps they were in front of the wall to cover the explosion coming from behind the walls. A good possibilty is that they were simultaneously blown with the walls, blowing planted debris that was in the trailers onto the lawn."

Loaded with explosives is possible. But explosions occur equally in all directions unless it was a shape charge. You still have to have a mechanism to direct the blast. Explain that further. Again, no room for projectiles. All damage was forward moving. Remember the trailer pieces wrapped around pillars inside? How was the wall blown out? There are NO wall pieces out on the lawn. The tree was driven in, the fence was driven in, the small concrete walls were driven in etc etc. The debris went at an angle that reflects the deflection of a crash. Nothing directly out.

"Poles: planted on highway by vans and phony VDOT employees, original poles removed days to weeks earlier. "

The poles were up to 30 feet long after being broken. Why did they use white vans? If they did, why did they hang around for photos? They did all of this right in view of traffic camera 720 on a main highway with Pentagon security everywhere? Then they took the poles somewhere and damaged them according to a preplanned fake flight path the width of a 757? Brought them back in pieces and scattered them when? Not before rush hour traffic because they would have been noticed. Then Lloyd stood there while they tossed one through his window which caused him to be out of work for 6 months, walk home and get his car impounded with a bill for it and had to have it towed home by himself?

It would have been easier and less risky to fly a plane in there like at the towers and would take considerably less people. How many people did all of this at the Pentagon?

Planes hit the towers and you know the official story isn't true. What would a plane hitting the pentagon change? But if one did hit it then keeping the no plane theory alive would certainly be useful from preventing people from figuring it out and moving on to other evidence.

I need more of an evidential explanation before I can ignore the evidence I posted above.









Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:40 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 18 2006, 04:04 AM)
So.. we got you covered..


Yes - double coverage perfectly timed with strong diversionary tactics used consitently.

Interesting.........
Top
Russell Pickering
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:42 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 1,722
Joined: 3-May 06



QUOTE (Merc @ Sep 18 2006, 04:08 AM)

You made that declaration by the way after I pointed out the localized damage and lack of continuity in the "wing damage". You hadn't even notivced it before, then of course, as usual, it made perfect sense and supported your theory of a wing hitting the trailer and "exploding" with only a piece of wing causung the localized damage.

Yes - no matter what the source of new evidence I incorporate it into my thinking as soon as I become aware of it.
Top
BenKenobi
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:55 AM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 162
Member No.: 2,584
Joined: 1-June 06



QUOTE (Merc @ Sep 18 2006, 03:43 AM)
[/quote]
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 02:40 AM)
The following photo shows a tremendous hole through the only actually 24 inch thick part of the Pentagon wall. It is right in line with the generator damage and the path of the right engine.

user posted image

You can see where the 24 inch thick wall was breached by a solid object. The panel immediately to the right of it was left open as a construction entrance. There were three of those. The panel above that was a window panel. It had 8 inches of brick and 6 inches of limestone facade in a steel tube frame around the window bolted to the 5.5 inch slab above and the first floor slab below. The missing window was blast resistant and weighed approximately 1600 pounds. The whole panel was backed with Kevlar cloth.

user posted image




I hate to reply to this because of the intensity of this debate, but I can't resist. Let's just try not to insult each other and lay down this evidence again and try to find something new.

I find it suspicious that the FD sprayed their foam hoses completely across the impact hole, hiding it from most of the pics. I know the generator fire was intense, but come on.

I believe the Pentagon strike was used to encourage support for war and as a test of the blast resistance remodel, not to mention forgetting about that missing 2.3 trillion dollars. I 75% believe an aircraft hit the Pentagon, but this pic is an absolute head scratcher. The vertical column to the right of the impact hole is the only one that appears "sliced" right where is meets the horizontal column. Russell what's your take on the vertical stabilizer? Did you find any impact damage from it?

The funny thing is when I try to simulate a 400 mph impact in my head, the physics are just incomprehensible. I just can't see the fuel igniting and the wing disintegrating in a couple of milliseconds before the wall.

And keep up the good work with the FDR. But obviously the FDR is tampered with or is not from what hit the Pentagon. You've already proven that. Fully cracking the FDR code will get some good media attention.
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:56 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 04:40 AM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 18 2006, 04:04 AM)
So.. we got you covered..


