BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories

[p4r4]

Quote:Just aluminum oxide.

Now it's aluminum oxide, make up your mind already, is it foam or aluminum oxide?

Quote: You seem to accept all of the "truth" by FBI, CIA. Who claimed al qaeda did it...
-----
Not at all. What I look for is the internal consistency of related facts. Yours aren't consistent with physics, which is a good falsifier.

That was about FBI saying it was a cruise missile that hit pentagon to the Germans. What physics you talking about, those that make the airplanes 3 times smaller than what it should look like ?

Quote:But not without employing perspective. Which is what you have done here. NOT employed it.
The approach angle to the camera view is around 50 degrees.
The front-to-rear distance of the aircraft is foreshortened by a factor of 65%.
More to the point, the HEIGHT of the tailfin is REDUCED by perspective, because it is SIXTY YARDS BEHIND the nose of the aircraft.
So your picture draws the 757 colliding almost SQUARE to the building on a course it couldn't have followed if it was to
a) Knock down five lampposts and
b) Knock through the brick wall.
That was as useful as a cock-flavored lollipop.

Is this square to you?

Quote:What sort of explosive charge is it that knocks down or damages a decreasing wedge of columns, and pushes small fragments through brick walls?
Other than sixty tons of disintegrating passenger plane...

planed explosions with planted explosives for achieving the desired effect.

Quote:Not at all.
Were you to use a proper 3-D drafting procedure I'd be more interested.
I would do it myself, were there not TWO IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS.
The first is IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.
The second is IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.
I thought I'd mention it twice. Homilies to "Red Dwarf".

Mentioning even more than twice will not make it more credible.

[JazzRoc]

(09-17-2011 05:18 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  Now it's aluminum oxide, make up your mind already, is it foam or aluminum oxide?

I have indicated the distinction between foam and aluminum oxide.
A missile exploding its main charge externally would leave POCK MARKS in the outside face of the Pentagon where high-tensile steel shrapnel hit it. There are NO TRACES of pock-marking at all.
The cracks in your case are the cracks on the wall.
A massive explosion within (which you claim without proof is planted) would have caused the front face of the Pentagon to heave outward, leaving OPEN cracks in the fascia.
But ALL the cracks near the column you claim to have been blown outward are CLOSED, indicating a compression by impact from outside.
There is NO WAY that an internal explosion big enough to damage the columns could leave CLOSED cracks in the fascia without pock-marking it.
So, whatever you think may have happened, the wall was knocked backward by an IMPACT, and NOT a brisant explosion.
You are disingenuous in the extreme.

Quote:What physics you talking about, those that make the airplanes 3 times smaller than what it should look like ?

I should take your NON-PERSPECTIVE sketch for PHYSICAL ANALYSIS?
Hey, sunshine, I'm a qualified CAD draftsman, and I CERTAINLY DON'T. I have given you chapter and verse.
I now KNOW you to be a charlatan.

Quote:Is this square to you?

No. But this ridiculous travesty IS.

Quote:planed explosions with planted explosives for achieving the desired effect.

Which didn't, because there is aluminum oxide dust on the outside, the columns are dragged inwards and leftwards, and the cracks in the fascia are in COMPRESSION (closed) and not in TENSION (open).

But that's not EVERYTHING that would have had to be planted, eh?
There are issues about

MURDERING IN ADVANCE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND CHOPPING THEM UP FOR BODY PARTS.
PRODUCING IN ADVANCE FIVE LAMP POSTS DAMAGED BY A 500 MPH IMPACT.
LOADING THE PENTAGON IN ADVANCE WITH THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF KEROSINE AND AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF EXPLOSIVES.
THEN KILLING DOZENS OF YOUR OWN MILITARY STAFF DELIBERATELY.

Quote:Mentioning even more than twice will not make it more credible

Not to someone as creepy as (protected by the First Amendment) YOU.

