*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin, page 18
Pages: <<  15    16    17    18    19    20    21  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:27 PM by LaBTop
Cogburn: As the car moved slowly forward in traffic, I realized that I was still headed toward my office and I absolutely did not want to go there - my office is on Pennsylvania Avenue, just a few doors down from the White House.

So I made my way across the lanes of traffic and instead, I exited into the Pentagon's parking lot. I circled around to the right and came out under the road that I had just been on -- headed toward I-66 West. "

She weaved her way through the stopped line of cars in Riskus's photos?

Someone in that knot of cars was yelling "Go, go go"?

EDIT: Do we have any independent information indicating how long traffic was stopped in front of the Pentagon?


Last edited question answer: yes we have, Christine Peterson.
She told us, as I linked to and gave the text, this :
www.naualumni.com...

And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. Now I wanted to get as far away as I could, but that was impossible. The people around me had gotten out of their cars. At least half had cameras and the others were on their cell phones. I experienced a moment of irrelevant amazement that so many people had cameras in their cars.

A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene. They began ordering people back into their cars and away. I drove to work knowing that I would not be flying anywhere for a while.


Again, she was 28 years old (born in '73), a young colored American woman, and you can find a picture of her when you use the Search function on top of that page. And that looks quite well like the lady who is standing on that flat piece of concrete in between the concrete security rails along the HOV lane her car was on. To be seen in the Riskus picture nr 13 :
criticalthrash.com...

There are three women to be seen and she is the colored one.
The next one to the right under the green sign or the other one further right leaning on the car is probably Penny Elgas.
I opt for the leaning one to be Penny, since she told us that she asked another woman in front of her to sit in her car, and then she first sat back in her car to move some belongings from the front seat to the back seat, and that's when she noticed that peculiar plastic part, which she threw on the backseat with the other stuff. Only at home to find out it could be a plane part.
That part is in the Smithsonian Museum now.
It could have been just as easily planted by one of the bystanders, through her open sunroof. We are discussing a possible huge conspiracy here, do not forget that. And more and more evidence for such conspiracy afloat.
The other woman did not get a chance to sit with her in her car, since that was the moment when a big guy in khaki fatigues ordered them back in the cars and to move on as quick as possible.

Did you notice that the Riskus set of photos is not consistent on that page?
several numbered photos are not posted.
I found the rest :

criticalthrash.com...
Dashboard with speedometer, hand with lighter?

criticalthrash.com...
Arm and hand on car door, with small fresh scratch on door.

criticalthrash.com...
Looks to me like near I-395.
That's interesting, he had to walk all the way there, and back to his car, that's quite some time. Or he got a lift back?

This next one, nr 22, is in his listed ones, but it shows him in his car again, with two roadsigns, route 27, exit to the right, and route 395 straight on, and the smoke of the fires in his left front side, above the overpass:
criticalthrash.com...

So to see, he went southbound on I-395, according to the next few photos.


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:52 PM by cogburn
reply to post by LaBTop



I was thinking more along the lines of news reports, traffic reports, police reports... something that doesn't rely on witness timescale. Some day people will watch enough Law and Order to have the presence of mind to look at a clock.

I took a look at the embedded JPEG information of frame 12 to see if there was anything to indicate a time of that frame. I'm guessing that was just after impact and Riskus was trying to get his camera in position to start snapping photos. Other than the fact he was using an Olympus C3040Z with a 7mm focal length, it yielded nothing. For what it's worth, the C3040Z came out earlier that year in 2001.

I'll also concede I put Penny in the wrong place. Having put Penny in the wrong place, that eliminates my assumption she could not have seen the plane from her perspective.

While her details of the account of the impact are flowery, which one may still take issue with, she is indeed in a position to have seen the impact as she described.

4 down, 9 to go.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:59 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch



No go right ahead pinch.

Please do the math and prove the world how wrong I was.

How many 757's could fit in an airplane hangar the size of the Pentagon?


reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 11:25 PM by pinch
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to
post by pinch



No go right ahead pinch.

Please do the math and prove the world how wrong I was.

How many 757's could fit in an airplane hangar the size of the Pentagon?


Not even 200 - a far cry from your "100's" claim. You suffer from not only selective witness mining, you also inflate your estimates so they "sound" better.


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 12:00 AM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch



I think you are wrong.

Way wrong.

Care to post your math?

I just found a source that says the Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet.

Here is a source that says the surface area of the wings of a 757 is 1,951 square feet and I came to about 2480 square feet for the cabin so about 4431 square feet total.

Simple division of 6.5 million divided by 4431 equals 1,466 757's fitting in the Pentagon.

Please tell me how you could possibly have gotten less than 200.

This ought to be good.


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 12:55 AM by tezzajw
The Pentagon with 930 foot long sides (according to pinch), including the centre courtyard:

The shape can be split into five isoceles triangles. Each with a side length of 930 feet and an angle of 72 degrees. Other angles equal 54 degrees each.

Using the Sine Rule for a triangle, the missing 'sides' are 791.1 feet.

Using Heron's Rule for three sides of 930, 791.1, 791.1 feet, the area of one isoceles triangle is 297,605.2 square feet.

