1. izz

    izz New Member

    Would this qualify as legitimate proof of a plane? Kinda hard to dismiss as a fabrication. Certainly doesn't match up with the official story or the scene photos, but I'm sure that's only because this was taken seconds after impact. evidence of missile2.

    [Off topic and non-PG material removed]
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2017
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And it seems a little odd to be using this photo of fire and smoke to assess the damage when much better photos exist of the Pentagon before the collapse. These clearly show the impact damage from the wings on the floors and columns, especially on the right.
    Source: https://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/

    Which you can see still in the post-collapse photos:

    And are discussed in full in the report:

    And this all matches the photo in the OP
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Sagittarius

    Sagittarius Member

    So, what happened to the wings? Did they shear off on impact, or did they enter the building? Were they found whole, or were they totally destroyed?
  5. darrenr

    darrenr Member

    Yes. Yes. No. Mostly.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The topic here is the photo of the pentagon damage, not the broader topic.
  7. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Photos of the wall of the Pentagon show a destroyed ground floor exterior wall of about 110 feet wide, certainly consistent with the wingspan of a Boeing.
    There is a "hole" centered on this ground floor damage, that extends up through the second floor that is around 20 feet in diameter, which is consistent with the diameter of the fuselage of the same Boeing.

    For full info read the report linked by Mick in post #2
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. izz

    izz New Member

    Really? Your actually trying to go as far as to deny what the photo clearly shows? Let's just look at the original photo you deleted and flagged as inappropriate, shall we? (minus the truth that was written beneath it).

    Your claim that it's just fire covering the actual damage is clearly debunked.

    Definitive Proof Pentagon2.

    People don't get to be right just because they want to be. For anyone to try and claim this was made by a 757 brings their true motives into question. Have you ever seen the damage caused by an actual missile impact? I have. More than once. I'm 100% sure that this was caused by a missile, not a 125 ft 757 Boeing Commercial Airliner. You can disagree all you want, it can't change the facts shown in this photo. Clearly shown!

    Furthermore, the photo taken minutes after impact only proves why there was even a debate in the first place. Trying to convince others that the hundreds of coincidences, impossible scenarios, evidence (and the lack thereof) and even their own eyes, are somehow blind because they can't see what clearly isn't there. That's not truth, it's an absurd insult to peoples intelligence. Clearly something is off, with more than just this incident. What and why is a real question for debate.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  9. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Mick didn't say it was "just fire", he said " it was "a photo of a fire in the middle, and smoke obscuring the rest.". That seems obvious, and I'm not sure how "doing a Warhol" on the original photo changed that? I still just see pictures of building frontage obscured by smoke and fire, just in different colours?

    But it's not clearly shown? It's a picture where pretty much all that is clear is smoke and flame.

    Regarding your claim to authority, does a missile impact explain the damage clearly seen on the other photographs that aren't obscured by smoke and flame that, on the face of it, appear to be consistent with an aircraft impact?

    Ray Von
    • Like Like x 4
  10. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Can you explain what you think is being achieved by altering the colours of the picture? Are you trying to give the impression that you are somehow showing some kind of heat signature or "seeing through" the smoke? Because that's not how it works.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  11. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    I prefer real evidence, not simile. Saying the impact and photos look like a missile hit, in the case of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, is simile; not facts based on science. Evidence to prove it was a 757 are Radar, FDR, and DNA, and these have not been refuted, never will.

    The photo clearly shows damage done by a 757 going ~483.5 knots at impact, this is a fact because the FDR of Flt77 says so. The FDR found in the Pentagon - Radar proves it was 77.
    The photo clearly shows damage by a 757 because of witnesses backed up by Radar, and the fact only one 757 was missing that was flying in the DC area right next to the Pentagon at the exact time of Flt77's last Radar data points.
    There is no debate, the FDR and Radar are proof 77 impacted the Pentagon. Then we have all the DNA recovered from each passengers on 77 except the small kid, in the Pentagon.
    I have never seen a missile do the damage the 757 did, with marks made by the 757 wing span on the Pentagon facade - it is photo evidence that the wings hit the Pentagon - which makes a missile claim silly.

    Where is there a missile which leaves a jet fuel fire ball made by over 30,000 pounds of jet fuel; how does your imaginary missile hold
    Make my day, show me a cruise missile which can inflict 1215 pounds worth of TNT in KE (aka kinetic energy) only.
    Make my decade, show me a cruise missile which can hold more than 30,000 pounds of jet fuel.

    The jet fuel fire ball is exactly what you get when you crash at high speed and the jet fuel is ignited by hot engine parts. The hot engine parts and running engines at impact will auto ignite the jet fuel, this is the reason when we know we are crashing we cut off the engines prior to impact.

    BTW, a JASSM (or a missile from the imaginary plot inside job BS) only has 19 pounds of TNT for kinetic energy. The missile theory brings a measly 19 pounds of TNT, the 757 brings 1200 pounds. Which is why the damage might look like a missile's explosive payload did it, but there was no supersonic shockwave from explosives a missile would have to use to look like the KE damage of a 757 at 483.5 knots, 556 mph! hi - science wins again.