[p4r4]

Quote:I have indicated the distinction between foam and aluminum oxide.

Yes you did, in the image you posted. at the bottom you comment: "What's with all the white? Have the firemen sprayed the Pentagon with foam? Nope. They're just getting out their hoses..."


you meant the white stuff on the window?

Quote:A missile exploding its main charge externally would leave POCK MARKS in the outside face of the Pentagon where high-tensile steel shrapnel hit it. There are NO TRACES of pock-marking at all.

The missiles can explode anywhere, inside or outside. it does not need to leave any shrapnel marks, it's not a grenade...

Quote:There is NO WAY that an internal explosion big enough to damage the columns could leave CLOSED cracks in the fascia without pock-marking it.

shock-wave from a high explosive would crack the walls. kerosine would not.

Quote:I should take your NON-PERSPECTIVE sketch for PHYSICAL ANALYSIS?
Hey, sunshine, I'm a qualified CAD draftsman, and I CERTAINLY DON'T. I have given you chapter and verse.
I now KNOW you to be a charlatan.

Got any credentials ?

Quote:No. But this ridiculous travesty IS.

Can you elaborate on that?

Quote:Which didn't, because there is aluminum oxide dust on the outside, the columns are dragged inwards and leftwards, and the cracks in the fascia are in COMPRESSION (closed) and not in TENSION (open).

Got evidence of it being aluminum oxide? No, just speculations.

Quote:MURDERING IN ADVANCE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND CHOPPING THEM UP FOR BODY PARTS.
PRODUCING IN ADVANCE FIVE LAMP POSTS DAMAGED BY A 500 MPH IMPACT.
LOADING THE PENTAGON IN ADVANCE WITH THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF KEROSINE AND AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF EXPLOSIVES.
THEN KILLING DOZENS OF YOUR OWN MILITARY STAFF DELIBERATELY.

Naive people like you would do it for the "greater good" ...

[JazzRoc]

(09-17-2011 07:12 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  you meant the white stuff on the window?

Right on, dweeb.

Quote:The missiles can explode anywhere, inside or outside. it does not need to leave any shrapnel marks, it's not a grenade...

No. I'm sure it didn't need a casing either. Or wings. Or engine.

Quote:shock-wave from a high explosive would crack the walls. kerosine would not.

And the two-inch thick blast-proof windows?

Quote:Got any credentials ?

HNC Mechanical Engineering. Degree in 3-Dimensional Industrial Engineering Design. Ten years engineering design alone, Thirty years designing things such as security systems, petrochemical plant, aircraft, boats, office equipment. The last thing I designed was the charging socket for the Ford "Think" Electric Car.
The first system I worked with was Robocad. The second an Eclipse monochrome IBM clone. The second was a 1/2 million quid uprated IBM in 1987. The third (two years later) was also an uprated IBM for only 50,000 quid. After that they were affordable at home. I have used several other drawing programs. I now use Autodesk 123D.
I was somewhat ahead of computer training courses - so no extra qualifications.

Quote:Elaborate?

Sure. The plane is further away in the still shot. Its angle of approach is at least 50 degrees, and its side view is only 65% of its length.
Its tail, sixty yards behind its nose, is reduced in height by perspective. It doesn't do to present us with a side on shot much closer to the viewer because that neither matches the line taken to destroy the lamp posts, nor the line between impact and exit holes.
The point you have selected to draw your lines from is NOT the point of view of the security camera.

Quote:Got evidence of it being aluminum oxide? No, just speculations.

I see. How do they differ from yours? I see.

Quote:Naive people like you would do it for the "greater good"...

Is THAT a speculation as well?

[Armilus]

You may want to check this out, new documentary (not finished yet):
9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3
"This is the expert-packed feature-length,Pre-Release v1.3, Low-Res documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth."
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=42614
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

[p4r4]

Quote:I have indicated the distinction between foam and aluminum oxide.

Yes you did, in the image you posted. at the bottom you comment: "What's with all the white? Have the firemen sprayed the Pentagon with foam? Nope. They're just getting out their hoses..."


you meant the white stuff on the window?

Quote: you meant the white stuff on the window?
-----
Right on, dweeb.

Quote: The missiles can explode anywhere, inside or outside. it does not need to leave any shrapnel marks, it's not a grenade...
-----
No. I'm sure it didn't need a casing either. Or wings. Or engine.

Casing and wing burn out on explosion. The engine would be in the back of the explosive and if it survived the explosion at all, it would not make poke marks on the pentagon. A rocket engine would burn out completely.

Quote: shock-wave from a high explosive would crack the walls. kerosine would not.
-----
And the two-inch thick blast-proof windows?

And you saying that kerosine which does not create a shock-wave would brake them? Blast proof windows are to a certain degree, it all depends on the amount and kind of explosive used. same for cracks in the wall, the exact damage you would expect from a HE shock-wave. Also lots of witnesses felt the shock-wave and even been injured by it. kerosine does not create shock-wave because of slow burning proprieties which you pointed out earlier.

Quote: Got any credentials ?
-----
HNC Mechanical Engineering. Degree in 3-Dimensional Industrial Engineering Design. Ten years engineering design alone, Thirty years designing things such as security systems, petrochemical plant, aircraft, boats, office equipment. The last thing I designed was the charging socket for the Ford "Think" Electric Car.
The first system I worked with was Robocad. The second an Eclipse monochrome IBM clone. The second was a 1/2 million quid uprated IBM in 1987. The third (two years later) was also an uprated IBM for only 50,000 quid. After that they were affordable at home. I have used several other drawing programs. I now use Autodesk 123D.
I was somewhat ahead of computer training courses - so no extra qualifications.

Useless without verifiable references.

Quote:Sure. The plane is further away in the still shot. Its angle of approach is at least 50 degrees, and its side view is only 65% of its length.
Its tail, sixty yards behind its nose, is reduced in height by perspective. It doesn't do to present us with a side on shot much closer to the viewer because that neither matches the line taken to destroy the lamp posts, nor the line between impact and exit holes.
The point you have selected to draw your lines from is NOT the point of view of the security camera.

"The plane is further away in the still shot" In that case it would not hit the pentagon at all.


"Its tail, sixty yards behind its nose, is reduced in height by perspective" It is not, the shot is taken from the ground level, perspective actually would make it look bigger if the airplane was higher than the camera level.

"It doesn't do to present us with a side on shot much closer to the viewer because that neither matches the line taken to destroy the lamp posts, nor the line between impact and exit holes." here is the side shot you are "not" aware of:

"The point you have selected to draw your lines from is NOT the point of view of the security camera. SO you're saying the above picture is not from security camera?

Quote: Got evidence of it being aluminum oxide? No, just speculations.
-----
I see. How do they differ from yours? I see.

Exactly, when the evidence is hidden and destroyed, all you are left is with speculations. I never claim i have 100% conclusive proof. You on the other hand, want us to believe your speculations are the only possible truth. There is enough inconsistency and mischief, for me to highly doubt the official version, and that is what i do.

[JazzRoc]

(09-19-2011 05:19 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  Casing and wing burn out on explosion.

No they don't. They FRAGMENT and GO SOMEWHERE. They aren't made of balsa wood.

Quote:The engine would be in the back of the explosive and if it survived the explosion at all, it would not make poke marks on the pentagon.

It would partially survive, and continue to strike the building.

Quote:A rocket engine would burn out completely.

A pressure vessel with a hardened nozzle? I think not. It isn't a firework.

Quote:And the two-inch thick blast-proof windows? - Are you saying that kerosine, which does not create a shock-wave, would break them?

NO. I'm saying that IMPACT WITH A SOLID OBJECT could have broken them. Especially as it only occurs within the impact profile, allowing for the crumpled right wing.

Quote:it all depends on the amount and kind of explosive used

Why was the generator DRAGGED FORWARD into this explosion - which also DIDN'T move the cable reels?

Quote:cracks in the wall, the exact damage you would expect from a HE shock-wave.

Were it not that there are no pock-marks, yet signs of external physical impacts and abrasions.

Quote:Also lots of witnesses felt the shock-wave and even been injured by it.

The impact of seventy tons doing 500 mph was followed by a kerosine/air blast which produce a shockwave blast which knocked them down.

Quote:kerosine does not create shock-wave because of slow burning proprieties which you pointed out earlier.

I think it does. That doesn't make it more than fifth the danger of brisant materials.





I think I can see a blast wave there. Can't you?

Quote:Got any credentials ? ----- HNC Mechanical Engineering. Degree in 3-Dimensional Industrial Engineering Design. Ten years engineering design alone, Thirty years designing things such as security systems, petrochemical plant, aircraft, boats, office equipment. The last thing I designed was the charging socket for the Ford "Think" Electric Car.
The first system I worked with was Robocad. The second an Eclipse monochrome IBM clone. The second was a 1/2 million quid uprated IBM in 1987. The third (two years later) was also an uprated IBM for only 50,000 quid. After that they were affordable at home. I have used several other drawing programs. I now use Autodesk 123D. I was somewhat ahead of computer training courses - so no extra qualifications. - Useless without verifiable references.

I know, mate. Most of my referees are deceased. That must really degrade my case. (Sucks teeth)

Quote:"The plane is further away in the still shot" - In that case it would not hit the pentagon at all.

Well, of course it wouldn't.
But if it were further to the right in the frame - IT WOULD, using the same route as before.

Quote:SO you're saying the above picture is not from the security camera?

NO.
I am saying that the plane image you present is not from the point of view of that camera.
It has a 120 degree angle of field which can mislead you. I have balanced up images appropriately.
Your first error was to draw the impact point (in the frame) too close to the camera.
The second error was to wrongly scale the lateral distance on the image plane to a point on the flight path, giving the aircraft nose an unnaturally short distance from the impact point.
Your third error was consequential upon this distance: the tail fin of the craft was rendered oversize. What is shown looks very close to a side elevation.


So I demonstrate what's required to produce the original image, without having to enter a waste of time into my 123D.



A further consideration occurs to me.
We DO know the speed of the plane. We know something was captured behind the obstruction, and ONE SECOND later the impact had occurred.
My reconstruction shows the plane 800 feet away, and doing 800 feet per second.
Yours shows a plane 75 feet away - obviously doing 75 feet per second. WHOOPS.

Quote:when the evidence is hidden and destroyed, all you are left is with speculations.

Or even if it isn't (for it simply never existed)? It seems to me to be the time when you believe made-up shit.
And that can be ALL the time...

[p4r4]

Quote:No they don't. They FRAGMENT and GO SOMEWHERE. They aren't made of balsa wood.

Quote:NO. I'm saying that IMPACT WITH A SOLID OBJECT could have broken them. Especially as it only occurs within the impact profile, allowing for the crumpled right wing.

Maybe one of the missile "shrapnel" did it.

Quote:It would partially survive, and continue to strike the building.

So you're saying the hole is not big enough for an engine to have gone through ?

Quote: Why was the generator DRAGGED FORWARD into this explosion - which also DIDN'T move the cable reels?

Good question, cable reels should have been hit head on by the fuselage.

Quote:I think it does. That doesn't make it more than fifth the danger of brisant materials.

That is not kerosine, it's explosive using air as oxidizing component. kerosine or gasoline is used in movies to create explosions that are safe for actors because they lack the destructive shock-wave.

