The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: Xenogears

You have any idea the damage to New York that a noncontrolled collapse of the WTC twin towers could potentially do? If the twin towers collapsed and fell uncontrolled multiple buildings could potentially be severely damaged and also collapse and the chaos and carnage could be far bigger. The economic effects far drastic.

Not sure I understand, last I checked, gravity works in one direction, straight down. Were you thinking the towers would fall over onto their sides?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
I have always thought the damage at the Pentagon was caused by a missile and the only footage released of an object hitting the Pentagon, Is non conclusive imo.

Whether it was a stolen Russian missile, who knows, but initial reports from on the scene reporters suggested they didn't hear or see a plane. This changed within a couple of hours to fit the narrative of a plane hitting.

How could a poorly trained hi-Jacker perform such a manoeuvre? Where were the wings?

I too have always thought missile of some sort, especially after seeing the holes punched in the walls and thinking where did the wings go and then there is that very large and tall rear tail and flaps, I would have thought they would have either gotten knocked off at the entry point or left a very large square hole at the top of the punched out circle.

As far as that grainy CCTV footage goes of an object speeding into the building, I wonder if someone could draw two parallel lines along the right and left lengths of fuselage right before impact and compare them to the height of the building walls and then scale the dimensions against any publicly known dimensions for the building to extrapolate the approximate length of the plane/object as well as an approximate diameter?

Somebody else asked where the other missile went, I would venture a guess that it was used to practice flight control and test rigging it to a guidance system or whatever else may have been needed to facilitate getting the second one to work properly/flawlessly.

a reply to: evc1shop

Entry hole in Pentagon E ring measured 96 feet across - what missile has a wingspan that long ?

Tail on aircraft are very lightweight structures being only as strong as necessary to save weight - it was smashed on impact

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Xenogears

You have any idea the damage to New York that a noncontrolled collapse of the WTC twin towers could potentially do? If the twin towers collapsed and fell uncontrolled multiple buildings could potentially be severely damaged and also collapse and the chaos and carnage could be far bigger. The economic effects far drastic.

Not sure I understand, last I checked, gravity works in one direction, straight down. Were you thinking the towers would fall over onto their sides?

If you could simply put a few explosives in the basement and a building collapses perfectly into its foundation, controlled building demolitions wouldn't be needed. Controlled building demolitions are done in part to minimize damage to surrounding buildings.

You can't believe that random fires, planes crashing into the sides of skyscrapers are guaranteed to result in collapse into the foundations with no possibility of the collapse causing massive damage to the surroundings.

a reply to: firerescue

If I remember correctly, the area of the Pentagon that was struck had just undergone a two year reconstruction which included reinforcement... " According to the Los Angeles Times:
It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars [and blast-resistant windows] to withstand bomb blasts.... While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there."

a reply to: mrscary3721

Pentagon was being renovated - blast resistant windows were being installed as protection from VBIED (Vehicle Borne
Improvised Explosive Device AKA Truck Bomb)

To accommodate the windows the frames were being reinforced using steel supports

A Kevlar "spall liner" was inserted in wall as protection against fragments

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: HushedNoLonger

Great post with many good points, but the truth is that we have sources OTHER THAN the US Government and its compliant media.

Regarding the destruction of the buildings, we have the excellent work done by Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Regarding the aviation related matters, we have the excellent work done by Pilots for 911 Truth.

That's because there are observable facts that the government cannot avoid, facts that exist for all to see if they are willing to open their eyes.

a reply to: Salander

I completely agree. This has turned into the great Bigfoot debate to me. Without a "body" there is no proof. In this case it's the videos that are the "body". They'll never be released and IF one was it would never be good enough for the side it doesn't support. If it showed a missile it would be a fake, if it showed flight 77 it would be a fake. I really truly wish we could find the absolute truth once and for all for the souls lost that day and the countless others since as a direct cause. So many are caught up in trying to be right they can't objectively look at the information, and that only dilutes it.
.:sigh:.

a reply to: Xenogears

You can't believe that random fires, planes crashing into the sides of skyscrapers are guaranteed to result in collapse into the foundations with no possibility of the collapse causing massive damage to the surroundings.

ummm, there was massive damage to the surrounding buildings, you are unaware of that?

a reply to: D8Tee

Report on other buildings damaged at WTC

mceer.buffalo.edu...

A reply to: evc1shop

As far as that grainy CCTV footage goes of an object speeding into the building, I wonder if someone could draw two parallel lines along the right and left lengths of fuselage right before impact and compare them to the height of the building walls and then scale the dimensions against any publicly known dimensions for the building to extrapolate the approximate length of the plane/object as well as an approximate diameter?

