Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,278 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 956,422
Pageviews Today: 1,197,328Threads Today: 218Posts Today: 3,300
08:33 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames

 
9/11 truth seeker
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 11:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
It is vital to compare the old and newly released frames with what SHOULD have appeared had the object crashing into the Pentagon been as large as a Boeing 757-200. Despite the uncertainties of reconstruction, enough can be done to refute the claim that these frames are consistent with a Boeing 757-200 hitting the Pentagon.

Compare the video frame captures at [link to www.rense.com]
In particular, examine the insets in frame 3. Pickering in his article posted below demonstrates that, when a photograph of a 757-200 is correctly scaled according to the height and size of the tail revealed in the still and to the known height of the Pentagon at the distance of location of the tail, far MORE of the fuselage of the 757-200 should have been exposed to the left of the block appearing in the still, even allowing for foreshortening due to an oblique approach path, as now explained.

The length of a Boeing 757-200 is 155ft, about double the height (77ft) of the Pentagon wall. Therefore, a ruler for proportional scaling of the image of a 757-200 is provided by the image height of the wall at the point where the horizontal line from the tail sticking up above the block meets the wall. (That this image is, indeed, that of the tail is in no doubt because not only does it look like a plane tail but also the other frames no longer show it sticking up in the same position above the dark silhouette of the Washington horizon). When the image of a 757-200, scaled according to the height of the Pentagon wall at the same distance away as the visible tail, is superposed onto the frame showing the incoming object obscured by the block, with its tail placed where the image of the tail is, it is blatantly obvious that more of the front of a 757-200 should have been visible to the left of the barrier block at the gas station than is the case (see the third still with superposed plane).

Of course, this assumes a approach path at right angles to the building, which was not the case, as Pickering admits. But, although the true oblique path would have shortened the image of the object somewhat, some simple trigonometry will verify that the known approach angle between the path and the Pentagon wall [link to 911research.wtc7.net] is simply not small enough to reduce the projection of the length of the plane at right angles to the wall to a size that would have left its image completely covered by the block in the still. The angle between the Pentagon wall and the incoming path of a 155ft long plane would have had to be smaller than about 30 degrees in order for such a projection to be equal to or smaller than the length implied for that distance by the width of the image of the block (this is about equal to the image height of the Pentagon at the distance corresponding to the location of the tail):

sin^-1(77/155) ~ 30 degrees.

Instead, the actual angle of approach is much more than this (about 50 degrees, see map at link above), so that foreshortening cannot explain the inconsistency between the maximum size of the object implied by its image being covered by the block and the length of a 757-200 plane. Hence, one can conclude with confidence that the object shown in the video is too small to be that of a 757-200, otherwise some of it would have extended beyond the block seen in the still and be visible.

This conclusion about a smaller plane is consistent with with the initial, light damage to the Pentagon and with the anomalous, sparse debris field (where are any chunky-sized pieces of the wings and tail, some of which would have been blown clear of the brief, rapidly cooling jet fuel explosion and would have never been vaporized or reduced to confetti, as the photos demand of ALL the wings, fuelage and tail?).

Here is Pickering's article. I agree with his judgement that we should not regard any new conclusions drawn from the latest video to be a smoking gun proving that something other than a 757-200 hit the Pentagon. Rather, it is another example of the way in which official evidence and accounts concerning 9/11 do not stand up to critical examination.

Pentagon Video Observations
by Russell Pickering
5-18-6

The video frames in this article are taken from the DoD website in their original size and resolution with no adjustments.

This second released video angle gave us the height of the "fuselage". So I found a 757-200 image at approximately the same angle and with the light coming from the same direction as it is in the new video. I matched the fuselage height exactly to the height of the object in the video. That automatically scales the rest of the graphic plane. Here is what the new video should look like then.

The first thing that stands out to me is the expected reflections and bright red color. You can clearly see the angle the sun is coming from and the fact that the aircraft would have been completely illuminated by it. You can even see the face of a building behind it reflecting sunlight.

To give an example of the detail this video camera actually captures look at the frame below with a vehicle passing by in the background. I watched it move through a couple of frames and captured a still where it was in line with the object claimed to be the nose of a 757-200.

