The images on the SF Gate site are not the same as the stills from the Judicial Watch Video released today via FOIA.
On the entirety of the two JW videos there is one still (at 1:26 of the Video Camera 1) where an object can be seen flying in from the right margin. This is not the same image as on the SF GATE still.
I've taken some screen captures of the JW video object and blown them up to various sizes. I've also added a pic and schematic of a 757 similar to flight 77.
Decide for yourself whether the object is a plane or not.
Oh, come on.
The key pitfall in conspiracy-mongering like this is that it would be harder for the feds (or your favorite villain) to fake it convincingly than for the official storyline simply to be true.
There are actual unresolved stories, and then there are settled ones. Stick a fork in it; this one's clear done since day one.
Posted by Simplify at May 17, 2006 12:44 AMAlmost all the defenses of the conventional story of 911 are like yours,Simplify ;that a 911 conspiracy is illogical.
Look at the data.Look at the mountain of evidence compiled for years questioning 911.The conclusion that the conventional story is a fairy tale is inevitable.
what about the videos from all of the businesses around / near the House of War ( pentagon ) that the FBI scooped up on 9/11 and have not seen the light of day - release ALL of the videos and PROVE a jet airliner ccrashed into the House of War. until then.... stfu and go cheney yourself.
Posted by shrub is a train wreck at May 17, 2006 01:30 AMThat was no Boeing airliner. It left no big pieces behind - like two very large engines. Whatever hit was no 757.
Posted by pessimist at May 17, 2006 02:40 AMThat was no Boeing airliner. It left no big pieces behind - like two very large engines. Whatever hit was no 757.
Oh come bloody on. Where the hell is the airliner and the passengers if the Pentagon was hit with a cruise missile or some other explosive object?
For that matter, where did the engines go the World Trade Center site?
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 17, 2006 04:31 AMUnder my atom m-scope I can clearly see a bawling Arab pilot peeing his pants. No visible hard-on. (72 disappointed virgins.)
Posted by TIKI AL at May 17, 2006 04:42 AMInside the Beltway, out of touch: The problem that's poisoning the debate.
Posted by Joseph at May 17, 2006 05:31 AMhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon
Occam's razor, people. Diebolding elections: REAL conspiracy. Flight 77: INCINERATED IN THE FUCKING PENTAGON.
Focus, motherfuckers. Focus.
Posted by God Of War at May 17, 2006 05:51 AMhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
The above link kills your conspiracy theories. Let them rest in peace.
Posted by at May 17, 2006 05:54 AMI'm starting to think the video was released yesterday knowing that a bunch of lefty websites would embrace the conspiracy and thus make themselves look like loons.
It goes like this:
"See those sites that say a missle hit the pentagon? Those are the same crazy people who tell you we're tapping your phones!"
Posted by Lucky at May 17, 2006 05:59 AMThe thing that strikes me is what a flying job it was to stay a few yards off the ground at 500mhp, missing cars trucks fences etc... long enough to hit the Pentagon.
I haven't heard much about the training but it seems to me quite a remarkable feat, that wouldn't be taught at a flight school. There'd also have to be some pretty good planning for a flight path that let them do it IMO.
Posted by john at May 17, 2006 06:02 AMThe thing that strikes me is what a flying job it was to stay a few yards off the ground at 500mhp, missing cars trucks fences etc...
You mean like every pilot does every day of the year while landing jets at major airports?
Look people. The video that was released happened over the course of what...maybe 4 seconds. The time stamps on the first two frames are the same. There is less than a second between when the plane enters the frame to when the fireball erupts from the building. The plane clearly slammed into the ground before sliding into the building. The object visible is clearly larger than any cruise missile in our arsenal. Bare in mind that the Pentagon is a huge building and the object in the video is quite some distance away. It is easy for me to believe that the object in that video image is an airliner that has undergone significant structural deformation after having struck the ground at 500+ miles per hour.
