Originally posted by Pootie
They also have no defenses? Weird. I would think ANY military installation MUCH LESS THE PENTAGON would have some sort of defensive systems... but that is just me. I am SURE that the DoD is WAY smarter than me and have a VERY valid reason for leaving themselves WIDE OPEN to an attack.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Pootie]

Well then you'll be shocked to learn that every single base that I ever lived on, or went on for whatever reason had virtually NO defenses either. Hickam AFB had 2-4 armed alert fighters for the entire STATE of Hawaii. Pearl Harbor had this ships in the yards, IF they bothered to turn their radars on which they didn't most of the time. Wheeler and Schofield didn't have anything. Pease AFB in New Hampshire didn't even have fighters... None of those bases had missile launchers or defenses either. And I went just about everywhere accessible on them.

Captain Lazy... I haven't seen that video. The creator pretty much squashes any CT theory ( IMO)

This image gives some clarification in the case of the plane, and the site is full of information.

I'm curious. Why does the official NTSB investigation show the flight path of the plane to the left of the Navy Annex, when it's quite clearly to the right in the picture that you have posted ?

The biggest issue I've always had is why go to the trouble of circling to hit the building? Why not just dive down on top of it?

It has been discussed before that the manouver would have to have meant the hijackers lost sight of the building.

Due to CLs research that something a bit bigger than a missile did hit the building, I'm finding it very hard to say no aircraft hit the building.

There is something else not adding up here. What is it???

More to the point: what is in the other CCTV videos that they don't want us to see??? Or....... what is in this video that they *want* us to see, that can't be seen in other videos?

We know the ground outside the building was undamaged, therefore the smoke emanating from the object had to be coming out of the object, and wasn't simply the jet blast kicking up dust (with the lawns being the way they were, I think that would be obvious).

I still don't think whatever it was hit the light poles. Too much damage would be sustained not to leave something behind. Again, I suspect misdirection here.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Capt’ Lazy: Thanks for the link - Mike Wilson’s video is great stuff. I liked his explanation of the smoke trail. Too bad he thought the plane WAS the smoke trail (I've studied it closely and am sure the white is plane, and the smoke after is gray).

I have to disagree. The middle still shows a triangular protrusion that is shown in the simulation to line up very well with where the tail would be.

It's a shame Mike Wilson has to use those crappy manipulated videos for his work. There are other videos. I wonder why Mr. Wilson can't have access to those. Maybe the CTers might have a valid point after all.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The biggest issue I've always had is why go to the trouble of circling to hit the building? Why not just dive down on top of it?

It has been discussed before that the manouver would have to have meant the hijackers lost sight of the building.

Yep. One thing to think of is sudden course change - just before the Pgon, it changes plans and has to drop - how to do that without losing longitudinal position? A spiral drop. It's a bit precise for sure, I dunno from impossible tho John Lear and others say so.

Due to CLs research that something a bit bigger than a missile did hit the building, I'm finding it very hard to say no aircraft hit the building.

Thanks mate

I still don't think whatever it was hit the light poles. Too much damage would be sustained not to leave something behind. Again, I suspect misdirection here.

There's plenty of it around. I just don't see what else makes sense for knocking the poles over. Can't say they weren't planted the night before or knocked down with tiny bombs, but...
Ad as far as damage, we've seen the smoke, which indicates damage, and neither me nor the ASCE are so sure the plane was intact. From the Building Performance report, which also notes the clipped light poles:

The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft (figure 6.1).An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing.The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.
ft In any event,the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building.This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level,external vent structure.It is possible that these impacts,which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building,may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building.

Yest Capt, that's the illusion everyone's stuck on. Fact is, if this is real and to scale and the plane is behind the booth, it would have its nosecone at least, and probably half the plane sticking out to the left for the tailfin to be in that position. In short, a 757 wouldn't fit. It's a common argument for no 757 in fact. Odd artifact, slight doctoring I dunno, but not a tailfin.

....so, are you saying there isn't a 757 in that clip, and that it was only edited to look that way?

Quote inserted for clarity due to cross-posting and post order.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

....so, are you saying there isn't a 757 in that clip, and that it was only edited to look that way?

Quote inserted for clarity due to cross-posting and post order.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Almost the opposite. The "tailfin" that makes the plane seems smoke is inserted, either by forgery, a glitch, imagination, or some combo, or whatever, and makes it seem a 757 is not present.

Ahh! I see.

If the smoke was added then... why? Don't they want us to believe a 757 hit the building, or are they trying to confuse the issue further, by having already withheld the other CCTV footage?

I know that what actually hit the building has almost certainly been determined; what I'm interested in is:

* Why only these frames?

* Why withhold the rest?

[edit on 23-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Yest Capt, that's the illusion everyone's stuck on. Fact is, if this is real and to scale and the plane is behind the booth, it would have its nosecone at least, and probably half the plane sticking out to the left for the tailfin to be in that position.

But the simulation SHOWS that the plane would not have half the plane sticking out the left. If you can refute the accuracy of the animation then it'd be worth a read for sure.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

It's neither smoke from the 757 nor a missile IMO. It's the 757,silver and reflecting the morning sun. Or doctored in for some reason. Whatever, it is the object we're supposed to see, not a trail behind it.
But the dark "tailfin" behind the box? Well I don't know everything... any guesses anyone?

I've only just bothered to read the rest of tis thread (having guessed its content already ).

Regarding the two images, above. Theses are very comparable for a couple of reasons:

* They are from a very similar angle

* They are at a similar height

* They are looking from pretty much the same direction.

So..... to my point about these two particular images.

What the heck is that in the right hand image, that looks like a '>' ??????

I don't see anything that resembles that in the other shot. If that was the aircraft pulling up as it enters the shot, at the speed it was traveling at, it would not have time to be low-level flying horizontally.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the smoke trail. Not the absence of the tail in the inset image:



If the aircraft was supposed to be ahead of the smoke plume (in order to create it), where is the aircraft in the inset shot????

That is the nose of the plane. The shots are taken frm two different cameras.