It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 25
1
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   


I think it's better, can you give out a pic with the hole in the pentagon, I am curios how many floors were afected, any way you can see that no matter where you put the aircraft near the pentagon it wont mejure more than 1 floor.




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
The lines still arn't meeting, they go off into the sky! LOL but it's better anyway.
Actually, sorry, I forgot about the curved effect caused by the fish eye view from the camera, something else to bear in mind when analysing any aspect of it.
This might help give you an idea of size (it is NOT meant to show how the damage was caused it is PURELY a size comparison.)



[edit on 19-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   

I cant tell , do you got other pictures with people near the pentagon from far away?
I wanted to see the hole also alone with out the plane, were 2 floors afected were 3 afected?... right after impact.
scaling people near the pentagon and then seeing how many people takes to get a 757's hight would help.
Okay so how many people one on the others added would take to have the hight of the 757, but just the body with out the tail and gears?



[edit on 19-5-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
The men are closer to the camera and it really isn't very accurate. All I did was measure the height of the Pentagon on the screen, divide it by the height in feet (approx 77) and times the result by the height of the 757 from wheel to tail which is 44.5'
Then scaled the 757 image so it was the correct height proportionally.

Here are more photos:

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

anderson.ath.cx:8000...

www.criticalthrash.com...



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
More photos here to:

911research.wtc7.net...

Here's one with people stood next to the Pentagon as requested:

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
Security cameras don't record 1 frame per second.[/qyite]

Um, yes they do. I had one in our store that recorded 1 frame per second. It was programmed to go from 1 frame per second to as much as 30 fps. But that would have required us to swithc out tapes every hour.


there's cameras all over the freaking place.... even head on!


And your point?

Beyond that I didn't say the cameras were recording 1 fps. I ASKED why no one has addressed the fact that the CAMERA at the gate had a "fish eye" lens to it and why those "theorist" NEVER take into the fact that fish eyed lens cameras, DISTORT size and distance vastly.

Or did NO one watch the video as the security/police car passed in front of it?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Here's another size comparison pic to put things in perspective:



I used the height of 5' 9" for the policeman(?) as it is my height which is about average I believe.

EDIT:

Reference for 757 dimensions:

www.757.org.uk...

[edit on 19-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here's another size comparison pic to put things in perspective:



I used the height of 5' 9" for the fireman as it is my height which is about average I believe.

EDIT:

Reference for 757 dimensions:

www.757.org.uk...

[edit on 19-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

So the body of the plane is no more biger than a floor of the pentagon with out the gears and tail of course.

I dont think they had the gears on and how much would the tail leave as a mark?

I dont know if the scale of the plane that you made is correct

[edit on 19-5-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Having just flown in a 757 just this past weekend, its really unbelievable at how a small plane like that can be able to fly vast distances over water and land.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Here you go, as you can see the door is slightly shorter than the people.



Looking at this image with caption:



Eastern Airlines ground attendant Nancy Ballard's inability to open the passenger door of a 757 led to its redesign. According to Ballard, the door still is difficult to maneuver without assistance from inside the plane. She is 5 feet, 4 inches and weighs 115 pounds.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

The door appears to be about the same height as her if she stood straight.

This image should help with an idea of scale too:




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
is this correct, I belive it is.



So it is larger than one floor,the body it's self is biger than 1 floor with out the tail and the gears.
Looking at that thing that does not even mejure 1 floor it's improper to say it's a 757.
I am now convinced almost 100% it was not a 757.
Note while the nose may not be round the rest of the body of the plane is always round like a circle, I didint draw in 3d but that will do.
I might messed up only by a little an inch, it makes no difference it's above first floor.





This is not even half of the floor in hight , it's no 757.


[edit on 19-5-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Not really, the image where he is standing out of the cockpit is taken from the ground looking up and from the side, so it's misleading in that respect. That's why I posted the images of the side view with door as a comparison. The woman is 5' 4" and if she stood straight then she would be about the same height as the door, maybe a little more even. When you compare the side view you can see that the size of the door therefore corresponds with the height of the people on the ground.

The measurements are what they are and not really disputable. At the end of the day the fuselage is 12' 4" across so it's the same as two people 6' standing on each other and only 4" to spare.

Here's a demo of how your version is way to big:



So it's about 2.5 policeman in length LOL
If that policeman was only 5' 9" tall then your aircraft would be 14.38" wide, if the guy is 6' tall (which looks likely compared to the others) the aircraft would be 15' wide.
It's not, it's 12' 4" wide.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by agentsmith



I don't understand why you put the 77 foot marker way back on the building where it's curving from the fisheyed lense in this picture. Shouldn't we be measuring at the point of impact (i.e. the wall in front of the nose in this picture)?