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 06:26 AMThe thing that strikes me is what a flying job it was to stay a few yards off the ground at 500mhp, missing cars trucks fences etc... long enough to hit the Pentagon.
I haven't heard much about the training but it seems to me quite a remarkable feat, that wouldn't be taught at a flight school. There'd also have to be some pretty good planning for a flight path that let them do it IMO.
Maybe the pilot was one of the hijackers who actually studied landing?
I know it's a crass comment, but let's also admit that landing and skimming the last 1000 yards before plowing into a 80 foot tall building (10 stories by old rule of thumb) do have some common skills.
The pilot could have also been naturally gifted, or that by sheer chance he was able to pull off an unlikely bit of flying. At the same time, it's fortunate for us that the pilot didn't come in high and strike the building across the top floors of all the rings, rather than just drilling right into the A Ring.
The approach taken to The Pentagon also sits in the main flight zone for Reagan Nat'l and air traffic used this approach as a heliport. And DC in this area is fairly damn flat because it's a river basin, and Arlington Nat'l Cemetery lies in the flight path. Not much there to make a pilot bob and weave.
Oh, and MS Flight Simulator has for years let teenage boys crash airliners into buildings for fun. It's not a full mockup simulator, but I'm sure that practicing on the software wouldn't be detrimental to one's flying skills.
C'Mon folks, this isn't hard if I can do it with 20 minutes, a map, some reasoning, and wikipedia.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 17, 2006 06:27 AMI've been to the Pentagon, used the Metro to get there and I've seen the chaos of cars arriving and departing, as 65,000 employees come and go from work there.
It's always struck me as rather odd, that no one the morning of 9/11, reported seeing the 757 fly along the ground before it struck the building.
Stranger still, to maintain 500+ knots, the twin turbine engines would have had to be pushed forward -- making a loud, screaming sound, as the RPMs thrusted the 757 forward. Again, no one arriving for work by car, Metro or on foot, reported hearing anything.
I guess I need to drink the Koolaid to buy the "official" Bush administration line on these pictures. But, I'm allergic to Koolaid. ;-)
Posted by Christopher at May 17, 2006 06:36 AMhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com
has dozens of articles refuting the official 911 story.It's a funny link to use to "kill your conspiracy theories"
Posted by Kevin at May 17, 2006 06:42 AMThis video has been out for years. The fact that it's suddenly being touted as "newly-released" is a bit strange. Whatever.
But let's be honest here: This video is far too fuzzy to glean an usable information on the make of vehicle in question. But what about the proportions of the vehicle? Doesn't a 757 have a rudder that stands a good forty to fifty feet tall? And, if so, why can't we make this out? Shouldn't a plane the size of a 757 dominate the right side of the frame as it comes into view? The building appears to be five stories tall, meaning the plane should literally fill the right-hand portion of the frame, and that we should be able to make out the rudder. Why can't we see this?
I'm just asking.
It seems to me that whatever it is that flies into the frame is much smaller than a jumbo jet. I'm not saying it isn't one, I'm just looking for some rational, plausible explanation as to why it looks like it's the size of a Cessna. And yes, I realize that were looking at this from some distance.
Any math geniuses out there care to comment on this?
Posted by urizon at May 17, 2006 06:47 AM"I'm not saying it isn't one, I'm just looking for some rational, plausible explanation as to why it looks like it's the size of a Cessna. And yes, I realize that were looking at this from some distance."
Urizon, I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that has ever bothered me was the size of the hole, and now the size of the plane.
Posted by Judith at May 17, 2006 06:54 AMFor goodness sake, wasn't Flight 77 being tracked continuously by military and civilian radar? Don't we have those records?
And if it didn't crash somewhere, where is it and its passengers now?
"Disappeared" into a CIA black site, I suppose.....
Posted by euzoius at May 17, 2006 06:54 AMEyewitness accounts of a plane striking the Pentagon;
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20
"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News
Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001
That's just a small smattering of people who have gone on record as seeing the plane, and the plane hit the Pentagon. I could have included the dozens of people who saw the plane, but didn't see it hit (because it went behind a bridge, a hill, or some trees), but I choose only to post the ones that sounded the most valid and actually saw the plane hit the building. (I included the one firechief who states he saw some plane wreckage during firefighting/rescue attempts.) There are most likely twenty times more that either haven't been publicly recorded as seeing the crash, or simply don't want the attention. You can't honeslty sit there and deny the witnesses, the photographs, the facts, the science, and the reality that there was a terrorist attack on the Pentagon if you look at everything available and not one single tidbit of information at a time.
Courtesy of AboveTopSecret.com
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 06:58 AMUrizon, I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that has ever bothered me was the size of the hole, and now the size of the plane.
The diameter of a 757's body is probably about 15 or 16 feet! How big was the hole in the Pentagon?
Get over it people!
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 07:01 AM
what about the videos from all of the businesses around/near the House of War (pentagon) that the FBI scooped up on 9/11 and have not seen the light of day - release ALL of the videos and PROVE a jet airliner ccrashed into the House of War.
I have to go with this one. Why dispute conspiracy with a fuzzy film of photos. Release all the videos of the plane coming into view and crashing.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 17, 2006 07:06 AMOT:
Bush Reverses Stand on Spy Program Oversight
Will Allow Full Senate and House Intelligence Committees to Review Surveillance
WASHINGTON (May 17) - The White House, in an abrupt reversal, has agreed to let the full Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees review President George W. Bush's domestic spying program, lawmakers said on Tuesday.
The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House panels disclosed the shift two days before a Senate confirmation hearing for Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden as the new CIA director, which is expected to be dominated by concern over the program.
The chairmen said separately that Bush had agreed to full committee oversight of his Terrorist Surveillance Program rather than the more limited briefings allowed up to now.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060516232409990014
Posted by Judith at May 17, 2006 07:12 AMI have to go with this one. Why dispute conspiracy with a fuzzy film of photos. Release all the videos of the plane coming into view and crashing.
Really think that would convince anyone who really wants to believe otherwise?
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 07:12 AMI agree with Simplify and God of War.
Any one viewing the security tapes from the gas station across the road can clearly see what hit the pentagon.
If those images were somehow unavailable, then maybe I'd think that something might be amiss.
Posted by ROGNM at May 17, 2006 07:18 AMsnark, It's just not perfectly convincing, clear cut, no doubt. I think a plane hit the Pentagon, my sister had some co-workers there that day. But make the case without reasonable doubt.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 17, 2006 07:20 AMhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com
has dozens of articles refuting the official 911 story.It's a funny link to use to "kill your conspiracy theories"
Posted by Kevin at May 17, 2006 06:42 AM
*****
Yes fuckwitted shiteater, that is true, but the specific link is filled with testimonials of witnesses to the crash and FUCKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF AIRPLANE DEBRIS INSIDE THE PENTAGON.
If you want to engage me on this, you're going to get hammered and embarrassed. I'm not fucking around. You conspiracy theorists will completely discredit this site. So shut the fuck up and focus on something real, lest you do Rove's work for him.
Posted by God Of War at May 17, 2006 07:35 AMI looked closely, but couldn't see a 757. One camera has what might be the nose of a 757 at near ground level, the other - presumably taken just after - shows something that looks like a cloud of white smoke. Assuming the 5-storey Pentagon is some 70 feet high, a 155 foot long 757 ought to show up pretty large. But then, if it was moving at 500 mph or 733 ft/sec, it would move 366 feet in the half second between each frame, which might result in it going through the field of view, and/or getting blurred depending on the camera shutter speed. My conclusion: the videos are inconclusive. Something's happening, but it's not clear what.
One weird thing about it is that the barrier arm goes up, apparently of its own accord, and some attendant walks up and points at it it, seemingly more interested in this anomaly than the giant fireball exploding a few hundred feet further away. But perhaps that's just what car barrier attendants are paid to do.
