IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Mystery Part At Pentagon Attack

UnderTow
post Sep 23 2008, 11:21 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



This thread is waste. You will never know where it came without actually inspecting it.

It has curvature, and a possible leading edge on the right pictured side.

Other then that, it could have come from any of a few hundred places.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stannrodd
post Sep 24 2008, 12:13 AM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 9-January 07
Member No.: 422



QUOTE (UnderTow @ Sep 22 2008, 01:21 AM) *
This thread is waste. You will never know where it came without actually inspecting it.

It has curvature, and a possible leading edge on the right pictured side.

Other then that, it could have come from any of a few hundred places.


I disagree that it is a waste.. with all respects. It is a photograph which alleges to show wreckage from the aircraft or whatever it was that supposedly impacted the Pentagon on 9/11.

It should be 757 wreckage if the "official account" is correct .. it may well be a genuine photo from 9/11 or in this case 13 September, since that was the day that Congress woman Shelley Berkley visited the Pentagon crime scene.

Is there any way to determine if the photograph (image file) is taken with the same camera, or in any other way processed the same way as the other photos on Berkleys website for the Pentagon visit.

The photo could be a plant, or genuine photo of wreckage from the "attack vehicle".

The kind folk at F16 forums determined it was not from an F16 as I had suggested to them, though I was underhanded in getting a response from them, they then banned me and removed the thread. I kept a copy somewhere of their responses.

It had been suggested that the aircraft could have been a drone F16 during the early days of speculative research. The Skywarrior was also a suspect and this part could perhaps be from one, I have yet to find any conclusive evidence of this though. The hose or pipe perhaps being part of the mid air refueling bizzo.

What is clear though is that the photo presented on the website is intended to indicate it was wreckage from AA77.

It would be foolish to not investigate the claim and unless we are afraid of what may be found I suggest we investigate this thoroughly. May I suggest that an approach be made to Boeing's 757 department and ask them to identify which part of the 757 it is. Their response should be interesting.

If they can piece together a 747 after it exploded in midair I'm sure they can identify where this part comes from and I have no doubt the piece still exists.

Stann

This post has been edited by stannrodd: Sep 24 2008, 12:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Sep 24 2008, 09:50 AM
Post #23


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



What do we know about this mystery object?

1. Congresswoman Shelley Berkley photographed the object at the Pentagon on display and blocked off with yellow tape on 9-13-2001 and placed it on her website
2. It was apparently ripped off at both ends and not broken off at the rivets
3. The sides seem to have a formed fit with what appears to be an undamaged hose or electrical conduit inside the object
4. There is no sign of an official crime scene evidence tag or aircraft accident seal on the object after two days
5. That is the only known photograph of the object
6. There is no sign of burning on the object
7. There is no apparent dirt or grass on the edges of the object from violent contact with the ground
8. The alleged Flight 77 object was kept on display out in the open at least two days after 9-11
9. The object was not included in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book
10. There is no sign of the lawn damaged in any way near the object - it seems the object was gently placed on the lawn
12. There has been no official attempt to identify the object
13. Another alleged aircraft object (the 'C' fuselage piece) was placed next to the helipad hanger and apparently not tagged as crime scene evidence
14. A 3rd alleged aircraft object (the infamous never riveted 'N' piece) was left out in the open in front of the helipad for days, never surrounded with crime scene yellow tape, and never tagged as crime scene evidence
15. This 3rd object also apparently did not damage the lawn nor did it have burn marks nor apparent dirt of grass from violent impact with the lawn - it too was apparently gently placed on the lawn
16. These last two pieces were included in the official Defense Department Pentagon 9-11 book while the supposedly much more identifiable object pictured was excluded
17. We do not yet know where the object pictured below was located and placed on display in reference to the alleged impact point - it was out among the tents

(Click me for blown up photo of mystery object)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Sep 24 2008, 10:44 AM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



Thanks stannrod and SPreston, the last two posts by you were better then the whole first page. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 24 2008, 12:02 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Let's add a couple to your list SP.

18. The EXIF data that is often attached to a digital photo is strangely "clean" on the original.
19. The phrase "Photoshop 4.0" is branded into the original "mil_pentagon_relief_plane.jpg" photo found on Rep. Berkley's website.



Rep. Berkley's page
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r..._2001_0913.html

Thumbnail
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r...plane_SMALL.jpg

Full resolution
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r...elief_plane.jpg
---------------
EDIT: Now is a good time to remind everyone of the freeware, open source image program GIMP. The windows installer apparently no longer requires GTK separately and is available at:

http://www.gimp.org/windows/

You can compare this very powerful software to Adobe Illustrator (layers, alpha channel, filters, pixel dimensions and angles, etc.) It isn't the easiest to use however. [Our "friend who sees rabbits" apparently uses GIMP 2.4.6 BTW]. The UNIX/LINUX versions are available at:

http://www.gimp.org/

EDIT2: FINALLY, I've got something free for you Mac users out there, too.
http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/
-----
Here is the GIMP plug-in filter collection:

http://registry.gimp.org/
Reason for edit: Added links to original photo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stannrodd
post Sep 24 2008, 05:25 PM
Post #26





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 9-January 07
Member No.: 422



QUOTE ("dMole")
19. The phrase "Photoshop 4.0" is branded into the original "mil_pentagon_relief_plane.jpg" photo found on Rep. Berkley's website.


dMole,
Do the other "pentagon" photos in that collection on Berkleys site have the same format ? I don't know how to scrutinize them.

On another note ... if the mystery part file is significantly different, which it may be, .. the other pics don't all have such hi-resolution partners linked to their respective thumbnails .. perhaps it's a "leaked photo" planted such that it would be found.

