New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry, but I don't trust that Agent Smith's opinion of the perspective is correct.

That's because it isn't my opinion of the perspective, see my post above.

The 'plane' in the actual incident came in from a much different angle than this picture protrays so it's hard for me to buy that theory.
As it approached the Pentagon, the plane would have appeared to 'grow' in size if we could see the real thing, so I believe that picture is just very misleading.

It's not misleading in pointing out the gross exaggeration of the @truthseeker' GIF, see my post above. I completely agree with you on the perspective, hence this other image I put together in another thread, once again (and I'll try and make it clear so there is no misunderstanding).

This is not meant to be completely accurate, it is not the Gospel according to AgentSmith and it is an estimation of the coverage by the camera and the distance covered by the aircraft.

In fact, I'm leaning toward the Global Hawk-painted-with-the-right-colors theory...

Looks a little big for a Global Hawk, as well as the damage to the Pentagon being more consistant with a substatially larger object.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Looks a little big for a Global Hawk,

What? How can you tell how big it is? Don't take the time to answer that. I don't believe you can tell how big it is without precise mathmatical calculations.

...as well as the damage to the Pentagon being more consistant with a substatially larger object.

Yeah, that's real interesting. Why and how would anything impacting the outside wall of the Pentagon at ground level (leaving such a small hole, pre-collapse) do this to the interior walls 5 stories tall??



In my world, this is clear evidence of explosives planted to enhance the damage. The entire roofline (5 stories tall and through all 5 rings, when the 'plane' only went through 3) shows black 'burnt-looking' damage.

That image comes from here, which covers the Global Hawk theory pretty well.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What? How can you tell how big it is? Don't take the time to answer that. I don't believe you can tell how big it is without precise mathmatical calculations.

Bingo I'm glad someone else said it otherwise it would be disinfo, the same way you can't tell it's not too big to be a Global Hawk, the same was you can't tell it's too small to be an Airliner. The image is so distorted and low resolution it's useless - exactly like it's meant to be.

In my world, this is clear evidence of explosives planted to enhance the damage. The entire roofline (5 stories tall and through all 5 rings, when the 'plane' only went through 3) shows black 'burnt-looking' damage.

Purely speculation, but it may be something to do with the partioning between the sections and their ability to stop fire.

I just don't think anyone would take the risk of leaving behind military evidence.

It seems much more likely that if this event was orchestrated for maximum public and congressional support, they would be forced to use conventional aircraft.

For me, the question remains.

Did flight 77 have digital ground to air hijack recovery capabilites? Yes or No?
There must be some record of this in the engineering details.

If so, when was this capability last tested? And by whom?
There would also be records of which software they were using.

If there was a test, then there would be records of the up link.

This is why I think we might want access to the most recent flight 77 maintenance records.

While the Global Hawk theory answers remote control capabilites, it seems that too many
people would be involved to fly one over Washington D.C.

How many people would it take to overide a hijacked plane with those ground to air capabilties?

BH,

There were fires on the roofs that burnt for several days after the initial impact/explosion.

STUBBORN ROOF FIRES

Back at the Pentagon on September 12, Captain Defina worked with airport firefighters on extinguishing the stubborn roof fires.

"It was very labor intensive," he said. "The work really beat on you. The roof is layers of slate shingles, sheet metal, wood, wood supports and concrete. You can only imagine what it took to get into that."

The majority of damage [burnt areas] that is seen on the roofs occured after the initial impact.

[edit: ex tags]



[edit on 5/21/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
The majority of damage [burnt areas] that is seen on the roofs occured after the initial impact.

ok, but why were the fires there? Why were they confined to there? WHy not in the inner walls?

The fires were there due to the wide expanse of the initial ignition fireball I imagine, and the spread to the other sections/sides would be stopped by the standard divisions and fire prevention measures in place. Obviously a lot in that section will have been damaged by the initial blast, which may have damaged some of the walls/doors in place within a given area allowing the fire to spread more effectively in that area. But the furthest reaches seperating the damaged section from the rest would probably be unaffected.
I can only speculate on the construction methods used in the sections seperating the various sides of the Pentagon, but it may not be unreasonable to think that they are significantly different to the areas which make up each side and perhaps better at preventing the spread of fire.

EDIT To Add:

The roof sections that they had a problem putting out with can be distinguised by the difference in colouring from the rest of the structure I believe.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Agentsmith good job on those photos you just did. I went shopping and had that on my to do list when I got home even worked on part of it using Google earth. Thankfully I checked the more recent posts to find you had already done what I intended to do Whew I could have wasted lots of time had I not checked

Very good representation and there is a measuring tool within Google earth if you are not aware of it. Width of pentagon face is approximately 900 ft corner to corner.

If I can find a 757 parked at a airport gate I plane on taking an overhead at 2000ft and one of the pentagon from 2000ft then overlay the 757 which will give a good representation of actual scale and size of aircraft although the one you had in the lower corner is pretty darn close from what I can see.

Better than that you can get the dimensions from Boeing website here:

www.boeing.com...