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 07:48 AMSo, conspiracy theories will "discredit this site," and sanctimonious bloviators calling themselves "god" won't?
Just wondering.
Posted by urizon at May 17, 2006 07:55 AMWow! You were able to determine not only that the car barrier went up "of its own accord" but also what was on the mind of the attendant all from a soundless piece of security camera videotape!
Amazing.
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 07:56 AMCan we assume ,God of War,that by "hammered and embarrassed" you mean ,call me dirty little names like a junior high school student?
PS.I didn't post the article.I commented on it like anyone else.
You conspiracy theorists (God of War)
Um, whichever way you come at it, this is always going to be a conspiracy theory. The idea that 19 guys highjacked 4 planes, etc, etc, and that was all there was to it, is itself a conspiracy theory. It just happens to be the official conspiracy theory. There are other conspiracy theories, which may or may not provide a more complete explanation.
Personally, I'm on the fence about them all.
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 08:05 AMYesterday's release of the Defense Department tape is not about to become the newest Zapruder film.
It simply raises more questions than it answers.
Maybe the Feds shoulda' hired Industrial Light and Magic? Those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked mighty real. LOL!!!
Posted by Christopher at May 17, 2006 08:06 AMDoesn't a 757 have a rudder that stands a good forty to fifty feet tall?
Yes it does.
And, if so, why can't we make this out?
Because the back of the plane is not in the frame.
Shouldn't a plane the size of a 757 dominate the right side of the frame as it comes into view?
The Pentagon is some 900 feet long on each side. This camera was positioned at one of the corners. The plane struck the side of the building more than half way down the side of the building and was approaching the building at an angle coming from away from the camera. That means the plane, which has a body height of 13 to 14 feet was some 450 odd feet away.
The building appears to be five stories tall, meaning the plane should literally fill the right-hand portion of the frame
The Pentagon is 77 feet tall. A 757 which has just slammed into the ground (I don't think it landed on its landing gear do you?) would be 13/14 feet tall. That's assuming that the fuselage had not started to compress as a result of impacting the ground. Look at the height of the building in the photo at the area where the impact actually occurs. It does not dominate the frame. Why would a plane that is less than 1/5th the height of the building dominate the frame? Ever hear of perspective?
...and that we should be able to make out the rudder. Why can't we see this?
Because the rudder is not in the picture. The next frame shows the plane already impacting the building. Less than a second had passed. The camera missed the rest of the plane passing as it was moving at several hundred feet per second.
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 08:17 AMI agree that the release of the footage opens up more questions than it answers. I don't know if there was a conspiracy or not, but this kind of footage adds a fuel to the fire for many who believe there was a conspiracy.
Difference of opinions might be answered with less anger (except in cases of trolls).
Posted by Judith at May 17, 2006 08:23 AMWell it's clear that some of us aren't convinced in the video supplied that this resolves the whole issue. Others are, congratulations.
I say chill out GOW, your getting awfully worked up over nothing much.
And yes I'm just as pissed that Rove has not been taken into custody yet!
Amazing. (Snark)
Upon deep reflection, looking at frame 1:45 again, I think the attendant is probably pointing at the impact site, not the raised barrier arm.
Upon deep reflection, looking at frame 1:45 again, I think the attendant is probably pointing at the impact site, not the raised barrier arm.
My apologies for excessive snark.
It's my nature.
The plane struck the side of the building more than half way down the side of the building and was approaching the building at an angle coming from away from the camera. (snark)
How do we know it was approaching at an angle? The first post by Night Owl invites us to look at a 757 side on. Clearly Night Owl didn't think it was coming in at an angle. Neither did I.
Why would a plane that is less than 1/5th the height of the building dominate the frame? Ever hear of perspective?
