My whole point is that if we take the height of the Pentagon at the point perpendicular to where the plane is in this picture http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm , both the plane and the point of the wall that's perpendicular to the plane will be the same distance from the camera; the impact point is closer to the camera than the location of the plane as it's coming in at an angle.
First of all, a point can't be perpendicular to anything; a line may be perpedicular either to another line, or to a plane (more commonly referred to as "normal" to the plane). I presume that what you're trying to say is that we should find a point on the Pentagon's facade that is on a line normal to the facade and passing through the aircraft's centroid. The reason that this will not help is that it assumes that the camera lies on a line perpendicular to the aforementioned line, and bisecting the segment between the aircraft and the facade. Even if this appears to be approximately correct, it can't be proven geometrically.
If we look at this picture http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm ,we can see where that point on the wall is.
No. You can only estimate, because the view is not a direct overhead view. Further, you don't know that the aircraft outline is correctly positioned.
We therefore know how long 150 feet is at the location of the plane in this picture as that point on the wall and the aircraft are at about the same distance from the camera. http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm The length of the plane is shortened because of the angle. If the angle is 46 degrees as your measurements say, it shortens the length of the plane by about a third. The nose of the plane isn't visible so at most, it's just behind the left side of the box. Just looking at it, I'd say the plane behind the box isn't more than 70 feet long. Judging from the height of the Pentagon at the point perpendicular to the location of the plane, I'd say if the plane were 100 feet long, it's nose would be visible.
No. The fatal flaw in your eyeball analysis is that you have taken the apparent height of the Pentagon in the security video to be approximately 75 feet. The height to the
roof peak is 77 feet, but the roof peak is not visible in the video frames. This is obvious from the fact that the outline of the building against the sky has two distinctive jogs where the facade projects outward in the center. The roof peak is straight; were it visible, the outline would also be straight. Because of this, you are estimating based on the height of the facade, which is 65 feet in the center, and 61 feet on the ends. As my illustration shows, the point on the facade that is the same distance from the camera falls on the far end of the building. Because a line through the center of the camera to that point passes almost exactly through the corner of the taller part of the facade, we can accurately estimate the point as being directly underneath the far jog in the outline; however, the apparent height of the Pentagon at that point is approximately 60 feet, rather than the approximately 75 feet you have been claiming. Therefore, your estimate of the apparent length of an object that can be hidden by the post is about 25 percent too low. Please comment on this obvious and critical error in your analysis.
Some of you guys have mentioned your credentials before. Why don't some of you do the calculations using the height of the Pentagon instead of the box. I think it's pretty obvious that it's too small to be a 757 judging from the wall and exact measurements are only necessary in cases where it's not obvious. If you think it's a 757, I think it would be easy to prove with calculations.
See above. Also, Mike J. Wilson is a Certified SolidWorks Professional, and I've checked his model; it's completely accurate, and it clearly shows that a 757's fuselage can be almost totally hidden by the post.
All we need is a scale for this.
http://www.students.ipfw.edu/~lambdl01/misc%20images/September%2011%20Pentagon.jpg
The lengths are dimensioned in feet--I thought that was obvious from my post.
I googled around but I couldn't find any dimensions for the Pentagon.
I verified the height and width of Mike Wilson's model against dimensions given in
Wikipedia.
Measuring the maximum possible length of the plane behind the box in this picture is the key to this whole issue
See above.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm ;it should be pretty easy to do. If it's shorter than a 757, 911 was an inside job.
Typical conspiracist ploy--any one single anomaly proves the existence of a vast conspiracy, no matter how overwhelming the other evidence against such a conspiracy.
Do you see the difference between the smoke in this picture http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm and what you insist is smoke in this other picture?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
If you do, please explain why the smoke looks like smoke in the first one but quite unlike smoke in the second one.
In the second one the smoke is denser and more concentrated because it has just left the engine. In the first picture it is more dispersed. By the way, the black dot that you claim proves the second picture is not smoke is most likely the port engine, silhouetted against the smoke, as the starboard engine's apparent position would be well in front of it, due to the viewing angle.
[edit: added hyperlink to Wikipedia article]