This Is What Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11

[numan]

The clip which I posted, showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like, was this one! :

The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.

Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:

I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.

I scrupuously observed : "The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government...."

Gamolon then triumphantly screeches that the same points which I have just brought up are total vindication of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory!!

Well, I know that not much rationality can be expected from the slavish idolaters of Authority, but really...!

The hypothetical airliner would have been about half the height of the one in the clip, and correspondingly smaller. Moving at high speed, it would have been much more blurry. I did not make make the clip and cannot be held accountable for its inaccurracies.

However, my sceptically challenged friend, these points do not change the fact that the arriving airliner would have looked much different from the clip released by the government. That was the point which the clip intended to make, and I consider that it did so, and is worth posting, and worth considering by a dispassionate thinker.
.

 

[daws101]

The clip which I posted, showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like, was this one! :

The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.

Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:

I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.

I scrupuously observed : "The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government...."

Gamolon then triumphantly screeches that the same points which I have just brought up are total vindication of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory!!

Well, I know that not much rationality can be expected from the slavish idolaters of Authority, but really...!

The hypothetical airliner would have been about half the height of the one in the clip, and correspondingly smaller. Moving at high speed, it would have been much more blurry. I did not make make the clip and cannot be held accountable for its inaccurracies.

However, my sceptically challenged friend, these points do not change the fact that the arriving airliner would have looked much different from the clip released by the government. That was the point which the clip intended to make, and I consider that it did so, and is worth posting, and worth considering by a dispassionate thinker.
.

best non answer, answer yet!

 

[Gamolon]

The clip which I posted, showing what an airliner hitting the Pentagon would look like, was this one! :

The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government -- for, example, parts of the background would have been obscured which are not obscured in the government photos.

Two unobservant illiterates on this thread have claimed that I was referring to the officially released frames, which look nothing like an airliner hitting the Pentagon -- despite talking-heads on television trumpeting that they "clearly show the jumbo jet". I leave it to the dispassionate observer whether he or she sees anything like that in the frames below:

I would not be surprised if the government released doctored frames, but even in the frames which they did release, it looks much more like a missile coming in than the image of a jumbo jet arriving.

I scrupuously observed : "The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate (the official claim is that it was moving at about the distance of two football fields per second), but it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government...."

Gamolon then triumphantly screeches that the same points which I have just brought up are total vindication of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory!!

Well, I know that not much rationality can be expected from the slavish idolaters of Authority, but really...!

The hypothetical airliner would have been about half the height of the one in the clip, and correspondingly smaller. Moving at high speed, it would have been much more blurry. I did not make make the clip and cannot be held accountable for its inaccurracies.

However, my sceptically challenged friend, these points do not change the fact that the arriving airliner would have looked much different from the clip released by the government. That was the point which the clip intended to make, and I consider that it did so, and is worth posting, and worth considering by a dispassionate thinker.
.

First, a word of advice. Before calling others "illiterate", I would suggest spelling words contained in your own post the correct way. Calling people "illiterate" in the same post that you misspell words makes you look foolish.

I am quite amazed that you, like all truthers, can defend and damn the same piece of "evidence" in the same paragraph.

When you make a statement regarding the animated gif you posted like this...

I scrupuously observed : "The size and speed of the plane is not entirely accurate

...and then, in the same paragraph, state this...

it clearly indicates that the scene would have been very different from the video frames released by the government...."

...one has to scratch their head.

How can an "inaccurate" picture be touted as "clearly indicating"? I suppose you also think cartoon renditions of Spongebob and Patrick are "clear indications" of what actually lives in our oceans.



In the words of the Man in Black from the movie The Princess Bride: "You truly have a dizzying intellect"

 

[Gamolon]

Just another example of how truthers push bogus evidence in order to further their agenda without actually doing any research. They just don't care about accuracy as long as it fits their beliefs.

This photo was posted in another forum to support the fact that the footage of 9/11 was faked. They try and point out that the "person" in the video still is WAY taller than the "7 foot" window height, making it seem like there was an "editing mistake" and that this proves 9/11 was an inside job.


Upon further review, here is what I found. I used the spacing between the perimeter columns (26.5") for my measurements. This makes the "window" not 7' high, but about 3'. The "person", measuring from head to waist, waist to knee, and then knee to foot, comes out to about 6' tall.