The fusillage diameter of a 757 is about 13 feet, but it's also 155 feet long. Now it's true that perspective will shrink that down to 12 feet if the plane is coming nearly straight towards the camera, but again that's not Night Owl's reading. Nor mine.
If the Pentagon is 77 feet high, then it looks like there's 250 to 300 feet of open ground in view. Since in the half second frame interval, a jet moving at 500 mph (how do we know what the speed was?) would travel 366 feet, then the probability of a plane showing up at all on video at all would be something like 250/366 or about 70%. That probability would increase if the plane was coming in at an angle. But the shallower the angle, the greater the likelihood the plane would show up in prior frames - which it doesn't.
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 09:02 AMOh for god's sake. If it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, would any of you geniuses mind telling me what happened to the plane and explain why none of the people on it have ever been seen again? Are they in Cheney's bunker? Are they in Guantanamo? Just what is your theory about where they are?
Posted by Alexandra at May 17, 2006 09:04 AMOh for god's sake. If it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, would any of you geniuses mind telling me what happened to the plane and explain why none of the people on it have ever been seen again? Are they in Cheney's bunker? Are they in Guantanamo? Just what is your theory about where they are?
Posted by Alexandra at May 17, 2006 09:15 AMActually, we can get something like a speed estimate. If we suppose that the plane nose appears in frame 1:26, and has travelled across 250 feet of open ground in a half second, so that in frame 1:27 it has vanished into a fireball, then with some 150 feet of fusillage added, it moves at least 400 feet in one half second. i.e. it's doing over 500 mph, and faster if it's coming in at an acute angle.
What's the top speed of a 757?
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 09:20 AMHere's the link to eyewitness accounts in that Rightist propaganda organ, The Guardian.
Again:
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."
A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."
The story was filed by:" Julian Borger in Washington, Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles, Charlie Porter in New York and Stuart Millar
Wednesday September 12, 2001."
I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, myself, but I can elaborate to answer Alexandra's questions. The theory is that the plane was shot down - by the U.S. Govt. - and crashed somewhere else. Then a missile supposedly hit the Pentagon. Not sure where the missile came from. That's the theory, not my belief. I've seen pictures of the Pentagon afterwards and there was some pretty amazing destruction.
I just don't think our boys in Washington are competent enough to handle an operation of this magnitude to cover up an alternate explanation.
Posted by ann at May 17, 2006 09:22 AMIf it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, would any of you geniuses mind telling me what happened to the plane and explain why none of the people on it have ever been seen again?
Sorry, but we're just looking at a piece of video footage here, to try to see what it can tell us. Wider questions like yours don't come into play.
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 09:27 AMTo answer my own question: the top speed of a 757 is 610 mph.
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 09:34 AMThere will be conspiracy theories about 9-11 long after we all are gone. The White House whitewashed the investigations and used 9-11 to start a neo-colonial Holy War by occupying two Muslim countries.
The real conspiracy is how the White House used a small band of Muslim fanatics to grab and hold onto power. Not, a missile attack on the Pentagon or planting explosives in the World Trade Center exactly where two planes hit.
Most of us are children of the Kennedy assassination era and as a result, wouldn't believe the government if they said the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west.
Believe the Bush administration at your own peril.
Posted by Christopher at May 17, 2006 10:05 AMHow do we know it was approaching at an angle?
Look at the photographs on AboveTopSecret.com.
The fusillage diameter of a 757 is about 13 feet, but it's also 155 feet long. Now it's true that perspective will shrink that down to 12 feet if the plane is coming nearly straight towards the camera, but again that's not Night Owl's reading. Nor mine.
I did not say it was at an acute angle that would severely forshorten the length of the plane. But it will, if it is approaching the building from a point farther from the camera make the plane appear smaller rather than larger. Or do you dispute this? Your question was why does the plane not fill the frame in reference to its height relative to the height of the building. I answered your question. The building does not fill the frame. Why would a much smaller object do so?
