Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

[FridgeMagnet]

Was that last link supposed to show something specific? If so I missed it.

Yeah, I can conclude that. Look at some photos of rockets being launched from planes, looks nothing like that. Plenty of them around on Google.

 

[Loki]

Why does anyone continue to respond? Wasn't it agreed that this sort of thread is unwelcome? Or has Dr. J come up with something new?

A fair point.

* unsubscribes from thread *

 

[Jazzz]

Was that last link supposed to show something specific? If so I missed it.

Yeah, I can conclude that. Look at some photos of rockets being launched from planes, looks nothing like that. Plenty of them around on Google.

There is absolutely no question that the object could possibly be an American Airlines 757. As I said, I don't think that picture shows a rocket being fired.

I am entirely unable to follow your reasoning that the smoke doesn't go up to the engines (which are also obscured by the light box).

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There is absolutely no question that the object could possibly be an American Airlines 757. As I said, I don't think that picture shows a rocket being fired.

I am entirely unable to follow your reasoning that the smoke doesn't go up to the wings (which are also obscured by the light box).

Since the outline doesn't appear to correspond to a 757, an antique fighter plane or anything else, might we therefore conclude that it is not a useful outline?

The "smoke" (light area on picture) might perhaps go up to under the right "wing" (pure conjecture, not shown) but doesn't correspond to what a missile might produce at all. There's much too much of it, in too wide a conical pattern.

 

[Wess]

I'm pretty sure it's just the attention that appeals to Dr. J. Rather than establishing the facts of what actually happened.

But, as for Dexter....I don't know?....Maybe he's just gullible?

No mate let's do it properly if you want to do it. Let's go with physics if you want a square go. We can start with the dimensions of the supposed suspect passenger jet and apply the physics of the blast.

please enlighten us with what you believe to have happen and please give reasons why.
I am curious to see how you explain what happened using physics.

 

[Jazzz]

Since the outline doesn't appear to correspond to a 757, an antique fighter plane or anything else, might we therefore conclude that it is not a useful outline?

No we may not. There are at least two other sources of video evidence for what struck the Pentagon - the FBI quickly corralled them after 9-11 and they are -curiously - not giving them to us. So, this is all we have to go on and we must fit our theory with the photographic evidence that we have.

AFAICS the image fits well with the Sky Warrior. Which is still around as I linked to earlier.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Bollocks. It looks nothing like a SkyWarrior. Look at the narrowness of the "fuselage" on the made-up outline of the plane. Look at the dip behind the pretend "cockpit".

 

[Jazzz]

No, because I have stated many times, much of the fuselage would be below the light box.

Let's remind ourselves what a 757 looks like in relation to the Pentagon

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The 757 is irrelevant. You're trying to create the assumption that the given silhouette is actually a plane. I know what you're up to - stop it.

What we have here is someone claiming a vague piece of shadow is a particular plane and it clearly isn't. Look at the fuselage that's on either side of whatever that box is. Look at the distance between the end of the canopy and the nose. Look at the overall length of the plane. The two pictures bear no resemblance.

 

[Rentonite]

I undersand all these theories
People just cant accept what has happend
"theres just got to be more" types.
"Everything is a evil sceme of the American government"
this thinking has ruined millions of peoples lives.
and has accomplished exactly what its dark purpose was.
to divide America.
We have become so divided we can hardly elect a President any more.
we Americans have only barely been able to summon the will to mereley defend ourselves.
even that effort is divided.
There are so many people that their logic is swayed so much by their emotions they will believe anything.
when I see these poor sad wretches spinning their stories and believing them. I both pity and fear them for it is easy to become like them.
ya hear this clap trap long enough and it starts to sound good.

I dont want to believe that the arabs where able to pull the attack off either, so, it HAD to be the secret CIA evil meanies that killed Kennedy-----------

I just "KNOW" it-------------
What garbage

 

[Loki]

Once more

Rentonite: Can you not understand the concept of paragraphs?

Look, this is a paragraph. Then I hit the Enter key twice (that big key on the right).

Lo and behold, a new paragraph!

This way, you can separate your argument into logical parts. It also makes posts much easier to read for everyone else.

Have a go sometime!

