Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Well I decided to do a little outlining in photoshop to see what shapes could be made out of that still. The results are interesting, and in my opinion, conclusive.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2...eostill5br.jpg

Image a) is the only feasible way it could be outlined for it to even closely resemble the tip of a commercial airline. I'm going to be referring to the square-like structure in the top right of the outline, because I believe it's the key to figuring out what this image is. The square has to either be a part of the plane, or a part of the background. a) shows what the outline is if the box is indeed part of the plane. The problem with this is no commercial airlines have any kind of structure or fin at all this close to the cabin. Google it.

Image b) shows the outline with the box removed. This also doesn't look like a 757. Both pictures don't have the long smooth shape that a commercial airliner has on it's front. So, what happens if you discount both top parts as being part of the background, not of the plane...? Well you get d).

Image d), which I don't believe is the true outline, could not possible be a 757 because it's too skinny. The bumpy things on the bottom need to be considered as well. They're either protrusions off the belly of the object or they're bushes of some sort. A close inspection of the shadows here eliminates the idea of bushes.

Finally, figure c) is just an outline of all the white parts of the object.


So, which one is real? It has to be one of them. The real question is .. which one shows the outline of a 757 aircraft? The answer ... none.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

This must be joke.

What's that structure in the foreground, next to the traffic cone, maybe 15 feet away from the camera? The resolution is so poor that I have no idea, yet you think this still photo offers coclusive proof about a shape hundreds of yards away.

You must be trolling.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

No, it's not a joke. It's absolutely serious [censored], so disregarding it as a joke is a bad omen. I don't know what that structure is, but I'm sure with a little research it wouldn't be hard to find out. Go for it.

The resolution's good enough to identify the shape of objects. And these shapes are all I'm concerned with. If the image was clear enough to be able to read lettering on the side of the object then this thread just wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

It's a plane travelling at several hundred mph very close to the ground at a medium distance from a very crappy camera. WTF do you expect? How many frames per second do you think that camera was capturing, and at what shutter speed? Where's it focused?

Off topic but yet still pertaining to the same issue...
All evidence supports a plane hitting the pentagon. The fact that the pentagon doesn't look like what you think it should after a large plane hit it is because you have no idea what happens to a plane loaded with fuel when it hits a reinforced concrete barrier/building at several hundred mph.

This is as stupid as claiming we never landed on the moon.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Whatever the object is, it disappears in later frames. And it fits the profile of a plane just fine. Image d looks very much like a plane to me. It also looks like the correct outline based on the original image. The two white objects behind the one in question are almost surely buildings in the background. Also, they do not move in later frames as the "image d" object does.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

First off, the images you posted have been altered from what was released. The original video frames are in high resolution of the near objects. And as has been said before, it's only 4 frames of the "video" because the camera took stop motion photos every 1 second and the plane was only in the view of the camera for about 4-5 seconds, so this is everything the camera recorded.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/vide...tagon_cctv.gif

But then again, some nuts will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to be with whatever flimsy arguments.

If you really think flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, then what do you propose happened to the plane, and the 60+ people on board?

It seems conspiracy theorists are quick to overlook the plane wreckage recovered on site, along with the charred remains identified through DNA to match the passengers on the flight 77 manifest.

Get in touch with one of those many victim's families, listen to the pain and anguish they've been through for the past 5 years and how much they missed their loved ones that were on that flight and recovered from the wreckage, then look them in the eye and tell them you believe some kooky goddamn conspiracy that a missile hit the pentagon and their flight actually went through some time space continuim and they are all leading new lives in some alternate universe safe and sound.

If you make it out alive, let me know how it went.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Get in touch with one of those many victim's families, listen to the pain and anguish they've been through for the past 5 years and how much they missed their loved ones that were on that flight and recovered from the wreckage, then look them in the eye and tell them you believe some kooky goddamn conspiracy that a missile hit the pentagon and their flight actually went through some time space continuim and they are all leading new lives in some alternate universe safe and sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's why this argument is fallacious:

"Get in touch with the family of one of the mothers of a Nazi soldier defending the Fatherland during WWII. Listen to the pain and anguish she had to go through in losing her beloved for a cause she and all her fellow citizens strongly believed in, and look her in the eyes and tell her it was all the whole thing was the scheme of a genocidal psychopath that wanted to kill everyone on the planet so he could continue his evil, tyrannical amphetamine-induced madness."

