I haven't seen it before. Found it here. Particularly, I haven't seen the tree in front of the Pentagon so well in other photos. Not a great close up or great resolution, but perhaps you Pentagon photo experts can make use of it if it is not already familiar territory...

...

Thats a good foto. I doubt there would be anyone (without knowing it was the
pentagon) that would say that plane crashed there.
It screams "small projectile".

Right

Now, what about the shadow darkening the upper floors.



What cast that shadow? a cloud? or photoshop?

It's not a shadow, it's fire damage...

Well there was a big fireball when what ever hit the building, fire tends to darken stuff up?

Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. So. Yep. This photo is pretty damning if it is legit. Definitely doesn't look like a Boeing jumbo jet crash site.

JDX and Russel can maybe tell me where was this pic taken from?

This is one of Tom Horan photos, taken from the Riverhouse Apartments.

Nice flying...

Okay. Where exactly does the flame originate? It appears to me to be on the ground level, below the row of windows on that level.

And the light posts depicted in the picture, all the standing poles, are any of them supposedly amongst the ones allegedly knocked over by F77?

What I'm getting at is this may be a photo depicting damage that was done by bombs exploding in the Pentagon before it was struck by some sort of aerial projectile.

We've got a small AP in the lower left corner, indicating The Associated Press, can anyone verify that that is who took this picture, for the sake of rights. Remember the AP's earliest report was of a truck bombing outside the Pentagon. Perhaps this is the photo accompanying that report.

Seems like lamp post five is standing in this pic. Somebody refute me.

Yes it is ap photos... but it is taken from a long distance etc... and you know... is it not all about forshortning lens etc (So they say...but I am not a photograph expert)

But Tom Horan photos have always looked interesting to me.

You can find more about it if you google tom+horan+photo+pentagon

Dude, for some reason I am gunshy of your links.

Anyway, what about the light post. Is #5 standing in this photo?

Okay another one. Fire truck in a different position. Lamp posts standing. Is #5 standing here?

Yes I know... it is strange... but it is not supposed to be the clipped lampoles.

Here is one from Pickering site:



pentagonresearch

But what first striked me when I saw this photos, was how clean the lawn is... I mean... a 757 was there !!!

So you're saying that none of the pictured lamp posts was amongst those that was toppled that day. In other words, lamp post #5 is not pictured? Or it is pictured and standing?

Um... it is a good question really :D

... but is it not just that the photo is tricky... forshorting lens etc. (hope you understand me)

Okay so the question stands.



Does this picture depict light pole #5 standing?

serendipity

Dude, it appears to me, based on the flight path in that image, that not only is 5 standing but a couple of other poles that should have been hit appear untouched. That's just me.

This (AP) photo is of the damage done to the Pentagon when bombs exploded inside the building at approximately 9:32. In its initial reports on the Pentagon that day, the AP said a truck bomb had exploded there. This photo perhaps accompanies that report.



Note the light poles are standing. We are to assume, therefore, that something, some sort of aerial projectile, later (after the 9:32 bombing of the rooms housing the computers and work stations of the auditors who were investigating the $2.6 trillion that Rumsfeld said in a press conference on 09/10/2001 was missing or lost by the DoD) struck the Pentagon near where the bombs had detonated, creating the destruction depicted in the AP photograph. It can also be considered possible that the heat from those bombs and from this fire was the target of whatever aerial projectile acting as heat-seeking missile.

Yeah gee guys, doesn't it look just like a 757 hit that building?

You're all just paranoid. ;)

Based on looking at the patterns the smoke makes, I would say this second picture is the same as the first one, only cropped a bit differently and with better resolution.

wow... look at all those poles standing!

great find guys... make lots of copies of those pictures...

:blink:

Where are the cable spools?

Why is the firetruck scorched?

Where is the impact hole?

Is Russell going to address this? Im interested in his take.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Outstanding pic. Light poles still standing, and they don't look even close to 480 ft. tall, especially given the Pentagon is about 80 ft. tall. Official story, officially blown.

Russell, while I respect you as a member, you can't in all honestly continue to come up with your "stuff" that is in contradiction to JDX and Merc's analysis. Get over it. That pic shows that no 757 hit the Pentagon unless you have some interdimensional site that shows something there that doesn't show up in a photograph.

BIG QUESTION FOR ANY PHOTO EXPERTS: Any evidence of tampering with this pic?? Just wanting to be sure. I'm no expert, but it doesn't look doctored to me. And like I said, I'm no expert. If this thing is the real deal, BUSTED, is all I can say.

I'm trying to find ways to describe the oddities in these pictures. First, I wanted to determine the angle of the camera's line of sight with this side of the Pentagon, without using trigonometry.
Here
http://www.lubbockonline.com/gallery/under...uction/31.shtml
it says the picture was taken from the River House Apartments in Arlington, Va. Searching for the apartments locates them at either the northeast corner of Virginia Highlands Park or just south of Hwy 395 on S Joyce St, or both. Check the Google map and you'll see that from both locations, the angle is either close to 90 degrees or in opposition to the photos. So, I'm having no luck there.
Can someone identify these structures in the background?

Please don't guess. If you think it's the Monument and the Dome, check the Google map again and you'll see that it can't be the Capitol.
These photos are very strange. It appears that noone can find larger copies. I've barely started to study them and already the provenance is not checking out.

im still working on figuring out whats in the background, but the River House has 3 buildings (circled):



cropped:



though my guess is it was taken from here if it was indeed taken from the riverhouse (marked in red):




hope that helps.

http://gate.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tom...erhouse.big.JPG
The plane went in further to the right.

Cary,

Please read this page for full review of this photo (start at the bottom of the linked page and continue on). The five poles you refer to are not even in this photo. Try Google Earth and triangulate the photo yourself. You need to know where it was taken from and the implications of the lens. After you read the post and understand it, please let me know if you need further analysis.

P.S. If you do request that and it satisfactorily answers your objections - will you agree to a retraction?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...ic=15307&st=180

Russell

the building in the background of this pic:




is the Catholic University:







located here:




[cheers]

Paranoia, I could not hope for a better response to my questions. Thank you very much. I no longer doubt the authenticity of these pictures. Thanks to Hetware for the big picture, but it's just a blow up of a smaller file.
I'm not concerened about the light poles, but I want to point to a couple of other strange things when I get time.

Cary,

Always start with the photographer. Here is a bit about his authentic position with the AP.

"State Photo Center editor Tom Horan, who lives a couple of miles from the Pentagon, photographed the crash and dropped his images at the Alexandria home of colleagues Paul Alers and Carolyn Cornish. With the Potomac bridges closed to motor vehicles, Horan made his way to the office on a bicycle."

http://www.ap.org/log/index.html

Please note 3 other photos by him.



This first one clearly shows the collapse area.



Note the progression of smoke.



Note the further progression of the smoke.

To confirm these are from him please look at this site and hit "Next" twice.

http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/att...tos/photo3.html

These photos were taken during the fireground evacuation between 10:15 and 10:38. Thus the progression of smoke as the fires were not being mitigated by suppression efforts.

The full documentation of the evacuation is here. It explains why the MWAA apparatus are not in the Horan photos.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/116.html

Let me know if you need to see the triangulation and a satellite image of the exact poles that are in his photos and I'm sure you'll agree that they were NOT in the flight path. Telephoto foreshortening is very deceptive.

I have a few more of his photos too. They're not all faked are they?

Russell

This photo (enlarged by me) appears to have also been taken from the Riverhouse. It is taken by Rich Lipski of the Washington Post. It confirms the perspective of Horan. It was taken after the evacuation. Notice the different position of MWAA 331 and 345 from the beginning.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo.../pentagon/5.htm

Lamp post #5 is standing in these AP photos as is others. These photos mesh well with the information contained in this essay, which asserts that the Pentagon was bombed before something struck it.



(The light poles are clearly mapped in this image and in the AP photo they are standing. Figure it out.)

Plane huggers can continue to grasp at illusions, but with so much to reconcile. Note three times.

9:32 --when the clocks in the Pentagon fell from the walls and stopped due to what Pentagon eyewitnesses refer to as bombs that smelled like cordite; not the part of the building bombed housed the headquarters of the military investigation into the $2.6 trillion Rumsfeld announced was missing or lost, stolen rather, from DoD on Sept. 10, 2001.

9:43 --The time the Pentagon originally reported that it was hit

9:37 --The new and improved time the Pentagon says it was hit, changed because it conflicted so radically with what FAA was reporting happened on that day. Though this time is closer to 9:32 it still isn't 9:32, the time at which clocks in the Pentagon stopped when the fell from the walls in the bombing.

The Pentagon was bombed. Then it was hit by something much much smaller than F77.

Read the essay. Look at the AP photos. Connect the dots.

Here is a triangulation of the photos. If you look at the left edge of the photos you generally see the heliport. The right edge varies. If you draw the line you can see the lamp poles in question would not show in these photos. Those are other poles in the photos.

If you look at the graphic below and correspond the trees in the cloverleaf to the trees in the photos you can see a confirmation. The tree labeled "Lone Tree" shows in the photos that have been taken from a wider point of view to double confirm the location.

This was taken after impact. If bombs went off in the building before hand these photos are not evidence for it. The original time published of 9:43 was the original AP press release and it was in error. It went out to everybody.

The FDR data and subsequent reports indicate the impact occured at 9:37:44-45.

I am still waiting for falling clocks to be tested. I have read the essay a couple of times. Questions - what is the mechanism for the watch to have stopped? Was the face damaged? Did the battery fall out even though it was strapped to a wrist? Is there a photo of the watch to document damage severe enough to the face to stop the hands?

The A3 theory has been dealt with in detail. Barbara even emailed for the details of that. How did they have an explosion large enough to knock a clock off the wall outside at the heliport and the inside of the Pentagon and hide it until the A3 came by? If people were outside wondering what the explosion was how come nobody saw an A3?

First floor doesnt show where the wings went in...

If the image you've posted depicting the location from which the photos were shot in relation to the Pentagon is accurate then we can conclude that the photos do not depict streetlamp #5 standing.

As for your experiment involving clocks tumbling from walls and being set back five minutes, good luck!

Re: "How did they have an explosion large enough to knock a clock off the wall outside at the heliport and the inside of the Pentagon and hide it until the A3 came by?"

This is presuming that a substantial amount of time elapsed between the initial bombing and the impact. If it is within seconds then obviously nothing would necessitate hiding. If ten minutes or more elapse then you might have problems if you can't control the media. But, as I've pointed out and as Barbara mentions in her essay, the original early AP reports from the Pentagon that day have a truck bomb exploding outside of it.

If the bombing preceded the impact and the bombs detonated inside the building, destroying the work stations, computers and rooms used by military auditors investigating the $2.6 trillion that Rumsfeld admitted the day before that DoD had lost, then the destruction of the bombs might merit instant phone calls to the local media who in turn call the Pentagon and write initial reports, that underbar of streaming text, while dispatching personnel who arrive later after the impact and when all the damage will then be said to be from F77.

Then you have the "eyewitnesses." I've clipped something from some other thread and posted it in a thread in the "Debate" room. Most seem like plants, actors and puppets, mouthpieces for the establishment reciting lines that will guarantee them treats from the hands of their masters.

Re: "If people were outside wondering what the explosion was how come nobody saw an A3?"

You mean how come the media hasn't latched onto and blown up testimony from folks who claim to have seen an A3? We've got eyewitnesses seeing private jets, seeing helicopters, seeing winged missiles, and seeing Boeings. Maybe we should presume that some of the different accounts attest to certain "eyewitnesses" not having their orders straight, in other words, not yet certain what they are to say they saw to please the folks they want to please. The rest might not know what the hell they saw if something small came in at 300+ mph (much less the official 500 mph) and crashed into the Pentagon while a boeing passenger plane does a loud, conspicuous low altitude flyover at the exact same time. The kept media shuns these folks and latches onto the plants. The eyewitnesses who did say anything other than F77 go home and turn on the boob tube and get their daily programming, the same talking heads saying over and over and over "flight 77 hit the Pentagon." Many, who were still probably confused and trying to sort out in their minds what they actually did see, resign, throwing in the towel like they have been programmed to do thru hours of daily television consumption spanning years.

Re: "Questions - what is the mechanism for the watch to have stopped? Was the face damaged? Did the battery fall out even though it was strapped to a wrist? Is there a photo of the watch to document damage severe enough to the face to stop the hands?"

I've brought up the behavior of detonation waves repeatedly here and received few answers. Most of the public haven't been around too many bombings and really don't know how certain bombs behave. Take it up with an expert. I can tell you that the smell of cordite is indicative of weapons grade explosives and so you should probably take your questions to someone who can tell you what bombs, not jet fuel, do when they detonate.

It is occluded by spray. They are saturating with foam again. If there was jet fuel in the area as they say this would be protocol.