 

[Rentonite]

but I speak in run on sentences and when I make line breaks I got complaints so I just say what I have to say so I wont loose my train of thought and loose peoples attention because then it becomes very easy for them to make their silly attacks because they refuse to understand anything different than from what they have known so its up to me to help those poor wretched people that will never understand any point of view other than their own silly muddled muttered political lacky positions that they follow blindly because they are slaves in their thinking and dont know that there are people in other parts of the world that do not believe as they do therefor when I post I kinda wander off the reservation of correct english grammer but sometimes i "futz" my postings getting them to read better but I havent figgured out how to operate spellcheck so i dont think i can make it work on my computer but I may be wrong


hey Loki how did you like that run on sentance/no paragraph stream of concienceness.....
pretty cool huh?

I'll try to do better my friend.

 

[editor]

And the match looks pretty good to me. for a start, it's the right colour. For all my brain power, I hadn't noticed that the plane should be in bright sunlight - so why is it black?.

It's not black. The object in the photo is dark and heavily compressed with JPEG jaggies.

Heavily compressed images will cause objects to become 'blocky' with distorted outlines.

In photography, light objects will appear dark against a bright sky. The effect is called contre jour.

 

[editor]

[sigh] As discussed many times, the eyewitness reports differ wildly. Some heard a missile.

Yes. Someone heard what they say sounded like a missile. What sound do you think a jet aircraft loaded with fuel might make hitting a building at high speed?

There are many eye witness reports saying that they clearly saw a passenger aircraft hit the Pentagon.

No one has claimed that they saw a missile firing suicidal black jet fighter plane hitting the Pentagon. No one.

So why's that then? I would have thought that would be rather a memorable sight, or was everyone suffering mass hallucinations?

And who was piloting this invisible jet plane? Or was it another example of this amazing remote control/holographic technology?

Please offer a vaguely coherent alternative scenario, and describe what happened to the 'real' plane, its passengers, its crew and how 'they' faked passenger calls made from that plane with 100% accuracy.

 

[snadge]

hey dr jazz are you sure it wasn't one of these, the colours right

black thing

or this, once again the colour is right



another black thing

 

[editor]

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/
Curious that there was at least one top bod from Raytheon on flight 77!

Why's that then?

 

[WouldBe]

The only thing new in this is that physics911.org have doctored the pentagon security video.

In the origonal version there was a lot more visible at the bottom of the frame. This included the shadows of the gate which ran towardt teh observer. The sun was therefore never shining directly at the aricraft. Also the shadows had being doctored having a darker outline to them so there is absolutely no point trying to analyse photographs that have been doctored twice!!!!

Edit: The outlined shape of the 'aircraft' is also too large to be an A3 due to the large distance between the gate and the point of impact.

 

[DexterTCN]

No one has claimed that they saw a missile firing suicidal black jet fighter plane hitting the Pentagon. No one.

That's not the point is it. The fact is that the shape of the blast and so on...these things do not match a jumbo jet. Do they?

 

[editor]

That's not the point is it. The fact is that the shape of the blast and so on...these things do not match a jumbo jet. Do they?

Why would it match the shape of a 'jumbo jet'?

But seeing as you seem so sure what happened, could you explain how no one saw this suicidal, missile firing fighter plane roaring in to the Pentagon? Who piloted it? Why would it fire a missile? Why wasn't there two explosions?

And how come so many independent eye witnesses all saw the American Airlines jetliner? Were they suffering mass delusions?

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away.

Loads more eye witness testimony here:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah, it's clearly a big coverup. The American government made an airliner and it's passengers disappear, then they shot the Pentagon with a missile and pretended it was the plane. Then they sneaked in lots of broken up plane bits to the wreckage to confuse everyone.

Don't believe everything you see on newsgroups DrJazzz.

 

[DexterTCN]

Firstly...enough with the 'Dex is so sure of what happened'. Read my posts..I am not saying I know what happened...I am saying it wasn't a jumbo jet.

Jumbo jets keep their fuel in the wings. Look at the outside wall....there should be damage roughly following that pattern...and indeed a further splash pattern. Also...a jumbo jet steers like a cow, it would be impossible (or as near as) to target it into a door. Even the best pilots use navigation computers....and afaik, the front door of the Pentagon did not have a homing device, nor is there a 5 mile straight line leading to it.

