Is this what you're referring to? I didn't bother with this because it seemed like you were just trying to waste my time.
Look at the picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I can only see it's nose. I can only estimate the distance so I don't know what it is.
This recently posted picture tells us the distance.
http://www.students.ipfw.edu/~lambdl...20Pentagon.jpg

I was looking around for something else but I couldn't find anything. I don't know if the distance in the link is right or not.

At least one answer. Thank you.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Tell me what you think about the space in the picture being too small for a 757 to fit. http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Using the height of the Pentagon perpendicular is wrong as the plane was approaching at an angle and would be farther away. Thus you would need to use a part of the Pentagon farther away and smaller.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

I already got a picture of the pentagon out of Google Earth.
I will include my Trig-Math in it. Will take some time. I am just wrapping up the presents for the kids. Maybe tonight. Now its 19:45h here. So when my wife goes to bed I will do that.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Look at this.
http://www.students.ipfw.edu/~lambdl...20Pentagon.jpg

They look about the same distance away to me. Anyway, a difference of ten or twenty feet is insignificant and doesn't disprove the fact that a 757 doesn't fit in the space where the craft is.

I shouldn't of been drinking my Dew, I almost spit on my monitor with this one.

Parts are plantable, DNA can be lied about, witness can be planted, bodies can be planted, but these 2 frames of fuzzy video are 100% rock solid irrefutable completely accurate unfakeable conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence that it wasnt a 757.

If you get bored with posting on forums you could try your hand at comedy writing.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

Look at the picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
It's not fuzzy. The shadow line can be seen. It's bright on the top and shadowy on the bottom. The shadow line is consistent with the position of the sun. It's long and pointed like the nose of a small fighter is.
Look at this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Explain why you think a 757 fits in the place where the craft is. Fuzziness is not the issue here--size is.

It is nearly impossible to tell which part of the Pentagon to use in that low resolution photo. You also have to take into account the effects of the lense which has curved everything. It is much more accurate to use trigonometry. Why have you been avoiding that? Plus, that picture seems to support that it would be blocked by the box.

Your continued insistence that all the other evidence could have been planted is laughable. There is no evidence whatsoever for any planting. All it does is include hundreds of other people that for some reason have not said anything. The more people that need to be included, the more unlikely it is that they would keep quiet about the murder of thousands.

Faking the DNA evidence is nearly impossible too. Every sample of that type would have been marked with a "chain of custody" stamp and paperwork that needed to be signed by every person handling it. Any sign of tampering with the packages would have invalidated those samples. Of course you'll just come back and say that the lab could be in on it. That means then that many more people that have to be in on it. Your scheme gets more and more unlikely by the second. All you have is a couple of blurry photos. What would it take for you to admit there is a ton more evidence in favor of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon? Remember, if your plan calls for everyone to believe that a 757 hit the building, you are going to have a 757 go missing and all the people inside it as well, why would you then use something else and run the chance of a tourist with a camera exposing the entire plot? It doesn't make sense and neither do you.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

It is fuzzy. The camera is not focused at that distance so there is no reason it should be clear. It is also curved and misshaped because it is on the edge of the frame and is most affected by the lense. And you still have never answered if you think smoke can have a shadow from the sun.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Ohhhhhh Daaaavid, answer my question pleeeeeeeease

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

No it isn't. http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The top and bottom are still clear enough to see where they are. This is a ridiculous statement.

The distances are quite clear. The height of the Pentagon is clear and the space between the tail and the front of the box is clear. This is a ridiculous statement too.

I don't remember enough to do it without having a full top view picture in front of me. If it's so easy, why don't you prove that it's the right length to be a 757?

A 757 doesn't fit in the space where the craft is in this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
The nose of the craft in this picture is too pointed to be that of a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html

Evidently the evidence was planted since a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. If parts are small enough to plant, it's possible. If anyone talks, the press won't print what he or she says. If it's not in the press, it didn't happen.

Difficult maybe, but not impossible; evidently they did fake it because the photo evidence is irrefutable if it hasn't been doctored. Do you think the government would doctor one picture to make it look like a fighter and another picture to make it look like a plane that's too small to be a 757 and then release it?

Blurriness is not an issue with this one--size is the issue.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Everything you've presented has other possible explanations so it's not serious evidence. Those pictures tell a different story so evidently the other explanations are the ones that reflect reality.

Maybe it was too difficult to carry out. Maybe a 757 would have caused more damage than they wanted. Just because we can't think of an answer right away doesn't mean there's no answer. Those pictures are proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon so there must have been a reason.

If I'm wrong about the size of the craft in this picture, why don't you guys just use mathmatics and disprove it?
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Remember that this site has a lot of viewers. A lot of them are probably good at math.

I don't remember enough to do it without having a full top view picture in front of me. If it's so easy, why don't you prove that it's the right length to be a 757?

Because I will do already...

If I'm wrong about the size of the craft in this picture, why don't you guys just use mathmatics and disprove it?
Gimme a break I have a couple of presents to go, so wait!

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Do you mean this? (Post 990)

I don't know. Probably at least a thousand feet. What does that have to do with the issues I've raised?

Yes, the 'pod' reference is to the supposed missile carrier on one of the planes that hit the WTC 2 tower. I am, of course, being rather tongue-in-cheek sarcastic.

My answer of 2500 feet is my guess-timate of the vertical separation of the two a/c. I was assuming the larger craft was a 767 and the lower one an A310.

DavidC writes:
It is relevant because the aircraft in this photo are very much in focus and clear despite being very much farther away from the camera and taking up much more of the frame than the plane in the still you keep posting and claiming is in focus and very clear. If you cannot determine the separation between these two aircraft then how the hell can we believe you when you say you can tell how large the plane in the Pentagon pic should be? You have to have a distance from the camera before you can state how big the image should be. Others have explained this to you and have asked for your analysis (the math, the math) that shows that this could be something as small as an F-4. Your refusal to offer any analysis other than "its obvious" is an admission that you have absolutly no idea how to go about doing it and that your own opinion is at best a wild guess.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

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]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Do you think a 757 is too small to fit in the space where the craft is in the picture? If not, why?
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Would you drop that until I can do my calculations?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

David C, looking at SpitfireIX's post, I say your claims are even weaker than before.

This is not an arguement you're going to when. You lack qualifications, certain analytical skills, and relay solely on CT websites and videos to do the work for you.

It's a hard learned lesson here; don't bring up and issue unless you can support it with your own studies and capabilities.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Do no calcualtions, Laguna - he's successfully (and unfairly) shifted his burden of proof onto you. Don't fall for it, and don't stress over it. It's his burden to show why a 757 doesn't fit, not yours. Don't do his homework for him

@David C, now that jayheedess has very articulately (and more succinctly than I could have) explained why your interpretation of my photograph is important, I'm going to give you one more stab at it before I release the result Please comment.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Just for fun...
Just this time, promised!

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Ok I'll look at that picture, I assume your talking about the top right one since it is the only one that is even close to your description.

At that the point of the Pentagon at a 90 degree angle to your "fighter" the Pentagon is about 35 pixels high. That means each pixel at that point is approx 2 feet. With 2 foot pixels it is impossible for any detail such as a pointy nose or a light/shadow line to be identified precisely.

These 2 foot pixels would also make your white on top/shadowed on bottom "fighter", which is 6 to 7 pixels high, be a 12 to 14 foot tall fighter.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

No, it would make the nose of the fighter 12 to 14 foot tall...
He claims the white thing is just the nose of the fighter.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

When I look at this picture I can't see anything that is 15 feet higher than the outer wall. Can you post something that shows what you're talking about?
http://www.inn-dc.com/pentagon.gif

You also say the object on the right in the upper right hand picture is smoke.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html

Now do you expexct me to trust your judgement when you speak authoratively
It would look more like this.
http://images.google.es/imgres?imgur...ng_en%26sa%3DN
Scroll down to the second picture.

I wouldn't call that photo an anomaly; I would call it clear proof that blows the official version out of the water. There is no ovewhelming evidence against this. Everything you've presented has other explanations so it's nothing compared to real photo evidence.