Let's assume this is 15 feet long like the average vehicle (a Jeep Cherokee is 14'). It is an additional 150-200 feet further away from the camera than the object in the video based on the closest possible on-ramp to Washington Blvd.. You can still see the brightness and reflection which we can assume a polished aluminum aircraft would also do. The building reflections are obvious here too.

I copied the exact same aircraft that was measured by the height of the "fuselage" in the new video and placed it into the original video frame from the camera that is further back. I slightly reduced the size of the aircraft to make up for the extra camera distance. The interesting thing was that if you lined up the tail height of the graphic aircraft with the "tail" silhouette in the original frame, the graphic aircraft was in the ground and the engines were far below the "vapor trail". So I chose the middle where the two lined up. The other thing I noticed was that the shape of the alleged tail in the original video was quite different than a 757-200 empennage - even if you account for something coming in at a slight angle. What is claimed to be the tail in the original frame does appear to be pretty flush and not at a severe angle though. The one thing we should not underestimate is the difference between a black blob and highly polished aluminum. Even the "vapor trail" is illuminated by the sun.

I located the tower exactly using one of the other photos when it was illuminated in the fireball. The tower is reported to be 44 feet tall which is the height of a 757-200 with the gear down within six inches. The Pentagon wall is 77 feet high which is almost exactly half the length of a 757-200 (155 feet). The red line represents the length of the aircraft on a vertical axis. I moved the base of it to the perspective of the wall at the estimated impact point and found where the roof line intersected the middle of the red line and it all worked perfectly as a double-check. If the gear were down on the graphic aircraft it would be a little shorter than the tower which it should be since the impact was behind the tower.

Trying to mathematically figure perspective and camera distortion can twist the brain, but if you use known objects in the same vicinity you can get real close. Even if this is off by a few feet you can still see a very different picture than what we have been told. The other point that might be criticized is that the aircraft was reported to have come in at an angle. That might affect length slightly but not the general height of an object.

I believe these two sequences of newly released video are authentic. Obviously they didn't fake anything because there is nothing in them of substance. You can see too that the artificial time/date stamp originally on the first five frames when they were "leaked" is not present on the full video sequence. I used to think the frame of the initial explosion in the original video had been artificially lightened, but the blast frame in the new video does the same thing. It may be that the auto-aperture did not have time to adjust. The debris dispersal, the fireball and the smoke progression all correlate perfectly between the two videos even in the anticipated subtle differences since the two videos are slightly out-of-sync chronologically. I measured the time between various events in each of the videos for comparison and they are dead on. For instance, I timed from the explosion up to when the police car was at a certain point on the lawn and everything matches perfectly. It appears that the footage is at 1 frame per second despite what was published about 2 fps.

The police car that goes through the gate is not the same one that goes out onto the lawn. The one going through the gate has two people in it. The person that actually took the car out onto the lawn was Officer Mark Bright. He was working in the guard shack at the time and claims to have seen an aircraft. The person driving the police car through the gate had a white shirt on and in the Steve Riskus photos of Mark Bright next to his patrol car on the helipad he was wearing a dark shirt. You can read Mark's statement and see the Riskus photo here:
[link to www.pentagonresearch.com]

One important thing to note is the debris that rains down in the video. It matches between the two videos in every respect. I also cross-checked some still photos of the area and the debris landings corresponded to where pieces came down in the video to the inch. The temporarily glowing objects in the video were expelled tree branches on fire that can also be seen burned up in still photos of those areas further into the incident. If you look very closely you can see some of the larger debris in the videos that are in later photos further out on the lawn. Fire apparatus would have been arriving shortly after the released video clips end and there is nobody running around "planting" anything. The major pieces we are all familiar with appear instantly.

It strikes me that something flew into the Pentagon. I don't know what to say though because it also appears nearly as certain from all of the comparisons that the size, bright color and reflection of the object in the videos does not match what you would expect from a 757-200. I am NOT endorsing a missile or anything else! I am just looking at the physical evidence without a conclusion.