I did so, already many months ago, and took the task a bit more serious.
I compared the known exact length of the fuselage of a 757-200, visible in the two parking boot videos (FOIA-freed from the DoD), and compared it to the known exact height of the also visible Pentagon's West facade in those two DoD videos.
Where it ultimately impacted with its nose cone right at the concrete floor slab of the second floor of the E-ring.
In the earliest photo of the carnage there, exactly in the center of that huge square hole on the second floor, with that dangling down, long concrete piece of floor cover-slab, hanging from its internal re-bar, after being broken off by the impacting fuselage.
So much for the hilarious proposal of an intact 757 nose cone making the near perfectly round so-called "exit" hole in the C-Ring wall, which was in fact of course an entry hole, obviously made by the military using their Wall Breaching Unit, from the outside of that brick wall in that "road" between C and B-Rings, by clamping that Unit against that outer C-Ring its brick wall and then detonated its detonation-cord in its water filled plastic circumference.
That way, you don't get any signs of that detonation on the other B-Ring wall, except some water on it.

Back to my measurements.
It turned out that we see in those DoD videos, the exact length of a 757-200.!
When compared to the known height of that West wall, clearly visible in those 2 videos.

Now the naturally curious ones under my readers will ask themselves why I bolded the above extremely important observation, and also put an exclamation mark behind it.
Well, the official story tries to stamp the notion in all of us, that that 757-200 flew towards that impact point on the Pentagon West wall under an angle to that wall of about 45 degrees, and clipped 5 light poles on its way in...

But those 2 parking boot cameras were filming at a 90 degrees angle to that 757-200, so viewing directly perpendicular on the side of that plane. And those 2 cameras were aimed parallel along that West wall.

If the OS flight path would be right, then I should have measured quite a lesser length of the 757-200 its fuselage in that video.
Here is why :

Just draw yourself a 45 degrees angled triangle on a piece of paper or use a plastic one from your math studies, and hold one of the 90 degrees sides along a ruler, impersonating the West wall, while its nearest 45 degrees triangle corner is the impact point, and its longest side is now indicating the official story flight path towards that wall.
The other 45 degree triangle corner is now the furthest away from you, part of the incoming OS flight path of that 757-200, depicted by its longest triangle side.

[A] Now take a LONG paperclip (or a pencil) as your imaginative 757, place it along that 45 degrees (longest) side with its 'nose' touching the ruler (so depicting a 757 impacting that West wall), and draw two lines parallel to the ruler, one from the 757's "nose" and one from its "tail", towards the imaginative parking boot camera at the end of that ruler.

[B] Then do the same for a 90 degrees impacting 757, so hold the same paperclip along the 90 degrees side of that triangle, that is thus perpendicular placed to the ruler, now with its 90 degrees corner at the same impact point on that ruler, and draw again those two parallel lines from nose and tail of that 757-paperclip towards the parking boot camera at the end of that same ruler. Without changing anything in the position of that plastic triangle with its 45-90-45 degrees corners, other than moving it along that ruler to now get the same impact position spot for its 90 degrees triangle corner as you had for the 45 degrees triangle corner.

You observe that the length of that paperclip its "fuselage" as filmed by that same parking boot camera at the end of that same West wall-ruler in its parallel viewing position along the West wall, is decisively shorter when placed on a 45 degrees OS flight path then when it's placed on a 90 degrees impacting flight path.

THUS, those clipped light poles were FABRICATED, since we measure the right length of a 757-200 in those 2 DoD parking boot videos, and thus a 90 degrees impacting flight path for that 757-200.

PS : Of course we have to draw two lines that aim at the same spot at the end of that ruler, the imaginative lens of the camera, but it makes no real difference for the overall 757-200 measurement picture, since we measure in fact along a line towards the impact point, along a 45 degrees flight path, and along a 90 degrees flight path.

I will look up my extensive post on this subject, with PICTURES, and post that link here shortly.

If I remember right, I posted this already end of 2015, I took it from my saved files :

In my NoC flightpath, we have 25 eyewitnesses their NoC explanations, plus from lots of them, multiple video and/or phone interviews. We also have a curious ceiling flash in the FOIA freed CITGO gas station security cameras screens, that points to a NoC passing plane, and that flash exactly fits timely, as if it is originating from a NoC passing reflective aluminum attack plane. The reactions of the customers visible in the counter videos are also a giveaway, directly after that flash occurs.

