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.

 

12/17/10 Jesse Ventrura Pentagon Episode

page: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



As I noted, that was put out rather early by NTSB, and could be considered a bit "rough"...that is normal in such preliminary versions of Flight Recorder data, especially if "rushed" out.


More than rough, it didn't even show impact..Animation ended when the plane was still over 300'..
Reallt didn't show much at all except how stupid these hijackers must have been,,

If it was me, I would have dived into the middle section of the Pentagon..
Far more damaging and much easier to do..
What they did, swinging around to target a certain wall, does not make sense...




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FallofTheRepublic
 



... that plane was still really high.....much higher than what hit the Pentagon.


Not sure if you read my description on that New Zealand Air Force B-757? First, you can judge its approximate height above the ground for yourself, as you watch...by knowing the dimensions. I pointed out the wingspan, for reference (round it to 125 feet...oh, I see you prefer metric...38m. Or you can look at overall length, and judge that way...length is 155 feet -- 47.3m).

As I said, imagine how in just less than one second, that airplane could be MUCH closer to the ground, easily. For the Air Show, they have rules, and those involve certain safety margins, of course.


... but what I saw in the security camera footage (I posted it below) looks like it is barely 6 meters off the ground....


Yes, in that one barely captured image (recall the sort of camera that was installed at that guard gate...it did not record normal video, but individual frames, and a set rate. I do not recall how many per second, but obviously less than the normal electronic video media rate of 30 fps (NTSC standard....25 fps for PAL and SECAM), to capture smooth motion, and present it to the human eye as "fluid", not "time lapse". Film media (for motion pictures, some TV shows that don't film digitally) use 24 fps...the lowest threshold before humans can see the "flicker" between frames.....

...it "does" look low....but, do you know the type of lens used, in that series of stills? Commonly called a "fish-eye", it has a wider field of view, than normal...because of a short focal length. AND, this results in optical distortions....not only the geometry of shapes, but the relative perspective of size that we're accustomed to, with our visual receptors, and the "naked eye".

You can see how it distorts the Pentagon building, itself....easily seen because the building remains fixed in the frame. See how in the distance, the normal perspective (called the "vanishing point" in art class perspective) is exaggerated? In essence, makes things look smaller than normal, at any given distance from the lens. We are adapted to infer that "smaller" (given any object of known dimensions) means "farther away"...this is our common understanding of perspective, and it is second nature to you, even if you don't realize it most of the time.

The effect in that image makes the airplane look "smaller" than you'd expect, and it's all due to the lens. Additionally, you can see a distinct "curvature" off in the distance, away from the lens. Optical exaggeration again...so actual relative height above ground is illusory.

So, when you say this:


...and does not even come close to the size or shape of an airliner that huge.


...keep in mind the lens effects.

As to shape? IF that is AAL 77, and it's only the forward part of the fuselage....well, then it looks about right.

Here's an angle that approximates AAL 77, from that location....ignore the landing gear, of course. Also, distance makes the red, white and blue strips far less distinct...and that camera didn't have fine resolution, anyway:




It also looks as if it had a vapor/smoke trail in the video I posted.


Not sure I can be certain of that...though, I've seen others' analysis that enhance the "smoke".

Keep in mind: "Smoke" is not always what the term implies...especially since this, if there, is whitish. You said vapor, which is also possible. FUEL, when sprayed out of a breach in a tank, or on purpose (such as planned fuel jettisons) looks opaque and "white"...resembling "smoke".

Like, this:





Exterior view. (AND< I can tell you in this one, it is serious, they are dumping fuel on final approach...means they are trying to land ASAP. I can also tell, their emergency involves a hydraulic problem of some sort...because the main landing gear doors are hanging open. This means they lowered the gear using the "alternate" method...done when normal hydraulics are unavailable. The gear doors are hydraulic too, hence they don't close up after gear is down....):



Ahhh...found the details of Continental B-777 above. Hydraulic leak just after takeoff....gear never retracted...gear doors opened, as part of retract sequence, then leak started. Since it was a non-stop Newark-Narita, had a LOT of fuel to dump, in order to reach landing weight for the return....

Story.

ONE possible source of the "white vapor" at the Pentagon may be from the impacts with the light poles...either a hole in the wing, and fuel leak...or an engine impacted, and fuel leak.....may never know for sure.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The effect in that image makes the airplane look "smaller" than you'd expect, and it's all due to the lens. Additionally, you can see a distinct "curvature" off in the distance, away from the lens. Optical exaggeration again...so actual relative height above ground is illusory.


Ahh, more of those optical illusions..

Debunkers over use that phrase..
It means "yes you did see it but not really"

BTW, in them 5 lousy frames we see a very large fireball and yet within seconds it is gone..
Why is there no fires left on the ground or face of the building?
Surely all that fuel would have been thrown all over the place and caused fires considering the ball of flames shown..

And please, no optical illusions if you can help it..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheSellsSeaShells
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


She's a big girl and can form her own opinions. I was just presenting new information to her. She had no idea about the trillions that were unaccounted for or the building 7 collapse. Call it want you want my friend but knowledge is power.
edit on 18-12-2010 by SheSellsSeaShells because:

It sounds to me more like exactly what Cass Sunstein was worried about.

You have an extremely one-sided TV show, presenting outright false information, with no form of rebuttal, so no wonder people fall for it.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Your "attitude" is neither amusing, nor particularly adult.

I am guessing you have a passably decent comprehension of physics?? Or, can look it up? You may wish to re-visit the concepts of motion, momentum, mass, force and vectors.

FUEL is a substance, and thus, has mass. When in motion, it contains momentum, just as any other mass does. ALL the various components had their own particular amount of kinetic energy, depending on many variables.

It seems that many, many people STILL have terribly incorrect "assumptions" of how things really work, in the real physical world. I have often suggested that it has something to do with modern entertainment media. "Hollywood-style" entertainment....where rules of physics are often ignored, in favor of what "looks good on film", and provides audience enjoyment/excitement, etc.

Here. computer simulation, using the very strict rules of mathematics, and therefore physics, to predict and depict some aspects of the behavior of solids, and specifically the airliner and the fuel, on impact...AND shows the specifics of the building design, and those effects:




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 



You have an extremely one-sided TV show, presenting outright false information, with no form of rebuttal, so no wonder people fall for it.


That sounds like the OS with NIST etc refusing to show all info despite FOIA requests and the FBI refusing to release all video footage..
But I'm sure Granny has also seen and heard the OS version enough to decide whats right and wrong..
It's not like this show is the only information she has ever seen regarding 9/11...



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by SheSellsSeaShells
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


She's a big girl and can form her own opinions. I was just presenting new information to her. She had no idea about the trillions that were unaccounted for or the building 7 collapse. Call it want you want my friend but knowledge is power.
edit on 18-12-2010 by SheSellsSeaShells because:

It sounds to me more like exactly what Cass Sunstein was worried about.

You have an extremely one-sided TV show, presenting outright false information, with no form of rebuttal, so no wonder people fall for it.


Were not referring to Fox News.
Ill even make you happy and throw in this one.
Were not referring to MSNBC.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I looked for it online, but for some reason my internet is moving deathly slow right now.
Can you answer this question for me. (in meantime I will reboot cpu and router)

What is difference in height on a 757 from the bottom of the engine(s) to the center of the nose?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Your "attitude" is neither amusing, nor particularly adult.

I am guessing you have a passably decent comprehension of physics?? Or, can look it up? You may wish to re-visit the concepts of motion, momentum, mass, force and vectors.

FUEL is a substance, and thus, has mass. When in motion, it contains momentum, just as any other mass does. ALL the various components had their own particular amount of kinetic energy, depending on many variables.

It seems that many, many people STILL have terribly incorrect "assumptions" of how things really work, in the real physical world. I have often suggested that it has something to do with modern entertainment media. "Hollywood-style" entertainment....where rules of physics are often ignored, in favor of what "looks good on film", and provides audience enjoyment/excitement, etc.

Here. computer simulation, using the very strict rules of mathematics, and therefore physics, to predict and depict some aspects of the behavior of solids, and specifically the airliner and the fuel, on impact...AND shows the specifics of the building design, and those effects:


Slightly pathetic attempt at insults Weed..
Can I call you Weed? Seems to fit..

weed 1 (wd)
a. A plant considered undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome, especially one growing where it is not wanted, as in a garden

Though I'm not sure what you are whacking but I could guess...

Wasn't bhere some 10.000 gallons of fuel?
We see it clearly ignite..Now my physics only extends to year 12 but I think thats enough..
Is not most of the fuel carried in the wings? The same wings that did NOT seem to have penetrated the building?
So one could assume much of that fuel should have been burning on the outside of the building and one would expect some to have even landed on the grass.
We see little or nothing of them fires..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SheSellsSeaShells
 


Except, as has been mentioned more than once, the idea that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing, is an out and out lie. And you used it to convince your grandma into believing another lie.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by xweaponx
 


Actually, I believe cell phone calls to family members were made on at least two out of the three planes. I do think it's funny that Jesse Ventura is doing this show...he already let crazy people elect his dumb a*s elect him to a political position, now he wants to make money off the same dumb people!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by backinblack
 


I looked for it online, but for some reason my internet is moving deathly slow right now.
Can you answer this question for me. (in meantime I will reboot cpu and router)
What is difference in height on a 757 from the bottom of the engine(s) to the center of the nose?


I can't find them specs exactly but by looking at pics it appears the top of the engine is almost level with the nose..
The engines are 7.5' diameter..So that's pretty close to your answer..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SheSellsSeaShells
 


Except, as has been mentioned more than once, the idea that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing, is an out and out lie. And you used it to convince your grandma into believing another lie.


Well if you believe what they tell you then they cut that figure down to a measely $700 billion..
Still around a full year US GDP at the time..
But like I said..That's if you believe everything Government tells you..
The same Government that couldn't answer what the Fed had done with $9 Trillion more recently..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
This post doesn't get alot of attention.

Circumstantial Evidence vs Lack of Evidence

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein

Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal - Albert Einstein

C-E

C-E-2

W-T

W-T 2

T-E

T-E 2

Research guide by IsaacKoi

I wonder why?

What would pentagon cctv videos reveal? The truth, we can't handle the truth!!!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


THIS will help you visualize it.

Oh, and BTW? I am 6' 2" tall. I can walk upright underneath the fuselage. Look at the three-view diagram, and compare the outline of the cabin door height, for perspective.




Also, this photo, see the people standing near the engine:




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why bother?
I already gave them the answer..
Do you not read posts?
Or just like to read your own stuff?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


In the post of yours I reply to (two stars??? wow....some people have low standards, I guess)...you quoted the majority of it, all except the video, which would ANSWER your question asked:


We see it clearly ignite..Now my physics only extends to year 12 but I think thats enough..
Is not most of the fuel carried in the wings? The same wings that did NOT seem to have penetrated the building?


Watch the video. ("year 12"? Same as high school senior level, in the States? You think that's enough?)

First, your claim was that the fireball wasn't long-lasting enough? Was that the gist of your assertion?

In fact, since you didn't watch it....the majority of the fuel DID enter the building, carried by its momentum.

BTW....when you see jet fuel fireballs, you are seeing the FUMES being ignited. The greatest amount of the fuel itself can be inside the building (in the case of the Pentagon), but a very impressive fireball will still be seen, as the FUMES ignite....and the FUMES burn rapidly.

This really is quite basic stuff, for these types of events.

And IF you had watched the video, you would see how the structure of the airframe disintegrated on impact, into many many pieces, fragments....so, your claim about the wings is invalid. Really, you are re-hashing much of the same old ground as others before you, and it's mostly based on a ghastly lack of understanding of physics, likely based on (as I said) your expectations because of years of Hollywood fakery.....the real thing doesn't "look right" to some of you.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



In fact, since you didn't watch it....the majority of the fuel DID enter the building, carried by its momentum.

BTW....when you see jet fuel fireballs, you are seeing the FUMES being ignited. The greatest amount of the fuel itself can be inside the building (in the case of the Pentagon), but a very impressive fireball will still be seen, as the FUMES ignite....and the FUMES burn rapidly.


Exactly how did all the fuel enter the building?
The only hole was where the fuselage supposidly hit..
Where the wings/fuel hit there was NO holes..
In fact even the windows were still intact..Blast proof remember...

Am I to believe that on impact the wings and all the fuel inside them, folded up and entered through that one tiny hole??
That's basically what you are saying....

Edit: That video shows the wings and their fuel passing through the walls intact..
The pictures taken before the wall collapsed does not show where the wings broke through the building..
No 125' wide hole..


edit on 18-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


"tiny hole"?? YOu ARE new at this, aren't you?? Been reading too many crackpot "conspiracy" sites....


Am I to believe that on impact the wings and all the fuel inside them, folded up and entered through that one tiny hole??


NO, the wings did NOT "fold up"....and it is even more painfully obvious that you haven't seen the video, or you would not have wirtten that.

SO, do everyone a favour, and refrain from inserting foot in mouth, until you see the video. I had another one, but now I won't bother.....



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for all that info Weedwhacker, I will check all the information out. I am not as well versed in all this as alot of you seem to be here, but I am starting to read up on it and see what I can come up with. My initial instinct is to believe that it was not a plane, but it seems that there are valid arguments on both ends that must be looked at to formulate a smart opinion. Thanks again!

FallofTheRepublic



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join