Question on the released frames of the Pentagon strike.

[Old and In the Way]

Since the DOD released the 5 security camera frames that show the 757 traveling at ground level, why aren't there marks on the lawn? Is it physically possible given the size of the 757 and the documented evidence of the location of the plane in the frames, not to have the engine cowlings tearing up the Pentagon lawn on its way into the building?

<>

Is the top of the tail 44'from the ground in this pic....wouldn't it be easy to calculate the height, knowing the distances of the camera to the plane and the included angle?

<>

Also, do the frames sow the plane coming in perpendicular to the Pentagon wall? Or is that an illusion. I would think it would be closer to a 45 degree angle....and that would change the profile of the tail quite a bit.

[iconoclastNYC]

1. There is no plane in those frames best I know

And your links don't work.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Links don't work? I didn't post any.

Isn't that the plane the Pentagon says is 77?

[iconoclastNYC]

3. The links to the images

[Old and In the Way]

4. So you don't see the pics?

I changed from "[]" to "<>"...I can see the pics OK with either...

[Make7]

11. Just for future reference...

911research.wtc7.net does not allow hotlinking of images from DU. (Maybe not from any sites, I'm not sure.) To see the pictures in your post people can open each image, and then go back to your post to get the images to show up.

The reason that works is that most browsers will store a copy of recently viewed pages, images, etc. on your computer. So if an image is locally stored, when a page is pointing to that image's address then your browser will use the local copy instead of downloading it again.

This is also why you see the images when you write your post. Your computer is using a locally stored copy. Here are a few pictures from that site so you can see what I mean:







You probably could not see all of them, could you? Just view the images by themselves in this window and then go back to this post and they should appear just fine.

- Make7

[Old and In the Way]

12. Thanks for the advice.

My internet posting skills are rather primitive. Oh well, you know what they say about trying to teach new tricks to old dogs...

:-)

[Make7]

15. This is what I usually do.

I do a quick google image search to see if I can find another source for any images that I am planning on posting from 911research.wtc7.net. If I can't find one, I usually just save the picture to my photobucket.com account. That way I know the images will show up for everyone.

It takes a little effort, but at least I know the pictures will show up properly. 911research.wtc7.net seems to be the only site that I regularly use that doesn't allow hotlinking of images.

I don't think this is an issue with your posting skills, it's just not always obvious when a site doesn't allow hotlinking of their images - I didn't realize it the first few times that I posted pictures from 911research.wtc7.net. I just thought you (and others) might like to know....

- Make7

[DemInDistress]

17. when I find a blank space where a picture should be I click

on properties, copy the url then email that to myself and open the link seems to always work that way for me.

I don't know any shortcuts.

thank you

[mirandapriestly]

7. I right clicked then did properties and cut and paste it into address

now the pics are in the message. The plane is supposedly visible over that box to the far right of the picture you can see a white streak, but it's fakey.

[KJF]

5. Fakes

(1) The stills are definitely faked. For example, the explosion is coming out of the roof (which wasn't damaged by the impact) and the facade initially lights up, but, as the explosion continues to grow, goes suddenly dark.
More at link:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

(2) My opinion is that the aircraft in the stills is clearly a missile - planes do not leave chemtrails at ground level and the object seems too small.

(3) Killtown (formerly of this parish) claimed that the plane should have been higher at this point. Maybe they just put it there so they could prtially obscure it.

btw, I can get the photos to work by right-clicking on them and then clicking on "view image". Apparently, sometimes photos are displayed to a poster because they are in his/her browser cache, but are not visible to others.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Thanks Kevin......good analysis as always.

The strike window on the approach doesn't seem right when you consider the location of the tail in that pic and the lack of damage to the lawn. Add in the fence, I find it hard to believe the information shown in those frames.

And, if they released doctored pictures of the event, the obvious question is why? Why have they withheld the evidence that would support their claims?

[mirandapriestly]

8. Also if they gave us fake images here, what is to keep them from

putting out fake ones in the future? and with no media to say anything about it...That's why I think we will never see the real pictures.

[KJF]

9. If you ask me...

... it goes something like this.
(1) There is something wrong with the official account of 9/11: the mysteriously disappearing hijacker support network, United 93 was shot down, the WTC was blown up, the WTC was a suite of holograms (delete as applicable);
(2) The powers-that-be were taken by surprise by what happened and didn't have a planned deception. They were very worried conspriacy theorists would hit on some part of what really happened and that it would come out;
(3) Fortunately for them, Thiery Meyssan came up with a bunch of claims (hunt the Boeing) so far-fetched that they immediately put most people off. No active deception was needed, all they did was wait for Meyssan to publish in English, badly fake the photos, release them to a friendly news outlet (Fox), authenticate them and watch the CTers squabble amongst themselves. Compare this with Roswell - it's the damn same. Whenever something really bad looks like it might get out, you can count on a bunch of CTers to come along and claim something too crazy for most people to bother with and then the whole thing gets swept under the carpet.

To me the main issues with American 77 are:
(1) How come it wasn't intercepted? It hit its target over an hour after NORAD knew of the first hijacking and half an hour after it knew there were multiple hijackings. They couldn't figure out Washington would be a target? If you ask me there were planes in the air we haven't been told about, but that's just a hunch.
(2) There's no way Hani ever boarded the plane;
(3) The fake hijackers' documentation found at the Pentagon. Why would Moqed be carrying a forged KSA student ID? If Salem Al Hazmi didn't have ID at check-in (as the 9/11 CR claims, although the customer services representative said he did have ID in an interview for Time), how come one of his ID documents was found in the rubble? As far as I can see, it was probably a fake, acquired at the same time as Al Omari and Al Mihdhar acquired fake documents (although the 9/11 CR makes no mention of the fact they were fake). He had photo ID but couldn't find it at check-in? Is there any reason the hijackers' support network got off with light sentences or absolutely nothing?

[mirandapriestly]

16. What do you mean they were taken by surprise by what happened?

the other things you are saying - open airspace, no hani hanjour being the pilot, lean toward government knowledge. Or do you mean they DON'T KNOW who did it? Hurry up and answer, I want to know...

[KJF]

18. I mean...

... that the administration was not expecting what happened to happen.

(1) Hani bailing out (I think) but being put on the plane by the FBI is just an example of the sloppiness of the investigation, of which there are examples everywhere. They got the idea that the pilots were US-trained from the other three planes, but couldn't find a US-trained pilot on the plane. However, Hani had a ticket, so they figured it was just a computer glitch that kept his name of the manifest (this is even sort-of mentioned in the 9/11 CR in a relatively spin-free way, which I take to mean they haven't figured it out yet - otherwise they'd be spinning) and that the 6 foot Mexican with the beard and the hair on the security camera footage was Hani. As far as I can see the other 18 guys probably were on the planes. The FBI probably knows who the support network is as well, they're just not telling us - because they are still being investigated, because they were hired by the FBI or because they were already working for the FBI at the time. Probably one of the other guys flew the plane for the last 8 minutes after the autopilot was switched off.

(2) I wouldn't say the airspace was open, there's just something we haven't been told that will make some sort of sense of it (i.e. more fighters were launched at the start than is now admitted). The initial response to the first two hijacks was slow, but not that suspiciously slow - how would the military know it was a suicide mission before the first plane hit? They probably thought they were just going to follow it to Cuba or something. However, the problem with the air defence is that it gets worse throughout the day of 9/11, whereas really it should get better - I just can't believe the FAA kept the last hijacking secret from the military for 40 minutes, even though they had previously advised NORAD that United 93 was one of the most likely hijacking targets. My feeling is that there is a cover-up, just not a cover-up of what is commonly supposed. The "9/11 truth movement" always puts the worst interpretation on what official bodies did, but that interpretation may not be correct. It seems that everything is assessed in the light of it being hard to believe a steel-frame building was destroyed by a 56-minute office fire. It's a persuasive argument, but each individual claim has to be subjected to separate scrutiny - "it fits the pattern" should be the argument of last resort, not the first one. OK, this paragraph is a bit jumbled, but you can probably work out what I mean.

[mirandapriestly]

21. Hmm, yes, I've wondered if they weren't covering up

for something other than the most extreme idea. I also remember there was a lot of talk about "liability" early on, for both the government and the airlines involved. For example, there was a bomb and guns mentioned in regards to one of the flights and then that stopped. If it were true that those things got onto a flight, the $$ liability of both the airlines AND the gov't for letting that happen would be enormous, something like that. The lies and the cover up could be for hiding other things we don't know about. I can see that. But the building scenario is just so tempting.. ;).

[KJF]

22. Liability

Imagine what the liability would be if United 93 was shot down. AFAIK this would have been illegal:
(1) Compensation for victims' relatives;
(2) Compensation for the airline;
(3) Trauma suffered by Shansville residents;
(4) Even the pilot would probably have filed a claim.
Hell, even Jarrah's family could have probably sued them.

Imagine what the liability would be if the WTC was destroyed by explosives sort-of accidentally, not as part of false flag operation. They would be compensation for:
(1) Victims' relatives and those merely injured;
(2) The leaseholder;
(3) The owners of nearby buildings for physical damage + lost profit;
(4) Persons traumatised by the collapse;
(5) The businesses in the WTC - loss of employee skills + relocation costs + lost profit for days not in operation;
(6) Local hotel operators and other tourist businesses for lost profit;
(7) Anyone who owned shares traded on the NYSE for lost profit - the collapse damaged some of its communications equipment located near WTC 7 and it was closed for 4 days;
Etc.

Plus, think of how it would have played if it had come out that the hero passengers had then been offed by the air force. Hardly the best start to the war of terror.

[greyl]

19. One point: "the explosion coming out of the roof".

I think that's a bad point. At first glance it may seem reasonable that the explosion over the pentagon is radiating from a center point inside the building, but as usual, there's more than meets the eye.
A fueled explosion "wants" to expand, so as soon as it could it did.



The 1 photo before, and the 2 after 17:37:21 show this point pretty clearly, imo.
www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html

[KJF]

20. I don't buy it

Explosions don't turn corners unless they have to - the main explosion should be coming from inside the Pentagon and shooting back onto the lawn (as is suggested by one of the still photos taken independently). Compare it to the explosions at the WTC - they're balls of jet fuel and then fire, they don't go round corners.

The explosion at the Pentagon is clearly expanding (primarily) upwards - compare stills numbers three and four - it's still going up, but it isn't going outwards any more. Why would the ball of fire stop moving back across the lawn, but continue moving up?

Out of interest, are you arguing the stills are faked or not?

Edit: title alteration

[greyl]

23. They DO have to.

What would keep a fueled explosion from expanding across the roof after it rises above the height of the wall? Nothing. It must expand.

Putting it as "turning corners" makes it seem ridiculous because that's not how fueled explosions actually behave.
We aren't talking about the paint splatter from an M-80 in a gallon of paint.

[KJF]

24. But why would it want to expand across the roof?

Especially in preference to expanding in the direction of the blast - across the lawn?

And why would it reach the roof in the first place?

The fuel exploded inside the Pentagon, the explosion then moved west - back out of the hole. You appear to be claiming that the explosion then turned upwards and then went back east.

Here's a real jet fuel explosion:

The fireball is clearly expanding in the direction of the blast, around the central blast axis. At no point does the direction change by 90 degrees.

I find it hard to determine what you are arguing for. Are you saying the Pentagon stills are real, but the WTC explosion is faked?

[greyl]

25. There's nothing to stop it.

Would you expect it to look like this?:




Next is a pic of a fuel explosion from
Wikipedia with an added rectangle to help make my point. Nothing is "turning 90°", the volume of the explosion is simply increasing.



Also, consider the angle the pentagon images are from.
The WTC photo isn't a proper analog for the pentagon explosion.

"I find it hard to determine what you are arguing for."

I'm trying to address one specific point at a time.
Fueled explosions don't behave like a can of non-flammable paint with an M-80 in it.

edit: Sorry. To be more responsive to your question, I'm trying to eliminate the weak arguments and see what we have left. I have other issues with www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html , but I want to do one at a time.

[KJF]

26. One by one is fine, but...

... I think you should come of the fence and say what you think.
I say:
(1) The object in the stills is more likely to be a missile/small plane than a 757 (chemtrail, size, altitude);
(2) The stills are faked (placement, direction, type and, possibly, size of explosion, brightness of facade, patches of colour, missing post, missing construction equipment, general fakiness, etc.);
(3) A 757 (or very similar aircraft) hit the Pentagon.
If you are pushing the idea the plane was full of explosives and was exploded over the lawn, you should really say so now.

Regarding the explosion:
(1) You seem to have admitted it doesn't look like the WTC fireballs - the event most similar to it; to my mind this is a point in favour of it being faked;
(2) There's no way on earth it looks like the "column and cloud" explosion you posted. There's no column - the Pentagon explosion appears to be like a pyramid or cone;
(3) The blast should have started inside the Pentagon and been directed by the concrete floor slabs back out through the hole the plane made. If this were the case, why would a cloud form over the Pentagon? The force of the blast would have to turn at 90 degrees to go up after exiting the Pentagon;
(4) The angle of the line from the widest part of the cloud you posted to the top of the column is 45 degrees. No such angle is visible in the cloud over the Pentagon;
(5) The column and cloud explosion you posted was in a field, meaning the explosion at the Pentagon should be different.

[greyl]

27. If it's fine, then can you please

follow one line of reasoning at a time? This last response of yours wasn't exactly responsive to my argument. You may have noticed that problem cropping up occasionally here.

[rman]

10. wrong date and time, skips a whole second

and there's no large plane visible in those frames.

[Ezlivin]

13. It's the terrorist attack of September 12 the Pentagon cameras got

Everyone forgets about that day.

:sarcasm:

[Make7]

14. LOL! ( n/t )