And now we also have a photographed plane length in a security boot's camera screen-shot with an L to H ratio that only fits on that perspectively stretched out screen-shot photo, on the vertical line going through the impact point, that is half as high as the photographed plane length.
Which conclusively means that we see a NoC attacking plane under an angle between 80* to 90* in that screen photo, since only such an angle provides the real 2 times longer length of a B-757 compared to the half as high height of the Pentagon west wall.
In a SoC case, we would see that it would only fit on a 0.7 times as long vertical line, which can only be drawn at least 30 m further south from the real impact point on column 14 of the west wall.

I found out this last week, that the two FOIA freed security boot camera feeds of 4 min each, show in one of their picture frames (4 frames/sec, thus not a video) the vague but distinctive outline of a B-757, which is per definition 2 times longer then the height of the west wall.
The line drawn through the length of that plane's vague fuselage (2L) can be stretched out towards the surface of the west wall's height (1L).
It HAS to end on the line through column 14. That's where the nose cone impacted, you see the gap in the second floor slab easily in pre-collapse photos. But where does it ends on that strongly perspectively distorted security camera screen-shot with the vague B-757.?

Well, that's in fact quite simple to determine with my easy RATIO method for that plane its (45* virtual length) to (90* real length) ratio. Based on the raw assumptions that a SoC plane's attack angle was 45*, and a NoC plane's attack angle was 90*. (* = degree)

We draw two red vertical lines ON THE WEST WALL, which fit exactly between the roof line and the wall's base line, one with half the length of that plane, and one with 0.7 x 0.5 = 0.35 times the easily measurable length of that vaguely visible plane, from the back of the tail fin to the nose cone. Use a pair of compasses to do so (don't scratch your screen).
This ratio is based on the simple equation for a 45*+45*+90* triangle, found by Pythagoras, that a>2 + b>2 = c>2. In this raw case I used the rounded-off values of 7>2 + 7>2 = 10>2
It should be 7.071 and 10.000, however since that plane's contours are much less precise, the rounded figures will suffice.

This below picture is a depiction of what I mean, the light-blue arrow is 7 cm wide, the red and blue, 45* and 90* lines, depicting both the plane's real length, are both 10 cm long :



If you take the real length ratio of a B-757 as 10 cm on half of the longest side (hypotenuse) of a 45x45x90 degrees triangle, then a perpendicular line through that 1/2 hypotenuse point ends at nearly exactly the 7 cm line on the other side.
Which means that we see a virtual length of 7 cm for a SoC attacking plane that flies under an angle of 45* to our camera's viewing field.
And we see a real length of 10 cm for a NoC attacking plane that flies under an angle of 90* to our camera's viewing field. And a line height of 5 cm on the west wall, in a zoomed in screen photo of that security camera, would depict the column 14 impact position.

And if we take a 42* SoC angle, compared to a 84* NoC angle, the ratio is the same, and the virtual SoC plane width/length is still impressively shorter than the virtual NoC plane width/length. The vertical lines on the west wall in that screen shot photo will in that case not differ too much from my 45* against 90* proposal as in my already posted picture :



My red dotted line, along the vague outline of a plane's tail-to-nose length in my picture, will point to, and end at the impact point on column 14, somewhere on my longest vertical red line drawn on the west wall.
And will not point to my 0.7 times shorter drawn vertical red line, that is at least 30 meters further south, even further than the corner of the extended portion of the west wall, thus surely NOT indicating a SoC attack plane length.

These are a few other pictures to help you imagine my L to H ratio method :

The evidence is staring you in the eyes...

When an airplane is filmed by a security camera at the Pentagon, it will appear in its video as 0.7 times its real length, when approaching a FIXED point on the west wall of the Pentagon (column 14) under an angle of about 45 degrees to that wall. Which is roughly the officially endorsed angle.

It will however appear as having its true full length when approaching at roughly 90 degrees to that exact point on that west wall. And since we knew the exact height of that west wall AND the exact length of that plane, it's obvious that the camera filmed a roughly 90 degrees to the west wall approaching B757, THUS on a NoC flight path.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Why hasn't Cheney been named and shamed?