I'm not good with posting pictures and manipulating them. Man, I should start learning how to do this stuff....anyway, could someone rescale this picture to where the measurement of 77 feet is in front of the plane and not so far back it looks smaller? Then could you resize the 757 to that scale and show us what you've come up with? I'll start trying myself but I'm not promising. I'm willing to bet that if we do this, the new scaled 757 will not be as small as shown.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here you go, as you can see the door is slightly shorter than the people.



1 No the dor is not shorter than the man, it never was , pasangers get out of airlines with out bending over, i'm sure of it, it's as big as the man, I just scaled that police oficer to the dor of the plane and it reaches his sholders, so the plane in this image is not corectly scaled, put a man in the cockpit , you would see that he would hit the sealing with his head.

2 you didint align the plane to the correct ground level, you need to align it from where the wall starts , right now that plane is like buried in the ground, if you want to mejure it correct you need to put it where the ground and wall meet.

Do that and you will see you will reach my mejurments


[edit on 19-5-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Uh it is level with the person I was using as a comparison, don't forget about perspective.


No the dor is not shorter than the man, it never was , pasangers get out of airlines with out bending over, i'm sure of it, it's as big as the man,


Well, I have to bend down slightly when going in some aircraft, and did you miss this photo:




Eastern Airlines ground attendant Nancy Ballard's inability to open the passenger door of a 757 led to its redesign. According to Ballard, the door still is difficult to maneuver without assistance from inside the plane. She is 5 feet, 4 inches and weighs 115 pounds.
seattletimes.nwsource.com...


She's only 5' 4" for Gods sake and she might just get in without stooping down. Most men are around 6'.

Here's a different comparison for you then:


The first-story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows. The concrete walls have 5 by 7 ft openings for windows and include columns built in as pilasters, corresponding to column locations below, and girders reinforced within the wall.
www.pubs.asce.org...




Looks like I drew the plane a little big almost looking at it that way. But as I drew it compared to the people who are closer than the wall, it will look large when using the windows as a comparison as they are further away.

But I still fail to understand how you think you're comparison was correct? I showed you quite clearly that (using the same man as you did) the plane would be several feet too large, unless the policeman was a midget of course and everyone else smaller still.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
AgentSmith, what are your credentials? Why should anyone accept your drawings as fact?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I don't understand why you put the 77 foot marker way back on the building where it's curving from the fisheyed lense in this picture. Shouldn't we be measuring at the point of impact (i.e. the wall in front of the nose in this picture)?


Uh, you understand that regardless of any lense effects the proportion between the height of the building and the height of the aircraft will be the same right?
So no matter what effect the lense is causing, the aircraft will always stay the same size in comparison, right?
Judging by the smoke from later shots that is the approximate point of impact, so that is the height of that area to use as a reference? Otherwise we may as well just take a measurement in the foreground, draw a stonkin great big plane in and say to hell with it.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leto
AgentSmith, what are your credentials? Why should anyone accept your drawings as fact?


Err, because it's obvious - I'm sure most people possess the basic skills necessary to see for themselves.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Leto
AgentSmith, what are your credentials? Why should anyone accept your drawings as fact?


Err, because it's obvious - I'm sure most people possess the basic skills necessary to see for themselves.


No, it's not obvious. I would like to know what your credentials are before I take your drawings seriously.

Also, I don't know if you noticed or not but the picture of the woman entering the door dates back to the early 1980's, do you honestly expect us to believe that no renovations were made, that the door was never resized after that image was taken?

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Leto]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith


Uh, you understand that regardless of any lense effects the proportion between the height of the building and the height of the aircraft will be the same right?
So no matter what effect the lense is causing, the aircraft will always stay the same size in comparison, right?
Judging by the smoke from later shots that is the approximate point of impact, so that is the height of that area to use as a reference? Otherwise we may as well just take a measurement in the foreground, draw a stonkin great big plane in and say to hell with it.


After looking closer at the picture and the video showing the blast, I think we are both wrong. The blast looks like it is around midway of the plane in your picture. That would still make the new scaled 757 bigger than what has been shown. Also, this doesn't negate your assumption that the object shown could be a 757. What I mean is that the object shown could look alot smaller than it is because of the fisheye lense. I think that is what someone was getting at earlier. Remember, "objects in mirror may look farther than they really are". That statement is written on all sideview mirrors because of the fisheye affect. So, the object could really be a 757 that looks smaller due to fisheyeism.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join