New camera footage of Pentagon impact released!

[Blagsta]

My turn now: come on, break it up you two!

Naaah, I'm having fun. What else am I gonna do when sick off work?

 

[nino_savatte]

Naaah, I'm having fun. What else am I gonna do when sick off work?

Carry on.

 

[editor]

...fuck ...fuck....You literally have no fucking idea about who i am.

You're quite simply an abusive person

Oh, the irony!

 

[WouldBe]

I would say they would have gone in. They are much smaller than those of a 757. We don't have the same problem with the unbroken sections.

Once again complete and utter bollocks.

The wingspan of a 757 is 124ft
The wingspan of Global Hawk is 116ft

Only 8ft difference.

 

[Blagsta]

Let's all have a debate.

 

[astronaut]

Can I make a contribution here?

I found the following image in my collection.

The blue plane is a 757-200, the same type as crashed at the Pentagon.

Using Google Earth to measure, the plane is about 315 meters away.

Also using Google Earth to measure, the camera at the Pentagon was about 200 meters away from the plane.

There are four other big differences:

1. The Pentagon camera uses a fisheye lens which distorts the plane, whereas here it's a regular digital camera lens.

2. This plane is in the center of the image, and the whole plane is shown, whereas the Pentagon picture shows only the forward section.

3. This plane is moving slowly, so any distortion in the Pentagon image from the movement is missing.

4. The quality of this camera seems much better than the Pentagon image.

After giving these differences some thought, I realized that this picture shows that a plane did crash into the Pentagon, and it probably was a 757.

So I hope this picture is some real evidence against the conspiraloons.

 

[editor]

Once again complete and utter bollocks.

He's good at that, isn't he?

 

[TAE]

After giving these differences some thought, I realized that this picture shows that a plane did crash into the Pentagon, and it probably was a 757.

So I hope this picture is some real evidence against the conspiraloons.

I have no reason to doubt that it was indeed a passenger plane which crashed into the Pentagon, but the footage is useless because there is nothing in that footage which looks like a plane.

 

[Azrael23]

It seems pertinent to remind posters at this juncture whey we have conspiracy theories.

It is because conspiracies occur in practice, and such conspiracies are practised by those in power, usually politicians. Some become knowledge, many never do. Either way, all are hatched as ways of keeping and/or extending their power. At times leaders are suspected of committing abuses of power, but no proof comes out, and they get away with it.

Everyone knows that leaders abuse the power they have. They conspire regularly on how to do this, in such a manner that they don't get caught.

Knowing that they do this, it is left to members of the general public to suspect that an abuse of power has been committed. Thanks to the whole lexicon of 'conspiracy theory', the waters are nicely muddied, and they just watch us all argue between ourselves.

Exactly.

It aint just members of the public either plenty of "top brass" have come out on the WoT. Paul craig roberts anyone? michael meacher? andreas von buelow?
In any crime you first seek motive....

Ive not proven anything your right Blagsta, Ill let the plethora of media articles on the govt involvement in the training and funding of the hijackers do that for me.
All this pentagon conjecture is pointless, how do we know that this footage hasn`t been released to heighten debate so they can then release real/doctored footage of a 757 hitting the pentagon the media can say "see...9/11 wasn`t an inside job"....when really it means nothing. It isn`t about what hit the pentagon, its about who was responsible for it.

 

[astronaut]

I have no reason to doubt that it was indeed a passenger plane which crashed into the Pentagon, but the footage is useless because there is nothing in that footage which looks like a plane.

You can see something - it's about the size of the forward section of a 757, distorted by a fisheye lens. See the attachment.

Now I have just looked closely at this comparison, the 911 plane is slightly bigger than my picture, which is explained by it being closer to the camera.

 

[aylee]

 

[Jazzz]

aylee you are a twat aren't you?

interesting astronaut. If we scale up your 757 though to reflect how it would look at 200m rather than 315 (by 157%) we get this

 

[astronaut]

interesting astronaut. If we scale up your 757 though to reflect how it would look at 200m rather than 315 (by 157%) we get this

1. The 911 plane is already slightly larger than my image -- take a close look, it is several pixels taller than my plane.

2. Your enlargment of my plane makes it very similar in size to the 911 plane image.

3. The 911 plane is distorted by a fisheye lens.

4. You are talking crap.

 

[Crispy]

Completely pointless comparing images from two different cameras.

 

[astronaut]

2. Your enlargment of my plane makes it very similar in size to the 911 plane image.

See attachment, with your enlargement of my image.

 

[Jazzz]

1. The 911 plane is already slightly larger than my image -- take a close look, it is several pixels taller than my plane.

2. Your enlargment of my plane makes it very similar in size to the 911 plane image.

3. The 911 plane is distorted by a fisheye lens.

4. You are talking crap.

The 911 object is certainly not larger than your image when you bring it in to 200m, it's quite a lot smaller. Note also it doesn't have a straight edge, which I find puzzling.

Yes the lenses are different as Crispy notes. I have not made any claim based on your photo. So why you suggest I'm talking crap I have no idea. However I do find it an interesting comparison - like you did a moment ago.

 

[astronaut]

Completely pointless comparing images from two different cameras.

To a certain extent, yes, I agree, but at least we can get the size problem solved this way, to some extent.

 

[astronaut]

The 911 object is certainly not larger than your image when you bring it in to 200m, it's quite a lot smaller.

If you look at my new image, you can see that your enlargement makes it the same size as the 911 plane.

Note also it doesn't have a straight edge, which I find puzzling.

Because the 911 plane was on an angle slightly towards the camera, whereas my plane is not.

 

[Crispy]

If someone can point me to a scaled map showing the impact path and the location of the camera, I can build a scale 3d model and see just how big a 757 really would look.

 

[Jazzz]

If you look at my new image, you can see that your enlargement makes it the same size as the 911 plane.

I don't agree at all - it looks much fatter to me. You have drawn red lines that are within the 757 rather than outside it! However these are different lenses a proper size comparison is going to have to involve a more complicated calculation.

 

[editor]

I don't agree at all - it looks much fatter to me. You have drawn red lines that are within the 757 rather than outside it!

FFS: are you still desperately trying to prove that all the eye witnesses were mistaken and the guy on the scene hallucinated the wreckage and human parts?



Any slight variance in size could be accounted for by the well documented effects of wide-angle lens distortion. I don't imagine the optics in a CCTV camera are going to be up to much cop.

 

[mauvais]

Only a complete tool would attach any significance and start coming up with any kind of claim based on what must be about ten pixels. Give up.

 

[WouldBe]

FFS: are you still desperately trying to prove that all the eye witnesses were mistaken and the guy on the scene hallucinated the wreckage and human parts?



Any slight variance in size could be accounted for by the well documented effects of wide-angle lens distortion. I don't imagine the optics in a CCTV camera are going to be up to much cop.

Jazzz et al wouldn't be convinced if you took them back in a time machine and stood them on the lawn to watch it happen.

 

[astronaut]

If someone can point me to a scaled map showing the impact path and the location of the camera, I can build a scale 3d model and see just how big a 757 really would look.

Google Earth plus some satellite images of the Pentagon after the crash.

 

[astronaut]

I don't agree at all - it looks much fatter to me. You have drawn red lines that are within the 757 rather than outside it! However these are different lenses a proper size comparison is going to have to involve a more complicated calculation.

The bottomline is:

The two planes/objects are of a similar size.

Any differences can be explained by lens differences, distance, angles, etc.

I therefore conclude that it was not a fighter jet or a missile that crashed into the Pentagon.

It was an object very similar in size to a 757, as proven by this comparison.

 

[editor]

I don't imagine for a second that conspiraloons would be interested in taking the word of a suitably qualified expert putting his reputation on the line over that of an anonymous loon posting up wild fact-free theories on some dodgy website, but here goes:

Realizing that people like Kilsheimer might be disbelieved because of his establishment credentials, the New American turned to retired-Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, U.S. Air Force, one of the world's leading missile and military explosives experts and a man, who, as the New American relates, "has proven his independence and willingness to challenge cover-ups in the past."

"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide.

That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning.

The aluminum cylinder - the plane fuselage - is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

 

[aylee]

aylee you are a twat aren't you?

Better than being a paranoid fuckwit.

 

[schmoo]

9.11 eye witness

I just saw a preview of '9.11 Eyewitness' by Rick Siegel. He is the New York independent film maker who took footage of the whole attack from across the Hunson River. I've been a skeptic re the 'theories', but I have to say this film which forensically analyses the footage Siegel took is the most convincing evidence of something fishy going on I have seen so far. As for the Pentagon film - now I'm convinced it was a missile!

 

[axon]

As for the Pentagon film - now I'm convinced it was a missile!

Did you really need the film to be convinced?

 

[WouldBe]

I just saw a preview of '9.11 Eyewitness' by Rick Siegel. He is the New York independent film maker who took footage of the whole attack from across the Hunson River. I've been a skeptic re the 'theories', but I have to say this film which forensically analyses the footage Siegel took is the most convincing evidence of something fishy going on I have seen so far. As for the Pentagon film - now I'm convinced it was a missile!

If it was something as small as a missile then nothing would show on the film as it would be too small to register at that distance.