All one has to do is look at the photo and compare the double the height of the Pentagon at the point on the wall that's equadistant with the craft from the camera to see that it's too small to be a 757. It doesn't take any special training.

You guys really seem hesitant to do the math even though it's easy for you to do. Is it because you know it proves that a 757 is too small to fit in the space? If it isn't, do the math and prove your point.

The photos in post 990 might be a montage.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
I disagree. The shadow line is quite clear and it's consistent with the position of the sun. If it's not a shadow line, it's a hell of a coincidence that it's in the same place as it's supposed to be.

And that you don't know why we don't do it here is very telling, David C, and not at all flattering to you

Nope. That's not it. Nice try, though

See, you still fail to realize how this works. You need to do the math and prove your point. Your efforts to shift the burden of proof because you are personally ignorant of they necessary knowledge to back up your statement aren't going unnoticed, David C

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

David C, you debunk yourself in this statement far better than any of us possibly could through posts. Thank you.

I can see why you'd be nervous about answering this. They are not a montage. The photo was investigated, and found genuine. I will reveal the source, where you can investigate it yourself, after you have given your opinion. You hesitate because your opinion will destroy all credibility you have in interpreting your one photographic "smoking gun". So like I said, I can see why you'd be nervous about answering. However, your failure to do so tells us nearly as much as your wrong answer will

BTW: Tog_ is also aware of the source material, and can verify that it is not a montage, nor a trick on my part

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

All that's necessary is that you look at the height of the Pentagon, double it and try to put it in the space between the tail and the front of the box in this picture.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
Precise calculations are only necessary when it's too close to be sure by just looking at it. Here, just looking at it is sufficient.
You guys have done the calculations and you know it proves the craft was too small to be a 757.
If it had been a 757, it would have looked like this.
http://images.google.es/imgres?imgur...ng_en%26sa%3DN
(bottom right picture)

No the ridiculous one is you. You misunderstood what I said. The height in the video shortens as it recedes from the camera. In the small picture, the Pentagon takes up only a few pixels. It is nearly impossible to tell where along the Pentagon to measure the height. And as pointed out to you in another post, the height also varies along its length.


The image is affected by the focal length of the lense and you still haven't even shown that the plane was close enough to the box to show in front of the box.

Do your own work.


Back to your mantra again. It must have been planted. You really are a one trick pony. They would laugh you out of not only the debate hall but also any court of law. Many parts were not small enough to plant and many parts of the skin were found on the lawn. Did you see any photos or videos of people dropping parts on the lawn? And your press comment is also laughable. the press across the world is not and can not be controlled. Small parts of it, maybe but just the fact that the theory exist on the internet shows that not everything can be controlled.

Plus it is possible that the 757 is sticking out in front of the box. Due to the scanning nature of the camera, as was explained to you multiple times before, the plane will move quite a bit before the camera finishes scanning the image. That makes the image blurry. The tail shows up better because of the strong contrast against the blue sky behind it and it is smaller overall to scan but the body is nearly invisible because the contrast against the ground is not as great. Again, both the cameras in question are not designed to capture something at that speed, they were not focused at that distance, they only shot one frame a second, and their resolution was too low to show anything usefull. All of those would make those images useless in proving anything and those are all you have.

I don't think anything is doctored. I think you don't know what you're looking at.


Blurriness is still an issue. See above.


Your other possible explanations are ridiculous! There is no evidence of anything being planted. The more you insist something must be planted, the more people must be added to the plot to keep quiet. For your explanation to work, all of Washington DC had to be involved!

Then don't say it was a 757! That is the stupidest part of all of this! One single tourist with a camera would destroy everything! Don't you get that?


Again, do your own work. You seem very good about asking others to do it for you. Frankly I'm fed up enough with you I wouldn't do a thing for you even if you paid me.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

How do you know that picture is the right scale? Have you checked it yourself or just accept it because it fits your worldview? I'm thinking the second.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Oh and again, you keep mentioning the shadow line on the white object on the far right. Is it impossible for smoke to have a shadow?

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."