Definitive 9.11 Pentagon EVIDENCE.

Here's a straight downwards shot of the area from Sheraton Hotel to the Pentagon's West wall, so you can use your ruler and some cleverness to measure distances.
files.abovetopcret.com...
[pic]vj63abdf35.jpg[/pic Cut off the last ] for clarity of picture link.



Distance from the Pentagon's West wall (~ 900 feet long) to just to the right of the Sheraton hotel (big red dot in the bottom left) is ~ 1.35 Km.
Given the scale line on top left in the photo above of 0 to 750 feet, and a ruler, you can measure it all out.
Do you think that AA77 as seen by the 4 ANC workers could have accelerated in the ~ 500 feet from just before Route 27, to impact, from 265 MPH to 568 MPH.? REALLY .?

We know now, when we believe the two in 2006 by the DoD officially released videos, that the plane did not fly the official path, and had to fly the NoC path to ever come out at an ~ 80 to 90 degrees angle of impact. See all evidence in this thread.

The whole operation of 9/11 looks now as a sophisticated false flag operation, and then you can expect, deeply buried and covered deceptions.

That's why I do not make contacts in person about 9/11, the risk they lure you in with their psychological tricks, is too high, I want to stay strictly neutral to the case of 9/11/2001.
The problem is, everything you find, leads to the unavoidable conclusion that it was a huge, officially granted conspiracy.

My 9/11 advice, stay away in the first place from journalists and in the second place from too right and too left oriented persons, and avoid as the plague especially everything TV or online TV oriented. In short, everything where there's a silent editor involved, in the unknown background. Who will tend to twist your words, in most cases.
.

a reply to: LaBTop

You really didn’t answer the question…

Where is the shadow of this jet. And it’s exhaust. And notice why it looks shorter than it really is…







Like the example Provided..


So. You just proved flight 77 came in on an angle at the pentagon.

And. The shadow of a narrow cylinder, curvy, and shiny object who’s at the most right of the frame and whose shadow should even be more right. And a fire ball lighting up the scene in the other frame making all bets off on shadows. Is not the same as a long flat stone wall 7 times the height of the diameter of the jet with 24 acres of building behind it casing a shadow.

Another example. Where’s the shadow of this light pole?



Sad you iuswvBS perspective lies and ignore the actual trail of damage. Spin BS. You got off on using truth movement lies concerning the real deaths of those on flight 77.

You provided your own answers in your first, third and lady photos.
That's the short version, sigh...but,

That's not going to help me, to get you off my back, since you clearly will not see that simple answer, already from the first time on, that you posted all that crap, without providing any links btw. And totally not understanding your own crappy posting material.

But I understand now that you have no clue at all, so I have to explain it to you,
or you will keep littering this and other threads, with your obvious misconceptions.

And, believe me, I try to educate you, not to humiliate you, it's sometimes a tad bit hard, I have to admit that, to be honest, (smile) :

Your Photo 1, 2 and 3.

LT : Big angle of camera to 747, in your Photo 1, so, appears much smaller than in your Photo 3.
And flies AWAY from the camera, and is or filmed further away from it, than in your Photo 3, or is zoomed in, in your Photo 3, thus that 747 length shows even more shrunken.
RULE nr 1 : You can only compare data from the exact same situation. (Use a ruler) .

As can be done indeed in the Pentagon situation, because those 2 cameras were stationary.
With only ~ 4 m distance from each other, but per individual camera its 27 frames per second, comes then from the exact same situation per camera. Camera data can then thus, frame by frame, from the same camera, be compared.

Camera angle following that 747 in your photos seem to be ~ 45 degrees, so, if that 747 would be portrait as in the same situation as the recorded 9/11 plane, AA77, namely according to you, come flying TOWARDS the camera under an angle of ~ 45 degree to that camera, it would have appeared 30 % shorter. And should now too, but it doesn't. (Use ruler) .

It flies away from the camera, and, much more important, at a different distance from the camera, or, more likely, is zoomed in, what I suspect. Pay also attention to the black tripods in your Photo 1 and 2. These are absent in your Photo 3. Thus, your Photo 3 is zoomed in.

And also watch the ~ 20 degrees angle of the darker green band of grass in the bottom parts of your Photo 1 and 2, while that same band in your Photo 3 is lined perfectly parallel to the photo bottom. Thus, exactly comparable now, with the 2 Pentagon camera positions.

And as you can compare your Photo 1 and 2 now with your Photo 3, which Photo 3 does show a comparable situation as on 9/11, namely a 747 perpendicular to the camera lens, thus showing the full known length of that 747, you'll find that your 747 in Photo 1 is not 30 % smaller, but more than 50% smaller than in your Photo 3. (Use ruler) .

But since the camera was zoomed-in in Photo 3, and thus showed a longer full length than if the camera-man would not have zoomed-in, that's why you measure there in your Photo 1 and 2, a 20 % less 747 length than in an equal zoom situation. Thus thinking it is > 50 % smaller, instead of 30 % smaller than the photo in your Photo 3, which would comply to an in a same situation used camera, and Mathematics shows you, that it then always becomes 30 % smaller in a photo. See my explanation for that in one of these pages.
And always 30 %, but only if you can keep your fingers off the lot of camera settings, and fix the camera on a stable sturdy tripod, where again the fingers-off rule applies. Only then, applies the 30 %. Just as for the Pentagon cameras, and AA77 applied.

The 4 lady photos.

I hope for you that you will understand that the one posting that lady photo (btw, link.? ) does not explain positions as I do. They use the first photo (1) as straight on, but should describe it also as 0 degrees, since they call the fourth photo (4) as 90 degrees.

While I say that the plane shows its left side perpendicular to the camera lens position, thus under an angle of 90 degrees.
I would describe your small lady photo (4) as taken under an angle of 180 or 0 degrees, since the camera is stationary.

EXAMPLE : Lay a full, or half circle protractor, flat on the table in front of you, with the 90 degrees sign perpendicular to but away from your body. Lay your stretched right hand parallel to the black line on it, that is drawn between both 0+180 positions, against that 90 degree position, so with your stretched right hand, parallel to that black line and also to your body, and that's the situation in photo (1), and then move that open hand along the protractor to the right 0+180 position, that's photo (4). In between are positions of photo (2) and (3), nearing 0 degrees, and these seem more and more smaller to the camera, in this case, your eyes, in this example.

I do hope now that you at last understand that the greater the angle to the camera becomes, thus near 90 degrees, the more the plane (or lady) reaches real life dimensions.
The smaller the angles toward the camera, towards 0 degrees, the smaller the plane (or lady) will appear.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]ae63ad1bac.gif[/pic ]



You have been duped by the poster's different use of angles.

Did you read and see my post in pg 8 or 7 with the animated GIF in it, where there and only then, you can clearly see a long black shadow line under the jet engine its trailing horizontal and very long and thick smoke column.?
.

WhatItIs : So. You just proved flight 77 came in on an angle at the pentagon.

Ahhh, missed that gem.
Well, you just proved to yourself that you really need some education, or other friends than those at shady websites like f.ex. :
www.bitchute.com...
therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/?m=1
It's pure propaganda. And full of proven lies.

originally posted by: LaBTop

LT : Big angle of camera to 747, in your Photo 1, so, appears much smaller than in your Photo 3.
And flies AWAY from the camera, and is or filmed further away from it, than in your Photo 3, or is zoomed in, in your Photo 3, thus that 747 length shows even more shrunken.
RULE nr 1 : You can only compare data from the exact same situation. (Use a ruler) .

.

What it shows, the angle affects how long the object appears. With minimal change in distance. And that flight 77 did not fly straight in at the wall










And you just proved flight 77 flew at an angle to the pentagon.


That’s why the jet appears shorter. Because of angle.

And perspective can’t be trusted…








Good luck with your BS…

a reply to: WhatItIs

You truly believe a Boeing 757 airliner, 44 feet tall, hit a building 71 feet tall and didn't crash or over shoot the target?

Not to mention the impact looked to be perfectly horizontal, breaching several walls.

You actually believe this?

a reply to: litterbaux

What walls were breached ??

