Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Aw thanks Boo, now if you could just instruct me how to get that cute little picture into the right slot here, I might consider installing it. :tsu:

As for the photogrammetry and Cz, HE was the one who brought the subject up, not I. He accused me of not knowing what it was, through innuendo suggesting that HE did know about it.

I cannot do the photogrammetry and never claimed that I could, just like I can't draw pictures like you guys can.

Though I cannot use the computer to do it, I certainly understand what it is, having taken 2 semesters of drafting classes back in the day before AUTOCAD and such.

My guess is that Cz prefers NOT to follow up on his suggestion for the simple fact that a proper drawing would show that whatever the object is, it is NOT a 757. :yes: If anybody could do that here, it offers 2 opportunities--to settle the question once and for all, and to make me look bad. So with all these mad computer skills present, NOBODY can settle this?

Typical "I can't defend my opinion so I'm going to try to reverse the burden if proof back on those who are asking me to prove my point with actual evidence and hope that it's distraction enough so that they won't notice that I'm completely dodging the question and avoiding all responsibility to prove my point" garbage we've all come to expect from you, BR. You're nothing if not consistent... So, really, I guess that's all you've got going for you...

Let's look at how it all actually went down:

BR, you started this all off by claiming this:

The tail is waaayyyy too short MID.

I asked you to supply some evidence to support your claim:

Lets see the photogrammetrical analysis you did to come to that conclusion.

And please, no "My life experience tells me it was too short" bs... I want to see your math on this.

Since you claimed that the tail was too small based only on the evidence at hand, the logical assumption to make is that you have actually done the math to support that claim. In this case, a photogrammatical study of that photo is what would be required to validate your claim.

Instead you played the "life experience" card yet again:

I've been watching airplanes for most of my life, happily. And helicopters, and anything else that goes through the air.

I've seen Boeings low level, and other big airplanes. The tail was mostly what was seen, because of its vertical span, and whatever tail that was, it wasn't a 757 tail.

This us another typical BR dodge which means that you have NOTHING to back up your claim and you are just pulli g it out of your backside.

I replied and once again asked that you provide actual proof of your assertion:

I've lived with in virtual spitting distance of Vancouver International Airport for all my 44 years of life and have also watched airplanes, helicopters, military aircraft, private jets, small aircraft for most of my life as well.

That does not make me an expert in photogrammetry, or photo interpretation.

NOR DOES IT CONFER THAT EXPERTISE ON YOU.

What part of "And please, no "My life experience tells me it was too short" bs..." didn't you understand...?

Show us your math that proves your contention that, based solely on the photo, the tail was too short.

Show us your work. Take this opportunity to prove us all wrong by PROVING WHAT YOU SAY with... you know... ACTUAL PROOF...

From this point on you basically ignored the issue, dodged, bobbed and weaves away from your responsibilty to support your claim, and then started down that "let's turn this back on them so that they hopefully. Ant see how fast I'm running away from this topic" track in another thread where you started claiming it was now my responsibility to prove you wrong:

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

And when I replied to you with the post I quoted here earlier today, you reverted back to your hypocritical ways by trying to claim that I was responsible for going off-topic:

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

LG and Q have developed this into the most functional thread here, and I am enjoying reading it. :innocent:

So.... Here we are,BR... Back where we started, in the thread where you brought this topic to light, and we can plainly see by the posts I've quoted here that this is most assuredly your claim and most assuredly YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM.

It's been almost 3 weeks of dancing, avoiding and hand waving on your part. Time to be a man and provide the evidence or admit that you once again cannot back up your claim.

Man up one way or another, BR. It will gain YOU a minuscule iota of credibility that you so very much need...

Cz

(posting from my iPhone so I won't be correcting any typos or autocorrect errors)

Edited by Czero 101
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

.

One wonders how such a video, an assemblage of uh...knowledgeable and erudite folks like Rosie O'Donnell ( :cry: ) and Charlie Sheen ( :td::cry: ) c an be taken as something serious.

Especially when the mathematical geniuses decide to talk about the Scripps-Howard Poll which was taken from 1010 adults showed that 36% of Americans believe that 9-11 was an inside job (or some variant).

It actually showed nothing resembling what they said.

It allegedly showed that 360 of their 1,010 pollees thought so.

Where they were from, what their political affiliations are, their ages and their involvement with 9-11-01 aren't known, so the sample is valueless, but to say that 108 MILLION Americans feel the same way is ludicroous, a deliberate stretch, and a ridiculous conclusion to reach mathematically.

Besides, it's just disturbing to think that 108 million Americans hold the brainless and ill-thought- out views of O'Donnell and Sheen!

:no::cry: Say it ain't so! :td: :td:

It should be easy to see why I think this entire issue is a crock of baseless nonsense.

No proof of a single allegation. And the failure of rational and critical thought, as well as lack of subject matter knowledge...

But it is not easy to see why many people seem to hold such a view of things.

A complex issue involving attitudes that go pretty far back into their pasts.

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A complex issue involving attitudes that go pretty far back into their pasts.

MID...I absolutely agree that it is a complex issue......the whole thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post an equally enhanced photo of the same area when the plane is not there for comparison?

Here's what I came up with today:

Pent2Close.jpg

Pent3Close.jpg

Hope they help.

ETA: I should've read through the thread first, others have beat me to it.

Thanks for the welcomes everyone.

Edited by ADDIS77
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither you nor anybody else has made the case that a 757 crashed there. We all agree that something crashed there, but the pictures from the parking lot camera, the presumed subject of this thread, does not prove anything except that the identity of the flying object cannot be determined.

Considering your long past record of making things up as you go, I have to say that you made that up too, because the wreckage lying around outside and inside the Pentagon proves that the aircraft was a B-757 in the markings of American Airlines, along with confirmation by American Airlines, operator of American 77 on the loss of American 77, pretty much sums it up that you have been making things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: I should've read through the thread first, others have beat me to it.

Not at all, you provided two side by side color close-ups with as good of quality as there can be from the footage. Well done ADDIS! :tu:

They demonstrate that clearly an aircraft was captured on the security cameras.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video is right on the money because B-757 wreckage was recovered from outside and inside the Pentagon, and the C-130 pilot identified the aircraft as a B-757 before it struck the Pentagon, and of course, American Airlines confirmed the loss of Americn 77 at the Penagon as well.

bolded for emphasis

Yes, the pilot of the C-130 (GOFER 06) did report that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was a 757. Below is a you tube video that contains the actual recording if anyone is interested, it's runtime is 3 min. and 18 seconds.

[media=]

[/media]

The recording is actually two separate channels spliced together. They are Washington Departure and Reagan Tower. It needs to be pointed out that the guy saying "it went into the Pentagon, it looks like it went into the Pentagon" is a controller in the tower. The actual impact point at the Pentagon is not visible from the tower. However, the eastern half of the Pentagon is visible from that location and anyone who is a proponent of the flyover theory will have to explain how he missed a 757 from 1.2 miles away.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one is talking about revealing every video....just ONE would do...or even a short series of stills.

I have to say that a video is not required to prove that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon. Look at this crash site. There are no videos, so how was it determined the crash site was that of a Caspian Airlines, Tu-154?

image.jpg

We have videos of United 175 crashing into WTC2 and yet, there are 9/11 CT folks caling it a military aiircraft shooting a missile at WTC2, while others say it was a drone with a pod attached benearth the fuselage.

With comments like that, it is clear that if a clear video of American 77 was produced, they would simply say that the aircraft was a crop duster dusting crops in the Sahara desert in Kansas City that somehow got lost in a fog over San Francisco in 1956.

The debris, the DNA, the eyewitnesses, the released official info about the Pentagon on 9/11...could all be falsified if it

had to be.

There is no way to plant debris and play it off as the airframe of American 77. Many of those parts lying around the Pentagon have part numbers on them, and certain part and stock numbers can reveal the service history of a particular part, the mechanic who installed the part, the location of installation, the installation date, manufacturer, and the name and number of the inspectors.

The Air Force tried to coverup the crash of a F-117 stealth fighter near Bakersfield, CA, but it didn't work and the attempted coverup set off alarm bells in the aviation community. Many of those part numbers can be used to trace the history of an aircraft.

The absence of photographic evidence, when it's obvious that there WOULD be photographic evidence..

We have photo evidence of B-757 wreckage lying around outside and inside the Pentagon, in addition to downed light poles along with strutural damage within the building.

911plane-video.jpg

is a problem.....but showing some..

could swing it in favour of the government.Not providing the photographic evidence, if it exists, is shooting yourself in

the foot.

Apparently, we have many clear photos of B-757 wreckage.

b757debrisquestion.png

comparisonimagenasa757p.jpg

pentwtcplanedebriscomp.jpg

pennydebriscopy.jpg

Flight_77_plane_debris_American_Airlines.png

Flight_77_plane_debris_American_Airlines_wide.jpg

debris2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the eastern half of the Pentagon is visible from that location and anyone who is a proponent of the flyover theory will have to explain how he missed a 757 from 1.2 miles away.

I'll be surprised if Gofer 06 isn't implicated as a government shill of some kind... Perhaps something about how you can't trust the government and military because there have been documented cases where people involved with the government and military were less than honest. Just wait. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bolded for emphasis

Yes, the pilot of the C-130 (GOFER 06) did report that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was a 757. Below is a you tube video that contains the actual recording if anyone is interested, it's runtime is 3 min. and 18 seconds.

[media=]

[/media]

The recording is actually two separate channels spliced together. They are Washington Departure and Reagan Tower. It needs to be pointed out that the guy saying "it went into the Pentagon, it looks like it went into the Pentagon" is a controller in the tower. The actual impact point at the Pentagon is not visible from the tower. However, the eastern half of the Pentagon is visible from that location and anyone who is a proponent of the flyover theory will have to explain how he missed a 757 from 1.2 miles away.

Thanks!! :tu:

The C-130 pilot visually confirms the aircraft was a B-757 and reports the aircraft imacts the Pentagon and despite that report, and B-757 wreckage lying around, there are still folks who continue to claim there is no evidence the aircraft was a B-757.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

Apparently, we have many clear photos of B-757 wreckage.

*snipped the pics too*

Good stuff sky, I hadn't seen some of these pictures. Where did you find this stuff if I may ask?

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be surprised if Gofer 06 isn't implicated as a government shill of some kind... Perhaps something about how you can't trust the government and military because there have been documented cases where people involved with the government and military were less than honest. Just wait. :rolleyes:

I heard that!! They say, 'less than honest,' and yet, take a look at the websites they use as references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that!! They say, 'less than honest,' and yet, take a look at the websites they use as references.

Indeed, I couldn't agree more. :yes:

You can find them here.

http://s1.zetaboards...opic/3390578/1/

Thanks sky, that is quite a find. I thought I'd seen all of the available pictures of debris. Just goes to show that you can learn something new every day. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, from your link Sky...

Hadn't seen this clip before. I wonder if there is more footage like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be surprised if Gofer 06 isn't implicated as a government shill of some kind... Perhaps something about how you can't trust the government and military because there have been documented cases where people involved with the government and military were less than honest. Just wait. :rolleyes:

The only pushback I've ever received about that recording was from Aldo at CIT. He claims all evidence that originated from the government has been faked. And we all know why he says that.

No other conspiracy theorist has really commented one way or the other. We'll see how it goes here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be surprised if Gofer 06 isn't implicated as a government shill of some kind... Perhaps something about how you can't trust the government and military because there have been documented cases where people involved with the government and military were less than honest. Just wait. :rolleyes:

Im still waiting for the "liar liar pants on fire" argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only pushback I've ever received about that recording was from Aldo at CIT. He claims all evidence that originated from the government has been faked. And we all know why he says that.

No other conspiracy theorist has really commented one way or the other. We'll see how it goes here.

Now that we've talked about it, perhaps the accusation won't come. But I guarantee you that at least one ( and probably more than that ) will certainly think it.

Im still waiting for the "liar liar pants on fire" argument.

Yep, me too :P

BR_bobblehead_157x261.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the pictures you bring up make me laugh Sky. This is your evidence?

That's right!!

A red arrow with a "?" next to it? I can see the high quality investigation paid for itself! :lol:

Considering that I KNOW it is part of a B-757, and you didn't, makes it is obvious you don't get the last laugh in this case, you didn't recognize the part. Now, what do you see in the fan section aft of the fan blades in the lower diagram?

rb211-535_2.jpg

Cut-away of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan

What part is the arrow pointing that you will find in the diagram above?

b757debrisquestion.png

Here is a closer look.

pentwtcplanedebriscomp.jpg

It was rather silly of you to make such comments, not knowing the significance of what that picture represented, because you didn't know that the part came from the engine model used by American 77!!

Now, look at the imagery of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine behind the fan blades and tell us what do you see. Sometimes you crack my side!

I've got your picture and know that you are just here to 'clown around' and nothing else! :lol::w00t:

clownwithsuspenders.gif

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the pictures you bring up make me laugh Sky. This is your evidence? A red arrow with a "?" next to it? I can see the high quality investigation paid for itself! :lol:

I think its time for you to learn a little lesson since it is very clear you do not have knowledge of jet engines as noted by your silly remarks. I recognized the part as a stator, which you made very clear that you lacked the knowledge, so I am willing to spend a little time to educate you a bit on some facts since my shop was involved in maintenance and repair of jet engine components and other things, and in fact, I am adding an attachment of a photo I took in my shop of a stator we repaired from a General Electric TF-39C engine that powers the Air Force's C-5 transport. I regularly took photos for record purposes in my files.

First of all, examine the following diagram of a typical fan jet engine and take notes on the fan section.

CF6-6_engine_cutaway.jpg

Now, let's take a look at the next diagram. Can you tell us where the fan stator is located? Could it be behind the N1 compressor fan blades and surrounding the N2 compressor?

preview_html_33feddf9.jpg

Now, review the following to understand basically what a stator looks like.

preview_html_30f817a9.jpg

There are stators located within the compression section as well.

preview_html_m1f0fe25b.jpg

205Lower%20fan%20stator.jpg

However, I am talking about the fan stator.

2761868022_13a318582f_z.jpg

TF39 engine

So let's do another review of the Pentagon photo.

b757debrisquestion.png

Now, what can you tell us about that stator in the Pentagon photo with the question mark? Apparently, the person who placed the question mark was unaware of what it was, and so did you until now!!

post-32948-0-73927200-1345711084_thumb.j

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that a video is not required to prove that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Under the circumstances......ie.millions of people believing the US government committed mass murder and high treason

against it's own citizens...

I think it is required....

There is no way to plant debris and play it off as the airframe of American 77. Many of those parts lying around the Pentagon have part numbers on them, and certain part and stock numbers can reveal the service history of a particular part, the mechanic who installed the part, the location of installation, the installation date, manufacturer, and the name and number of the inspectors.

Sky....are there any bits of debris you can show that has been 100% identified as being flight 77...with the numbers on them?

and I mean 100%

cheers

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought this image from the security shack camera was fairly compelling:

77-1.jpg

Here's what I came up with today:

Pent2Close.jpg

Pent3Close.jpg

Hope they help.

ETA: I should've read through the thread first, others have beat me to it.

Thanks for the welcomes everyone.

ADDIS.....the second picture you posted has the same problem as the first...in that the 'engine'.....in front of the 'white trail'

is not in the right position.

It is much too close to the 'tail'......and should be more central.

picture of 757-223 for comparison (provided by booN on first page of thread)

http://www.airliners...b83c6bd81834d78

Did you get your two later pics, above, from booNs post on the first page....?

I'm asking because when you right click 'properties on your images the address actually contains the word boon.... :mellow:

If you did then you should give booN some credit....:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADDIS.....the second picture you posted has the same problem as the first...in that the 'engine'.....in front of the 'white trail'

is not in the right position.

It is much too close to the 'tail'......and should be more central.

picture of 757-223 for comparison (provided by booN on first page of thread)

http://www.airliners...b83c6bd81834d78

Actually bee, the plane is coming in at an angle, not directly side on, as frenat mentioned to you before.

Last week I did some hunting around on airliners.net to try to find a closer match to a 757-223 at the correct angle, and I came up with a list of some at varying degrees for comparison. Haven't had the time to pull in the best fit yet, but here is a sampling of a few I looked at:

2121593

2103650

2082427

2043179

1980103

1966517

1935813

1910624

1799553

1744954

1720844

1720541

Some of these are at too sharp of an angle, and some at not enough of an angle, and several are facing the wrong direction so would need to be horizontally flipped for comparison.

I went for some with a slightly raised perspective to try to find something representative of the left wing being lower than the right wing, as it was for 77 on approach to impact.

Did you get your two later pics, above, from booNs post on the first page....?

I'm asking because when you right click 'properties on your images the address actually contains the word boon.... :mellow:

If you did then you should give booN some credit.... :)

That's funny, but I'm sure it is just a coincidence. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bolded for emphasis

Yes, the pilot of the C-130 (GOFER 06) did report that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was a 757. Below is a you tube video that contains the actual recording if anyone is interested, it's runtime is 3 min. and 18 seconds.

[media=]

[/media]

The recording is actually two separate channels spliced together. They are Washington Departure and Reagan Tower. It needs to be pointed out that the guy saying "it went into the Pentagon, it looks like it went into the Pentagon" is a controller in the tower. The actual impact point at the Pentagon is not visible from the tower. However, the eastern half of the Pentagon is visible from that location and anyone who is a proponent of the flyover theory will have to explain how he missed a 757 from 1.2 miles away.

just had a look at this video on YT site and I see the uploader is boone870....the same name as on the address for your pentagon 'plane' images...

so maybe you should have given YOURSELF credit for being the uploader of this vid..... :P

http://www.youtube.com/user/boone870

popular name....boon

:yes:

;)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually bee, the plane is coming in at an angle, not directly side on, as frenat mentioned to you before.

yes I know that according to the Official Flight Path....the plane is said to come in at an angle...

but it is clear that on the Traffic Cams the 'plane' is more or less horizontal....and the angle is not enough to push the

engine back that far.

Look at the blue line on the alleged fuselage....and the position of the 'nose'

Also on the images that you have kindly provided of all the 757-223s...it looks like the top line of the fuselage would also be angled

for the plane to rotate to the required angle for the engine to be so far back?.

And on the Traffic Cam one there isn't any angle to the top of the fuselage.

but thanks for the 757-223 pics... :)

That's funny, but I'm sure it is just a coincidence. :tu:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

:tu:

:D

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.