Again, just another example of the "pushing bullshit" tactics used by the likes of 7forever, numan, and truthers in general.

 

[numan]

'
As usual, ad hominems and irrelevant fluff from the peanut gallery.

But what else can one expect from the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory nutters? · ·

.

 

[Gamolon]

'
As usual, ad hominems and irrelevant fluff from the peanut gallery.

But what else can one expect from the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory nutters? · ·

.

Translation:

"I can't explain why I contradict myself or continue to push garbage evidence even though I ADMIT it's garbage"...

Thanks for such a thoughtful rebuttal. Go back to your other threads of interest as you've obviously thrown in the towel here.

 

[numan]

'

I repeat: go back to the clip released by the government -- and claim that you see a jumbo jet there.

That should be good for a laugh.

.

 

[Gamolon]

'

I repeat: go back to the clip released by the government -- and claim that you see a jumbo jet there.

That should be good for a laugh.

.

*sigh*

What's the matter numan? Are you frustrated because you know you can't defend the ADMITTEDLY inaccurate animated gif you posted? You're now forced to admit it's crap, but you don't have the balls to do it?

What a coward.

Why don't you try applying some rational thought to "what should have been seen" instead of parroting what others say without researching it for yourself. If you'd have done that, you wouldn't look like the idiot that you look like now.

What type of camera and resolution was it? Speed? Maybe if you applied the CORRECT speed and size of the jet to the animated gif you posted, you'd start getting closer to realizing that the government video footage is accurate.

So tell us numan. What reasons do you have to believe that it WASN'T a jet in that video? Because it was blurry? Was it because the blurred object wasn't the same size as a jet SHOULD have been? It's already been shown you have no clue as to what it "SHOULD have looked like." Was it the speed of the blurred object? Again, you're judgment of speed is pathetic as you though gif showing a jet flying at about 19 mph was a good representation of what it "SHOULD have looked like."

Looking at that video on it's own wouldn't shown enough evidence to determine WHAT the object was. Using all the available information, we can easily deduce it was a jet.

Your turn.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The 757 was moving at about 815 feet per second. I don't think the official video even shows 815 ft of the jets path......

 

[Gamolon]

What is shown in the clip seems consistent with being shot from a ground-based missile launcher.

Please tell us why you think this looks like a "missile" and that it COULDN'T possibly be a jet.



I'm gonna love this.

 

[daws101]

The 757 was moving at about 815 feet per second. I don't think the official video even shows 815 ft of the jets path......

the jet was moving too fast to be captured in a 1fps recorder ..

 

[LA RAM FAN]

4 farts in a row from the agent trolls.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

'

I repeat: go back to the clip released by the government -- and claim that you see a jumbo jet there.

That should be good for a laugh.

.

of course they wont be able to show it.

they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are just like their handlers pay them to do.

 

[numan]

The 757 was moving at about 815 feet per second. I don't think the official video even shows 815 ft of the jets path......

So why wasn't the background obscured by this massive machine? · ·
.

 

[numan]

the jet was moving too fast to be captured in a 1fps recorder ..

So why wasn't the background obscured by this massive machine?

.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't think it was really in the frames to see it.

 

[numan]

'
The Attack on The Pentagon

What are we to make for instance of that tantalizing glimpse of a plane...in the first frame and its white exhaust plume? The plane is manifestly too small to be a Boeing 757 and not a single eyewitness reports that the incoming plane had a trailing white exhaust plume.

Here is the first frame of the disjointed, chopped-up CCTV video which our ever-so-open government has deigned to release to its subject peons:

No explosion has as yet occurred. There is nothing blurry between the building and the booth on the right. The only evidence of an object coming in is a long whitish streak on the extreme right. This streak is what the official talking heads proclaimed was the jumbo jet that supposedly hit the Pentagon.

Are you such a conspiracy nut as to think that it does not look like a jumbo jet? Welcome to the club.

Now you cannot have it both ways. Either the plane was coming in so fast that it would be a blur (but still would have obscured the background scenery), or the CCTV camera was so sophisticated that its action could freeze time in its tracks and eliminate any blurring on the extreme right -- for the same talking heads proclaimed that the nose-cone of the airliner "was clearly visible" just to the left of the booth.
But let's take a closer look:

Or, indeed, an even closer look:

And an even closer look at this ever-so-clearly-delineated "nose-cone":

There are potentially 84 other confiscated videotapes available which could be shown to the American public, yet the best they can do is one fuzzy, partially obscured blur on one frame of a doctored video.
.

