flight 77's tail section

of the people who side on 'it was a 757' that hit the pentagon, i'm interested to know what you think happened with the tail section of the plane... there are impact impressions high and to the right of the main impact zone, and some suggest the tail section sort of detached and sailed over the roof line where it landed some rings back.

b.

I think it could be this photo of the tail section going over the roof

Only slightly less goofy than the notion you have an outline of Globalhawk in the smoke

Not to be outdone by LARED's sensationalism.



Here is some logic and evidence supporting the theory that a bomb on flight 175 initiated high explosives built into the tower floors.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11flight175explosion.html

It looks flat to me. Based on how images seem to be interpreted in this forum it is nearly proof positive the earth is flat.

Some folk don't value the truth even after great loss caused by its absence. Here is a PIC in a post that proves that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=66827&mesg_id=67446


Here is a PIC that can only have one interpretation within reasonable knowledge of structural materials and the component structures made from them, as to its composition or decomposition and appearance. The concrete core of WTC 2.




wassamatta? No like info? Huh? Oh, ........ too bad. Try harder to make it go away, ridicule isn't working.

And they all seem to be the same. Over, and over, and over, and over about a concrete core that only you see. You must have posted that picture at least 1000 times by now. How many see a concrete core in it? How many have you convinced? Two? Four maybe?

But don't let me stop you. I have no delusions that anything I say will stop you from posting, and posting, and posting, and posting the same image.

but, ................ I have redundant evidence of other aspects of the core I assert stood which is confirmed by photos.

If it had a concrete core, then rebar might be seen, and here it is.



The fact is, that NOTHING in the core you assert stood can have the appearance of what we see. Those vertical elements are just to small to be structural steel.

How we prove that is by showing some of the largest of the structural steel of the building, the interior box columns that ringed the core.



the 2 above photos are in the same series and the upper one just follows the lower. The upper shows the rebar of the steel reinforced concrete shearwall AFTER the strcutural steel has fallen away.

from all the CDT's (coincidence theorists). Hope you have better luck than I did!

Is the gov't closer to releasing those pentagon tapes yet Bronco?

Peace out,
kill

yup! it's only a matter of a little more time. in a couple weeks or so - maybe a month, we'll file a new lawsuit to cause them to answer why they won't release the other tapes. when we get those tapes, that will be a banner day, won't it?

b!

Thanks again for your effort to get these tapes!

:toast:

explode like that.

The five framed neocon folly is nothing more than a deception.

jets dont explode like that? of course they do. when loaded with fuel slamming into an immovable object. or go check out some specatular crashes where the plane explodes upon impact.

Then why is the Pentagon's facade dark in the plane photo, light in impact 1 and then dark again in the other impact photos? The explosion should cause the facade to light up, but why does it go dark again right away?

the "outlined" shadows.

The sheeple will buy whatever lie they're told.

Hook, line, and photoshop!

Common sense.

Ever hear of an aperature setting?



This singer is not white hot (sorry, Steve) nor is he an albino. His apparent coloring is due to the aperature setting on my camera at the time I took the shot. Thus, the aperature setting caused the photographic recording to show a different color than would have been seen with the naked eye.

Do you know what the aperature setting on the camera at the Pentagon was set at?

your photo with a surveillance camera at the Pentagon. Taken outdoors no less.

Talk to ANY photographer about how easily the color the eye sees can change when taking a photograph or video.

scorch the lawn? The fireball is clearly seen on the security clips erupting back onto the lawn.

And why won't you defend snopes.com, your favorite Pentagon debunking attempt site?

They used a new genetically modified grass seed.

It's fire proof!


==============================================================
Sheeple Science Lesson # 5
Jet fuel can melt steel and vaporize aluminum, but will not burn a hijacker's
passport, Pentagon lawn grass or wooden stool! (but only on 9/11/01)
==============================================================

Have you ever seen the video of the Pentagon deception? I think it was called "Miracle at the Pentagon?" I could be wrong about the title. I saw it a couple of time on the PBS stations here in the NY area. It clearly shows that the fire ball that some people claim they saw was nothing but a gas line a good 30 feet from the building that they set on fire.




===============================================================
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a
discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation.
This is the reason the people of America won’t see what is staring them in the face. They’re
simply too stupid to admit they’ve been duped, even though their survival depends on it.
===============================================================

Tree stump left over:


http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight77/building.html

If you get a copy of the video that I mentioned you will clearly see that the fireball is from a gas line.

Get a copy if you can and slow it down.

I notice it's cut off at the height the plane's wing hit it, according to the official version, that is. What a coincidence!

What are you getting at?

The tree stump seen here

appears to have been cut off by the (left) wing at a point above the cable spools. Therefore, it is not unusual that the wing did not knock the cable spools over, right?

only could have been the engine, but that wouldn't explain what the tree is still doing there on fire unless you disagree the huge fire is a tree on fire.

Looking at your other diagrams, it would probably have been the other (right) wing (or perhaps even the fuselage), not the left wing - the tree is closer to the facade than I originally noticed. I can't actually see much of a tree there, so I'm going to say it's not a tree - another poster seems to think it's a gas line.

Who actually took this photo? At what time - it should be really early?

I'm pretty sure the wings of a large passenger jet are not that low to the ground.

But the tree stump looks as though the rest of the tree was ripped off (during the crash presumably) - not so much as though it burned to a cinder after the crash.

afterwards except on 9/11 where it happened FOUR times!!!