It does seem that they do not want us to have any clear picture of what it was exactly.....for now. I think the warnings people have made about a possible booby trap are valid. Don't bite on all of this and go on a tangent. They could pull something solid (or apparently solid) out of the bag and ridicule us later. We should focus on the irrefutable evidence like the demolition of WTC7, the free-fall speed of the towers, Norad, PNAC etc., in other words, things that are WELL documented. The Pentagon situation is always going to be a sticky mess. I think they have made themselves look bad enough without any more help from us.

Russell Pickering
www.pentagonresearch.com
Old-fashioned Catholic

User ID: 89687
United States
05/18/2006 12:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
If indeed we are seeing a vapor trail, isn't that proof enough that the object is not a jumbo jet? As anyone who has watched out the window of an airport can testify, jumbo jets do NOT leave vapor trails at ground level. (At high flying altitudes they leave condensation trails.)

A rocket-type engine, such as on a cruise missile, I think, does leave a vapor trail. Right?
9/11 truth seeker (OP)
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 12:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Your argument is suggestive but not totally watertight, Old-fashioned Catholic. Debunkers counterargue that the 'smoke' or 'vapor' was due to at least one of the 757-200 engines being on fire after hitting the street light poles on the way in.
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 91305
Malaysia
05/18/2006 12:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
METHINKS HAD AN ENGINE HIT A STREET LIGHT AT 500MPH EITHER THE ENGINE SHEER BOLTS WOULD HAVE GIVEN OR THE PLANE WOULD HAVE PLOWED INTO THE GROUND. I AM SURE AT THAT SPEED WINGS CANNOT PROVIDE ANY LIFT AT ZERO ALTITUDE.

GL
9/11 truth seeker (OP)
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 12:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Debunkers would also argue that a rocket or missile could not have knocked down all those poles because it would not have had wide wings and so could not have spanned enough space to hit so many poles.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74540
Canada
05/18/2006 12:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
"I AM SURE AT THAT SPEED WINGS CANNOT PROVIDE ANY LIFT AT ZERO ALTITUDE."

Despite the automatic increase in credibility that an all caps post gets, the fact is that lift is generated by air-speed. Also, low to the ground a plane gets "ground effect" which actually increases lift.
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 91305
Malaysia
05/18/2006 12:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
INTERESTING. MOST PILOT REPORTS I HAVE READ STATE IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO FLY AND CONTROL AT SUCH LOW ALTITUDE, EVEN FIGHTER PILOTS IN PLANES DESIGNED FOR IT DONT FLY SO LOW.

GL
As if you need to ask.
User ID: 10104
United States
05/18/2006 12:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Lensman says:

"METHINKS HAD AN ENGINE HIT A STREET LIGHT AT 500MPH EITHER THE ENGINE SHEER BOLTS WOULD HAVE GIVEN OR THE PLANE WOULD HAVE PLOWED INTO THE GROUND."

Theethinks wrong. Even a structures engineer can't determine what will happen unless he knows the speed, makeup of the object struck, and the exact angle of the exact part of the airplane which struck it. And even then it would take a pretty sophisticated computer program to confirm anything.

"I AM SURE AT THAT SPEED WINGS CANNOT PROVIDE ANY LIFT AT ZERO ALTITUDE."

You are sure wrong, as the subsequent poster mentioned.

"INTERESTING. MOST PILOT REPORTS I HAVE READ STATE IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO FLY AND CONTROL AT SUCH LOW ALTITUDE, EVEN FIGHTER PILOTS IN PLANES DESIGNED FOR IT DONT FLY SO LOW."

Fighter pilots do not fly in "planes designed for it". There are no aircraft (unles you count Soviet Ekranoplans) which are designed to fly at ground effect altitudes anyway.

