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

No definitive proof IN EITHER DIRECTION, Bee. And that is the problem.

The real problem for the 9/11 CT folks lies in the fact that there are clear photos of B-757 wreckage in the markings of American Airlines lying around the Pentagon.

In addition, there is black box data, radar data, communication transcripts, eyewitness accounts of an airliner striking the Pentagon, and if they wanted further evidence that will stand up in any court, all they have to do is to start pulling flight and maintenance records for the airframe of American 77 to trace its flight history right up the day of the 9/11 attacks and of course, records pertaining to recovered human remains of crew and passengers of American 77.

As you and others have mentioned. it would seem there are many many ways this issue could be resolved by the authorities. The most conclusive would be some photographic evidence...

We have photographic evidence already.

...and proffering the physical evidence of aircraft debris up for inspection by neutral parties.

May I suggest they contact the operator of American 77?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am willing to admit that i may be wrong about the "point of impact" comments,

:tu:

but i stand by my comment that;

1. You can see the pentagon

And I stand by mine that you cannot see the Pentagon. Here's why:

Here we have a screen cap of Google Maps showing the vicinity around the Doubletree and the Pentagon.

penta1.jpg

The image has been reduced in size to 80% of it original size in order to be a bit more "forum friendly". The map scale can be seen at the bottom left of the map. At full size, the scale shows that 2cm is equal to 500 feet (or 1 inch equal to 200 meters).

The Green dashed line points in the direction from the approximate location of the camera to the part of the Pentagon that is nearest to the Doubletree

The Blue Arrow indicates that point on the building.

The Red Arrow indicates where the sightline to the closest point of the Pentagon is blocke by the Hwy. 395 overpass.

Here is a screen cap of the Doubletree video. It is the same image I used in my previous post on this topic, but with the indicator arrows changed.

dtree_pent_2b.jpg

The Red Arrow indicates the approximate point at which the sightline to the closest point of the Pentagon is blocked by the Hwy. 395 overpass.

In my previous post on this topic I estimated that the height of the overpass to be approximately 30 feet. There's a chance its higher than that, but we'll stick with my original estimate.

Based on the scale of the map discussed at the start of this post, it can be estimated that the overpass is roughly 500 feet away from the Doubltree, and that the Pentagon is approximately another 1,350 feet beyond the nearest point of the overpass along the direct sightline.

To illustrate:

penta2.jpg

(CLICK FOR FULL SIZE IMAGE)

Please excuse the crudity of the image above, but it is to scale with 1 pixel equal to 2 feet.

The Green box in the lower left corner represents the Doubltree's camera, which I also earlier estimated to be approximately 10 feet off the ground.

The Blue rectangle indicates the Hwy. 395 overpass (which is roughly 300 - 400 feet wide around the point indicated, I have represented it as being 350 feet wide as a compromise)

The Red rectangle represents the Pentagon, which we know to be 77 feet tall. I have represented it as being 78 feet in the illustration for convenience.

The Yellow area indicates the area behind the Overpass that would be blocked from the Doubletree camera's view.

As you can see, the Pentagon is well within the blocked area.

Again the image above is a crude representation, and the measurements are made from Google Maps, so they may not be 100% accurate. But even if my estimations are grossly out of line, the most you could possibly see would be the top few feet of the roof of the Pentagon, and that is only if the video footage was of sufficient quality to allow details that small to be clearly identified.

2. you can see the explosion

Completely agree.

3. you cannot see any airplane

Completely agree.

This means that the aircraft must have flown at an altitude of (approx) 100-150 feet off the ground, whilst flying over the "spaghetti" junction, which itself must be at least 30-40 feet of the ground.

As I indicated in my previous post about this, the Columbia Pike cloverleaf interchange (the "spaghetti" junction, as you call it) that Flt. 77 flew over is at ground level although it does follow the elevating contour of the ground to meet Route 27. This can be shown by using the Street View option in Google Maps.

Route 27, which crosses over the Columbia Pike is elevated roughly 20 - 25 feet. This can be shown by using the Street View option in Google Maps, and estimations of the Route 27 overpass can be made based on known or knowable heights of objects shown in the Street View.

Hwy 395 also passes over Route 27 just a little bit south of the cloverleaf. Again, all of this is easily seen by anyone who knows how to use Google Maps Street View.

Flt. 77's approach is known to be on the west side of Hwy. 395. For Flt 77 to have hit the light poles that are on Hwy 27, it would only have to be about 10 feet above Route 27 which would put it at roughly 30 - 40 above ground level. That is low enough for it to have been blocked from the Doubletree camera's view, the same way that the Pentagon is blocked from its view.

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boeing2-1.jpg

see the black lines I've drawn in.......THAT angle

the Traffic Cam 'plane' fuselage...does not show the necessary angle...to have the engine so far back.

http://www.airliners...66855b8d14c505b

.

bee, the images can be rotated as well, so that the angle isn't as you've shown. Which is what I would do after I've found a good match for the expected perspective. I probably should have clarified that as well when I gave you the list this morning, but I was a bit rushed to get out the door.

And just to clarify, when I say 'rotated' I basically mean this:

post-105506-0-64361400-1345765053_thumb.

Though I would probably cut the plane out as well, to superimpose upon the background as comparison, similar to one of the GIFs that frenat showed earlier.

The whole point being to represent the actual perspective as close to accurately as possible.

Does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to clarify, when I say 'rotated' I basically mean this:

post-105506-0-64361400-1345765053_thumb.

Though I would probably cut the plane out as well, to superimpose upon the background as comparison, similar to one of the GIFs that frenat showed earlier.

The whole point being to represent the actual perspective as close to accurately as possible.

Does that make sense?

booN...you're having a laugh aren't you...?

no it doesn't make sense

you can't just rotate the PICTURE to get the plane how you want it to be....

and create a slope where there wasn't one before.

I think you are trying to bamboozle us.... naughty you.... :P

but it's late where I am so that's all for now....

cheers

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

Are you saying its not possible for the passport to have survived the impact and resulting fireball? Is it your contention that this is not possible, or without precedent for small paper items to survive catastrophic disasters...?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

I have to disagree. Are videos of Pan Am 103 or TWA 800 available? We have videos of United 175 striking WTC2, but can you read its tail number?

Let's begin here:

1. We have photo evidence at the Pentagon of B-757 wreckage

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

2. We have black box data from American 77

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbo1hyXsuQ&feature=related

3. We have evidence from passengers and crew of American 77.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight77.png

File:FirstFloor_Pentagon_Bodies.png

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_77_Manifest_b.jpg

4. We have the confirmation on the loss of American77 by American Airlines.

5. And fleet history of American Airlines, which depict the loss of American 11 and American 77

http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/American-Airlines

6. Flight path depiction of American 77.

American Airlines Flight 77 260px-Flightpath-AA77.gif

Since we know that American 77 used the Rolls-Royce RB11, investigators can follow-up on flight, maintenance, and replacement histories of the powerplants used by American 77, which is important because each engine can be tracked using its own identification number and only a certain number of those engines were built, so it is just a matter of using the 'process of elimination' to identify the engines recovered at the Pentagon. Let's use the following example. We have four engines, each painted a different color.

1. Red

2. Brown

3. Green

4. Blue

If an engine is missing and the red, green, and blue engines are accounted for, which engine is missing? We can also use B-757 airframes as well since only a certain number of B-757-200 models were built. In most cases, videos are not available in aircraft accidents. How was it determined this was the crash site of PSA 1771?

87crash.jpg

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%

No, but, there are ways I can determine the aircraft was American 77, and it only took me a few minutes to track down the first aircraft I've even flown, and that was back in 1969. That aircraft is now based in the State of Washington.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying its not possible for the passport to have survived the impact and resulting fireball? Is it your contention that this is not possible, or without precedent for small paper items to survive catastrophic disasters...?

what about you?

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

That would be what the evidence we have appears to support and I don't see any reason to doubt it.

Why do you ask?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpg

220px-Satam_al-Suqami_VISA.jpg

Suqami's Visa recovered from crash site

jarrah.jpg

About the next terrorist

Abdulaziz al-Omari

alomarispiegel.jpeg

AlOmarisApplication.gif

aa_flight_11_manifest.gif

http://www.911myths....ulaziz_al-Omari

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

what about you?

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about you?

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

Yes. In fact, documents can survive impacts. A case in point, a note recovered from the crash site of PSA 1771, was still readable despite the fact the aircraft struck the ground at a high rate of speed. Check it out.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4[/media]

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about you?

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

What about you Little Fish? Are you going to answer Cz's rather direct and straightforward post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about you Little Fish? Are you going to answer Cz's rather direct and straightforward post?

so you won't say whether or not you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you won't say whether or not you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi.

I answered you. Quit with your stupid game and answer Cz's question.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Darn, my small contribution to the thread is getting good mileage. :yes:

Sorry for the silence for the past few days. I've been in the hospital with a respiratory infection and am still not it great shape. Very light - if any - participation will continue until I can sit up at the computer for more than 5 minutes at a time ... and Meli's not here, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, please re-iterate your position.

my position is....that there is a cover up regarding what happened on 9/11...but that it wasn't an inside job.

And what I think is being covered up...(in brief)

***That the Twin Towers (and building 7) were brought down by some kind of Directed Energy Weapon,

...to protect the surrounding area from massive damage and flooding when the top of the South Tower

was on the brink of toppling over. The North Tower and Building 7 were affected and weakened by

the field effects of the molecular dis-association and it was deemed necessary to bring them down as well.

Damage limitation.

***that flights 93 and 77 were taken by remote control and shot down. Flight 93 to a rural location and flight 77

over the Atlantic.

While the terrorists were at the controls of the airliners...they would be treated as enemy aircraft and

dealt with as such. Again...damage limitation.

I think that after flight 175 hit it's target the Defense Departments took control of the situation.

The Pentagon is the most confusing part of the puzzle...but I think that something happened on the ground

and it was quickly decided to do a mock up of a 757 crash there....to cover up that flight 77 had had to be shot down.

The country was reeling from the events of the day and for political and public-relations reasons it was decided

to classify info about the shooting down of flights 93 and 77.

Ohhhh yummy, had that last night for dinner!

lol...yes my chicken curry that I made last night was yummy...although I say it myself.

Also, my apologies if I categorized you under the fly-over theorists. I must have mistaken you for other posters here, possibly lilqwerty as I remember him posting a ridiculously faked picture of a 757 flying over the Navy Barracks a long time back.

thanks and no problem.....

:tu:

@Kludge....wishing you a speedy recovery... :yes:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%

No,

thankyou

:)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is that roughly 5 degree angle supposed to represent?

And what does it have to do with the position of the engines?

I'm lost here.

I have to disagree again. It appears to me to be headed toward the camera, slightly If you were to rotate the aircraft clockwise on its vertical axis it would swing the left engine further forward and the right engine further back. Of course you would get the opposite effect if you rotated it counterclockwise that would make its left engine appear to be further back on the fuselage like we already see.

It isn't 'headed toward the camera slightly'......the fuselage is horizontal.

For the 'engine' to be visually pushed back towards the tail like it is....a (visually) angled fuselage is required.

You can't have one without the other......perspective-wise...

I have drawn a line to show you......

911planecloseupline-1.jpg

911closeuppentagon.jpg

for the 'engine' to be pushed back visually like it is....you would need an angle similar (maybe a little bit wider) to this...

boeing2-1.jpg

so what conclusions can we draw from this discrepancy?

the obvious one is that it is NOT a 757....maybe not a plane at all... ie. it's phtoshopped, utilising the blobs on the

'before' image...and creating the vague impression of a plane with a blue line down the fuselage.

The blue line came in handy because it served as a guide to show that it was not angled as it should be.... :)

this post is for you too booN

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...for the 'engine' to be pushed back visually like it is....you would need an angle similar (maybe a little bit wider) to this...

Or merely like this:

a4266702-241-2050_42_52---Thomas-Cook-Airlines-Boeing-757-28A-G-FCLB_web.jpg?d=1315509086

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I came up with today:

Pent2Close.jpg

Pent3Close.jpg

Hope they help.

the before and after frames where you can see how the blobs are utilised to create the (vague) impression of a plane

edit @ flying swan......good effort :).....but the traffic cam is parallel to the 'Pentagon Plane' and not to the front of it...(and a few yards away)

like the camera is on your pic of the Thomas Cook plane.

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what would that prove? As i suggested earlier, even if they provided the data plate from Boeing 757 c/n 24602, and the Rolls-Royce makers' plates from the two engines, and , i don't know, the microwave from the galley, wouldn't the response just be that "It may have all just been faked. It proves nothing."?

Well considering that they HAVE NOT fulfilled the conditions of your hypothetical, it remains a hypothetical, eh?

I mean, IF a frog had wings, would he fly? :st

It seems that is what your so-called argument is reduced to--an absurd statement of "well if the government did this or that, you would still say thus and so." Pretty sad 747, pretty sad. Yes, it's tough duty to be confined to defending the indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flying swan......good effort :).....but the traffic cam is parallel to the 'Pentagon Plane' and not to the front of it...(and a few yards away)

like the camera is on your pic of the Thomas Cook plane.

Check the geometry in the video in post #1632.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow bee, you have almost no grasp on perspective do you?

The picture you drew your angle on was shot from a raised perspective. In other words, the camera is above and to the front left of the taxiing aircraft. The Pentagon security camera image is from a lowered perspective, meaning that it is literally lower than Flight 77. Swanny's picture isn't just 'a good effort,' it is probably very close in terms of pitch and yaw. The only thing missing is the roll angle, which is precisely why I was looking for photos that were taken from slightly above the aircraft in order to simulate the appropriate roll after tilting the image to make the pitch match.

If these terms are unfamiliar to you, read here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that's missing is a Boeing 757... :gun:

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.