David S. Chandler publicized this at 911Blogger.com on Sunday, 13 March, 2016 - 10:45pm :

David : Recently, while searching online for Pentagon images for his new film, Ken Jenkins discovered images of the plane in a frame from a higher quality version of the Camera 2 video. The plane had not previously been noticed by any of us. Ken did further testing to confirm the legitimacy of what was seen in that frame, ....... Given the clarity of what we were now seeing it was hard to understand why most people (ourselves included) had initially failed to see the plane"

Did David Chandler or Ken Jenkins read my end of 2015 post and went further researching? I hope so.
The longtime readers know quite well by now, that I am a proponent of the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon west wall at column 14 since 10 years ago already.
The only difference with the bulk of the 9/11-truth seeking masses is, that I, just as the CIT team, am strongly opposed against the official South of CITGO flight path, since there are far too many EARLY reliable eyewitness accounts registered already on the day of 9/11/2001, that place that plane on a distinctive NORTH of CITGO flight path.
And they all saw it fly with a far lower flight speed. Indicated by their witnessed bank angles in that curve around the north side of the CITGO gas station. Indicating about half of the official end-speed as deducted from a so-called "recovered" DFDR from AA77.
They witnessed a standard 30 to 35 degrees bank angle flown in that curve, observed by all NoC eyewitnesses who saw it flying there, on the north side of the CITGO gas station, which BANK-ANGLE DICTATES without a shimmer of a doubt, an airspeed as low as half of the officially endorsed crazy high end-speed, PERIOD.!
See for proof of that all my former posts about that in this thread, especially my opening posts.


Because these 9/11-planners were perfectionists, they had already made sure that their PLANNED south of CITGO flightpath would be undoubtedly "evidenced" by the, by left and right wing tips impacted and thus "unmistakably cut", five "downed" light poles, laying already perfectly right in their planned in advance, straight as a ruler, south of CITGO gas station flight path.

In other words, they must have laid down (planted in advance) those (cut also in advance) pieces of light poles in the grass of the Pentagon lawn in the early, still dark hours of 9/11/2001.

I posted several times photos of three orange painted flatbed trailers parked at three different places near the light-pole positions on 9/11, used by the people who do the road work around the Pentagon. One near the Underpass of Route 27 leading to the South parking of the Pentagon near nr 1, one behind a dirt heap beside Route 27's south lane in front of the West wall, and one other one.
They must have used those to put the fabricated "impacted" and already cut light-poles pieces in place in the dark hours of Tuesday morning 11 September 2001.

When you unwillingly but slowly start to believe some or all of the evidence for a north of CITGO flight path, there's no other logical, and all the unearthed facts-fitting explanation, than the above one.

However, when you firmly reject the NoC flight path evidence, based on perhaps some kind of still present, partially misplaced patriotism, mixed with unconditional trust in your chosen leaders and superiors decisions and deeds, then you will continue to just smile about it, and proceed with your protected lifestyle.

It is however the lesser choice for some honest peace of mind. People roaming this 9/11 forum, still reading and then asking questions indicate to me that there is at least some doubt about 9/11 in their minds, and they seem to be still searching for answers for their still nagging questions.

Again, the laws of aerodynamics prescribe a certain airspeed in a calculated curved turn when a certain bank angle is observed. When the type of airplane is known and thus its flight characteristics.
All these facts inserted in the online available bank and turn calculators deliver a very distinct airspeed.
Which in the case of the NoC witnesses lead to the conclusion that the official theory its more as double as high end and impact airspeed must be based on some kind of falsification of their processed "facts".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When flying at top speed a few meters above ground, the ground effect will constantly try to push the wings slightly upwards, you can't keep flying five hundred meters in a straight line above the soil at top speed in such dense air, that's impossible, such a plane when handled manually, by a human hand, will repeatedly jump up and down after each correction with the steering column.
At just 3 meter above the ground, a plane at its top air speed, only wants one thing.
To go upwards.
With a human hand controlling that plane, it would have missed the roof line of the Pentagon.
Or would have buried itself in the lawn.
WHEN the autopilot functions really were switched OFF, 10 minutes before that plane started its downwards circling around southwest of the Pentagon, as the "recovered" DFDR shows.

On the other hand, software steering hardware, connected directly to ailerons, can handle erratic bumpy behavior to keep a plane flying in a straight level line, much better than a human hand, at TOP speeds.
A bumpy ride even at top speed, caused by ground effect which is still present even at such high speeds.
Not so heavy as at lower speeds, but it's still present.

Ground effect starts at a height, half of the wingspan above ground, so for a 757-200 at about 19 meters, which is ten meters higher than the 5 light-poles their heights.
The clearly altered DFDR even shows a straight downward flight path over the last 500 meters. That means the pilot must have fluttered his wrists to push and pull the steering column constantly up and down. While using an increasing amount of force in the push down milliseconds, to persist in a lower and lower height above ground.
At 473 KTS = 954 km/hr, says the DFDR from Flight 77.
Lots of further intelligent Americans want to believe this fairy-tale as told by DFDR translators, about the last minute of Flight 77.
At a speed of 954 km/hr, without the aid of digital auto pilot functions, it's impossible for a pilot to fly that last half mile / 700 meters MANUALLY, in a straight descending line, ending 3 meters above ground, over roads and grass. Without autopilot functions.