It's wingspan is 124' 10".
So the wingspan will be about 0.625 x the length of one of the 200' divisions.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Better than that you can get the dimensions from Boeing website here:

www.boeing.com...

It's wingspan is 124' 10".
So the wingspan will be about 0.625 x the length of one of the 200' divisions.

I was not talking about the aircraft I knew those. I was talking about measuring the distance from the camera to the point of impact. Sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Now using earth Google in combination with its measuring tool I found a 757 sitting at a gate at DFW then overlay-ed it onto the pentagon photo from Google earth and presto

Here is an exact view of what one would look like approaching the impact point.




Just wish I could get the same shot from a side view at the exact distances from CCTV to impact point using the same lens and camera.


Sure takes all the guess work out of what it would look like in real life. While those drawings of the 757s were OK none of the pictures ever took into the account of scaling the pentagon.

The Pentagramon, supposedly respresenting America's strength and might, I would hope, have more than one camera rolling while under attack. Where is the plane? - Where is the 757? - with all due respect to the fellow member- an explosion can come from many sources. The Pentagon, I assume, has thousands of cameras mounted inside and outside. Why doesn't the Government release video from other camera angles? Is this the only camera that was on?

Originally posted by shots


Sure takes all the guess work out of what it would look like in real life. While those drawings of the 757s were OK none of the pictures ever took into the account of scaling the pentagon.

Wait a minute...did you take into account the bulge of our oblate spheroid?

hmmm...I didn't think so!

In the photo below, from the sky, the geometric outline of three sides of a square are almost perfectly burned, with the bottom quadrant untouched. I find that interesting. What do you think?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry, but I don't trust that Agent Smith's opinion of the perspective is correct.

That's because it isn't my opinion of the perspective, see my post above.

The 'plane' in the actual incident came in from a much different angle than this picture protrays so it's hard for me to buy that theory.
As it approached the Pentagon, the plane would have appeared to 'grow' in size if we could see the real thing, so I believe that picture is just very misleading.

It's not misleading in pointing out the gross exaggeration of the @truthseeker' GIF, see my post above. I completely agree with you on the perspective, hence this other image I put together in another thread, once again (and I'll try and make it clear so there is no misunderstanding).

This is not meant to be completely accurate, it is not the Gospel according to AgentSmith and it is an estimation of the coverage by the camera and the distance covered by the aircraft.

In fact, I'm leaning toward the Global Hawk-painted-with-the-right-colors theory...

Looks a little big for a Global Hawk, as well as the damage to the Pentagon being more consistant with a substatially larger object.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by shots


Sure takes all the guess work out of what it would look like in real life. While those drawings of the 757s were OK none of the pictures ever took into the account of scaling the pentagon.

Wait a minute...did you take into account the bulge of our oblate spheroid?

hmmm...I didn't think so!

I did the overlay soley to show what a 757 too scale would look like. I assume the bulge you are talking about would be that of a Global Hawk right????

[edit on 5/21/2006 by shots]

No...it would be that of a joke.

But the earth has a bulge at the equator also...that was the bulge I was referring to. I think a plane slammed into the Pentagon. I think it was Flight 77. And I think your overlay is very helpful.

But only to those who are not married to another theory. They won't let facts get in their wedding bed.

And I also think the video is for crap and I can't believe some official said something to the effect "I hope this will lay the conspiracy theories to rest." I don't see how it can...it doesn't show anything definitive one way or the other.

P.S....except I think you have your aircraft coming in at the wrong angle???

Originally posted by Valhall
No...it would be that of a joke.

But the earth has a bulge at the equator also...that was the bulge I was referring to. I think a plane slammed into the Pentagon. I think it was Flight 77. And I think your overlay is very helpful.

OK I gotcha now. I thought you were talking about the alleged global hawk theory because that also has a bulge.


And yes you are correct; I too think the angle is off slightly, I just wanted to show a real scale to see what an actual 757 would look like. I am slso working on another theory to disprove the missile allegation because the wing span of a global hawk or another missile would have been unable to hit the light poles and still hit the building, but that will take more time.


Edit to add P.S. I also think it was a plane that hit the building


[edit on 5/21/2006 by shots]

Really, even after giving excerpts from a real aeronautical engineer, and showing that the parts of the engines found inside the Pentagon match the parts of a 757, and after being proved that Vialls is nothing more than a hoaxer trying to make money...and some people still want to say it was not a 757.... Talk about denial...


[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Wheres the tail? All i see is a white thin object flying across perfectly parrellel to the ground. To me it looks very small, too small to be a boeing 757.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Some of these are from other ATS threads and one I found and 'blurred' for effect.

A 'blurred' version of a Global Hawk in flight (The angle is away from us instead of toward us, but use your imagination):

Unblurred original:

What do people make of this?

I am also working that possibility but I doubt it was a global hawk because the alleged speed of the 757 was said to be close to 500 MPH when it hit. If that is correct it would have been impossible for it to have been a global hawk since its max speed is 345mph. I am working out the wing span and distance between the poles that were hit to see if it was possible to hit the poles and still hit the pentagon, which I also doubt happened.