    The KE impact would do a lot of damage, and be equal to a 1200 pound of TNT warhead in energy.

    It appears the missile fantasy believers are not familiar with aircraft crashes, and the video/photos are all proof it was exactly what a 757 impact would be; know why? Because Radar is scientific proof, FDR found in the Pentagon is absolute proof, and the witnesses saw a plane at the exact time and place Flight 77 was on Radar at the Pentagon.

    To say it was not 77 is a lie, or an opinion based on ignoring evidence, ignoring reality.

    How do you get over 30,000 pounds of jet fuel in a missile? Be specific.
    The photos showing the wing damage to the Pentagon are out there and part of exposing the missile theory is bunk.

    People get to be right due to science; Radar, FDR, DNA, prove it was flight 77. BTW, the damage, fire, video, photos are exactly like a 757 at 483.5 knots hitting the Pentagon, this is a fact.
    This reports is based on science and engineering, not an opinion based on ignoring evidence.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's the best version of the image I could find:

    Here's an enhancement of that image, just using these setting in Photoshop:

    Left side:

    Right side:

    Clearly the majority of the front of the building that was damaged is covered with fire and smoke. Detail is also lost to jpg artifacting (the squares of pixels from the image being compressed for web display).

    However we can see some damage to the columns on the right. We can compare that to the pre-collapse photos discussed above.

    It seems clear this area has had a significant external impact over a wide area, consistent with the plane's wing. Later photos of the same area show the impact damage in more detail

    Hence even this rather limited fireball photo demonstrates it was not a missile.
    • Like Like x 4
  13. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Having spent quite a while as a US Marine, Im gonna have to call you on this one. If you HAVE seen "missile impacts" then youd know what you're looking at ISNT. Tactical warheads dont burst into flames once they impact the target. There's an impact, followed by a very brief fireball, and then rubble and smoke.. dependent on the warhead involved there is usually a very small fire but its -nothing- compared to the fire at the Pentagon:

    This is why we rely on actual evidence and not anecdotal "youll have to trust me on this" evidence. What you FEEL doesnt matter. Thats most of the issue with a lot of 9/11 conspiracies.. "I dont understand how this doesnt fit my perception ∴ its wrong." Guided Missiles do NOT cause the kind of boom and burn that you see in the movies which is what most people base their perception on. There's usually a HUGE Boom, a fireball, and then stuff falling from the sky.

    Why is there a boom and not a lot of burn? Because Guided Missile Systems are fueled the same way aircraft are.. just enough fuel to make their target (with a small margin for corrections etc). The fuel is what burns, the HE just BOOMS and destroys. Most of the Missile systems I played with were basically high speed kinetic bombs. The weapon is fired from distance, hits a specific altitude, turns its nose down towards the target, accelerates until it runs out of fuel and then explodes shortly after the fuel's gone because it impacts the target. No fuel removes a leg from the fire triangle which equals little to no flame.

    Here's an example of a missile strike in Israel.. notice the lack of fire?

    And before you say "but there are fire trucks." There are, but how long did the pentagon burn with fire crews on site? Were the Fire Crews in on the conspiracy as well? Theyd have to be to have the fire burn for as long as it did.. or are they just incompetent?


    So DAYS for the Pentagon Fire to be put out, but several hours for a missile impact in Israel?

    Take a look at the link below.. it comes -directly- from the Arlington County Fire Department.. it goes into some fairly significant detail about the fire at the Pentagon.. and 11000 gallons of Jet Propellant would definitely cause a blaze like was seen at the Pentagon, NOT a missile impact.

    Or is Arlington County Fire also in on the conspiracy and very well aware that it was really a missile and are lying to everyone?

    Occam's Razor @izz ... Most often times the simple explanation is the correct explanation.
    • Like Like x 9
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    Two things that I find hilarious in the two main "anti official story" picture posts by Izz:
    1. The following photo is supposed to illustrate how there is a smaller hole than the 125 foot hole that Izz expects to see for this photo that was taken from the highway. However, he does us a big favor and puts the actual wingspan measurement down of what he would expect to see, and it basically covers the width of the smoke and fire, that most people are fine with believing that it came from a 757. So, thanks for pointing out that whatever hit the Pentagon did damage the exact same size as a 757 wingspan. You debunked your own debunk!

    2: In your picture with the color distortion that looks like it was made with an old projection TV from the 80s, you show the "hole as being the entire fiery spot in the image. The actual hole that was created by the impact was only the bottom two stories of the Pentagon. If you are saying that it is the whole mutli-colored spot that you pointed out, that looks like it would be from the ground floor to what appears to be the bottom of the fourth floor. So according to your image, the hole was taller than it actually was.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Birkenhead

    Birkenhead New Member

    funny: truthers keep posting that one video with a phantom f4-e colliding with a huge concrete block which turns the jet fighter into dust. then they wonder how the pentagon plane could not penetrate the walls with its full width? the photo above (reply #12) shows clearly how the pentagon's facade was constructed: concrete columns and reinforced brick walls. it mostly turned out how the phantom vs. concrete video suggested: only the main body of the plane went into the building like a spear while the wings were ripped off as they couldn't cut the concrete columns. instead, the columns cut the wings into segments which penetrated the brick sections. however, the comparison between the phantom vs. concrete block and the wtc/pentagon is inaccurate on many levels.
  16. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Yes, the F4 did not penetrate the concrete block it hit.
    If someone can illustrate that the walls of the Penragon were 10 foot thick reinforced concrete, ir evenntgat the columns were, then perhaps this meme woukd have a leg to stand on.
  17. Birkenhead

    Birkenhead New Member

    at least, the pentagon has rectangular reinforced concrete columns with steel bars spiraling around the core vertically. this seems to be a different situation than at the wtc structure, that's why i mentioned the f4 video (i actually never saw this vid coming up with pentagon ct, only with the wtc). the pentagon plane rather knocked the columns down (by ripping them off the horizontal floor joints) than cutting them. by that the plane could penetrate into the whole outer ring-structure of the building.
  18. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Member

    Just for clarity, on the immediate right hand side of the impact hole, what appear to be bowed columns is actually sections of the 2nd floor partially detached and hanging over the impact hole. The columns in that area, which is where the engines entered, are completely gone.
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  19. izz

    izz New Member

    Not one photo or video or any other evidence has been provided here showing absolute proof that a 757 jet actually hit the pentagon. NOT 1. In fact, what has been provided shows the exact opposite. And yet, those who disagree and who have not provided anything that could be considered proof, are instead arguing merits of broader theories. Why?
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
  20. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    The Radar data proves it was 77. Tracked from takeoff to impact, the Radar date proves it was 77. All the nations Radar is saved, and can be used to track planes after accidents and incidents, like 9/11. Radar, data you can't refute.

    FDR from 77 found in the Pentagon, hard evidence it was 77. Over 24 hours of flight data was on 77's FDR. Once again, hard evidence never refuted, it was 77.

    DNA from all on 77 found on the true course of impact inside the Pentagon. Hard evidence proof the passengers on 77 were found in the Pentagon. Evidence you can't refute. Only the small kid's DNA was not found.

    Eyewitnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon the exact time the Radar had 77 there.

    77 hit the Pentagon, killed all on board at 483.5 knots (as I recall). The speed comes from the last reading in the FDR, data which I have had for years. The government can't keep it secret, we are the government, we elect our reps, they are forced to release data... thus, there is no doubt due to evidence, 77 hit the Pentagon.

    You offer no evidence to the contrary.

    You said something about pilots? I don't know any of the hundreds of pilots who I flew with in the USAF who agree with your claims. I flew KC-135s and other planes in the USAF since 1976. I flew the day after 9/11 while in the USAF. I don't know any rational pilots who agree with the claims you make. The pilots who claim 77 did not hit, or other fantastic claims, ignore Radar, FDR, DNA, which proves it was 77.

    How do you dismiss DNA, Radar, FDR? Speculation does not count.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Even the truther video interviewing eye witnesses and showing disagreement over where it passed in relation to the gas station, the gist was that a bunch of people who saw the same plane fly incredibly low, then out of sight behind buildings or landscape, then a horrible awful noise followed by a more horrible awful quiet as the plane's noises ceased. Proving the plane crashed into SOMETHING, because it did not leave the scene, and with only one giant flaming hole one needs to show where else it could have crashed to even initiate this discussion in good faith.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    Not one photo or video or any other evidence has been provided here (from you, or any other Truther-type) showing absolute (or even minimal proof) that a missile of drone or anything other than a 757 jet actually hit the pentagon.

    -see Beachy post #20 for your proof of a 757 jet--

    No credible eye witness testimony saying that they saw a missile or drone hit the pentagon either.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  23. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Wayne Coste, electrical engineer, formerly on the Board of AE911Truth, now founder and, I believe, Chair of 9/11 Truth Action Project, has assembled a number of presentations and other material relating to the Pentagon incident:

    He argues, against fellow Truthers, that indeed the evidence shows a large plane hit the Pentagon.

    @cjnewson88 - have you known about Coste's work? he goes to incredible detail and has unearthed some new information (e.g. on the details of how the Pentagon walls were made more blast resistant in the renovation). I think this is a valuable source for your own projected, if you are still adding to it.
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Amber Robot

    Amber Robot Member

    How was DNA used? Did all the passengers have their DNA on file somehow? Is there a citation for how the DNA analysis was done?
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Amber Robot

    Amber Robot Member

    Thanks. Is there a citation for it being used in this particular case?
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Lots. I'm not sure what your specific concern is though.

    See also:
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That does not mean there were unidentified remains found. It means they did not find identifiable remains for five known individuals.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Amber Robot

    Amber Robot Member

    Thanks. I didn't have a concern. I was just curious about the process and what you posted above from the January 2002 Mercury was an interesting read.