Remarkable composite photo of the Pentagon hole

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html

Most people here understand that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon, so this is more for informational sake than anything else. An Italian blogger (who does believe other 9/11 alternate theories!) has used 17 high-res photographs to produce a sobering look at the actual hole in the Pentagon wall before it collapsed.

The link goes to a blog site. The full picture is very wide and I'm not reproducing it here.

Where's the plane?

Most of the plane, what wasn't blown apart and spread all over, went into the building. Inside. It went into that hole that the plane created.

*sigh*

let me guess. holographic cable spools?

The spools landed there after the impact and explosion.

Where they landed from.

I don't suppose there's a pre-impact pic with the spools in question? It could also be true that a force other than a phantom passenger plane is responsible.

It could have been a real passenger plane, as opposed to a phantom one.

Believe it or not, I'm not an avowed no-planer. I'm like a lot of folks who just don't buy what they're selling. Answer me honestly; if 911 never happened, and you were shown that picture without any information, would the first thing to pop into your mind be "why that must have been caused by a fully loaded 757!" I'm just sayin...

However there are many things in life that are not what they first seem to be. Consideration of other evidence in this case trumps whatever initial impressions I or anyone else might have.

Point taken. All available evidence must be considered.

I don't generally get into discussion with Flight 77 deniers. I only posted the picture so people interested would know about it.

Please feel free to believe what you wish. We have freedom of religion in America. We have people who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old running as viable Presidential candidates for a national party. You fit right in there. Go in peace, go in faith, just go.

There are a lot of people who would say faith is the basis for your beliefs as well. Faith in the word of a corrupt government, faith in the findings of it's tainted institutions, faith in a lazy and compliant press, faith in the righteousness of your infallible intellect...

BTW, I noticed there's a guy in here with the Shroud of Turin for his avatar. Have you ever shared your feelings about faith with him?

It isn't just the corrupt government that says Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
It isn't just their tainted findings, or the lazy, compliant press, or even my infallible intellect.

It's all the evidence. It's about 60 people who got on a plane one morning who were then recovered from that site. It's about families putting their kids on that plane to go on a National Geographic field trip and getting back a coffin.

But you believe what you want to believe, no matter how foul and offensive. Like I said, freedom of religion.

I have yet to form final conclusions about many of the the events of 911. For you, it's pretty much cut and dry; the government told the whole truth about everything. I wish I had your faith.

Peace.

have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. It's beyond disingenuous to imply otherwise.

Oops, there I go being disingenuous again

because I never claimed they are "100% correct, factual and pure of motive". Like all sources of evidence, one has to evaluate them for just that. But, as I said earlier, the implication that one must rely solely on "governmental" sources to develop a picture of what happened that day is simply false. Are you disputing that?

You can say exactly what I believe about the government's trustworthiness because Flight 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon?

:rofl:

Have a nice day.

In the time I've been lurking around here, I've never seen an administration 911 position you didn't make a sacred duty to defend.

and we know that the 911 commission was a flawed investigation. I personally believe that the administration is covering up impeachable crimes of negligence prior to 911. I am sure we have a lot in common in that regard and you will never hear most of us defending the government on it. It is when the truth movement veers into science and engineering - areas where some do have the education and background to make independent judgments - that problems arise. The arguments for CD, thermate, holographs, global hawks, min nuke, space energy beams are fundamentally anti-science - it offends many of us that the 911 truth movement is so dependent of the scientific ignorance of so many people. When a fundamental part of you argument is that tens of thousands of American engineers and scientist are either "in on it" or are "too scared to tell the truth" then I think you need to rethink your ideas.

You hit the nail on the head.

I can assure you I won't spend a lot of time arguing physics or engineering. Partly because I'm too ignorant and lazy to pursue it, but also because as others have pointed out; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x190630 the lack of access to critical physical evidence makes it a speculative endeavor at best. But there is an ocean of circumstantial evidence for government involvement in the public record, much of which, OCTers simply choose to ignore. Repeat after me "Motive and Opportunity" and of course, "Follow the money".

is claimed to be critical by some, whereas others argue that some of that evidence is irrelevant.

You don't know until you know (Ha, sounds like Rumsfeld). The administration has created their own trust and integrity nightmare; Instead of putting "wild speculation" to rest with real investigations and timely access to information, they've chosen to stonewall us. Instead of the whole truth we get H.R 1955.

about the NIST investigation?

like the commission, the NIST didn't earn points by radically narrowing the focus of their study. To dismiss theories involving explosives or demolition outright, seems more suspect than prudent. They worked diligently to create hypotheses and models supporting a sanctioned collapse-initiation-theory, then stopped short of the main event: the collapse itself. I'm sure plenty of engineering knowhow went into their conclusions, but that doesn't make them right.

The NIST did not start the investigation at day 0. Theirs followed both the FEMA building study and the FBI's own investigation and was not intended to cover every hypothesis. The "narrowing" of the focus was done by those who tasked the NIST with the investigation. Neither was modeling of the collapse itself to be part of the project, because it wouldn't tell us anything about building safety. The focus was on looking at what caused the collapse so they could recommend changes to design that would prevent collapses. I don't think there is anyone who would claim that the NIST report is infallible. Hopefully the research going on right now will improve on their work, but it's certainly acceptable as a second iteration (FEMA being the first).

other than to add there are also questions about FEMA, the FBI, and the motives of the people who tasked the NIST. I appreciate your recognition that the NIST report is not the unerring word of God.

authorized the NIST investigation, I would hope we all have some questions for them.

The NIST report is not comprehensive, nor are the simulations they ran necessarily that good (although they are much, much better than anything I could ever produce). There are limitations of technology and of this particular event that reduce the accuracy of any proposed model. It is difficult to judge the state of the WTC towers post-impact but prior to collapse.

All this, of course, just points out how difficult it is to rule out the "official" sequence of events. All other hypotheses are probably going to be regarded as inferior until someone can provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Has this evidence been thus far unavailable because someone is hiding it or because it doesn't exist?

...teleportating cable spools?

Using the 25th Century technology called, "Landing Where They Fell."

This photo lacks the perspective of depth. The spools were several dozen feet away from the wall providing plenty of room for the plane to impact the building without hitting the spools.

Wheres the plane ? Wheres the debris ? Wheres WALDO !!!!

So much easier to interpret than looking at a bunch of separate photos with one part or another obscured or cropped out. Thanks for posting it.

I'm not a no-planer; don't really have a staked out position. But I will say that it doesn't look like the hole I would expect if a 757 mostly went through the outer wall, with most of the airplane ending up somewhere inside.

For that to be the case it looks like the fuselage would have needed to be as low as it could go so that the bulk of it went in underneath the floor of the second floor. That would mean that at impact with the wall the fuselage was low enough that the engines had to have previously hit the ground and sheared off before impact with the wall.

Or else the angle of approach was steep enough that the nose could hit low enough to get in underneath the second floor while the engines were still clearing the ground. It seems unlikely that the plane could hit at such a steep angle and then scoot in underneath a second floor that remains mostly there, not punched through.

Or else the plane was somewhat higher at impact with the wall and some upper part of the fuselage went through a hole on the second floor. But the only hole in the second floor that is completely punched through without a vertical member remaining looks to be less than 10 feet in width. Maybe the fuselage went through the horizontal location that is centered on that hole in the second floor, but it still doesn't look like much of a hole for the fuselage to have punched through. Also, there appears to be a vertical member standing in the ground floor directly underneath that hole in the second floor, but the photo is not clear enough to tell for sure. If that is a vertical member at that position then it would rule out the fuselage having gone through that horizontal location, it seems to me.

Or else most of the plane didn't end up inside; much of it was deflected and ended up outside. We have to resort to other photos to evaluate that, but I'm including it just to cover all the possibilities.

BTW, while I agree that the hole is wider than 14 feet, it is also narrower than the 90 feet that some claim. The widest hole with no remaining vertical members looks to me to be about as wide as two stories are high. I assume that means about 20 to 25 feet wide; someone correct me if each floor is taller than about 12 feet. You might squeeze out another 15 feet or so of width if you count the area behind the two leftmost spools. Counting that area, then at most you can find an unobstructed hole of maybe 30 to 35 feet wide. Certainly there is not a 90 foot wide hole here. I guess we can argue the semantics of hole versus damage -- I'm not really into games of gotcha so maybe we can agree that there is damage that could be as wide as 90 feet but that the biggest hole, as such, is in the range of 20 to 35 feet wide and mostly one story high, with one possible part of it that could be two stories high and maybe 10 feet wide.

Ummm, guys....there most certainly is a 90 ft. hole there, it's just not the shape you expect it to be.

In the book, "Leading Strategic Change", the authors detail how people's "mind maps" can keep them from seeing certain things. If I ask you a certain question, your subconcious creates a picture of what it expects the answer to look like. For example, if I say that I am going to show you a picture of a "home run" and want you to point it out, how many of you would immediately expect me to show you a baseball picture? If I, instead, showed you a picture of an electrician establishing the power connection to a house from the electric utility's line (known as a "home run"), how many of you would immediately leap to the wrong conclusion that there is no "home run" there?

In the case of Bolo's picture, there's a 90 ft. hole there, alright, it just doesn't look like what you're expecting. That's because it's:

a) not totally symmetrical
b) contains shapes other than a circle and
c) doesn't look like the cartoon cutout of a plane crashing into the building.


Get my point? If not, let me elaborate:


When I say I am going to show you a picture of a hole, is your expectation that the hole will be shaped like a circle? Wouldn't you expect that based upon the nose of the plane? You would, right? What about the REST of the plane? Is that circular? No.


I am one of the ones saying that the hole is 90 ft. wide and I am right. Note that I am not claiming that the circular portion of the hole is 90 ft. wide, nor should we expect that because neither the nose nor the fuselage of that plane is 90 ft. wide, is it? Hint: no, that would be one humongous plane. The dimensions of the circular portion of the hole in Bolo's picture, however, would easily accomodate the nose and the fuselage (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101).

And if merely the nose or a portion of the fuselage penetrated the building partially, it would be reasonable to expect only a circular hole, but that's not what happened, is it? Given that the plane penetrated the building completely, what would we expect to see? A circle? Or a wide rectangular hole in the middle of which is a circle? Do you get my point?

When you look at the picture, your brain expects to see a circular hole, right? And you do, right? When you see it, you stop looking for the rest of the hole. Now, look at the picture again. Find the part that corresponds to the nose/fuselage, then look BELOW and see the wide rectangular hole that extends on both sides. No one is claiming the hole is entirely circular. No one is claiming that the circular portion of the hole is 90 ft wide. No one is claiming that the hole is UNIFORMLY 90 ft. wide. But, when you look for the complete hole, rather than just the circular part, I challenge you to deny that the "hole" is less than 90 feet wide at its widest point. In other words, quit looking for a 90 foot wide circle.

For whatever it's worth, I expect the most intelligence-challenged "true believer" adherents of the absurd "no-plane" wing (no pun intended) of the "truth movement" to attempt some sort of bullshit refutation of this which, frankly, proves my point.

I certainly didn't expect the hole to be a circle. That was already clear from my previous post since the hole I described was an irregular shape.

Looking at it again, I guess that some of the vertical pieces that I first interpreted to be interior walls (perpendicular to the outside wall) that remained more or less intact may actually be parts of the building that fell down from the floor above and are dangling there in the aftermath.

But whether there are actually some interior walls still intact or not, I could agree that that whole area of the ground floor is a hole and that the hole also includes a section of the second floor that is about 2 (missing) windows wide. To the left of the hole are 4 mostly intact windows (the leftmost 1 of which is partially obscured by smoke) and to the right of the hole there are 4 mostly intact windows (the rightmost 2 of which are obscured by smoke). I agree that the remaining area in between can be called a hole and that it must be at least 90 feet wide.

Regarding the part of the hole that is in the second floor, there is a vertical piece roughly in the middle of it. Like I did with the first floor, I was initially interpreting that as a piece of the wall that was in that same position before the crash and therefore it was making me think the fuselage could not have made it through there. But a likely explanation is, as I said about the ground floor, that the vertical piece seen in the photo is something that is dangling down in the aftermath.

So, yes, I guess I can see the fuselage having entered in through the 2-story part of the hole, with the wings, engines and tail causing the rest of the width of the hole.

Yours just happened to be the last post. I was addressing it to the CT community in general, most of whom do not exhibit your intelligence and thoughtfulness. I never mind anyone asking questions, in a quest to understand something, at all. But I know that some of the "no-planers" in this thread are looking only at the circular portion of the hole and drawing unwarranted conclusions. My aplogies, eomer.

Your post actually got me to take some more time looking at the photo and getting more comfortable with what it might mean.

_{Edit: typo}

though I'm not sure it helps the official case so much

you want to claim a round missile made a round and rectangular hole.

there ARE various anomalies with the hit that almost everyone glosses over that disprove a 757. In particular the generator damage in fron tof the hole. But even in this montage, it is far from clear how a 757 could ever produce this damage pattern.

Yes, it is roughly plane shaped, but the damage is not consistent with a 757's engines, and so forth.

If I had to guess a scenario I would say some sort of UAV plus pre-planted explosives

that saw the fricking 757 hit. This is getting pointless and these stupid no plane theories are an absolute embarrassment to the progressive movement.

Got any evidence of that or is this just something you are pulling out of your grommet?

refers to the upper hole, not the lower one.

There is still precious little evidence that proves that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and still lots of reasons to think it didn't.

But let's call one part the upper hole, and one part the lower hole, for the sake of argument.

Are you then claiming that everyone talking about the 12-16 foot hole have purposely been pointing to the upper hole when people who challenge them are clearly talking about the lower?

"This one's 16 feet across.

"This one's 90 feet across."

"Nuh uh! This one is 16 feet across!"

Are you seriously claiming such an incredible tale of willful ignorance?

But there is no reasoning with these people. No matter how many of their theories are disproved by facts and cold, hard science, they will find some new bizarre concept to latch on to. Just look how many versions of Loose Change have come out to remove previous "evidence" because it had been so thoroughly debunked.