Total area of the Pentagon, including centre courtyard = 1,488,026 square feet.

B757 with 124 foot wingspan and 155 foot length (according to pinch):

Boxed Area:
Assuming that the B757 will require a rectangular box around it to be parked safely, we have an area of 19,220 square feet.

Projected Actual Area:
I'm assuming that the top down, projected area of a B757 is roughly three rectangles, the body, 16 x 155 feet, and two main wings, each 20 x 54 feet, for a total of 4640 square feet. Of course, this is not accurate, as I really can't be stuffed googling up the exact wing dimensions and schematics for a B757, however, I'm confident that it's reasonable.

Lower Bound estimate:
Number of B757s that can be parked, as rectangle boxes, inside the Pentagon is 1488026/19220 = 77.4

This figure is misleading, but it does provide a lower bound, kind of worse case scenario.

Firstly, we can stack the B757s so that they don't need a full rectangular box around them, which will increase the number. Line the wings up in formation, if you will.

Secondly, the Pentagon's shape will prove difficult to stack the B757s exactly. There will be left over area along the edges, so this will slightly reduce the number.

Upper Bound estimate:
An upper bound estimate would be around 1,488,026/4640 = 320.

Of course, this is physically impossible, but the mathematical upper bound still acts as a bound for the real problem in context.

Conclusion
I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to use MS Paint, Geometer's Sketchpad or some other application to efficiently stack lots of B757s inside The Pentagon, all done to scale. You'll get somewhere between 77 and 320 B757s that will fit, neatly parked inside the grounds of The Pentagon, including the central courtyard.

Edit: pinch, mark this down as a historical day. For once, I agree with you and the maths proves it.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by tezzajw]


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 09:17 AM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by tezzajw



Tezz,

The point of the analogy is to compare the size of a 757 to the Pentagon.

Not to see how many could be "parked" there!

As sourced in my last post the Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet.

That's over 1,400 times the square footage of a 757.

Point being....as I have said, a 757 is minuscule compared to the Pentagon.

bobert and pinch are being sarcastic, antagonistic, and arrogant while even going so far as to call me a "liar" when they are dead wrong.

I still want to see pinch's math though!




reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 12:14 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to
post by pinch



I think you are wrong.

Way wrong.

Care to post your math?

I just found a source that says the Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet.

Here is a source that says the surface area of the wings of a 757 is 1,951 square feet and I came to about 2480 square feet for the cabin so about 4431 square feet total.

Simple division of 6.5 million divided by 4431 equals 1,466 757's fitting in the Pentagon.

Please tell me how you could possibly have gotten less than 200.

This ought to be good.



Square feet of office space includes every floor...so unless you're going to be stacking those 757s on top of each other, you ought to look over your numbers again, Craig.


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 01:16 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple



What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The point is that a 757 is really small compared to the Pentagon.

This is a fact.

It is silly and pointless to try arguing otherwise.



reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 01:28 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to
post by adam_zapple



What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The point is that a 757 is really small compared to the Pentagon.

This is a fact.

It is silly and pointless to try arguing otherwise.


It has EVERYTHING to do with your claim that "hundreds" of them would fit inside the pentagon.

What is the minimum hangar size required to completely enclose one Boeing 757? Do you know?


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 01:40 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple



It was a hypothetical analogy to compare size in general.

The size of a 757 is minuscule when compared to the size of the Pentagon.

THAT was my initial claim that "654321" called me a "liar" about.

All of the surface area of the Pentagon would obviously be included in such a comparison.

The space to "hangar" a 757 doesn't add to the size of a 757. It is part of the size of the Pentagon.

You can continue your irrelevant semantic argument if you choose to remain intellectually dishonest or you can concede that I am right.

The Pentagon dwarfs a 757.




[edit on 27-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 01:56 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to
post by adam_zapple



It was a hypothetical analogy to compare size in general.


Actual quote: "You could fit 100's of 757's in an airplane hangar the size of the Pentagon.

Literally."

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The size of a 757 is minuscule when compared to the size of the Pentagon.

THAT was my initial claim that "654321" called me a "liar" about.

All of the surface area of the Pentagon would obviously be included in such a comparison.


Surface area of a plane isn't what determines hangar size.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You can continue your irrelevant semantic argument if you choose to remain intellectually dishonest or you can concede that I am right.


You aren't right..."hundreds" of 757s would not fit inside the Pentagon. I don't know why on earth you'd base your calculations on surface area instead of the actual size.

I'll answer my the question for you...the minimum hangar space for a 757 is over 22,000 square feet.....about 5x what you figured.

Hundreds of 757s fit inside the Pentagon? No. Dozens? yes.
(If your square foot calculation is correct...a little over 60)


reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 02:04 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple



As expected you wish to continue your semantic argument.

The space to hangar a 757 does not add to the size of a 757.

Stop it.

The square footage of the Pentagon is 100's of times greater than that of a 757.

Literally.

Exact same point rephrased to show the pointlessness of your semantic argument.
Pages: <<  15    16    17    18    19    20    21  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags