Closemindedness my foot. Crossova is wrong. Period. He's guilty of what so many conspiracy fans are guilty of. They hear about some wild conspiracy that would be REALLY fun if it were true, so they believe it no matter what the evidence against it is.

Crossova has thusfar failed to answer the key question that should be posed about any conspiracy theory. WHY.

Why would anyone want to lie about an airplane hitting the pentagon instead of a truck bomb blowing up next to the pentagon. Whether it was a plane or a truck, the damage was done, and it was done by the same group. There's no advantage to making up information about an airplane hitting the pentagon, especially when 2 other airplanes are confirmed to have hit New York and another is confirmed through CVR to have been hijacked before it crashed. 3 airplanes used to attack the US are bad enough. Why do we need to lie to invent a fourth?

Plus, the height Crossova used for the Boeing is wrong. It's 44 feet from the ground to the tip of the tail. That's a hangar clearance height. The height from the ground to the top of the fuselage is 13.5 feet. That's much closer to the height of that hole. The tail is basically aluminum skin, with comparitively little weight. Up against hardened concrete, it most likely WOULD disintegrate.


Additionally, if the airplane really didn't hit the pentagon, then I would think American Airlines would be very interested because they presumably would want their airplane back. Someone stole it and hid it away somewhere. In other words, the airplane is missing. Where is it, if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

Putting on my conspiracy hat for a moment - if I wanted to hide a plane full of people on it permanently, I'd crash it in the ocean, far enough offshore that none one would hear it or see the impact. The cell phone calls pretty much kill that possibility, though.

By the way, I did see the humor in Redlemon's post, though. And the unfortunate accuracy of it.

I need to do more actual work at work....

Yes, the cell phone calls. I always state my name before mom asks for it too. :rolleyes:

Ever tried making a cell phone call at 32,000 feet? Good luck getting a signal.

Why have big pieces of plane been found at the site of every other recorded plane crash, yet none were found at the Pentagon? Why does the only video footage of the crash at the Pentagon released by the FBI not show an airplane anywhere in sight?

Actually I've done it, although by mistake. I forgot to turn off my cell phone on a flight to the West Coast a few years ago and had it ring somewhere near Denver. Cellular signals don't just move laterally - they also move vertically. In other words, the signal coverage doesn't look like a disk, it looks like a half-sphere. Since 32,000 feet is only 6 miles and cellular towers are on average 10 miles apart, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a decent cellular signal, especially in an area with good coverage like, say, the East Coast....

Oh, there's also the little tidbit that the TSA is considering allowing people to use cell phones on planes in flight as a matter of course since the problem has always been suspected interference with some instruments that now seems to be proven wrong. It's been big news in my circles since I'm a pretty heavy cell user when I'm on the road.

First of all, where are you getting your information that no big pieces were found at the site? There were lots of pieces found, some big, some small. In the Colorado Springs crash that I mentioned earlier, the largest piece found was roughly the size of a large suitcase, and that was for a plane that didn't suffer multiple impacts with hardened concrete walls (as the plane penetrated the various walls). If its because you haven't seen anyone reconstruct the plane, that's because no one has had any reason to try to reconstruct the plane since there's no mystery around why it crashed. The plane itself had no faults or issues - it performed exactly as designed. The NTSB spends a considerable amount of money reconstructing airframes to figure out why things happened and what surfaces moved in which directions in relation to nearby surfaces. It allows them to figure out what the stresses where.

As for what videos were released and what weren't, I honestly have no idea. There may be very good reasons why not - maybe you can see passengers' faces on some of them. I don't know, but I'm making a guess. Maybe they're being held to be used at trial. Given that the video in question was of the 1 frame per second variety and focused to 15' or so, it's not surprising that it doesn't show the plane in any great detail.

All I can do is point you to the transcripts of the calls and ask you to re-examine them. I think you'll find that it goes something like, "Hi Mom, it's George" or soemthing similar. Welcome to how I usually greet my mom on the phone when I call. As for full names, you must have personal call confused with 911 calls.

I welcome proof to the contrary.

Yes Googling my own name brings up several people from various ethnic backgrounds. But if the FBI says The_Jazz is the person who flew this plane into the building and they show your photo on the news then I would be led to believe that you (The_Jazz) were dead and were the piloting that Boeing. But if it is confirmed that you are alive and well....then wouldn't that raise a question on the actual intelligence information that the FBI either had or presented to the public?


lol. yeah who says their entire name when speaking with their parents. "Hi, mom, its me Jack Bauer." You would think that after so many years mom would recognize your voice.

The transcript which was provided actually had one caller contacting his mother and stating his first and last name. When his mother asked what do the terrorist look like he did not answer. His reply was "You believe me, right?".

As for calls being made at 32000 feet, it is possible but they said at that time in 2001 the technology used in cellphones had a probability of something like a million to one. That information I believe was on the Loose Change documentary of 9/11.

I've watched plenty of television shows like Cops, 48hours and several Court TV shows and many 911 calls to the operators, people in distress did not give their full names even in their moments of distress.

To answer shakran's statement:
I do not have the answers to everything...I merely present questions that I would like to be answered, as many others have questions that would like to be answered as well.

Flight instructors said that the terrorist (those who allegedly flew into the Pentagon) who trained at their school were incompetent. It may be possible that they were able to actually control and maintain good control of the plane as it flew just barely over 100 feet off the ground and goind over 500mph into the Pentagon. Flying well below the Pentagon's missile defense's radar system.

So why lie about a 4th plane, I do not know. Why lie about any of the events that unfolded on that day. Why not release the video surveillance footage from the nearby hotel? why why why?

Have you checked out the other threads? they are over 6 pages long and would probably keep you entertained for a while. PM will, he will be glad to discuss this with you.

Yes, I have read the other threads yesterday.

They didn't say incompetent, they said the terrorists didn't want to learn how to land. Well, if I'm planning on crashing a plane into a building, learning how to land on a runway won't do me much good either. I'll give you a secret about airplanes. It's all VERY easy until you try to land. Flying a jetliner is a piece of cake. Hell I did a story several years ago with the biggest bimbo reporter on our staff about airline flight simulators - the full motion ones that really feel like you're flying. She took off and flew around just fine. Crashed on landing, but the flying part was very easy.

They are considering allowing it, but in order to do so there will have to be special equipment installed in the plane. A study was done to show that the chance of making a cell phone call at 32,000 feet is something like 0.006 to 1. Since I heard that I've tried 5 times in the last 2 months to do it, and I've not got a signal on any of those occasions. The last time I left my phone on for the rest of the flight and got a text message delivered about 3 seconds before we landed that was sent 2 hours previously.


I'm getting it from the news coverage and from subsequent reports. There were a few small pieces found, and by a few I mean about 2, and there was dispute that they could even have come from an airplane.

How do you know that the video in question was 1 frame per second if you you have no idea about the videos that were released? ;) The video I'm talking about showed no plane at all. You see the outside of the Pentagon, and then you see an explosion, and nothing in between.

I'll try and locate the documentary I saw that on and link it here. Actually, it's the Loose Change documentary that Crossova talks about in an earlier post.

Please tell me which of these planes were flying at 32,000 when the calls were placed. Given the long duration that all the planes spent close to ground level, I have to expect that if the phones in question were outside of the coverage area, they were soon back within it as they approached the ground on their attack runs. The Pentagon plane in particular flew at low alititudes for several mile. Given that's the plane we've focused exclusive attention on, I don't see why the 32,000 number is relevant considering that the plane took off from Dulles and the hijacking occurred roughly 15 to 20 minutes afterwards. That's not enough time for a 757 to climb to 32,000
feet under normal circumstances. The hijackers would have no reason to climb and every reason to dive.


Please see post #281 here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=281

That's a pretty telling picture. It's pretty obviously a piece of an American Airlines plane (most likely from the tail). There's lots of debris spread across the background closer to the building. Unless you're going to tell me that somone trucked in that piece, planted it on the lawn and called over the photographer to take a picture of it, I've got to call this particular detail debunked.



Sorry, my post was unclear - I meant that I have no idea why other videos haven't been released. I'm obviously familiar with the one that has been. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to make my points clearer.

The comments I read did not speak about them not wanting to learn how to land. They said they were not good students and they felt they could not have been able to fly the airliners on 9/11. but that is just their own personal feelings.

The phone call at 32000 feet, i thought came from Flight 93.

That does look like a piece of the plane...very convenient. It reminds me of the indestructible passport of one of the alleged terrorist that was found about four blocks away from the WTC. They can find a booklet of paper that was in an area of 2000 degree temperature but can't find enough of the plane to reassemble from that crash.

We haven't been discussing Flight 93. We've been discussing the particulars of Flight 77. The original post limited discussion to Flight 77, and that's what I've been basing my arguements upon. If you'd like to start discussing Flight 93 and the particulars of it, please post something to that effect and what you do or do not believe. Sorry, I just can't change gears like that.



Sorry that it's inconvenient to your theory, but unfortunately, there are pictures of identifiable airplane parts on the Pentagon lawn. The other parts in the foreground could be airplane parts as well, but I don't have the knowledge base to tell you what those other pieces may or may not be. It would be easy to imagine that there could be servo motor parts or hyrdaulic line laying around that neither of us can identify because we just don't know what it looks like. Based on that picture, I think that you've now got the impossible task of proving a lack of a plane when there's clear evidence of a plane crash at the site.

As far as your comment about the WTC crash, I really think that you need to go take some physics lessons since your ignorance of the subject is affecting your ability to understand the possibilities. That's not a slam or a flame, just a request that you educate yourself. As far as this particular fact, let me explain it -

In the crash of Flight 175, in some of the pictures you can pretty clearly see the nose of the plane emerging from the side opposite the strike site along with a large debris cloud followed by the flames of the ignition of the fuel. There's no reason to believe that Flight 11 behaved any differently. Let's assume that it was moving at the same speed as the Pentagon plane, which is 550 mph. The WTC was not designed to withstand the same stresses as the Pentagon, and the load-bearing structures were primarily focused on shifting the weight downwards with some ability for lateral movement for wind. These load bearing structures were pillars where the Pentagon uses entire walls as load bearers which includes the inner core of the building, which provided most of the support and caused the ulitmate failure of the structure. The facade of the WTC provided little structural support (it was less than a few inches thick) since that was the job of the steel skeleton. When the plane impacted, it sliced through the facade fairly easily and continued on through the structure where the main decelerator was the concrete floor and decking. As the plane plowed through building, portions were separated from the rest plane as they were scraped off, but most of them would not have lost all of their velocity, only some, until they struck the central core. The floors would have pretty quickly forced the plane into the most efficient shape possible to travel through the space (until encountering a new obstacle that is), although there certainly would have been some disintegration as various pieces were subjected to centrepetal forces and stationary object strikes. Most notably, it would have pushed other material ahead of it along with anything that decelerated slower than the rest of the plane.

The debris cloud that emerged on the other side of the building was probably made of pieces of the plane that did not encounter any structural supports along with any interior debris that was caught up with the plane and acelerated to roughly the same speed as the now-decelerating plane. The fireball would have been necessarily behind the nose of the plane since that's where all the fuel was. At least some of the hijackers had to be in the front of the plane (they were flying it, after all). They most likely had their passports on their persons. It's entirely possible that the passport traveled through the building as a part of the plane or debris cloud and then emerged on the other side. Given that 4 blocks in Lower Manhattan is about 1/4 mile, I have no problem seeing a passport traveling that distance if it managed to decelerate faster than the rest of the plane and become mixed with the debris field being pushed ahead of the plane. It's not the most likely outcome, but it's not impossible.

Edit - one other thing - the passport in question was not "undamaged". The pictures I've found show a pretty heavily damaged picture with about 30-40% missing.

Hey, looking through the Popular Mechanics stuff, I seen that one lady said she'd found the black box. So...what were the contents?

I'm not entirely sure what this statement has to do with whether or not a plane crashed into the pentagon.


You're beginning to remind me of that guy in Politics a month or so ago who decided that everything in the Quran was accurate, period, and anything that wasn't in the Quran didn't exist no matter what evidence was there to support it.

You say there aren't any identifiable pieces of the plane. Someone provides you with a picture of an identifiable piece of a plane at the pentagon crash site. You deny the clear photographic evidence by telling us paper should burn.

As The_Jazz mentioned, that passport WAS damaged. Second, the world trade center itself was on fire for days, yet plenty of WTC papers were found. Despite having been in a building that had a "2,000 degree fire." Hell after the Challenger explosion divers found body parts and clothing from the astronauts. Same with Columbia. I guarantee that from a physics standpoint those were much more catastrophic events than the 9/11 plane crashes.


You have still failed to address the pertinent question here. Why would someone make an entire plane including its passengers and crew disappear, and try to cover it up by pretending to crash it into the Pentagon? How could they coordinate it so well with the terrorist attacks? I remind you that within one hour after the first plane crash, the FAA banned all new airplane takeoffs. Shortly after noon, only 3 hours later, all civillian air traffic was cleared from US skies. How exactly did they manage to hide the airplane? A plane that size can only land at a big airport. Don't you think someone might have noticed that a suspected hijack plane was landing on their runway? Or are you suggesting these conspirators built a super secret international airport somewhere underground and somehow made the plane invisible as they were flying to it? Assuming they did manage to build a facility that could land and hide a large jetliner, why did they bother to steal an airplane? If you have enough money to build an entire airport, you have enough money to BUY a 757. Why not just do that? Going to all this trouble to steal and hide an airplane simply doesn't make sense.

Can you point me to the article? I did a quick check of the PM site, but I couldn't find it, but I'm probably using the wrong search criteria or something. I'm interested to hear which plane and which box (there are 2 on every plane, one that records cockpit broadcasts including pilot-to-pilot and one that records all the settings of the various surfaces and stresses on those surfaces). To the best of my knowledge, which is admittedly incomplete, I think that there's a full record from all 4 planes which means that all 8 boxes were recovered and decrypted.

Maybe the woman found the box and turned it over.

This is interesting.

Contents has not been disclosed to the public.

Shakran & The_Jazz, in regards to the comment i made about Flight 93. I was referring to the phone calls made from passengers on the planes just before they crashed. When we had spoke about phone calls and whether it was possible to call from such high altitutdes, in my mind i thought you all were talking about that flight. The articles I saw and on the documentary I watched spoke about the probability of those passengers actually making a successful phone call at that altitude.

I did not know if the plane that struck the pentagon had passengers making phone calls at 32000 feet or just prior to their collision with the building.

The articles I read

I know the passport from the WTC hijacker was not the best condition, but the probabilities of that happening seemed to be a bit low. IMO.

Shakran, have you watched the Loose Change documentary, they give their own theory as to what may have happened to one plane (flight 93). Whose to say that something similar did not happen to Flight 77? On page 13 & 14 of the Northwood documents they give a scenario as to how to pretend an American plane could be destroyed. Im not going to go into the details, but here is a link to the document if you would like to read it. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf, here is asite that summarizes the 15page document - http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

When I started this thread I never said I knew where the plane actually, I was trying to get other people's perspective on the pictures from the site. I accomplished that.

As for the physics lessons, Im not in a rush to return to any science class. But if im ever on a hijacked plane i'll be sure to call you or The_Jazz from my cellphone. Hopefully, I'll get through.

How did I miss this reanimated discussion? I'll be joining you all soo. Kudos to crossova, btw. Excelent points.

Again, which box on which plane? Link to an article? :confused:

Just so you know, the contents of Flight 93 were just made public last week so that the government could use it the prosecution of Moussaoui.

As long as we're all clear about what we're talking about, that's fine. Just so you know, the average cell phone tower has an effective range of about 6 miles with coverage extending out to about 9 miles, according to one of the files that I have in my office for a cell tower erector. There's no reason to assume that this range would vary vertical compared to the horizontal range. That means that at 32,000 feet, Flight 93 would have been intermitently been in range of towers as they flew directly over them but still within the effective (albeit at low signal strength) range of coverage below. There would certainly be areas of low coverage, especially over portions of PA, but there's no reason to think that these calls were/are impossible.

By the way, I made a bunch of cell phone calls at 6650 feet in 1999, although my feet were firmly on the ground within the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. There are no cell towers within the park, and I was at Clingmans Dome, which is 10 miles from the nearest border.

The probabilities of a person surviving a large object punched through their skull with no appreciable loss of brain use or a small-caliber bullet striking the skull, traveling between skull and skin and exiting on the other side or piece of jewelry lost in the ocean being recovered years later and returned to its owner are all similarly small yet there is documented proof of all 3 occurring multiple times. Something having a low probablility of happening does not it can't happen. To put it in poker terms, the chances of drawing a royal flush of the deal are tiny but it still happens.

I can give you lots of ways that I would design a conspiracy to acheive the outcomes of 9/11, but faking the physical evidence found at the scene and the eyewitness reports would be very difficult. One thing that you should remember is that a housewife from Poukipsee makes a terrible witness, especially when she's looking at a horrifying event like a plane crash. That's why preferred witnesses are trained observers like pilots or cops.

Planes don't generally crash when they're 6 miles up. They need to get down to the ground before they crash. If the passengers were calling just before they crashed, then they weren't at 32,000 feet.

I haven't seen it but I've read the synopsis. There's a lot of crazy paranoid theories being floated in that "documentary." Why would they evacuate a plane to a secret NASA base? Where are the passengers now? How did they keep them quiet? Are we suggesting that the government killed a plane full of people so they could pretend it had crashed?

I do know that that documentary ignored scores of eyewitness accounts who said a large jet hit the pentagon. They didn't even bring up the fact that the witnesses said it. We're not talking about a journalistically sound documentary here.


Logic and reason.

WHY would we want to pretend the plane was destroyed? I'm not arguing that it's impossible to make it look like a plane crashed. I'm asking what possible benefit anyone could get from going to all that trouble?



Well I can start a thread about the loch ness monster mating with a sasquatch, and I'm sure I'll get a lot of opinions, but that won't justify my initial statement.



And this right here is the problem with most conspiracy theorists. They hear something that sounds like a Ray Bradbury novel, they think it would be cool if the public perception of an event were wildly wrong and only they and a few others knew the real truth, and then they believe it without bothering to check any facts or logic. If you have no interest in learning that which is necessary in order to have an informed opinion on the crash site (basic knowledge of physics, airplane/building construction, and logic would be helpful here) then why form wild theories that not only don't have facts to support, but no inclination to discover those facts?

This is what happens when the government isn't totally open and have independent media have access to all of the facts. Yes, it might be hard for the victims families, but the people will try to figure out what happened if we aren't given proof of how it really happened.

But, can we really trust the government? There is so much money and shady deals now, that we don't believe what they say.

Yes, it could be that islamic extremists took over a few planes and crashed them into buildings, but Hollywood could make exactly the same thing happen. Including faked audio and video, demolition, plane crashes, and everything else.