Yes - double coverage perfectly timed with strong diversionary tactics used consitently.

Interesting.........

ninja.gif ninja.gif
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 05:03 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 04:38 AM)
"-Fence: Clip links down center of fence section with perforated snips down fence cover. Unwedge side fence posts prep for explosive/percussive blow, or naturally it was simply blown."

What was the backing to direct the explosion so that it neatly bent two poles forward at just the right width for an RB-211? Have you looked at Ingersoll's photos closely? Do you "snipped" fence or signs of an explosion?

"-Generator trailer: Turn at angle, plant explosives in end of generator trailer. Dent/gash is pre fabbed or a simple random anomaly. Or simply exaggerated in certain images versus other ones. Generator trailer could contain a projectile which since it would be pre positioned at angle, fires a projectile at the impact zone. Which could also propel the side portion of the fence."

How did 'they" turn it. There was a fence in front of it. The estimate for its weight was 20 tons. If the explosives were in the front how come there is no debris in that area? The flap track damage is exactly the same in all the photos. They delivered a brand new custom made trailer just for the Pentagon reinforcing project with a gash in it? A "projectile" would not have the time or distance to accelerate to the force required. Remember the wall was reinforced. The fence had an entry and an exit point diagonal to the front of the trailer.

"-Retaining wall: Random/simple anomaly from blast occuring from construction trailers wall. Or a pre fabbed feature to simulate the specific crash."

If the wall was blasted by something from the trailers there would be debris leading up to and behind the wall. Nothing out in the lawn in that area. The wall had been there some time from all of the pre-9/11 aerials. So they measured it long before and poured a fault into it that would line up with the anomaly in the roof of the generator?

"-Construction trailers: Loaded with explosives or projectiles to be fired at left wing portion of damage zone, note they are postitioned in exactly this spot. Perhaps they were in front of the wall to cover the explosion coming from behind the walls. A good possibilty is that they were simultaneously blown with the walls, blowing planted debris that was in the trailers onto the lawn."

Loaded with explosives is possible. But explosions occur equally in all directions unless it was a shape charge. You still have to have a mechanism to direct the blast. Explain that further. Again, no room for projectiles. All damage was forward moving. Remember the trailer pieces wrapped around pillars inside? How was the wall blown out? There are NO wall pieces out on the lawn. The tree was driven in, the fence was driven in, the small concrete walls were driven in etc etc. The debris went at an angle that reflects the deflection of a crash. Nothing directly out.

"Poles: planted on highway by vans and phony VDOT employees, original poles removed days to weeks earlier. "

The poles were up to 30 feet long after being broken. Why did they use white vans? If they did, why did they hang around for photos? They did all of this right in view of traffic camera 720 on a main highway with Pentagon security everywhere? Then they took the poles somewhere and damaged them according to a preplanned fake flight path the width of a 757? Brought them back in pieces and scattered them when? Not before rush hour traffic because they would have been noticed. Then Lloyd stood there while they tossed one through his window which caused him to be out of work for 6 months, walk home and get his car impounded with a bill for it and had to have it towed home by himself?

It would have been easier and less risky to fly a plane in there like at the towers and would take considerably less people. How many people did all of this at the Pentagon?

Planes hit the towers and you know the official story isn't true. What would a plane hitting the pentagon change? But if one did hit it then keeping the no plane theory alive would certainly be useful from preventing people from figuring it out and moving on to other evidence.

I need more of an evidential explanation before I can ignore the evidence I posted above.

There is no way you can tell whether or not there is any specific debris on the lawn, street, etc. That is merely your opinion, Russell.

I've got another scenario for the trailer. Directional explosives at the stair/front of trailer. Explosion destroys stairs, front of trailer, while lifting/pushing trailer to the right, initiating drop of clipped fence links/tarp. While blowing side portion of fence away toward it's landing spot.

How many people? 5-10 people.

Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 05:09 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



In reality, the impact team would have already been done and waiting.

The light pole team would come in between 9:03 and 9:38.
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 05:32 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 12:42 AM)
QUOTE (Merc @ Sep 18 2006, 04:08 AM)

You made that declaration by the way after I pointed out the localized damage and lack of continuity in the "wing damage". You hadn't even notivced it before, then of course, as usual, it made perfect sense and supported your theory of a wing hitting the trailer and "exploding" with only a piece of wing causung the localized damage.

Yes - no matter what the source of new evidence I incorporate it into my thinking as soon as I become aware of it.

How does the FDR data provided by the NTSB incorporate into your "theory".

diversionary.. laughing1.gif

You can blame that on the NTSB for providing the data.

Which govt agency gave you your pictures? Did they give you a clear video of a plane making this damage?

All i see are holes Rus.. show us the plane hitting the building.
Top
turturis
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 05:36 AM


Another Voice


Group: Banned
Posts: 1,335
Member No.: 1,277
Joined: 16-April 06



@ Russel Pickering

Im just trying to figure out what your stance is on things.

Are you actually a Truther? Are you LIHOP or MIHOP?

Why do you only post in the Pentagon forum?

Why does it seem that you only follow MERC and JOHNDOEX and try to debate them? not that that is bad, it just seems that i only see you posting where they do.

just curious....nothing personal

Turt
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 06:11 AM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 18 2006, 03:51 AM)


"This is after the collapse. You can see how "B" is now vertical and in fact has kicked "A" to the right and broken it at the top. This is why some people think the column was going in the wrong direction from the impact. You can also see the limestone has fallen off."

I've never heard people say that coulm is going in the wrong direction. Who was that?
Top
Logic
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 10:22 AM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 390
Member No.: 2,862
Joined: 12-June 06



This is a great debate and fact presenting thread guys ! Thank you ! Seriously I mean that. Both sides of this are keeping the cool and I understand both sides completely. I am captivated by the less than normal damage on the Pentagon wall where Merc points out the wings and engine damage would be. The size of the damage before collapse is also a head scratcher. I do see the possibility of the main body if it was right down to the ground before impact, but the wings are the key to this mistery of the wall at least.

Now after reading Russell's comments with pics, I also see clearly the hole in the fence and damage to trailer that would line up with an airplane impact to this area at least. If I close my eyes and picture both plane impact or trickery, I can see both being possible. The technology and magic that would be involved in faking impact is possible and wouldn't be that hard to do. Here are my observations on the entire thread thus far. (not that you guys wanted it, but I'm giving it ! =)

First: Russell, can you help me out with this comment you made ? I want to know if you have info and pics about what you said.

QUOTE
The tree was driven in, the fence was driven in, the small concrete walls were driven in etc etc.


You stated these items above were driven into the wall. How did you find this out and also do you have pics of this ? I'm wondering how you came up with that as it would help tremednously on my picture in my head. The tree driven into the wall and not blown up is a huge difference and also the fenece driven into the wall is also much different than it disapearing. This means a force drove them into the wall. Anyway, thank you for any info on this.

MY TAKE ON WHAT HAPPENED::: Theory yes, so disreguard it anyone that is researching, it's all just my own opinion, so from here on down, nothing to add to real research, besides my take.

Now here's what I think with the information presented thus far... The flight data is off as far as what the offical report states and probably tampered with. The impact site also seems tampered with and at the same time, it looks like some type of aircraft hitting it. All video evidence is horrible and when you went on your trip, you guys found out the cameras were gone. New video seems to still be hiding what is really there. Witnessess give different flight paths and Merc's new witness gives stark difference in where the plane is placed from the offical report. All of the research you all have put into this has made me have the clearest picture to date of what I thought, so this all goes to all of you.

Real plane used from take off, but the impact of the real flight would be deemed too risky for damage probability to what parts of the Pentagon they didn't want effected. Another plane substituted in, making the damage known to an exact point in their calculations and also acceptable. Real flight diverted, sub flight comes in, but in a different flight path. (JohnDoeX's) research comes into play becaues they had to fake the flight data from the real plane as it is not in progress to pentagon. JohnDoeX's research reflects their attempts to mimic what the real flight should have recorded, yet they didn't realize someone would actually investigate to the extreme JohnDoeX has and the fault in the data is now known. This new altered plane fly's over in the location (Merc's) research shows, which would not line up with offical flight path, thus Merc's research very possible.