I challenge any pilot reading this board, to fly MANUALLY (so autopilot functions are NOT switched-on), in a straight line 5 meters above soil, for about half a mile, with the belly of their commercial airliner at 5 to 3 meters above ground level, at 954 km/hr.
Aiming in that dense air at a 3.3 meters high, thin (paper) object at the end of a half mile track.
Because we like them to survive the experiment, thus the choice of a paper target.
Its IMPOSSIBLE to fly manually, straight and level at top speeds, that far, at 5 to 3 meter above ground. Flight physics won't allow you.

But the Flight 77 recovered DFDR shows such a magic behavior in the last 5 seconds, and also shows that already 10 minutes earlier, all autopilot functions were switched OFF.
Any human pilot in THAT situation (the last five seconds of his life) would have never been able to DIRECTLY compensate through his steering column for the upward forces acting on the plane's wings as a result of the loss of the two wing tip vortexes, and keep doing that far faster than any human hand can do that, at such a proposed top speed, during 5 long seconds.

And the official story tellers working the media relentlessly over the past 14 years, wanted us to believe that the erratic fast bumping as shown in this below graph of the last 10 seconds of Flight 77, is caused by fluttering of plane parts where the measuring equipment (Pitot tubes) was attached to.
files.abovetopsecret.com...



Plain old bull manure. Just look up where the pitot tubes of a 757 that measure airspeed are situated. Not at thin aluminum parts like wing ends which will flutter first.



They are situated under the front belly, extending from a solid smooth piece of aluminum. And they themselves are very sturdy and massive, and short.
Only on supersonic fighter planes are they longer, because of this : link.

A reply to: Fingle

Interesting thread. There was a Lt. Colonel sprinting to the Security video room to the left of the Rumsfeld offices at the Potomac entrance side, and he re-winded the security VHS tapes from the multiple cameras on top of the West wall and watched what hit that West wall.
This was mentioned once in the News early on in the late morning of 9/11, then it disappeared forever. No name.

In the CITGO gas station video, FOIA-freed by Judicial Watch, we see a very bright flash reflected on the white inner ceiling of the northern pump side, and at that moment everyone inside looked suddenly to the east entrance side and ran to the door there to flock together there to watch the flames and smoke of the impact on the West wall.

There was once a member (Larson) who thought he saw a shadow of Flight 77 on the south side entrance of the CITGO station its tarmac in that CITGO video, but sadly for him ( a firm SoC OS flightpath defender) the people inside did not react at all, only until about 10 seconds later that bright ceiling flash is to be seen in that CITGO gas station video, at the North side of that station.
The sun stood at the south side, not so high at 09:38 a.m., so its light reflected from the shiny aluminum side of Flight 77 that at that moment passed NORTH of the CITGO, downwards onto the shiny roof of a parked car there and back up to that ceiling, showing that bright white flash of light.

See also the video taped interviews with Sergeant William Lagasse and his colleague, who both swear they saw that plane fly very low, just about 50 meters NORTH of them.
We have Lagasse in that video standing beside his Pentagon Police patrol car under the NORTHERN canopy, filling up its gas tank at the first of the NORTHERN row of pumps there.
When the flash occurs, he jumps to his open car window, bows inside to radio in his message, then jumps in his car, reversed it and sped out of the entrance to the right side towards the Pike that leads to the South Parking.

Neutronflux posted twice already a much earlier (2003) exchange of Lagasse with a blogger online, where he parroted the official story as seen and heard hundreds of times already on TV. With toppled light-poles and all.

But, when asked by CIT in 2006 where he saw the plane fly, he bet his life on him seeing it fly NORTH of the CITGO, just as his colleague officer. And that he saw it clip a transformer pole top cable on the Pike, north of the CITGO station. NOT one of the 5 light-poles east of Route 27, which he could not see at all from his position under the Northern CITGO canopy.

a reply to: LaBTop

Thank you for the extremely detailed response and the work that you put into the measurements, sourcing and organization of all you have put forth. I hope other appreciate it as much as I do.
Now it's time to re-read it all to make sure I digest it all properly.

Cheers

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Xenogears

You can't believe that random fires, planes crashing into the sides of skyscrapers are guaranteed to result in collapse into the foundations with no possibility of the collapse causing massive damage to the surroundings.

ummm, there was massive damage to the surrounding buildings, you are unaware of that?

Depends what you call massive. As far as I know no other building collapsed. An uncontrolled skyscraper collapse could potentially result in large sections toppling part sideways and causing chaos