Finally, at this poiint in the pilot's short and soon-to-conclude career, he was neither "flying" nor "controlling" the airplane. It was less than a second away from destruction and the fact that it was above ground is attributable to ground effect and blind luck -- bad luck in the case of those people killed in the Pentagon.
9// truth seeker (OP)
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 12:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
That's very debatable, Grey Lensman. The same argument could apply to a much lighter object like a rocket or Cruise missile. There is actual evidence of a jet engine - perhaps that of a 737 - [link to www.rense.com] in the debris outside the wall of the Pentagon. Tomahawk Cruise missiles have much smaller turbofan engines than that appearing in the photo. They are only 20.4 inches wide, much narrower than what was photographed lying on the ground outside the Pentagon. See [link to www.fas.org] and compare with the first link.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74540
Canada
05/18/2006 12:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
"INTERESTING. MOST PILOT REPORTS I HAVE READ...."
I never said it was a good thing. That low you also get increased turbulence, and can have difficulty controlling and landing. Thats why descent rate during final is controlled with the throttle, not the elevator. peace
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 94988
United States
05/18/2006 12:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
So yesterdays news...
Hurry look over there...they are doing something else!!!!! damned
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 12:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
7540

is partially correct, he doesn't give the whole story


Aircraft obtain increased lift and therefore better efficiency by flying very close to the ground; on a fixed-wing monoplane, about half the distance from a wingtip to the fuselage. Ground effect therefore affects most aircraft only at takeoff and landing. Ground effect also occurs over water.
Most pilots, especially of small aircraft, will experience ground effects on landing; in fact the art of landing largely comes down to understanding when these effects need to be taken into account. As the aircraft descends towards the runway, it will not be affected by ground effect, but as the aircraft flares and descends the last few feet, ground effect will cause a pronounced increase in lift. If not anticipated by the pilot this can cause the aircraft to rise suddenly and significantly — an effect known as a "balloon". Left uncorrected, a balloon can lead to a dangerous situation where the aircraft is rising yet decelerating, a condition which can rapidly lead to a stall, especially when it is considered that landing speeds are generally only a very small margin above the stall speed. A stall even from a few tens of feet above the ground can cause a major, possibly fatal, crash. A balloon may be corrected given sufficient runway remaining, but for novice pilots a better option is to go around. A good landing approach allows for ground effect such that the aircraft flares and is held off in ground effect until it gently descends onto the runway. For helicopters the ability to hover in-ground-effect or IGE is much improved, on the order of 1200 to 1500 m higher in altitude when compared to out-of-ground-effect or OGE hover capability.
The physics which describe ground effect are still very much under debate. A common belief is that ground effect is caused by a "cushion" of compressed air between the wing and the ground. However, wind tunnel testing and experiments have indicated that while a "cushion" effect is present, ground effect is almost solely due to the ground interrupting the formation of wingtip vortices. Wingtip vortices destroy great amounts of the lift generated by the wing through increased downwash behind it, thereby decreasing the aircraft's theoretical angle of attack. Its effective diminishment needs to be compensated for by pulling back on the control wheel, increasing the actual angle of attack and consequently increasing drag. This is sometimes referred to as induced drag, and the tendency decreases an aircraft's efficiency greatly. When very close to the ground, the wingtip vortices are interrupted, and this results in greater efficiency.
Some critics of Howard Hughes's massive Spruce Goose claim that the famous flying boat's first (and only) flight was due entirely to ground effect and that the craft was incapable of sustaining flight above a very low altitude.

Now read this, Understand that the pilot was unskilled in the operation of this plane.

As for the light poles being knocked down.

Look at the pictures. I have seen CU ones where it shows the "glass" from the bulb covers lying next to the head. now if a jet hits them the glass would fly everywhere.

no it looks like these poles were "cut down" and the glass smasheed when they hit the ground.
9/11 truth seeker (OP)
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 12:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
The point is this (and don't let us get sidetracked by differences of opinion over what it was or whether it is possible for a large jet plane to fly that low): whatever flew into the Pentagon, it could not have been a 757-200 because that plane is too long to have been completely hidden by the gas station block. The geometry proves it.
9/11 truth seeker (OP)
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 12:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
52913, I find it very hard to believe that the poles were cut down by people at the time. Far too risky in broad daylight. They could not risk being spotted. Rather your interpretation of their damage is more likely wrong IMHO.
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 91305
Malaysia
05/18/2006 01:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ABSOLUTE NIT PICKING.

QUOTE

Fighter pilots do not fly in "planes designed for it". There are no aircraft (unles you count Soviet Ekranoplans) which are designed to fly at ground effect altitudes anyway.