Emotional devastation is not justification in cases like this.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

I'm assuming the date and time on this video clip are just out of wack and not part of some vast conspiracy in which a plane struck the Pentagon at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001?

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Emotional devastation is not justification in cases like this.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Everyone knows that fiction can't make people cry. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Emotional devastation is not justification in cases like this.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Everyone knows that fiction can't make people cry. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I was in my Death and Afterlife (Religion 110) class when 9-11 happened. It was an early class so I was tired. I heard that a plane hit the towers and I went back to bed.

Then my gf woke me up yelling about what happened and I saw the towers falling and asked "why are they demolishing the buildings already?" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

It always amazes me how people find what they're looking for in these pictures. Somebody posted one about Dealey Plaza here a while back, saying that a certain photo clearly showed a shooter behind a fence or something. I could make out Mother Goose and Rock Balboa in the picture, but no shooter.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Look at the post directly above yours. The expanding shadow from the smoke is clearly visible just below the horizon. Your link cropped it out and claimed it didn't exist.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Government sure would be boring if it weren't for all the conspiracies!

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Look at the post directly above yours. The expanding shadow from the smoke is clearly visible just below the horizon. Your link cropped it out and claimed it didn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the article is referring to the lack of shadows here.
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4...entagon1bs.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4...ntclose8ke.jpg

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

No, they say the following: ". . . Yet the huge explosion casts no apparent shadow from the sun on the lawn below it."

Next to this statement they show the stills you just posted, in which they've cropped out the plainly visible shadows that you can see in RedBean's post in this thread.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, they say the following: ". . . Yet the huge explosion casts no apparent shadow from the sun on the lawn below it."

Next to this statement they show the stills you just posted, in which they've cropped out the plainly visible shadows that you can see in RedBean's post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. But this is also in the same paragraph.
[ QUOTE ]
The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

[/ QUOTE ]
The images I posted are to the right of that paragraph.

I'm going to email them and tell them to correct the mistake you caught. All that matters is the truth and they need to get it right.

EDIT: Actually, mulling it over, what's the definition of "below"? You are referring to the shadow cast beside the explosion. I'm still emailing them to point out the confusion that statement can cause for people that don't understand the concept of "below".

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Redbean:

I'm with you in how I don't see how an airplane didn't hit the pentagon...

but i've watched that .gif like 50 times just now, and I can't see a plane. Just a small white trail like smoke flying real low to the ground. Like a missle?

wtf is wrong with me

then again a plane moving at 400 MPH might not have a sign saying "WHAT UP MIKE" on the side of it

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

That white blob in frame 1 looks like smoke to me also, not some sort of humpbacked plane.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That white blob in frame 1 looks like smoke to me also, not some sort of humpbacked plane.

[/ QUOTE ]

idk I just guess I expected for a plane to be much larger and take up more of the screen.

Kinda like ok nothing...oh [censored] giant white thing...boom

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

It's farther away than it may seem. The size is about right based on my perception of the distance. I think a lot of people are misjudging the distance. Does anyone have an exact figure on how far away from the camera that explosion was? And the plane is coming in from a greater distance.

It definitely doesn't look like a missile, or like smoke (though the later frames show what seems to be smoke or dust). It looks like a horizontal white thing. Its color and dimensions and shape are appropriate for a plane. That doesn't mean it looks like a plane, it's too blurry and far away to say. But it definitely could be a plane. It is in no way evidence of a conspiracy.

And if it were it would be pretty poor evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A government conspiracy on this scale should leave all kinds of evidence. When the conspiracy theorists find that evidence, they might be worth taking seriously. If blurry photos are the only thing they can provide, their outlandish claims do not deserve rational consideration.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When the conspiracy theorists find that evidence, they might be worth taking seriously. If blurry photos are the only thing they can provide, their outlandish claims do not deserve rational consideration.


[/ QUOTE ]
You know these video frames were released to the public to quell growing suspicion that the Pentagon wasn't actually hit by a plane right? This is their "blurry photos" evidence. Yet you're willing to take them at their word, and "blurry photos".

The fact is, 9/11 truthers want better evidence, but who's withholding it from us?

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one part of that statement is false. Either the swath of white to which they're referring is not the heliport, or the heliport is not directly underneath the explosion. Though it's hard to be precise with such low image quality, the swath of white is significantly closer to the camera than the explosion -- I'd say 50 ft. if I had to ballpark it, but that's just a guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, mulling it over, what's the definition of "below"? You are referring to the shadow cast beside the explosion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The shadow from the explosion is both below and beside the smoke, of course, as it would have to be since the sunlight is coming in from an angle.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still emailing them to point out the confusion that statement can cause for people that don't understand the concept of "below".

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't condesend. The confusion over the word "below" is yours, not mine. The word means "lower than," not necessarily "directly underneath."

At best, the site is guilty of poorly wording and presenting their argument. That seems unlikely, however. The paragraph is titled "Missing Shadow From Explosion," not "Inconsistent Shadow From Explosion." They make no mention of any shadow anywhere from the explosion, and conspiculously crop out from all the photos the plainly visible shadows below the explosion.

[ QUOTE ]
All that matters is the truth and they need to get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think they're interested in the truth.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know these video frames were released to the public to quell growing suspicion that the Pentagon wasn't actually hit by a plane right? This is their "blurry photos" evidence. Yet you're willing to take them at their word, and "blurry photos".

The fact is, 9/11 truthers want better evidence, but who's withholding it from us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Conspiracy theorists are quick to discount the flight 77 wreckage found within the pentagon as further proof, in addition to these images, and again I ask, if flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, where do you propose the plane went, and where are those 60+ people that were onboard?

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Am I the only person who sees the tail section of the plane just to the *left* of the white blob, above the parking structure ticket dispenser? There's a right-triangular shape there that doesn't appear in the other four CCTV frames.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

I see it too. It can only be the tail of an airplane.

The white smear that is outlined in the above photos IS NOT THE PLANE. That is dust from the ground. The plane is ahead of the dust. You can see the perfect outline of a tail fin above the yellow box.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

This is typical of the sort of "evidence" provided by 9/11 conspiracy theorists to support their outlandish claims. Some guy with Photoshop and red outlines thinks he has found a clear refutation to the fact that a 757 flew into the side of the Pentagon.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

I worked for a company that does almost 100% federal government contracts. I personally worked with the EPA, but the company headquarters are in the DC area, and the company of course did a ton of [censored] up there. One of those jobs was the complete retrofit of a command center in the wing of the pentagon that got hit. It was completed September 10th, if I remember correctly.

I spoke with people that worked on that project. Since it, and the entire wing, had to be done all over again, of course, they were there in the immediate aftermath.

A 757 hit the building. There is no doubt. People saw it. It clipped light posts in the parking lot on the way in. They saw the wreckage.

I have a theory about why people believe this kind of conspiracy crap, as well as in ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, all of it. The world would be so much more interesting if there really were 8 foot bipedal apes, life after death, plesiosaurs living in Scottish Lakes, aliens abducting people, and conspiracies between Castro, the Mob, and the KGB to kill JFK with 3 shooters instead of some crazy loner. So people believe these things because, quite frankly, they'd be cool if they were true.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

I think that perhaps one other thing leading to conspiracy theories is that with the changed relationship of the press to the government that started with Vietnam, people saw that their government lied to it sometimes. Surely, then, they reason, there must be other secrets in addition to the ones we found out about. Dishonesty breeds distrust.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I worked for a company that does almost 100% federal government contracts. I personally worked with the EPA, but the company headquarters are in the DC area, and the company of course did a ton of [censored] up there. One of those jobs was the complete retrofit of a command center in the wing of the pentagon that got hit. It was completed September 10th, if I remember correctly.

I spoke with people that worked on that project. Since it, and the entire wing, had to be done all over again, of course, they were there in the immediate aftermath.

A 757 hit the building. There is no doubt. People saw it. It clipped light posts in the parking lot on the way in. They saw the wreckage.