Quote: Got any credentials ?
-----
HNC Mechanical Engineering. Degree in 3-Dimensional Industrial Engineering Design. Ten years engineering design alone, Thirty years designing things such as security systems, petrochemical plant, aircraft, boats, office equipment. The last thing I designed was the charging socket for the Ford "Think" Electric Car.
The first system I worked with was Robocad. The second an Eclipse monochrome IBM clone. The second was a 1/2 million quid uprated IBM in 1987. The third (two years later) was also an uprated IBM for only 50,000 quid. After that they were affordable at home. I have used several other drawing programs. I now use Autodesk 123D. I was somewhat ahead of computer training courses - so no extra qualifications.

-----
Useless without verifiable references.

-----

I know, mate. Most of my referees are deceased. That must really degrade my case. (Sucks teeth)

You mean in hiding ?





Your crappy Photoshop fix is inconsistent with actual video frame. From you angle, you would be able to see the highway and the airplane flying over it...



Which you can't in the real frame.

Quote:A further consideration occurs to me.
We DO know the speed of the plane. We know something was captured behind the obstruction, and ONE SECOND later the impact had occurred.
My reconstruction shows the plane 800 feet away, and doing 800 feet per second.

You do not see the impact, you see only the explosion. The airplane would need to be inside and you can't tell how far... anyway if to calculate your 800ft theory(900ft as the plane is already inside), you end up with much higher speed around 620mph, which is not consistent with the official report.

Quote:Yours shows a plane 75 feet away - obviously doing 75 feet per second.

Exactly, it's not a commercial airplane. This picture shows what an airplane would look like if that was the tail of an 757.

Quote:I have indicated the distinction between foam and aluminum oxide.

Yes you did, in the image you posted. at the bottom you comment: "What's with all the white? Have the firemen sprayed the Pentagon with foam? Nope. They're just getting out their hoses..."


you meant the white stuff on the window?

[JazzRoc]

(09-19-2011 03:18 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  Maybe one of the missile "shrapnel" did it.

What's this - a zombie writes?

Quote:So you're saying the hole is not big enough for an engine to have gone through ?

What hole? What engine?

Quote:Why was the generator DRAGGED FORWARD - Good question

That's NO answer.

Quote:cable reels should have been hit head on by the fuselage.

Quite patently FALSE.

Quote:That is not kerosine, it's explosive using air as oxidizing component

It's KEROSINE using air as an oxidizing component.

Quote:You mean in hiding ?

In retirement.

Quote:Your crappy Photoshop fix

Irfanview and Paintbrush.

Quote:is inconsistent with actual video frame

It's consistent with the original.

Quote:From you angle, you would be able to see the highway in the video frame and the airplane flying over it...

Your assumption that they are all at the same level is incorrect.

Quote:you end up with much higher speed around 620mph, which is not consistent with the official report.

You haven't measured what I drew. I made the allowance. It's position is bang inside its error circle. Whereas yours - the passengers could have jumped out...

Quote:This picture shows what an airplane would look like if that was the tail of an 757.

NO.
It shows what it would look like if RIDICULOUSLY DRAWN, in a RIDICULOUS POSITION.

You cannot win an argument by drawing a STUPID DRAWING of a plane, then saying it's so stupid it has to have been a missile. That is GIBBERISH.

I have just shown you there was a perfect time, and a perfect place, for that camera to take the picture of the Boeing 757 shown in the original version.





Does garlic work on zombies as well as vampires?

[p4r4]

Quote:Quite patently FALSE.

why?

Quote:It's KEROSINE using air as an oxidizing component.

It is not. The fuel in a FAE(fuel to air explosive) needs to be dispersed in an aerosol cloud so it could be ignited even and fast enough to create a blast wave at all.

Quote:It's consistent with the original.

Your crappy Photoshop fix is inconsistent with actual video frame. From you angle, you would be able to see the highway and the airplane flying over it...



Which you can't in the real frame.

Quote:You haven't measured what I drew. I made the allowance. It's position is bang inside its error circle. Whereas yours - the passengers could have jumped out...

Jump out of a cruise missile ?

Quote:You cannot win an argument by drawing a STUPID DRAWING of a plane, then saying it's so stupid it has to have been a missile. That is GIBBERISH.

It was drawn to point out how ridiculous is the claim of a 757 hitting the pentagon.

Quote:I have just shown you there was a perfect time, and a perfect place, for that camera to take the picture of the Boeing 757 shown in the original version.

That picture shows no airplane, if it did it would look much bigger. The fact is that you can not see an airplane in the released slide show. You see a blur of pixels not even in the shape or color of an AA 757.

Quote:I have indicated the distinction between foam and aluminum oxide.

Yes you did, in the image you posted. at the bottom you comment: "What's with all the white? Have the firemen sprayed the Pentagon with foam? Nope. They're just getting out their hoses..."


you meant the white stuff on the window?

[Shinobi]

The BBC's own Conspiracy Theories of 9/11 spanding 10 years in the making.

Chapter 1: The most obvious mass media intelligence psyop ever created.

Seems much more like it, im sure many would agree.

[JazzRoc]

(09-19-2011 04:50 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  Quite patently FALSE. - why?

THIS IS WHY.

Quote:It's KEROSINE using air as an oxidizing component. - It is not. The fuel in a FAE(fuel to air explosive)

IS kerosine. Kerosine is "fuel". You are a fool.

Quote:It's consistent with the original. - you would be able to see the highway and the airplane flying over it

No, you wouldn't if the ground falls away, which it does.
The highway is sunken with an overpass, remember?

Quote:Jump out of a cruise missile?

Where's the evidence for that?

Quote:It was drawn to point out how ridiculous is the claim of a 757 hitting the pentagon.

And you've drawn it RIDICULOUSLY seventy-five feet from the building WAY out of line with where the plane was. It is OBVIOUSLY nowhere near the position it had to have been in to be almost completely obscured by the pavement furniture.
And then because you cannot understand the foreshortening due to perspective you make your ridiculous claim: "That picture shows no airplane, if it did it would look much bigger. The fact is that you can not see an airplane in the released slide show. You see a blur of pixels not even in the shape or color of an AA 757."

Like fools everywhere, you're of the opinion that everyone else must be as stupid as you are.
You are WRONGED that a 120 degree fish-eye camera, probably 100 bucks-worth, didn't give you a nice crisp image out of a corner of its visual field of an object doing 500 mph.
The object was TOO LARGE by far to be a missile. Its tailfin is more than forty feet tall.
The 3-D precision drafting rendering showed indeed that the Boeing 757 fitted exactly the position of the visible FIN that the camera picked out.

You are NEVER going to tell me anything I ever want to know, so...

---

(09-19-2011 06:33 PM)iC1 Wrote:  The BBC's own Conspiracy Theories of 9/11 spanning 10 years in the making. Chapter 1: The most obvious mass media intelligence psyop ever created.
Seems much more like it, I'm sure many would agree.

You may be confusing, if you agree, yourself, by failing to acknowledge the continuing history of interest groups continually interfering with broadcast media since first they existed.
I recommend the diversity the world offers as a counter to the idea that there is ANY single and predominant "mass media intelligence psyop".
There's tons out there, and a teeny bit here.

[p4r4]

Quote:IS kerosine. Kerosine is "fuel". You are a fool.

So is coal... and that FAE bomb does not use kerosine or coal...

Quote:
THIS IS WHY.

the wake turbulence should have sucked the cable reels after "the 757" flying inches from them and then the explosions should have blown them out. In the pictures they look in pretty good shape...

Quote:The object was TOO LARGE by far to be a missile. Its tailfin is more than forty feet tall.

Quote:THAT is what is seen in the low-res camera.

Size of 757-200 relative to post can be estimated using geometry.
The Pentaon's facade is 72 feet high.
A 757-200 is 155 feet long.


The size of the Boeing 757 in this picture was determined directly from that of a similar picture on David Bosankoe's web-site (without verifying its accuracy, as the picture seems to be roughly what one would expect). As David has since recalculated the size of the pictured 757 and released an updated (and significantly different) version of this picture, I decided to check his work by calculating the size of the Boeing 757 using a different approach (an approach already put to use in the above mentioned article). This alternate approach is particularly suited to the task here, as it automatically accounts for the distortion due to the security camera's wide angle lens.



Since the heliport control tower is strangely invisible in the "plane" photo, the lines bounding it had to be superimposed from the "impact 2" photo. These are the 2 lines on the left. The line bounding the planes tail has also been marked. It is the rightmost line. What we need to calculate is the position of the line that bounds the nose of the 757. The angle between the lines bounding the heliport control tower is 6.4 degrees. The other (rightmost) angle is 16.5 degrees.

We now transfer these lines to the overhead photo of the area, presented below.

We mark on the 2 lines bounding the heliport control tower.
We measure the angle between these lines, and find it to be 4.8 degrees.

Since the angles must maintain the same ratio in both pictures (imagine that the lines have been painted on the ground) the 16.5 degree angle in the "plane" photo must correspond to a 12.2 angle in the overhead photo. That is, the 6.4 : 4.8 ratio must be the same as the 16.5 : 12.2 ratio, which is the same as saying that 6.4 / 4.8 = 16.5 / 12.2 (this value is about 1.34).

We measure 12.2 degrees toward the top of the photo and mark the line that bounds the tail of the 757.
We draw in a line, emanating from the point of impact, at an angle of 50 degrees to the Pentagon wall. This is the path of the aircraft.
We measure the length of the side of the Pentagon visible in the photo, and find it to be 622 pixels.

Now each side of the Pentagon is known to be 920 feet long, so each pixel corresponds to 920 / 622 = 1.48 feet. We know that a Boeing 757 is 155 feet long. So in the overhead picture, the Boeing must be 155 / 1.48 = 105 pixels long.

We measure 105 pixels from the point where the line that bounds the tail of the 757 and the line that shows the planes path, intersect.
We scale a picture of a Boeing 757 to 105 pixels and superimpose it on our picture.
We draw a line from the nose of the aircraft to the security camera.
We measure the angle between the middle 2 lines emanating from the security camera booth. It is 1.9 degrees.

At this point we have obtained the following picture.



Now the 1.9 degree angle in the overhead photo corresponds to an angle of 1.9 x 1.34 = 2.6 degrees in the "plane" photo. Making a line 2.6 degrees to the right of the line that bounds the right of the heliport control tower, we obtain the desired line which bounds the nose of the 757. Thus we obtain the following picture that shows roughly what one would expect to see if the security camera had indeed snapped a picture of a Boeing 757 (with its tail in the same position as the purported tail section that we are meant to be able to see above the larger of the two parking control structures).



source: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...e/size.htm




-
Your crappy Photoshop fix is inconsistent with actual video frame. From you angle, you would be able to see the highway and the airplane flying over it...



Which you can't in the real frame. Just green lawn...

Quote:I have indicated the distinction between foam and aluminum oxide.

Yes you did, in the image you posted. at the bottom you comment: "What's with all the white? Have the firemen sprayed the Pentagon with foam? Nope. They're just getting out their hoses..."


you meant the white stuff on the window?

[JazzRoc]

(09-20-2011 01:16 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  

Spot the difference.

[Shinobi]

Jazzroc that was very funny.
Though being the nice chap that I am
I hope your eyes do open at some point.
Stop trying so hard and start self learning easily whilst you can.
Everything you source is either wiki-pedia (OWNED)
or main stream media or something you completely made up yourself.
On the other hand you work so hard checking the so called official stuff out
you would actually be a good investigator on the other shoe for alternative news
had you ever given it some thought and practically started 'thinking'
more outside the box than the one you are definitely trapped inside in.