Your ability to overlook the multitude of actual physical evidence is astounding. Where do you suppose all the plane parts came from? And are all the eye witnesses who saw the plane lying? Honestly. Put your energies to use somewhere worth while.
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 10:08 AMThe real conspiracy is how the White House used a small band of Muslim fanatics to grab and hold onto power. Not, a missile attack on the Pentagon or planting explosives in the World Trade Center exactly where two planes hit.
Posted by Jim S at May 17, 2006 09:52 AM
*****
Amen!
Posted by God Of War at May 17, 2006 10:25 AMAre they scummy enough to do something like this if they thought they could get away with it? Probobly. Would they be dumb enough to try to pull it off? No. "Oh look at 'em crazy lefties - they'll believe anthing cuz they hate America 'n George Bush - they're just like the terrists!" Part of the problem is, ruthless scum have admitted to doing things - or, planning things - that would stretch Hamlets credulity. Innumerable black-op interventions, the likely October Suprise of the early eighties, Operation Northwind, MK- ULTRA and on and on. Of course, a logical responce to these revelations could very easily be: What have they done that we dont know about? So to some extent, we all become Hamlets. The best thing to do is work with what we do know about these usurpers. Which is bad enough. It helps also that they're already in the process of hanging themslves on the petard of their own greed and stupidity.
Posted by jondee at May 17, 2006 11:34 AMIf the camera was pointed a hair more to the right, and the timing allowed a perfect image of the tail with all of it's glorious markings, would this STILL be debated? Sadly, YES. On the night of the play, Abe's snoring was finally just too much for Mary to endure. Booth could not have picked a worse time to seek an autograph. Loudspeaker sounds: "Medication time....medication time."
Posted by TIKI AL at May 17, 2006 11:45 AMYour question was why does the plane not fill the frame in reference to its height relative to the height of the building. (snark)
Somebody else might have asked that, but not me. I quite accept that the plane looks OK in respect of height. It's the length that bothers me at present. I agree that if the plane is coming in from an angle, it will appear shorter. At what angle do you think it is moving?
Your ability to overlook the multitude of actual physical evidence is astounding.
I'm simply looking at these two videos, to see what can be discovered from them. And I think I can find out quite a lot. Or is it impermissible to do some math?
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 11:54 AMNot worth "debating." Some people believe it because they havnt been able to articulate in any other way what profoundly Machievellian slime we're dealing with here. Others are probobly trying to stir of dissonance and attempting to make "the Left" look like a bunch of nut cases. The Israeli "art student" deal is kind of interesting though. And no, I dont think Israel was "behind" 9/11.
Posted by jondee at May 17, 2006 11:57 AMSomebody else might have asked that, but not me.
Sorry, confused you with urizon.
I'm simply looking at these two videos, to see what can be discovered from them. And I think I can find out quite a lot. Or is it impermissible to do some math?
By all means. Educate.
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 12:11 PMWhy is it so much easier for some to obsess on and on about this b.s than it is to ACT on what Jim S. and GOW underscore so well? You guys need to join up with Scout. He's got an even bigger conspiracy that he's working on.
Posted by jondee at May 17, 2006 12:24 PMThis ought to put it to rest.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8649.shtml
Posted by God Of War at May 17, 2006 12:57 PMRight. The length of a 757 is 155 feet. The top speed of a 757 is 610 mph, or 894 ft/sec. The video camera has a half second frame rate, and so between frames a 757 at top speed will travel 447 ft.
In the video frame showing the plane just edging into view, assuming the height of the Pentagon is 77 feet, then given the ratio of the pixel height of the Pentagon at the point of impact (40 pixels), and the distance of that point from the right edge of the frame (136 pixels), the distance to edge of frame is about 260 feet.
If the plane is coming in at an angle A to a line perpendicular to the face of the Pentagon, what is the maximum value of A?
Since the plane's nose is at the edge of the frame, and it has completely disappeared into the pentagon in the next frame, it must travel not just the distance of nose to wall, but a further 155 feet to account for the length of the fusillage. Since the distance a 757 at top speed will travel is 447 feet, it will only travel 447 - 155 or 292 feet within the frame.
So we have a right angle triangle, the length of one side being the 260 foot perpendicular from the Pentagon to the right edge of the frame, and the length of the hypoteneuse being 292 feet, with A being the angle between these two lines. Given cosA = 260/292 = 0.89, A = 27 degrees.
So the maximum angle to perpendicular of an incoming 757 is 27 degrees, and the maximum foreshortening is 0.89. So, even coming in at angle of 27 degrees, the plane should occupy 0.89 x 155 feet, or 138 feet, or 72 pixels in the frame, if the whole of it was visible.
Posted by idlex at May 17, 2006 01:36 PMIdlex - You're obsessing about this because deep down you wouldnt change a thing. FOS. I'll put your name down on the PNAC document under Bennett, or Decters.
Posted by jondee at May 17, 2006 01:43 PMWell that was a lot of mental masturbation.
Posted by snark at May 17, 2006 01:53 PMYeah right .... AA 77 was spirited off to the Bermuda Triangle along with Ted Olson's wife, 5 hijackers and the rest of the passengers and crew so Bush/Cheney could shoot a missile at the Pentagon.
Good thing the passengers on United 93 fought back - otherwise the vast right wing conspiracy would have launched another missile at the Capitol.
Posted by Reality Based Initiative at May 17, 2006 02:30 PMNothing like a good conspiracy theory fire up everyone...
I'm a pilot and an engineer. I think it probably was a plane, but the government could do a better job of debunking the cruise missle theory. So why don't they? That makes me think the video was released as a distraction (there's the real conspiracy theory for you!
The problems I have with the "official" 9/11 explanations are thus:
Whenever a plane crashes you typically have a tail section and a black box. Neither were seen at the Pentagon.
There was a picture of a jet engine compressor flywheel at the Pentagon crash site. But it was not the right size for a 757 (it was much smaller).
Jet engines are usually recovered from crashes because they are predominently titanium which has a much higher melting point than jet fuel can produce.
Never in history have 3 steel buildings collapsed due to fire...yet 3 did on 9/11
Did a plane hit World Trace Center Building 7? No.
Posted by Roy Batty at May 17, 2006 02:46 PMGod of War your eloquent prose is inspiring. Yours is surely the province of adolescence and/or teen-age angst. But please keep up your charming ways; for it is the likes of you that unites the likes of me.
So much for the niceties: God of War I bet you wouldn't say something like that to me, in person, to my face. Want to know why? Because you are a coward who hides behind a keyboard becasue it protects you from getting the ass-kicking you deserve.
Tell ya what, go into any public place tonight and start up a conversation about anything. The first time anyone disagrees with you call him a "fuckwitted shiteater" and see what happens.
Personally, I hope you find me you gutless coward.
Posted by Minion of Peace at May 17, 2006 03:38 PM
And who is "the likes of me"? The minion of peace thing is meant ironically I take it.
Posted by jondee at May 17, 2006 03:46 PMWho is "the likes of me?" Other minions of peace of course.
Irony? Never heard of it. I chose "Minion of Peace" because "fuckwitted shiteater" would have opened me up to charges of plagarism.
MoP
Okay. Let's walk through this. Something really big hits the Pentagon. At the same time, a plane, which is in the same general area, going in the same general direction, disappears and many people are gone. The reason why you would NOT think that these two things are related is some grainy videotape? I really think that it is useless to talk about what else it might be until you can explain what happened to the plane. Also, I completely don't get why anybody would shoot a missile into the pentagon at the exact same moment when a plane disappears. Seems a little farfetched, to put it politely.
Posted by Alexandra at May 17, 2006 04:14 PMAlexandra Romanov, my glittering Fabrege egg of lucidity - you aint kidding.
Posted by jondee at May 17, 2006 04:28 PMIf you haven't seen the documentary "Loose Change" I suggest you take a coupole hours to watch it. I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist and believe that AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But I will say that this video raised a number of questions in my mind. Primarily, as someone pointed out above, why did the third World Trade Center tower fall? It wasn't hit by anything. it wasn't even burning. It just fell. Out of the blue.
And there are legit questions about the Pentagon crash as well, like the whole made in the building (The fuselage created about a 13-foot hole in the Pentagon but the wings and engines didn't appear to do any damage to the building at all when they hit it. Didn't even break windows!)
Don't be afraid trolls - the video doesn't threaten you at all. Just watch it with an open mind. If that is possible.
MoP
http://tvnewslies.org/html/watch_loose_change_2_on_line.html
Posted by Minion of Peace at May 17, 2006 04:35 PMhttp://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/20060330_David_Ray_Griffin_32k.mp3
This presentation is a good overview on the myths of 9/11. The talk starts about 12 minutes into this audio: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/20060330_David_Ray_Griffin_32k.mp3
In the 911 skeptical community there is debate about what hit the Pentagon. Even though there is wide spread belief that the three WTC towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, one camp thinks a Boeing hit the Pentagon and the other camp does not. This is still an unresolved issue for these 911 skeptics. Furthermore, the Boeing hit the Pentagon group thinks the no-Boeing theory is really a Trojan Horse for 9/11 skeptics.
For instance see The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics and rebuttals, The Company You are Keeping: Comments on Hoffman and Green and We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
It's strange that this Pentagon strike footage is appearing in the press now instead of the focus being put on the collapse of the WTC towers. Maybe the Pentagon strike is a booby trap. Anyway, this site http://www.st911.org has more articles, audios, videos and related links.
Posted by at May 18, 2006 11:00 AMThe Flight 77 conspiracy theories are a smoke screen. They serve the dual purpose of discrediting 911 consipiracy theories and of distracting people from the real problems with the official story of 911. It's like those conspiracy theories that claim the WTC was leveled by internal explosives. These "smoke screen" conspiracy theories all have one thing in common -- they make no sense. There is no reason in the world why whomever was behind 911 would add complications to their plot in these ways.
Smoke screens are common in conspiracy situations. Consider the granddaddy of them all -- the Kennedy assasination. It was full of smoke screens -- the "magic bullet", the "grassy knoll", etc. But, strip the JFK assassination from the smoke screens and you have a very simple story -- a single gunman, ex-military expert marksman with connections to the US intelligence community and in desperate need of cash, kills the President for no obvious reason. Unlike Squeaky Fromm or John Hinkley, he is not nuts and has not talked to others about his obsession with shooting the President. He is caught after the assassination, and is killed almost immediately afterwards by another man with intelligence connections who is dying of cancer. Once you strip JFK of the smoke screen, it's obvious that *some* person or people contracted with Oswald to kill JFK.
Similarly, with 911, strip it of the smoke screen. Ask yourself: who benefited from this attack? Ask yourself if they had it within their power to enable it or prevent it. Ask if they had connections with the people thought to have been behind it. And examine their actions in the months prior to 911. In particular, look at executive orders with regard to air force rules of response to potential hi jack situations.
Again, it is obvious.
Unsnark writes: The Flight 77 conspiracy theories are a smoke screen. They serve the dual purpose of discrediting 911 conspiracy theories and of distracting people from the real problems with the official story of 911. It's like those conspiracy theories that claim the WTC was leveled by internal explosives. These "smoke screen" conspiracy theories all have one thing in common -- they make no sense. There is no reason in the world why whomever was behind 911 would add complications to their plot in these ways.
If you bothered to spend sometime reading and listening to the 911 skeptics you would see that these supposed "complications" aren't complications but needed elements. Also, if these are "smoke screens" to distract people from the real problems with the official story (what ever you think that may be) then it isn't working and all this 911 skepticism encourages people to look deeper. Here is another example: Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime