Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween CatHerder, what is the length of each of the five sides of the pentagon?

Sorry I'm not CatHerder, but I can answer that. Each outer wall of the Pentagon is 921ft long, and just over 77ft high.

Originally posted by Banshee Sorry I'm not CatHerder, but I can answer that. Each outer wall of the Pentagon is 921ft long, and just over 77ft high.

Thank you for your answer, you are the only person to respond to my dimensions and in fact corroborate them. If my and your dimensions are correct, then CatHerder’s assumptions are incorrect, and as I have stated, his hypotheses are assumption and not fact based. Consequently, the picture where he superimposes a 757 using a retrofit cannot be substantiated. Further, I have posited observations which remain non-refuted; 1)The “American” logo above the stripe which is wider than same, is not identifiable in the original picture I provide, but both the red and white stripes are. This makes no sense. 2)The stripe colours are out of order. 3)The tailfin is displaced in that in the original picture I provide has it is located directly above the obstacle and not to the right of same as in CH’s superimposition. This can be carefully scrutinized by the vapour trail placement as well. 4)The wing placement of the AA craft used in CH’s later superimposition of the still in question does not correspond with the aft placement of the wings as depicted of a 757 on the AA site I provide. At this time I wish to introduce two other issues that I have; The vapour trail in either the original or CH’s version does not seem to align with where the wing placement should be. The tailfin of the craft seems to have a T like shape (I am not aircraft savvy so forgive my description) which is specific only to the video still showing the craft’s outline, whereas, the 757 has no such tailfin.

As I've said before, if you leave enough info out, or be very selective you can make anything of the events. I've seeen 100's of websites, some saying they have "evidence" it was a boeing, other saying they have "evidence" it was not a boeing. I say it's all about your personal opinion, you will believe those reports that are supporting your believes. I still say it could not have been a Boeing 757-200. That's simply against the laws of physics. It must have been a flying object, I wonder why some of you think it was a boeing 757-200. Because the authorities are saying so ? Remember how many things they told us before the Iraq invasion that turned out to be LIES ? Forged evidence etc ? www.911truth.tv is so far the most convincing report I've ever seen. I know most of you ignore my posts, but ask your self, if it really was a boeing 757, why don't we know that for sure yet ????? Why aren't they releasing the vital evidences that can clear this all for once and for all ? Think about that.... All you peoples can do is Believe !!! You don't know anything for sure.

Originally posted by WisdomMaster I believe your article is a professional social engineering work or "deception" and that you an employee of Mr. Bush. I don't believe a word of what you say. I think the video is fake and also I think the tail of the aircraft tail you pointed out is too small, yeah perhaps that of jet fighter! but it could be fake. It just does not fit, no matter what science you apply to it. Show me the real juice, the real videos confiscated. This is crap. I am amazed how people believe to this crap. Bye. But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit.

Exactly. You believe what you want to believe. Lets look at some of your beliefs. 1: I work for George Bush. A: Nope sorry, he doesn't live in Canada, and he doesn't like Canadians. 2: My "work" is a socially engineered work of deception. A: Sorry no. I'm a private Canadian citizen who thinks some people need to read more non-fiction and fewer supermarket tabloids. 3: "This is crap" A: You are entitled to your opinion. At least I back mine with some facts and information, and I take the time to research what it is I am talking about before I post rude and ignorant posts on a subject I know nothing about. 4: "But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit." A: No sorry, I am just one individual. I learned to read when I was young. And having learned how to read I use that as a tool in my adult life to educate myself on subjects I know little about (I choose to better myself through educating myself instead of going through life not knowing how things work and why things work). Instead of going through life jumping from one belief to another, I choose to proove things to myself by reading, researching, and coming to an educated conclusion on topics that interest me. You should seriously try it sometime. I believe when I close my eyes the world ceases to exist. Can you prove me wrong? I don't think you can. Therefore, I must be right! Keep that in mind the next time you blink - the entire weight of humanity is in your hands buddy!

. Isn't the camera aimed towards the center of the pentagon outer wall? [observe center to center] This would imply that when what you, cat herder, attempting to present as an airliner comes into view it would infact be far closer to the camera than 921 feet. In your diagram, cat herder, you have the cameral incorrectly splaying out into an oblique angle away from the pentagon building. At a rough estimate i would put it around 75% of the length of the pentagon's outer wall. 0.75 * 921 = 690.75. This would put it at an approximate maximum distance of 700-750 feet. .

