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.

 

Could this be what the pentagon video really shows?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The penatgon video is rather difficult to make out wouldn't you say. But it does look as if there is a smoke trail of some kind comming from the object. Is it possible that a missle was fired from a military jet just before the plane hit the pentagon?

There are two reasons why I suggest that it might be an F-4.

Reason number one Capitan Burlingame, the pilot of flight 77, was an expierenced f-4 pilot. One of the best.


Charles F. Burlingame III, 51, of Herndon, Virginia, was the Captain of Flight 77, an aeronautical engineer, and a former Navy fighter pilot.

A graduate of the Naval Academy and the Navy's Top Gun fighter pilot school in Miramar, Calif. ...

... had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon ...

Like many military pilots, Burlingame considered the most difficult job to be landing an F-4 fighter jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier as it pitched at sea in the dark of night. After he left the Navy, Burlingame was hired by American Airlines in 1989.

Navy Vice Adm. Timothy Keating said Burlingame, who trained many pilots, "could make the jets talk. He could fly."

Source
killtown.911review.org...


It is interesting that the flight path of the plane puts it flying directly over the tomb of the unknown soldier. It is also interesting to note that Capitan Burlingame was buried in Arlington National Cemetary.



Which brings up the question, again, of why did they attack the reinforeced side of the penatgon? Besides the fact that it faced Arlington National Cemetary.

I still think that even an expierienced pilot would have needed instruments and navigational help to accuratly strike the pentagon wall at ground level.

The heliport had navigational beacons to aid in the landing of helicopters right?


Microwave landing systems (MLS) were developed in the 1980s. These systems allow pilots to pick a path best suited to their type of aircraft and to descend and land from more directions than the ILS.

Helicopters have used visual landing procedures for most of their history, and on June 12, 1987, the FAA opened its national concepts development and demonstration heliport. This research heliport was fully equipped with items such as a microwave landing system as well as precision approach path indication lights like those used by fixed-wing aircraft.

Source
www.centennialofflight.gov...


Why you ask would Capitan Burlingame do such a thing?

Maybe he made the ultimate sacrifice.


Friends and family remembered him as a man who was unabashedly patriotic, who embraced military life even after he retired from active and reserve duty. He remained active in the reserve, working until 1996 as a liaison in the Pentagon (where he had worked for most of his 17 years as a Naval Reserve officer). When his plane went down Tuesday, it ripped through a section of the building that includes the Navy Reserve offices.

Mark Burlingame said his brother was in the Navy Reserve and had worked in the same area of the Pentagon where the airliner crashed.

Source
killtown.911review.org...


Reason number 2.

An F-4 was smashed into a cement wall at 500mph in the past.

video.google.com...

The military would have gained valuable ballistic data relevant to that particular plane. Like knowing just how thick to reinforce the walls of the penatgon, during the renovations.

An F-4 Phantom firing a missle






[edit on 23-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
And this white line on the pentagon lawn just bugs me. Were they telegraphing thier intention?




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Remember, try to look at it like its pointing towards the camera in a sort of an angle. If you see the frame of first impact, it goes BEHIND a couple trees just barely and its coming from far away to a closer point (ie the trees), well at least in MY mind its doing that. Look at it anyway you want, it could be coming in backwards for that matter (not to start a backwards thread


[edit on 23-8-2006 by BigMoser]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
What about taking into account distance from the camera
F-4 is WAY smaller than a 757



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
What about taking into account distance from the camera
F-4 is WAY smaller than a 757


The size of the object is most likely to be comparable to the size of a small military aircraft than it is to a large 757 passenger plane. Lets compare distances in pictures shall we.

The first picture shows the location of the penatgon video camera and the impact location.




Source
www.apfn.org...


The distance between the camera and the impact location is between 400 - 500 feet as determined from this google maps satellite photo.

www.google.com...,-77.057655&spn=0.002447,0.008326&iwloc=A

This set of pictures shows distances of a man holding his hands out at 50, 100, 200 and 500 feet.




Source
www.xenophilia.com...


This set of photos shows a car approacing, as seen in a round mirror, from 400 feet away, 200 feet away and 100 feet away.


400 feet


200 feet


100 feet


Source
www.reflectionproducts.com...


These are relatively small objects which are still visable at 400 - 500 feet out, yes?

While the size of these objects does diminish with distance, the difference in size is not really that great between when they are seen at 100 feet and 500 feet away.

A 757 is pretty big, while an F-4 is not really as big. I say that it was a smaller jet, just as the pentagon video shows.

Clearly a small military jet made a high G turn came in fast and low and fired a missle into the pentagon just before it struck.

Why is this so difficult to believe?




[edit on 27-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Sorry double post.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
beat me to maths


Okay, it's late in the evening so I didn't do it much exactly, rather some guesstimates with touch of maths here-there
Maybe I'd make something more exact in the future.

Known facts:
Length of 757-200 is 47,32 meters
F-4 Phantom: 19,2 meters

Distance of impact point from camera: via the Google Map image measured it to be roughly 180 meters, ie 600 feet
Angle of attack - seen estimates 55-75 degrees, so settled up on average 65 degrees.
this of course means the object was a bit more far away on the camera, but let's not take it into account.

"Effective length" of 757 and F-4 Phantom (due to the angle) is smaller: l(ef) = l*sin65

angle dimensions of 757 and F4 from camera locations are:

angle = 2*arctan ((l(ef))/(2*180))

so it gives me for 757 roughly 13 degrees and for F-4 6 degrees.

Now the fuzzy part - using distance between the two "columns" (cannot find the correct word, sorry, those rectagonal coumns belonging to the gate right in front of the camera) determined the field of vision to be roughly 130 degrees.
Now the object's length fits almost entirely behind the right column, this gives me result of some 12 degrees.
This fits rather the 757-sized object.

I'd be glad if someone calcullates the field of vision more exactly, as I've said, it's late evening here and I really don't know why do I bother here instead of going to bed ... goodnight!




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
beat me to maths


Okay, it's late in the evening so I didn't do it much exactly, rather some guesstimates with touch of maths here-there
Maybe I'd make something more exact in the future.

Known facts:
Length of 757-200 is 47,32 meters
F-4 Phantom: 19,2 meters

Distance of impact point from camera: via the Google Map image measured it to be roughly 180 meters, ie 600 feet
Angle of attack - seen estimates 55-75 degrees, so settled up on average 65 degrees.
this of course means the object was a bit more far away on the camera, but let's not take it into account.

"Effective length" of 757 and F-4 Phantom (due to the angle) is smaller: l(ef) = l*sin65

angle dimensions of 757 and F4 from camera locations are:

angle = 2*arctan ((l(ef))/(2*180))

so it gives me for 757 roughly 13 degrees and for F-4 6 degrees.

Now the fuzzy part - using distance between the two "columns" (cannot find the correct word, sorry, those rectagonal coumns belonging to the gate right in front of the camera) determined the field of vision to be roughly 130 degrees.
Now the object's length fits almost entirely behind the right column, this gives me result of some 12 degrees.
This fits rather the 757-sized object.

I'd be glad if someone calcullates the field of vision more exactly, as I've said, it's late evening here and I really don't know why do I bother here instead of going to bed ... goodnight!



I wonder if we aren't looking at the plane at a 60 degree angle.


“60” of course is the critical angle in both equilateral triangles and the tetrahedra of which they are comprised -- the latter incorporating those same critical circumscribed 19.5-degree angles …

source
www.enterprisemission.com...


[edit on 28-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join