UNQUOTE

OH YES THEY DO, BUCCANEER, JAGUAR AND TORNODO VARIENTS AS WELL AS HARRIERS ALL DESIGNED FOR LOW LEVEL FLYING. BUT NOT GROUND EFFECT, MY POINT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ROAD THE FLIGHT CROSSED WAS ABOVE THE PENTAGON. SO THE PILOT WOULD NEED CONTROL TO PULL OWER. THE BUILDING IS 77 FEET TALL, THE PLANE ABOUT THE SAME. YET ON THE VIDEO RELEASED WE SEE NOTHING LIKE IT.

SO MANY CONFLICTS, YES A GLANCING BLOW MAY NOT ACTIVATE SHEER BOLTS BUT THEN NEITHER DID IMPACT WITH A SOLID GRANITE AND CONCRETE WALL. INERTIA WOULD DICTATE THAT THE HUGE TAILPALNE SHOULD HAVE GONE OVER THE ROOF. NOTHING.

WE ARE NO ALL SCIENTISTS, MATHEMATICIANS OR MECHANICAL CLEVER CLOGS BUT WE DO HAVE OUR HUMAN SENSES AND PERCEPTION AND EYES. NOTHING SHOWN, NOTHING REPORTED EXPALINS THE FACTS OF WHAT WE SEE.

GL
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 01:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Who said they were cut down in broad daylight.

They could have easily have been cut at night and released during the confusion.

You also do not explain the placement of the glass bulbs being next to the heads where they fell after they were supposedly hit.

You have debunked nothing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Also for the light poles,

you also have to explain how thin aluminium wings are able to hit light poles, break the light poles, AT THE BASE, and yet these light poles did not tear into the wings.

Ever seen a car hit a light pole, car cut in half, and at speeds much less than 500 mph, usually around 80 to 100 plus.


Explain how the leading edge of a jet aircraft is strong enough to knock down SEVERAL light poles., and not shear the wings engines etc.
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 91305
Malaysia
05/18/2006 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
52913

THANK YOU FOR A VERY LUCID EXPLANATION. THAT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE MASSIVE SKILLS REQUIRED. THIS FROM SOMEBODY WHO COULD NOT FLY!!!!!!!!!

THE LAMPPOLES. CLASSIC WINDOW DRESSING. THE NOTED SMASH PATTERN. IMPACT AT 400 500 OR 250 MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WOULD DESTROY THE LAMP.

DESPITE ALL WINGING NOTHING NOTHING ANSWERS A SINGLE QUESTION.

I HAVE EVEN REVIEWED A LOT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS. AS I RECALL NOT ONE REPORTS SEEING THE PALNE SLAM INTO THE BUILDING, AT BEST THEY INFER IT AS THEY DUCKED DIVED AWAY. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE LOW FLYING PLANE PASSED OVER THE BUILDING AS A MISSLIE OR EXPLOSION HIT THE BUILDING.

UNTIL WE HAVE TRUTH AND HONESTY ALL WE CAN DO IS CONJECTURE AND ASK QUESTIONS.

GL
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74540
Canada
05/18/2006 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
CNN had several eye-witnesses that day who watched it fly right in, including a reporter. You say that the wings were not strong enough to break off the poles, but you don't know that, do you?
The wings of the 767's that hit the WTC did a good job on I-Beams that would be a hell of a lot stronger than the light poles. Aircraft have struck multiple approach lights and managed to land safely, even if they were beat up.
I can't help but wonder how many of the CTs want the truth, and how many desperately NEED it to be an inside job, to add weight to thier particular "world view".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 01:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
not me

Wikipedia, just enter
"ground effects" into the search engine.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 01:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
7450,

your statement sounds like one in desperation.

You say the planes in the towers wings cut thru I beams. Uh Uh, and it destroyed the wings.

You seem to ignore the point that the wings remained intact after impacting the light poles.

you also do not address the glass from the poles, how the poles broke at the bottom from the impact. Explain this amount of force with aluminuim wings.

I have seen cars impact light poles, Light pole wins, car, cut in half.

So you show me how aluminium cuts the poles but does not tear the wing. The plane already fighting ground effects is not affected by the impact. This unskilled pilot is able to correct for ground effects and impact.