I have a theory about why people believe this kind of conspiracy crap, as well as in ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, all of it. The world would be so much more interesting if there really were 8 foot bipedal apes, life after death, plesiosaurs living in Scottish Lakes, aliens abducting people, and conspiracies between Castro, the Mob, and the KGB to kill JFK with 3 shooters instead of some crazy loner. So people believe these things because, quite frankly, they'd be cool if they were true.

[/ QUOTE ]
hey screw you, JFK was a conspiracy.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...deoframes.html
I found the information about the lack of shadows interesting in this link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty interesting that the government can pull off a huge conspiracy like a 9-11 but cant make a convincing photoshop.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Doesn't the date "Sep. 12, 2001" at "17:37" get you wondering that this may not be what actually happened on september 11th?!!!!!!
Furthermore, this silly video doesn't explain why there is only a 16 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon and why no engines were found, and why the lawn remained unscathed, and why they confiscated the real videos from the nearby citgo and sheraton.
Keep believing the "official" story.
Don't bother to look at alternative views.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, this silly video doesn't explain why there is only a 16 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon and why no engines were found, and why the lawn remained unscathed, and why they confiscated the real videos from the nearby citgo and sheraton.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.apfn.org/images/pentagon-9-11.jpg


16 foot hole??

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
there is only a 16 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon


[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/lawn3.jpg

See that yellow firetruck, it's about 40-50 feet in length. Either way, just a rough guess here, but the affected area of the Pentagon is just a smidge more than 16 feet.

[ QUOTE ]
and why no engines were found

[/ QUOTE ]

Engine wreckage was recovered. So was plane wreckage, wheel wreckage, all sorts of stuff that you would expect to find at the crash site of a 757.

[ QUOTE ]

Keep believing the "official" story.
Don't bother to look at alternative views.

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice you continually skirt the question regarding where you propose flight 77 ended up (and the 60+ passengers) if you really think they didn't impact the pentagon.

Please, can the conspiracy nuts tell me their theory as to what happened to FLight 77 if it didn't hit the pentagon?

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]

16 foot hole??

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you would post the post-collapse picture. How about a pre-collapse or two? Notice that the bend in the roof is the spot where it broke and everything to the right of it collapsed, as can be seen in the above picture.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/precollapse.jpg
http://physics911.ca/images/omholt/impact1_477px.jpg
http://physics911.ca/images/omholt/pentagonhole.jpg
Find the 757!

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Gee, I don't know, maybe the blurry photos are all they have. If they were going to produce fake evidence to quell the conspiracy theories, don't you think they'd come up with something better? I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but as far as 9/11 is concerned, I seriously doubt that they are covering up anything but their own incompetence.

If you believe the more wacko conspiracy theories, you have to believe that they not only fired a missile at the Pentagon, but somehow made an airliner plus crew and passengers disappear, and that they flew planes into the world trade center towers and explosively demolished them and wtc 7. What was the purpose of demolishing wtc7 long after the plane crash + demolition of the main towers? Come on folks, this is silly. If you expect me to believe that the collapse of the main towers wasn't a direct result of the planes crashing into the towers and the massive jet fuel fires that followed, show me some evidence. Claims that the plane crash and fire couldn't have caused the collapse are silly. They did cause the collapse, unless you can show me some convincing evidence that something else did. It's almost like you saw somebody pour gasoline inside a house and then light a match, and then say that couldn't have been what made the house burn down, I'm sure a flying saucer shot the house with its death ray.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the date "Sep. 12, 2001" at "17:37" get you wondering that this may not be what actually happened on september 11th?!!!!!!
Furthermore, this silly video doesn't explain why there is only a 16 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon and why no engines were found, and why the lawn remained unscathed, and why they confiscated the real videos from the nearby citgo and sheraton.
Keep believing the "official" story.
Don't bother to look at alternative views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acutally, it makes me more convinced that it's real. If they were going to fake it, don't you think they'd get the date and time right? I find it much more believable that the clock on the camera was set incorrectly than that somebody put together fake pictures and screwed up the date.

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

The picture you show is the after-effects, when the roof caved-in----not the initial impact!
Also, where is the fire-charred lawn?
Where are the engines?
Where is the black box?

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

Thanks for posting this!!!

Re: Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?
 

I would say that the fact that the web site doctored the pictures shows that they are much more interested in supporting their silly conspiracy theories than finding the truth.