Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?

[Cumulonimbus]

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.



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.

[VarlosZ]

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.

[Cumulonimbus]

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?

[KlumsySmurf]

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.

[madnak]

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.

[RedBean]

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.



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.

[illeagle]

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

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[Johnny Drama]

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?

[illeagle]

[ 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]