Not without secretly killing everyone in New York and replacing them with evil actors. How exactly do you think Hollywood could fake 9/11 without the cooperation of the people in New York who watched the planes hit? How did hollywood fool the news cameras, which were focused on the building when the second plane hit, and saw the plane going into the building? You might be able to convince a group of 20 guys to do it, but you're not gonna get 8 million people to play ball.

From a Previous post of mine.

Let's break this down:
The max cruising speed of a Boeing 757 is about 570 mph (914km/h). According to the FAA report, American Airlines flight 77 was last reported doing 459 kts - or 527 mph - at 8:56 AM. Just prior to the strike, the jet passed over the White House then completed a hair-pin 270 degree turn before slamming into the Pentagon. This hair-pin turn would have bled-off a lot of their air-speed, however the dive into the Pentagon with engines at full thrust might have brought the final approach speed back up to around 527 mph (459 kts).

Inbound Velocity: 600 miles/hour = 10 miles/minute = 1 mile or 5280 feet every 6 seconds = 880 feet/sec.

Now NTSA standards which are used in 99% of all North American A/V equipment operates at a rate of 30 interlaced frames per second. That is one complete frame every 30th of a second and one partial or interlaced field scan every 60th of a second, which is essentially slaved to our AC frequency of 60 Hz.

So if you take the plane's velocity of 880 feet/sec. and divide that by the full frame rate of 1/30th of a second, the camera will capture a complete image of the plane every 29.3 feet, given a constant speed of 600 mph. Or if your video equipment can freeze-frame on individual interlace fields it will capture a partial scan (every other scan line) of the plane's travel in 14.6 foot intervals, given a constant rate of speed of 600 mph.

Now according to the surveillance video the plane was crossing the camera's field of view on an inbound trajectory of approximately 35 - 45 degrees, so the apparent velocity of the plane across the camera's field of view will be approximately 1/3 less than that actually travelled by the plane along it's inbound trajectory.

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/TerminalVelocity.jpg
Blue Dot: Camera Position
Red Line: Centerline of Field of View
Yellow Lines: Approx. Field of View Borders
Green Line: Approx. Path of AA77
Red Dot: Tail Position in Photograph
Pink Line: Angle from Camera to Point of Impact

Using the sky view and the surveillance camera views above we determine the approximate angles involved to assist us with determining how far the plane travelled in a single frame or 1/30th of a second. Now assuming the photo was not doctored and assuming this is AA77 (not a small commuter jet) partially hidden behind the traffic post, we will use the length of the 757-300 as our base measurement, which is 155 feet. It can been seen in the video frame that there are approximately 2 plane lengths (310 feet) remaining between the nose and the building face and 3 plane lengths (465 feet) between the tail and the building face.

In the following frame 1/30th of a second later, the tail of the plane has completely disappeared into the building and resulting explosion, so obviously the tail of the plane had to have travelled a minimum of 465 feet in 1/30th of a second. And keep in mind we are not factoring in the extra distance resulting from the tangent the flight path is on perpendicular to the camera angle or the deceleration that would suddenly occur as the plane struck the building. So remember, these figures are very conservative.

Now let's work backwards to see what the minimum approach velocity of AA77 would have to be in order for these two "undoctored", "back-to-back" video frames to be captured exactly as we have been told they were by government officials.

465 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13,950 feet/second = 2.64 miles/second = 158.5 miles per minute = 9511.36 mph = 8263.5 kts. = Mach 12.48

So either 1-2 seconds of the video were removed, it was not a boeing 757, or we have been in holding patterns a lot longer than we know.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/vide...tagon_cctv.gif
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/math_geometry.html

Will, you're forgetting that often times security cameras capture at significantly less than 30 frames per second. 15 or less is very common. This is to save videotape, which costs money.

There is also the very real possibility that the camera had a shutter going, in which case we might actually be spacing out the visible frames a bit more.

Unless you have evidence of what the framerate is then this argument may or may not be accurate - we just don't know.

I am catering to a very high statistical probability.

Meinwhile, that same video proves that whatever hit the pentagon was NOT boeing 757.

Here is a frozen frame from the video above:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentag...xplosion-1.jpg

Here is what it SHOULD have looked like:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentag...entstrike3.gif

Will, Shakran's correct. The error isn't one of statistics. They're using the wrong information. We're not talking about camera rates but recording rates. Big difference, and it almost appears as willful ignorance in the quoted information. That they say "NTSA" instead of "NTSC" is telling.

Sure, camera rates are high but surveillance systems rarely capture at those rates for several reasons. To save tape or disk or because the capture system and/or network doesn't have the bandwidth to sustain its channels at full tilt. Systems often don't capture at all until something moves within their frame. In the case of a huge aircraft flashing through and exploding the camera would see everything but the recording system can miss everything but the explosion. We'd have to know the specific systems used to really nail this down.

With the Pentagon video in mind, why would the FBI hide the other video that potentially had a view of what was heading for the Pentagon? I read somewhere else that there was a security camera on the top of a hotel not too far from the Pentagon along with a gas station surviellence tape. So, if the officials says that it was a 757 hitting the Pentagon, why don't they show what was on those tape? What's so secretive about the tape that they can't even show it to the public in order to prove that it was a 757 hitting the Pentagon?

Because it may be germaine to a upcoming prosecution of one of the actors much closer to the actual plot than Moussaoui (i.e. someone who actually participated in the plot as compared to being a wannabe). They are doing what any good prosecutor does and holding the evidence close to their vests. It's pretty common, and they did the exact same thing with the voice activated black box on Flight 93. If it can be used to bring those responsible to justice, the information your asking for is much more valuable in that role than being used to satisfy our purile interest.

The Jazz, congrats on Max! Being a father is a singular experience that can bring great joy.

I assume you've seen the pictures in post #328. What do you make of the obvious size differences between the object in the video released by the FBI, and what the boeing 757-200 would have actually looked like in the frame? Doesn't it raise questions in your mind that you might want answers for?

My aim in this and the other 9/11 threads is to simply ask questions.

Thanks Will! Being a dad is great, although I'm not dealing with the sleep deprivation as well as I'd like. I've noticed a big dropoff in the quality of my work and my posts here when he's up more than twice a night. He slept 7 hours last night, so...

I have seen the pictures, and frankly I don't buy the imposition of what the plane should have looked like. First of all, the imposed plane would obviously strike the building much closer to the camera than the actual point of impact. I'm making a guess, but it looks to me like the strike point would be at least 150 feet closer to the camera.

Second, the imposed plane is coming in at a much softer angle than actually happened. I'm going to guess that the plane actually hit at roughly 30 degrees to the structure, and the imposed plane appears to be coming in at a 45+ degree angle. Normally that wouldn't be all that relavant, but the parking ticket machine hides the plane since it presents a much smaller profile at a steeper angle.

So, you've got a plane that farther up in the foreground ariving at a shallower angle to the building. Shenanigans, to paraphrase South Park. I call shenanigans. Not on you, just whoever created the picture. They're ignoring some of the physical evidence.

Hey Jazz, did you also notice that the dink that created the "here's what it should look like" picture also zoomed in to hell and gone? I'm surprised the pic creator actually thought people would fall for this crap.

Wow. Maybe I should address this before people make further mistakes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ocs/pcamf1.jpg
This is the picture I will deconstruct. It was oroginally on the CNN website following it's release to the Associated Press by the Pentagon and the FBI.

Here is something I threw together that shows the first frame.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...gonStrike1.jpg

The Pentagon is about 77' tall. The blue line represents the base of the outer wall, the red dot marks the exact impact point (reliable to about .5 mm depending on the resolution of your screen). The yellow line represents 77' relative to the distance from the camera. If you don't believe that my picture is crap, please measure it out yourself. It only take a small bit of geometry.

A Boeing 757-200 is about 44' tall with it's landing gear down, and 40' tall at the tail with it's landing gear up (I don't know if the plane supposedly had it's landing gear up or down, I'll assume up for the sake of this). Now I think we can all agree that the plane in this picture was not on the ground since not one picture from the crash site shows any damage to the grass, even as close as 30' from the building (which is amazing, considering the fire). Using the yellow line as a measurement of 77' at the entry point, one can start to get perspective on the picture. Allowing for an entry of about 60 degrees from the wall (acording to the info the FBI released), the tail is about 25' above it's supposed entry point. Now we have perspective on the plane's distance from the ground. 25' + 40' is 65', which is only 12' shorter than the roofline. The problem is that the tail is not 12' from the roofline, it is closer to 40' from the ground and 37' from the roofline.

So your'e saying the "should" and "actual" pictures are exactly the same diminsionally. I didn't even point out the small fact that the contrast was spiked on the doctored photo.



It doesn't matter. The plane was off the ground. If the plane had hit the ground with the gear down, it would have collapsed. Planes that heavy do not do well when they try to land on anything but heavilly reinforced concrete.


You're making several assumptions which do not make sense.

The most glaring is the part about the tail. You're assuming the airplane remained solid and kept its shape throughout the entire crash. Airplanes look solid but they're really not. They're made out of aluminum - their skin is very THIN aluminum, to save weight. They're flying soda cans. The instant that plane's nose hit the reinforced concrete wall of the pentagon the entire plane started to crumple. By the time the tail got to the wall, who knows what position it was in. It could have been horizontal for all we know, and that's assuming it was still in the shape of a tail. The reason the planes did so much better against the WTC is because the WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. It was not designed to withstand an attack. The pentagon was.

I was speaking to the mistake of the person who made the first photo, and my mistake for posting it. I didn't mean that it was your mistake. Apologies if it seemed like I was directing that at you. I was trying to take responsibility for a mistake, that's all.

The rest of the post was about rectifying my mistake.
No, I'm not making any assumptions about the tail at all. The pictures of the crash make it obvious where the tail WOULD have been, but my post above is about the size of the plane before it hit the wall. I'll argue about the crash itself after we settle this.

Again, my point from the post above is that the aircraft in the first picture is obviously not the same size as a Boeing 757-200, so there is a pretty substantial discrpency between the official story and the truth. If that isn't a Boeing 757-200, then it couldn't be the now infamous flight 77 that went missing.

Will - here's one for you:

Do you think that it's possible that the fuselage of the plane is actually in the picture in question? In comparing the first frame versus the second (the one with the tail visible), I noticed the treeline in the background is basically a black lump with little detail. If the plane isn't completely hidden by the ticket machine, could it be far enough out that the silouette of the fuselage does not completely eclipse the treeline and that at least the nose of the plane would be visible if the camera had enough resolution?

As far as your question about the tail and its distance from the ground, I think that is pretty easily answered with the idea that the plane was in a shallow dive. Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I think that the pilot necessarily had to be decreasing his altitude to avoid the earlier obstacles on the turnpike, etc. He was either lucky or good to put the plane where he did, but I would guess the former.

Good eye. When I was making that post I noticed the same thing. I wish the Pentagon had cameras with better resolution...but anyway. Yes, it's entirely possible that is a fuselage. The problem is that even if that'a fuselage, the math with the tail remains the same. There is no way that the tail of a 757-200 could be that low, judging by the point of impact.

Still, what little you can make out of the shape could help to determine what kind of aircraft that really is. I've started looking for similar sized/shaped planes, and will keep everyone aprised.
If the plane was a Boeing 757-200, it would actually had to pull up 25' from the first frame to create the hole in all of the pictures. I think we can agree that the plane was on a decreasing altitude. I'm pretty sure it wasn't pulling up.

Will, you still need to know more about the system. Effective shutter speed would help. Even at that distance a 500MPH object would take a fast shutter to stop without blur (and shear if a digital camera). If the camera managed to grab a frame while the jet was in frame the "What it should look like" image would show a nasty smear instead of a jet. I need more coffee before doing the math but I bet you're up for it. ;)

Why not? Some of the witnesses said they thought it skipped on the ground before it hit the building. Wouldn't it be consistent to say that at the point of the picture the plane is at or around it's lowest point and the pilot is pulled up to keep from crashing prematurely? I can easily envision the plane approaching the ground several hundred yards out, the pilot noticing it and pulling up slightly (or maybe not so slightly given the amount of rise over the distance) to make sure that he would make impact with the building before the ground. Rather than the slow steady decent that I posited before, what if there's a "hump" in the trajectory where he approached the ground (getting within a few feet to explain the "skipping" statements) and then rose as he got closer? That's entirely consistent with the physical evidence as presented.

Um so if it wasn't a 757 did the government round up and secretly kill the people who were suppose to be on those planes? Did they then make the 'real' 757 disapear? Are the airlines part of a giant plot to do whatever it is they are doing?

Do you see where I am going with this?

There is a passanger list, who were those people and where did they go?

Occam's razor doesn't have to cut too deep here.

And read THIS while we are at it.

Faking a moon landing would be far easier than this :lol:

Let's break this down. Your first sentence is "...if it wasn't a 757 did the government round up and secretly kill the people who were suppose to be on those planes?" If? So you're not ready to accept the picture proof yet. If you're not ready to accept the picture proof, then why aska question that assumes the proof is true?

In a situation like this, we have to take baby steps. Once you are satisfied that step one is true, then we all move on to step two. I find that this is the best way to keep everyone on the same page. Step one in the Pentagon conspiracy is discovering that the plane might not be a Boeing 757-200. If you haven't accepted this yet, then you are asking a question without basis (i.e. trying to poke holes in part one by attacking part two, which is a fallacy).

I'm trying to keep this thread as civil and logical as possible, barring the "f u, I was there when it crashed!" or "the government has made a pact with satan!" types of posts. This is Paranoia, but it doesn't have to be paranoid.

By the way, Occams razor isn't a dependable argument, because it relies solely on the ability to congecture of the people in the discussion. I won't pretend to have the kind of mental prowece that my conclusion is so very often right that people can simply take it as fact. It's best to simply weight the evidence and make an informed decision.

Edit: Forgot to mention: The argument that you're trying to associate the ideas in this thread with the fake moon landing conspiracy (the moon landing obviously wasn't fake) is called the guilt by association fallacy. This thread isn't about the moon landing or a fake moon landing. If you want to discuss that, we can in another thread.

I hate, just hate ( :lol: ) having to play devil's advocate here, but who says the passenger manifest is real? If I were a perpetrator in the (assumed) conspiracy, I would just create my own manifest and have coconspirators act as the loved ones of the "people" I created for the list. You've got to assume that the conspiracy involves the highest levels of power in this country, so it theoretically could be done.

I don't think it was and there's lots of physical evidence to the contrary, which is much harder to fake. Add that to the fact that I knew 5 guys killed in the WTC, and there's lots of reason to disbelieve a conspiracy.

Well, no one argues that something exploded into the Pentagon, and that some sort of planes hit the WTC. I knew people from the WTC as well. Were your 5 guys from the PLANES that hit the WTC? That's the real question - but then, all you'd know is that they were gone.... Not that they were dead or how they died.

I'm not saying I buy into a conspiracy theory yet, but it's worth asking questions.

Good point, Senior Patata. All the guys I knew were in the building. As disclosed on previous thread started by a now-banned member, it's pretty clear evidence to the contrary for an Israeli/Jewish conspiracy as some of the Muslim world have said, especially since a couple of the guys I knew were Jewish.

I think that we call agree that a 757 was the second plane to hit, and I think that it's also safe to say that the first one was as well (they were both 757's right?).

Personally, I buy into the official explanation. I think it's interesting that the Patriot Act was basically sitting around waiting to be proposed, but think that there are enough folks in Congress thinking far enough in advance to be ahead of the curve on that score. Whether they're right or not is a separate topic completely.

If the government or secret magical agency that did this is SO good they can pull this off, then we might as well surrender because they are FAR better suited to run the world than we are :p

Now if only they would have planted the WMD's in Iraq.

Ah, but you assume that Bush is part of the conspiracy not just some patsy put out there to distract us while the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the reverse vampires, work to eliminate the meal of dinner (thank you, Milhouse).

Pull what off? Do you know how many people are involved in the 9/11 truth movement? Last guess was about 23-25 million, with more people joining daily. The population of the US right now is about 298,569,743 people. Rounding up to 300 million, that means that about 1 in every 13 people are involved in the 9/11 truth movement. And this is a country in which 56% of the population still thought that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war began. Perhaps you aren't giving us enough credit?

This will be interesting to say the least. I can't wait to see it.

I only saw one angle of the new video and I didn't see the plane. Has anyone else seen the videos/plane?

It's been running on a loop in my office. Plane nose, big blur, big boom.

This took 5 years to release? Sheesh. It's like they're not even trying.

Will, if they had three angles of 60fps telephoto of a jet running into the Pentagon, would it change conclusions? Or would it just change the questions? I'm guessing the latter.

I agree with that Will.

Mr Jazz. since your some sort of science whiz, they found an engine in the Pentagon, it ain't from the type of plane that supposedly crashed into it., Next of all since the plane had an engine on each wing and said engine is apparently strong enough to punch through all those walls... why is there just the one hole in front and where's the other engine?

I guess to the Sheeple that make up the public this is a non-issue.

Wow, what a total dissapointment. I doubt that 'slideshow' even has enough new information in it to sway anyone from their position on the issue. There has to be a crystal clear video of this somewhere, I mean it's the Pentagon for crying out loud.

Someday they'll have to let go all the confiscated tapes. I'll bet at least one of those has something interesting on it.

After watching National Geographic's "Seconds From Disaster" regarding the tragedy, it appears that planes have a transponder that transmits data and communications to flight towers/control. The terrorists apparently turned this transponder off, and my question is why such a vital feature would even have an "off" switch.

The program is very well done. They are examining the lack of enough damage to represent a plane loaded with 1500 gallons of fuel. Their approach is not that of denying a plane existed, but instead the means that caused such an impact to leave such a "small" area of damage.

Anyway, my question is in regards to why a flight transponder would be able to be turned off, and disabled, as it seems like a very vital aspect of flying that one would want to be on at all times, especially during a time of crises.

there's more than one way to turn something off. the Xponder may not have an actual off switch, per se, but it will have a breaker/fuse on its power wire. that's pretty necessary becasue it would suck if something went wrong with the transponder and the airplane burned up because it wasn't fused ;)

Additionally, you don't necessarilly have to turn it off. Just flip it to a different setting. If air traffic control is looking for your transponder at 1600, and you flip it to 0900, they won't know who or where you are.

Ahh ok. I was confused, because in the dramatic recreation, they showed a switch on the plane's control panel being switched to "off", and I was wondering why it would be so easy to do.

Thanks for the clarification.

If you want pictures of debris, take a look here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
It's a well-done presentation of evidence against the Pentagon conspiracy theories, including numerous photos of plane parts, a quick analysis of the three-frame video, and in-depth looks at why the damage could not have been caused by a missile, drone, or bomb.