Study: Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?

[madnak]

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.

[illeagle]

[ 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?

[VarlosZ]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ 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?

[Uethym]

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.

[Peter666]

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.

[vulturesrow]

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.

[Borodog]

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.

[andyfox]

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.

[bigt2k4]

[ 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.