You are desperate to hang onto a story that is so full of holes it looks like you do want to hide something.
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 91305
Malaysia
05/18/2006 01:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
I THINK IF 7450 CHECKS HIS CNN WITNESS STATEMENTS HE WILL FIND NONE SAW AND I REPEAT SAW THE PLANE SLAM INTO THE BUILDING.

HE SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FOOT WITH HIS COMMENTS ON THE LAMP POSTS. I CERTAINLY DID NOT SUGGEST THAT A PLANE HITTING THEM WOULD NOT KNOCK THEM DOWN.

HOWEVER IF A PLANE DID, IT WOULD BE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE INSTANTLY.

ALSO I AM NOT A CT, I AM A HUMAN CONFIDENT IN MY OWN KNOWLEDGE AND SENSES. IF SOMEBODY TELLS ME, I.E. CNN, "NOW WATCH THE PLANE SLAM INTO THE BUILDING" AND I SEE NO SUCH THING, I MUST ASK WHY DOES CNN SAY SUCH A STUPID THING.

GL
Old-fashioned Catholic

User ID: 89687
United States
05/18/2006 01:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
1) On September 11, no credible witness saw a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon. Any such stories later are a known psychological effect: bending one's memory to fit what one has been told happened.

2) One Web site has a detailed photo study of the broken light poles. As the site correctly says, if a strong flying object were indeed to sever a light pole, momentum would cause the severed pole to careen in the same direction as the flying object. In contrast, the severed light poles near the Pentagon were lying askew on the ground next to their stumps. Whoever or whatever severed the poles was not a jumbo jet flying at hundreds of miles per hour.

3) "Blind luck" cannot possibly enable an inexperienced pilot to guide a jumbo jet a few feet from the ground (the height necessary to create the first-floor hole in the Pentagon) without either hitting the ground (and damaging that wonderful Pentalawn 2000) or ballooning upward (and hitting a floor higher than the first).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74540
Canada
05/18/2006 02:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
I'm desperate?. Fine. Way to make your argument. Sure the wings were destroyed. But not before they sliced cleanly through those initial I-Beams. The video of the south tower getting hit shows the entire plane entering the tower. At their speeds there is alot of energy. Look at what a piece of foam did to Columbia at an impact velocity of 550 mph.

If the witnesses were debunked, I'd like to see the link. A reported is a professional observer, and sees alot of shit. Joe Citizen may not be so reliable, but the ones I saw interviewed that day seemed pretty lucid.

You are so worried about the poles. They were cut at night? What held them up in the mean time? What if a gust of wind came along and knocked them down early? oooops. I could just as easlily suggest that the poles were made to break of at the base at a certain level of impact energy. I'm not suggesting that btw, but you guys are talking about glass now, and making apples and oranges comparisons.

I dont expect to convert anyone. You fellows seem really dug in. I've been to many sites that assert an inside job, but they have come no where close to making a case. I've seen Jack Whites studies at Aulis, and seen the rebutals. Funny enough he wont address any of these.

And don't answer here, but ask yourself
this: How disapointed would you be if you were confronted with what you admit is unimpeachable evidence that it was a 757 and it was flown by Islamic Terrorists operating on thier own behalf. I know I'd be fukin crazy mad to learn that there was an inside job. But since they couldn't keep a 3 man burglary or a small arms sale a secret, besides what I see as a lack of evidence, I don't believe they are competent enough to pull of what is being suggested.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 02:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Yes your desperate because you will not answer the physics of the questions. You ask us to tell you when and how the poles were taken down.

That is immaterial. You have to prove that the plane took them down. Nothing else matters. The claim is the poles were taken down by the aircraft.

You have yet to explain how an airplane wing hits a light pole and does not inflict damage to the wing.

You have yet to explain why the light poles as OFC pointed out, and you can confirm in the photos why the poles are lying askew (akimbo).

You have yet to explain how the glass from the light poles in lying next to the poles.

you have yet to explain how a light pole made of solid material does not pierce the leading edge of an aircraft wing and does not slice into the wing. You have to explain how the wing (and the aluminium material it is composed of) which is of a much thiner and flexible material, is able to take a blow from a solid object at 500 mph and not be damaged.