 

[whitehall]

What happened to the people on the plane. Were they abducted by aliens paid for by the Bush administration?

 

[Gamolon]

'
The Attack on The Pentagon

What are we to make for instance of that tantalizing glimpse of a plane...in the first frame and its white exhaust plume? The plane is manifestly too small to be a Boeing 757 and not a single eyewitness reports that the incoming plane had a trailing white exhaust plume.

numan, numan, numan. Your track record for this thread is not very good. You either keep parroting information that is incorrect or are just making stupid assumptions, which unfortunately is making your claims incredibly asinine.

Let's take the quoted material above. Here is the FULL quote with the part in red that you conveniently left out. Why DID you take that part out numan?

What are we to make for instance of that tantalizing glimpse of a plane (or at least the tail-fin of a plane, the rest of it conveniently obscured by the ticket dispenser in the foreground) in the first frame and its white exhaust plume? The plane is manifestly too small to be a Boeing 757 and not a single eyewitness reports that the incoming plane had a trailing white exhaust plume.

What's funny is your quote actually states that eyewitnesses saw "the incoming plane, but without an exhaust plume."

This streak is what the official talking heads proclaimed was the jumbo jet that supposedly hit the Pentagon.

Jumbo jet? This is getting tiresome numan. You, like any other truther, want to embellish your claims to make them seem more "believable" and whatthe government claims "unbelieveable". In this case, you want anyone reading your crap to think "how can such a big jet not be seen in the video???? The object is too small!!!!" Let's put this in perspective for you and anyone else who may believe your garbage analysis. A "jumbo jet" is a "wide body" jet. The 747 jumbo jet has a fuselage height of about 25.6'. The 757-223 that hit the Pentagon was a "narrow body" jet with a fuselage diameter of about 11.6'. How'd you get that wrong?

Now, how tall would an 11.6' high object scale in a photograph/video taken at a distance of about 700' away? Tell you what. Go find an object that's about 11.6' tall and move about 700' away and snap a picture. Let's see how "big" it looks.

Are you such a conspiracy nut as to think that it does not look like a jumbo jet? Welcome to the club.

Once again, get your facts straight. The 757 that actually struck the Pentagon is less than half the the size of the jumbo jet you're blathering on about. Also, as I've said, using the video ALONE, one cannot determine what is seen, but if you use ALL the available data, you can determine that it WAS a plane.

So let's see what you've provided so far.

1. An animated gif that you yourself admits is an inaccurate representation
2. Even though you admit the animated gif is inaccurate, you STILL proceed to use it as an example of what the video SHOULD have looked like
3. The animated gif has the plane depicted as twice it's actual size
4. The animated gif has the jet travelling at about 19 mph
5. You incorrectly claim that 757 was a jumbo jet when in fact it was a narrow body jet, which has a fuselage that is a little less than HALF the size of the jumbo jet fuselage you claim.

So based on ALL the above, you want to pass yourself off as someone who can judge that the "government" video doesn't show a jet, but more likely a missile?



Now that you have more accurate facts to base your claim on, why don't you go back and recreate what the actual video frames SHOULD look like. Maybe try using the correct speed of the jet and the actual CORRECT jet type for starters. Maybe pass this on to the person who DID create the animated gif.

 

[numan]

Many comments here indicate that some idolaters of the Official Wacko Conspiracy Theory are either disingenuous or mentally impaired.

The Boeing 757 which hypothetically hit the Pentagon had a length over half that of a football field. The fusilage was 13 feet in diameter, but as can be seen in the diagram above, the engines hung below the level of the fusilage. The lawn was unscarred by the plane, and there were 7-foot high reels of cable which had been untouched below the flight-path of the supposed plane.

On any reasonable view, the main body of the plane needed to occupy a long length of the CCTV picture and to be 25 to 40 feet above the ground (nearly half the height of the Pentagon), as can be seen in the first, accurately drawn picture above.

Here is a Boeing 757, with trucks and a human giving the scale.
.