Look at the curvature of the roofline. It's a wide angle lens.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween If anyone got my point at all, it was not about the light blue/grey since I went to the trouble of using "/" as the accepted indicator of either colour, such that one might use; him/her, to someone when gender is unknown. The issue I have on the colour I thought self-evident especially given the way I charted the colours of the 3 crafts. so I provide same again, and this time highlight what to me is the obvious dissimilarity.: AA 757- ………………..AA767………………….Video………………Debris ………………………….blue/grey……………………...................... Dark blue; ……...dark blue……………..dark blue……..light blue/grey white; ……………...white……………..……red…………......white red;……………….…red………....……………white……...……red grayish…………...grey………………..…..greyish……..….blue/grey

Sorry, I have been off the web a bit lately, and just got your post. I did not realize that your discrepancy with the paint was about the striping on the wreckage. I already posted that the scheme was:

Originally posted by Defcon5 757’s and 767’s Bare Stainless Steel Dark Blue Stripe White Stripe Dark Red Stripe Bare Stainless Steel Non-Metal parts Are Grey Tail is Grey Tail has one Red A and one Blue A with a Blue Eagle The word American is Red surrounded with White

It seemed so apparent to me that this piece of wreckage was part of the lettering that is Red Outlined in White, that it just flew right by me. Catherder put a nail in that coffin already, better then I could have. As far as the video goes, you cannot even see the stripes or lettering on that grainy, lo-res, piece of film.

. If the plane is comming in at a steep angle to the camera, why is the 'puff of white smoke', which is presumably coming from the plane hitting something coming off at such an oblique angle to the path of the plane. It appears to be essentially flat (broadside) to the camera. What could/would make such a large distinct and bright white puff of smoke come off the plane (or ground) at such an odd angle? Why would a puff of smoke be so linear and have all those funny kinks and bends in it? Don't most explosive clouds tend to be globular and round in nature? (or possibly elongated if kinetic action is involved?) And what would make such a brilliantly white cloud like that? *shrugs* To me that so called 'puff of smoke' looks quite cohesive and real and where you sketch in a plane is like mud. .

Can't read all the replys on this one but as someone said, what does it change if it was or it wasn't? Oh, perhaps if it was, than it means a big relief to the americans as it if it wasn't who the heck did it? And then, if it wasn't when goverment says it was than you are in a big trouble. I think more than a goverment itself the americans want and need to prove to themselves and to the world that this was an american plane led by terrorist. The plane was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so, according to the broken fences and the height of the hole in the building? Sure, it was in attack mode with no wheels out of the body.... but flying that straight, and being on the air cushion and at the same time being so closed to the ground? No flaps open? Well, the speed was then higher that 200 miles per hour... No nose up, even under those circumstaces? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above? Nope, the plane crashed straight while flying parallel to the ground, the hole is round and perfect! F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this. [edit on 30-9-2004 by An VanderVeld]

Originally posted by An VanderVeld It was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so? Sure, under attack with no wheels out of the body...but straight, newertheless on the air cushion being so closed to the ground? No nose up? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above? Nope, the whole is round and perfect! F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this.

Wow, what a totally incomprehensible reply.

The plane was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so, according to the broken fences and the height of the hole in the building? Sure, it was in attack mode with no wheels out of the body.... but flying that straight, and being on the air cushion and at the same time being so closed to the ground? No flaps open? Well, the speed was then higher that 200 miles per hour... No nose up, even under those circumstaces? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above? Nope, the plane crashed straight while flying parallel to the ground, the hole is round and perfect! F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this. I edited this one so you can understand the second part of my post. I assume you did understand the first one, the non quoted one.

Originally posted by An VanderVeld The plane was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so, according to the broken fences and the height of the hole in the building? Sure, it was in attack mode with no wheels out of the body.... but flying that straight, and being on the air cushion and at the same time being so closed to the ground? No flaps open? Well, the speed was then higher that 200 miles per hour...

If you don’t understand how ground effect works, then say so. Basically it means that as the plane gets closer to the ground, the wings get more efficient at lift. This is exacerbated at high speed and the fact that the plane was in a very shallow angle of attack related to the ground.

No nose up, even under those circumstaces? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above?

What is your issue here? As for the pitch of the nose, the pilot was aiming for the building. Nope, the plane crashed straight while flying parallel to the ground, the hole is round and perfect! based on this it is apparent that you did not bother to read any of the pages in this thread, even if you did not state so. Are you talking about the impact hole or the exit hole?

F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this.

Are you suggesting that only American pilots can fly a plane? Nope, your post is still pretty much gibberish. [edit on 30-9-2004 by HowardRoark]

It still seems that you don't understand my manipulation here. I added my second part to my thread just to catch another "tech- geek" that rather than asking more importnat questions is choosing to dive into details that doesn't answer the main question. Why are you so terribly despertly trying to demonstrate there was a plane and there was a terrorist attack? Again, perhaps because if it wasn't that plane and terrorists in it than your major ideals and beliefs are in danger, right? [edit on 30-9-2004 by An VanderVeld]

Originally posted by An VanderVeld Again, perhaps because if it wasn't that plane and terrorists in it than your major ideals and beliefs are in danger, right?

I love it when the conspiracy geeks get totally flustered by facts and have to resort to this kind of ad hominem mumbo-jumbo.