You have not explained anything, You only use misdirection to make a point that has nothing to do with the phycial problem laid at your feet. You make claims that have nothing to do with the argument.

If you really want to explain your viewpoint you must use better logic.

please google "baloney detection kit"

you seem to like the taste, and try to hand it out tool. No thanks.

you're the one ground down with their viewpoint.

You can change mine. All you have to do is logically explain all the factors listed above.

When you can explain how the wings withstood the impact and where not damaged.

Explain the light poles,

then you can claim you are correct.

you have miserably failed to explain them.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 52913
United States
05/18/2006 02:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
You also fail to understand that the I beams were also destroyed by the eplosive impact fore of the fuel exploding. This fuel explosion assisted in the taking out of the outer wall.

Yes you also fail to understand that the wings held THE FUEL that caused the exposion.

So when they made contact with the I Beams, guess what they tore the wings and the fuel exploded.

Take that same analogy to the light poles and your claims fall as flat as your intellect.
Ghost Avatar
User ID: 95020
United States
05/18/2006 02:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
That terrorist guy sure was dumb. All he had to do was fly straight into the pentagon directly into the section which was full of all those generals him and his fellow mad men wanted to kill. Sheesh that dumb-ass flew ALL the way around just so he could hit the ONLY section which was reinforced with Kevlar bomb-proofing wall material and 5000 pound BLAST windows (newly installed no less) DAMN was he stupid.

He was so stupid he could not fly a Cessna. I wonder if Mr stupid could even read printed English. Maybe all those fancy knobs on the dash panel of that Cessna threw him off--- why Mr. dumb-ass must have fooled everybody. Secretly, he had a genius level IQ to navigate that big jet-liner (with no help) and fly the most severe and difficult route turn at the VERY last second (against flight software) at astonishing non-Cessna speeds. He learned it all on the way from his BIG Goofy picture book on 'flying your giant Boeing into a building at nine inches off the ground' beginners handbook--just for fun--- those books are real best sellers. How did he KNOW that passenger-jet was such a nimble beast? Did he have a super-duper jumbo jet flight simulator at home? Sure, he did right next to the 'Terror how do we do it' hand-book.

At 500 hundred miles an hour this dumb-ass did not have enough time to correct a SINGLE mistake without over-shooting his intended target and smashing the plane to the ground somewhere else. Most inconvenient. Might have messed up the big plan. Good thing he just looked out the window and eyeballed his decent to ensure he hit that teeny, little, 16-foot hole AND missed everything else...


Yeah.....



No, I do not buy the story that a dumb-ass COULD fly a giant Boeing as IF he was a real pilot. The fact is he was NOT A PILOT----! So prove otherwise and then we can go to the next step in the story.
Sireen

User ID: 92058
United States
05/18/2006 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
I'm wondering what kind of skill level it would take to run a large plane like they want us to believe into a building that sits that low to the ground?

Any expert pilots here that can elaborate on the difficulty level of this?
Don't argue with idiots, you'll never win!
impetigo
User ID: 2671
United States
05/18/2006 02:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Since the highjackers weren't
trying to land the plane,
and probably had it full
throttle, why didn't
the ground effect
raise the plane? Why
is the hole in the
wall so low to the ground?
9/11 truth seeker (OP)
User ID: 94928
United Kingdom
05/18/2006 03:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
Good question, Sireen. Even veteran commercial pilots have said that it would have taken a 'top gun' military pilot to execute the 270 degree banking turn at 500 mph or more into the front of the Pentagon. These guys could hardly fly a Cessna, according to their trainers. I have heard one of them admit that in an interview.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8107
United States
05/18/2006 04:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Proof that part of a Boeing 727-200 should have been visible in one of the Pentagon CCTV video frames
"WE ARE NO ALL SCIENTISTS, MATHEMATICIANS OR MECHANICAL CLEVER CLOGS BUT WE DO HAVE OUR HUMAN SENSES AND PERCEPTION AND EYES. NOTHING SHOWN, NOTHING REPORTED EXPALINS THE FACTS OF WHAT WE SEE."

Stick to your rants on health-foods. You're usually wrong on them, too, but at least with that stuff you sort of SOUND like you know what's going on.

Better yet, why not just lurk until you find the caps lock key?

News