A gift maybe ..? I first saved the web page on October 8 2004 after finding the pic. I don't know how long before I accessed the page, it was originally posted, though I would expect it was on line shortly after 9/11.

Perhaps you could save all of them if you haven't already, and do a quick looky see.

@admin ... As for contacting Boeing about the part, you may want to consider how you would do that .. I have thought about it many times, but haven't come up with a rational approach as yet, and would prefer any contact be made thoughtfully and with the benefit of your members input.

Regards
Stann
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 26 2008, 12:01 AM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (stannrodd @ Sep 24 2008, 03:25 PM) *
dMole,
Do the other "pentagon" photos in that collection on Berkleys site have the same format ? I don't know how to scrutinize them.
...
Perhaps you could save all of them if you haven't already, and do a quick looky see.

All the Berkley website photos that I reviewed appear to have the same "Photoshop 4.0" branding and no EXIF data, even the obvious "photo ops." I'd interpret this to mean it was an older or lower-end digital camera, and the photos were transferred out of the camera using Photoshop 4.0 software.

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_release_history

Photoshop 4.0 (codenamed "Big Electric Cat") was released in Nov. 1996 for Mac and Windows, so a September 2001 date is believable here.

We still have no way of determining the authenticity of this "wreckage" or of positively identifying any other flight's alleged "wreckage" by serial number 7 years later though, and the FBI and NTSB have refused to comment on this glaring lack of evidence. I am less suspicious of Berkley's PR crew now (most of those Berkley website photos were consistent with each other as far as the "embedded" data goes). Thank you Stann- there is a photo of the generator trailer in that set that might prove helpful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Sep 26 2008, 10:03 AM
Post #28


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Yes isn't it amazing that green leafed tree right next to that huge 'kerosene' fireball was essentially undamaged?
(Click me)


Thank you Congresswoman Berkley. Those magical indestructable polyethelene cable spools allegedly right in the center of that huge 'kerosene' fireball.
Well, they did get lots of foam after the fireball didn't they? Must have been very valuable cable spools. (Click me)


Another view of the green leafy tree which survived the huge 'kerosene' fireball. (Click me)


Blowup of tree
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Oct 5 2008, 06:31 AM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



Amazing!. Not a single scratch where they came down. I guess they floated down softly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 12 2008, 11:08 AM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



We know the events of the day were staged, and this photo lends credence to that.

How could a piece like that "bounce" backwards and outside the building? It cannot.

This and the lack of a full complement of landing gear components, wheels, support the idea that it was all staged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greenrayriver
post Apr 1 2010, 01:28 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 71
Joined: 14-January 10
From: Missouri
Member No.: 4,842



The entire photo looks like a fake to me. The foreground of the photo with the myterious debris in it looks like a front screen projected image. I see a white line across the photo, and a black line in the negative, just below the far left point of metal sticking out. The upper portion of the photo is clearly the Pentagon on 911, to give authenticity to the mystery debris. IMO
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 9 2011, 11:31 AM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 21 2008, 06:59 PM) *
Thanks again Stann,

<snip>

Cropped with photo negative applied


<snip>

These might work better in your browser too.


A lay mans exam probably won't mean much, but here's what I see:

Using the above cropped w/negative applied, I seem to see two "interior" walls, or
bulkheads. One at the top and one at the bottom. Since there are attachments that are outside
these "interior" walls or bulkheads, that seems to imply that this is a movable part.
The "rivet race" at the bottom, has an apparent curvature, I imagine that an expert can determine the dimensions of. A photo analysts expert should be able to extract quite a bit
of other dimensional data from the photo besides. But my cursory guesswork seems to suggest to me that it's probably part of a wing assembly, because I get the distinct impression that it's a part of a longer series of sections, than it might be just a stand alone part.

Ah, yes, just took another look and I now see why I favor wing part, the piece seems
to have a taper to it.

From time to time, I come across photo analysis experts working alone, on the net, on 9-11 errata. too bad I never bothered to catalog any of them, but they shouldn't be too hard to find.
But this is the kind of thing they love to work on. They can extract much more data, that might help identify this part.

Good Luck
Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post May 2 2011, 03:45 PM
Post #33


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (greenrayriver @ Apr 1 2010, 12:28 PM) *
The entire photo looks like a fake to me. The foreground of the photo with the myterious debris in it looks like a front screen projected image. I see a white line across the photo, and a black line in the negative, just below the far left point of metal sticking out. The upper portion of the photo is clearly the Pentagon on 911, to give authenticity to the mystery debris. IMO

If you look closely, the white line is not straight and is buried in places under the grass. It seems to be a small rope or perhaps electric cord. I cannot imagine what purpose for which the Congresswoman would want to fake this photo of a mystery aircraft piece which is never mentioned anywhere in the official 911 evidence, nor of which any other photo exists.



If this was truly a 757 aircraft part, then why didn't the official story pushers jump on it and present it as conclusive evidence? It surely has a identification tag riveted somewhere on it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 10 2011, 01:58 AM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (SPreston @ Apr 30 2011, 06:45 PM) *
If you look closely, the white line is not straight and is buried in places under the grass. It seems to be a small rope or perhaps electric cord. I cannot imagine what purpose for which the Congresswoman would want to fake this photo of a mystery aircraft piece which is never mentioned anywhere in the official 911 evidence, nor of which any other photo exists.



If this was truly a 757 aircraft part, then why didn't the official story pushers jump on it and present it as conclusive evidence? It surely has a identification tag riveted somewhere on it.



Hi Preston,

good to see you around again, and still kicking! thumbsup.gif

Cheers



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th November 2019 - 06:56 PM