This altered plane takes on the new flight path that witnesses NEAR impact state, but other witnesses FURTHER off are seeing the real plane before being diverted (Russell's research on flight path comes into play with real flight before diverted) somewhere along the line. This would account for the differences in flight paths that you guys have been seeing. Altered flight fly's on opposite side of Citgo (Merc's witness) and crashes into Pentagon. Going along the lines of some type of aircraft hitting, yet it's not the original flight, external and internal pre-set charges go off to produce and correct any type of impact scene that may have been off from this altered plane, keeping it close to original plane.

The final collapse of the Pentagon side covers up any details that might be found out later that do not line up with original plane. (Russell's) research of a plane impacting the site is still in the works with this theory as a plane of some sorts has caused most of the damage and also the lightpolls. No charges are needed for the lightpolls, as this altered plane is in that flight path.

Now the video evidence is withheld due to altered plane being recorded. Even with this altered plane being painted to mimic original flight, no actual video evidence can be released due to the possibility of the altered planes shape being purged through research and future investigation. This then, goes with the reason why video evidence is withheld. Creating all sides of all your research used in some way through out the entire event.


Now this all seems likely as all of your research has been fine tuned in your areas (each of you). Leaving little error in your works, which would mean, this would take the best of the best of each of your theories and apply to the scene. With this all being said, the reason I think the real plane would not have been used goes back to the begining of my post where I state, the impact of the real original flight may have been too great for what damage they would fine acceptable. This reason alone is the cause for these detailed and risky planes to go through instead of the real flight being used. I always have felt the real flight was used, due to the fact that any of these other theories take on too much effort, time, manpower, thus seem unlikely because using the real flight would have been effective and no altered evidence would have been needed. Maybe we can look at what the damage would have really been if the real plane impacted and then this theory I've presented may seem probable.

I'm not stating the real plane couldn't have been used, but this post above takes all parts of the best and makes sense of it. Anyway, let me know what you guys think. Obviously I'm not talking fact, but I wanted to state what I currently am thinking as I respect all of your work and want to treat all of your work with the highest degree.

Let me know again too Russell about the tree, fence inside the Pentagon, it would help me like I said. Thanks again.

This post has been edited by Logic on Sep 18 2006, 10:37 AM
Top
johndoeX
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 12:27 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,434
Member No.: 2,197
Joined: 18-May 06



Any alteration and/or tampering with the FDR should be as alarming to the American people (and the world) as if the FDR were 100% accurate since it came from a Govt agency.

That is like saying the NIST came out with a report which said explosives were found at the WTC, but they tampered with it.
Top
turturis
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 02:32 PM


Another Voice


Group: Banned
Posts: 1,335
Member No.: 1,277
Joined: 16-April 06



QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 17 2006, 09:58 PM)
Referring to an admitted past error that I attempted to correct is NOT addressing the facts presented above.

I hope you are not going to do this again in this thread. Doing this too often will become transparent and people will catch on.

Everybody watch and see if this gets personal instead of addressing the evidence. Also watch for series of posts to distract and separate your attention from the real discussion.

The light pole thread, the flight path analysis, the trailers thread and the flyover comparison threads will all give you examples of how this pattern works.

actually im curious to see if it was addressed. and what wingspan are we talking about in the photos above.

its hard to move to the good portion of the center cut ribeye when the outside is burnt.

i wanna cut the bad part off the meat first before i eat the good piece.

Capeche?
Top
Merc
Posted: Sep 18 2006, 04:05 PM


Veterano
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,466
Member No.: 1,066
Joined: 6-April 06



QUOTE
Altered flight fly's on opposite side of Citgo (Merc's witness) and crashes into Pentagon.


How so? All the damage reflects the "mechanical flight path". So that is out.

I would have been all aboard with Russell and his "mechanical flight path". But two things kept me from that, the new flight path ie the Citgo witness and their descriptions of seeing no markings or colors, it being grey or white.

The guy said he didn't see it hit any light poles. Said he saw it pull up over the on ramp and highway. He said left of the bridge on his own. I even asked him if it came over the overpass bridge, he said no.

So light poles are out and the damage we see is out. So what happened? Flyover is the only logical conclusion.
Top
« Next Oldest | The Pentagon | Next Newest »

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1901 seconds | Archive