You are aware that the 2 lowest floors of the Pentagon had no substantial walls between the exterior E ring and the C ring wall to the interior courtyard

The Pentagon walls are built of brick , the outer E ring has a facade of limestone simulating marble

Also the 44 ft height you quote is the height to the top of the tail fin The tail fin is constructed of lightweight materials
which would have been destroyed on impact

The mass of the aircraft is in the wings, engines, fuselage

originally posted by: [post=26828286]firerescue

The mass of the aircraft is in the wings, engines, fuselage

Completely vaporized.

therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com...
Then scroll to :
"" Debris of American Airlines Flight 77;

Section Summary: Contrary to conspiracy theory belief, there was an abundance of identifiable wreckage recovered from the Pentagon. Engines, landing gear, wheels, fuselage debris, and more, provided in this section. ""

That's 56 photos of AA77 debris to study.

firerescue, your view on this please, especially my last remark under that diagram :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LT : When you hold a plastic ruler at a circa 80° angle to the nose of that tiny plane in the inserted photo in the upper right corner, you will see the real attack angle, and that the whole plane in fact ended up under the later "collapsed" portion of Wedge 1. It did not further get inside than the inner wall of the E-Ring, where the collapsed portion ended.
All the other internal damage must have been caused by explosives, there is no other explanation, when you see through the ASCE report its pile of hogwash :

files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]hv4f56c4ac.jpg[/pic ]



And when you know now, what that real length of the measured AA77 in the by David Chandler by GIMP corrected 2 DoD videos means.
Go and find out where those mainframes stood in that Navy Special Unit part.
Don't you find those green and yellow columns to the left, a tad bit suspicious, now you know the 90 degrees fact.?
If you want, I can give you the diagram with the indications in it, who was where.
.

Found :
files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]ld4f5e6624.JPG[/pic ]



You see just as me, quite some not colored columns in the NAVY quarters.?

And this is the "clean" original picture :
files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]kr4f5dfdd7.JPG[/pic ]

.
.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]gj4f5e0332.jpg[/pic ]



Strange victims concentrations in the Navy Operations Center, near automatic locked doors.
.
.

a reply to: litterbaux

Jet engine

www.physics911.net...

Fuselage section

qph.fs.quoracdn.net...

Landing gear

www.911myths.com...

Dont look vaporized to me

And no reader sees the grouping of nearly all (blue encircled) PLANE victims together, in the farthest part of the Pentagon from impact.?

No one ask themself : how come the majority of victim remains have ALL come so far.?
Through that wood of re-enforced with steel, concrete columns. And all building debris in that dense damage path.?
See my post above, the link to those 56 photos of plane and building debris :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do they really add something to the drinking water in the US and Allies, to sift logic thoughts out.?
Or is that the effect of 80 years of TV slavery and sell out of individual thinking.?
.
.

Constantly keep in mind, the new fact for all ATS readers, that AA77 flew towards the Pentagon in a 90 degrees attack path.
In other words, straight to its wall, and not as told by every US official, in a 42 to 56 degrees attack flight path.

And from now on, ALL its thus logically following CONSEQUENCES must be studied as deep as we can go.

This OFFICIAL evidence was offered by the US DoD in 2006, not by some derailed ""conspiracy seeker"".
The DoD and about every other US official, supported the DoD's theory of the 42 to 56 degrees flight path of AA77.
All based on those two DoD security tapes.

And now at last, the DoD tripped over its own evidence tapes, turning them into their own self accusation downfall.
.

The Secret History of 9/11 - Full Documentary ( 1:30:15 hrs )
By cjnewson88, some 9 years ago uploaded by him, a stubborn government defender.
You have to be logged in to YouTube as an adult, otherwise it's blocked.
www.youtube.com...


Quite some very strange decisions made on 9/11.
F.ex. by heads of the then governing persons.
And the top military, during that day.

This picture was very difficult to get, I bet none of you younger ones, ever had it seen or saved.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]jl4f5e6421.JPG[/pic ]


If you just move my yellow "42 degree Attack Angle ASCE Report" line a tad bit to the right, so it crosses over the center of that smallest tree of three, the one standing in front of column 14, which is 8 windows to the left/North of the southern corner of that protruding part of the West wall.
The column 14, where AA77 slammed into at the first floor's concrete floor slab. Picture to prove that, anyone interested.?

If you draw another line parallel to my red 90 degree angle line, just enough to let it now cross over the bottom part of that little green tree, then you have the photographed by the security camera its fish eye lens, "virtual" i.o.w., distorted full length of AA77. Which David and GIMP together resolved to its real world dimensions, as if shot with a normal flat lens, by just straightening out all bend lines in the security video frames, with GIMP.

If you're still curious, and wish to see my alternative 80 degrees impact path line for AA77, than just draw a line from that same smallest tree bottom, to the letter T from my descriptive words "Diesel Tank".

In the past, the usual forum distractions posters, who seem to have awfully good connections with all kinds of US officials, have posted much smaller compounds with those renovation trailers in them. And could therefore fit an 45 degree incoming AA77 in, that just strafed that diesel generator trailer with those protruding thingies under its right wing.
Here you see that if AA77 would have come in with any angle between 42 and 56 degrees, its fuselage and jet engines would have shattered all trailers in sight.

The only flight paths that would have allowed AA77 to cut with its right wing's outer winglets, that gauge on top of that generator trailer, standing on 9/11 in the far northern corner of that fenced off compound, could have only been flight paths with between 80 and 90 degrees angles of attack, towards column 14.

And now, by sheer luck and cleverness, it is definitely proven beyond any form of doubt, to really be so, especially with help from David Chandler and his GIMP software.

First, that long red NoC Witnesses line drawn by me in 2004, is not an 80 degree attack angle, that's a 68 degree attack angle in that photo. Sorry for that mistake.

Again, the real 80 degree angle is depicted by a line from the bottom of that smaller tree in front of column 14, towards the letter T in my written words "Diesel Tank".
This photo/diagram was made to show eventual possible angles of an AA77 plane, making the gauge in the roof of that generator trailer's cabin. And that it could not be an official flight path with 42 to 56 degrees angles.

Thus I, or any one of you readers, have to draw new lines in this picture with a different color, f.ex. dark blue, to show the various attack angles, talked about in this thread.



Ask yourself :
What obstacles would be engaged, by the officially boosted flight paths of 42 to 56 degrees angles towards the West wall, for such a low incoming flight AA77 and its right jet engine.
Those various angle degrees of 32 to 56 degrees were told and advertised via multiple official sources, during many years.

I advice to try to use the model of a 757 from my above ""Found.! "" post.

Note that the nose of that 757 should end against the bottom part of that smallest tree in front of column 14 in the wall. Stands 8 windows north (left) of the southern corner of the protruding part of the West wall.
And exactly with its full length of plane, longest fuselage beam, ending to the first floor's concrete floor slab, reinforced with steel, a very sturdy obstacle.

That's why I am quite sure that AA77 was overtaken shortly before it reached the Pentagon, by some early Artificial Intelligence algorithm. To reach this kind of precision, to achieve the planners their needed outcome and goals.
.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
[pic]ma63b1b962.jpg[/pic ]



As you now clearly can see, those AA77 attack angles from 42 to 56 degrees towards the Pentagon's West wall at column 14 are simply impossible, to be able to fit the damage profile on the West wall after impact. Like wings and tail f.ex.
The big tree to the right would have halted the right wing, and that right wing should have cut and imprinted the facade much earlier. The fuselage and both wings and jet engines would have obliterated everything in that last northern part of that compound.
Remember, those fat black lines depicts the fuselage trajectory of AA77, so, there are wings too, at both sides of those black lines, moving towards that wall.

originally posted by: LaBTop
Constantly keep in mind, the new fact for all ATS readers, that AA77 flew towards the Pentagon in a 90 degrees attack path.
In other words, straight to its wall, and not as told by every US official, in a 42 to 56 degrees attack flight path.

Well. It did if the angle of the flight wasn’t straight on as dictated by the path of damaged and reflected by the shorter length in the security camera photo.

Straight?


Length shortened by a jet at an angle to a camera



Your own words…

originally posted by: LaBTop
WhatItIs.
Tell us something constructional about the meat of the matter,
well, it's now 2 subjects :

1. There's no shadow under the plane, nor under that thick and just as long jet engine smoke trail.

2. Real observable length of plane (154 ft) is 2 x known and observable real height of West wall (77 ft).

The observable length would be shorter for a jet coming in at and angle than a jet coming in perpendicular to the camera and wall….