What did crash into the Pentagon? I do not know.

What didn't? A jumbo.

And may I repeat...I never said anything about sucide missiles or anything...that's you. While I understand your reluctance to accept what I am saying....putting words in my mouth doesn't enhance your case. Next no doubt will be the CT accusations

 

[editor]

Firstly...enough with the 'Dex is so sure of what happened'. Read my posts..I am not saying I know what happened...I am saying it wasn't a jumbo jet.

Jumbo jets keep their fuel in the wings. Also...a jumbo jet steers like a cow, it would be impossible (or as near as) to target it into a door.

Yes. I agree with you. It definitely wasn't a jumbo jet!

Err, it would really help your case if you got the plane right.

No one's ever claimed that it was a jumbo jet that hit the Pentagon. It was a Boing 757, which is completely different to a jumbo, having two engines instead of four and being much smaller in size. A jumbo holds 416 to 524 passengers while a 757 can only carry up to 257.

But seeing as you're so insistent that it definitely wasn't a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon, perhaps you might offer a few gems of knowledge as to what it was that did hit the Pentagon? Any idea?

And then, perhaps, you might serve up a few nuggets of information about what happened to the original plane and its passengers and offer an opinion why so many eye witnesses said that they saw the American Airlines plane?

And how do you explain Barabra Olsen's phone call from the plane?

And how do you expain these eye witness testimonies - one from a pilot, for fuck's a sake!

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001"

"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"

 

[DexterTCN]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html
4 engines, 11000 gallons of fuel capacity. 120 odd foot wingspan.

No..I will not answer your demands. I don't give a fuck about your quotes. I will say...again...that whatever hit the front of the Pentagon was not a plane with those specs.

What do I think happened to the 'real' 757. No idea, I could hypothesise I'm sure.

Why don't you go and find a quote from a pilot who claims he could fly such a passenger plane, as I said in my previous (ignored) post, more accurately than even the computers that are used to guide such a thing?

I don't know what it was, I don't know what happened to the plane.

btw did all your eyewitness accounts come from the Pentagon?

 

[snadge]

Why don't you go and find a quo... truth anyone could do it without instruction

 

[DexterTCN]

it doesn't take accuracy to fly a plane into a brick wall.

Any idiot could do it really, with the basics of instruction.

to tell you the truth anyone could do it without instruction

 

[editor]

I don't give a fuck about your quotes.

They're not 'my' quotes.

They're quotes from people who were there, on the day, and who actually saw the 757 smash into the Pentagon. Have you any reason to suspect that they're lying?

I will say...again...that whatever hit the front of the Pentagon was not a plane with those specs.

One of the eye witnesses was a pilot who clearly recognised the plane as an "American Airways 757".

On what grounds can you presume to know better than him?

btw did all your eyewitness accounts come from the Pentagon?

I don't understand what you mean. We're discussing the Pentagon crash and I'm supplying you with quotes from independent eye witnesses who saw that incident. Those people included a preacher, a pilot and a reporter.

You can read those quotes - and check the sources - here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

 

[snadge]

have you ever flown a plane ?

I have

 

[cynical_bastard]

Anyone remember the Krypton Factor? That bit where they'd land the plane in the simulator? If they could do that, with no experience, why is it so hard to believe that someone who's been taking flying lessons could fly into the Pentagon?

And for those who believe it was a missile-why is the pilot launching from such a short range?

 

[editor]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html
4 engines, 11000 gallons of fuel capacity. 120 odd foot wingspan.

I'm getting fed up correcting your sloppy research.

First you claimed it was a jumbo jet (wrong!) and then you claimed it was a four engine 757 (wrong again!).

It was not a 'four-engine' 757. They don't exist. It was a two engine 757-200 (even that fucking link you posted up shows that!)

Why can't you get these simple facts right? Is it too much to ask that you at least do the tiniest piece of research before making bold claims about wild conspiracy theories?

It sure doesn't do your credibility much good.

Read and learn: Boeing 757-200 info

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So, there you are, going through the forums, and you see this thread. And you know you're going to regret it if you click on the link and read the thread. But, hell, it's a long evening and it's cold and dark outside and you click on the link anyway.

And boy, do you regret it.