Definitive 9.11 Pentagon EVIDENCE.

Thus that is the reason that David, Ken, Wayne and surely not Stutte, are not reacting in this thread.
They were becoming, and still are, strong defenders of the officially pushed 45 degree attack path for Flight AA77.

For them it must form an immense dilemma, that their own GIMP'ed, officially published 2006 DoD videos its picture frames they used to GIMP them, seems strongly to be correct, and show a totally different, 90 degrees attack flight path for AA77, and not their proposed and defended 42 to even 52 degrees attack flight path.
[pic]ct6390d458.png[/pic ]



I type "seems", since they have not published any proposal to try to falsify their own GIMP data, or how and if they ever tried to counter their own evidence, since that is what every honest researcher, 9/11 or else, must do, to fully strengthen their data results.

Thus, we are pressed to do their "forgotten" data-disproving work, and find out if we can duplicate their published GIMP work, with the same outcome, or near it, or NOT.

Here below a view of the Pentagon's West Wall, so you can see that the security cameras that were situated in the Security shed at the far left bottom corner, and that the guard rail is going to bend along the also bending entrance road.
Good visible is the tree just right of the Heli-Pad, where column 14 is situated in the West Wall's facade and where the nose of AA77 went into and in the first floor's re-bared floor.
The Heli-Pad Control Tower stands to the left of the Heli-Pad.
The facade extension part is also good to see, aside the southern end of it stands that also 4 stories high, other tree :
[pic]al4f25e82b.JPG[/pic ]


.

And Kwakatev, what you are trying to do, is totally wrong, you are just falsifying parts of David's original full picture, you must however FIRST start to produce something close or identical to David's "butterfly-wings" picture, with all those straightened roof and pavements lines in it, this below one :
[pic]nr63938d89.png[/pic ]



You are constantly cutting parts of the original DoD pictures out, then GIMP those pieces, and think that you proved anything.

Well you didn't, you falsify the intention of what David did, namely, he GIMP'ed the WHOLE video frame full picture from one of the 2006 published DoD videos its frames.
The moment you start cutting that DoD one up, you can not ever compare that result anymore to David's above, full GIMP picture.
Only when you GIMP the WHOLE 2006 DoD picture, ALL the real dimensions become visible, at last. Only when you straighten all lines in it, horizontal, but probably also most vertical ones, like surely the pedestals.

Do draw, as I advised you earlier, the thin long red vertical lines along all sides of the two pedestals in the DoD picture, only then YOU now at last can easily GIMP it and straighten all horizontal just visually, but also the vertical lines too, assisted by my slightly spread-out angled, vertical thin red lines in that DoD picture, what David seems not to have fully done.

Perhaps then will the horizontal lines shrink also a bit too, especially the plane length in such a truly fully GIMP'ed version.
I think it will shrink to result in an ~ 70 to 80 degrees attack path.

AA77 at 45 degrees means a visible length of ~ 103.3 ft.
Your outcome from a partial DoD picture is comical, a plane length of ~ 77 ft means that AA77 flew in at an angle of ~ 20 degrees, it would have been destroyed already in the fenced off construction space, and if not, it would have ricocheted off the wall, much earlier, and lost its right wing even earlier to that southern facade wall :
[pic]ma63b1b962.jpg[/pic ]



Can you not produce a similar GIMP picture as David did above, whatever you try.?
Because if not, then we can stop now, and ask David how on earth he produced it, and especially, with which GIMP settings.

He will try to avoid it, it seems, since his own, from a DoD picture produced GIMP picture, destroys as it now seems, all his so vehemently defended world views after 9/11/2001. As explained by him, in 85 videos on his website.
And his 2006 and 2015 views, and his recent 2023 view and opinion on 9/11.
And the original USA Government's 9/11 view, also still defended by every western country.

Since in that case, all five on 9/11 cut lamp pole tops were faked, and the 45 degrees damage path inside the Pentagon must have been faked too, and a LOT, if not nearly all of other 9/11 evidence will have been faked too.

Get used to it, we live in a crooked world, to weed out the crooks will be an enormous task, luckily, for sure not impossible.
.

a reply to: LaBTop

And Kwakatev, what you are trying to do, is totally wrong, you are just falsifying parts of David's original full picture, you must however FIRST start to produce something close or identical to David's "butterfly-wings" picture, with all those straightened roof and pavements lines in it,

And what about the distorted camera pedestal box? So is it ok to leave this part of the image where we are trying to measure distorted? I have looked at David's work, got close to reproducing it, but saw problems with it. What is more important to you, an accurate measure of the flying object or a picture that gets some lines right, some lines wrong?

I am not trying to falsify anything. If you cannot see the trees through the forest, I get it. It can quickly do your head in when working with curved images and takes time to work through. Perhaps if you where more comfortable with GIMP and got to try these Lens Distortion settings for yourself and what effect they have then we would have a better chance of finding a common understanding. I have started emailing and communicating with David, hopefully better progress can be made there.

a reply to: LaBTop

Your outcome from a partial DoD picture is comical, a plane length of ~ 77 ft means that AA77 flew in at an angle of ~ 20 degrees,

So I guess David is not going to be happy with my work with where he has set up camp.

As for my missile position, looks good. The lack of a jet fuel fireball more gradually growing over a few frames like in WTC 1&2 fits with a missile. Just one frame overexposed fits with missile too.

Lots of past issues and debates on just exactly what jet engine components where recovered.

a reply to: LaBTop

Taking the time to learn enough of the GIMP software seems a too lengthy task for me

I know it is daunting when first faced with so many options, functions and other bits. It does take time to get good at it. As for the basics, there are just two things you need to do to get started with how this Lens Distortion algorithm works.

1/ File > Open. Select what image you want to try.

2/ Filters > Distorts > Lens Distortion. You are now up and running to check it out yourself.

Two things you will want to do next to see more of what is going on as you get into it are:

3/ Image > Canvas size. I use +1000 for width and height and hit the center button.

4/ Right click on the image in the Layers window > Select Layer to Image size.

Thus that is the reason that David, Ken, Wayne and surely not Stutte, are not reacting in this thread. They were becoming, and still are, strong defenders of the officially pushed 45 degree attack path for Flight AA77.

David has been responsive and interested on initial email correspondence with this lens distortion issue. The implications has created a wall as we do have different perspectives on events. The math does get complicated and technical so having the right words and understandings of just what exactly is going on is tough.

LaBTop does have a similar resistance to just what exactly this Shift X & Y center is about as well, what it means to move it around, what limitations and implications does it have on image quality and managing the issues of lens distortions.

I am a lot closer to an exact answer from when I first started this thread, but still some work to go to make it perfect. Finding the right Main setting is the biggest challenge for now, this will help cancel the dome of the fisheye lens to help flatten the image more. There is about a 10% error rate here so far on the centered area. The Edge setting has 0% effect on the centered area.

As for David, he made a lot ground on WTC 1,2 & 7. Would not be surprised to find some pressure to back off on the Pentagon. I do not fault him for that if so. He is up to speed on all the evidence for a AA77. This investigation is going to play out for generations the way it is going.

Looks like a missile.
2nd line.

originally posted by: Violater1
Looks like a missile.
2nd line.

Because it was flying through the air?

The damage path of tree tops, light poles, the damage to the construction yard outside the Pentagon with items pushed towards the Pentagon (not back by a blast), the concrete wall that was hit by an engine, the damage to the pentagon outer wall, the size of the outer wall hole, the way items were wrapped around surviving columns, no explosive cratering on the Pentagon ground floor, the bodies of flight 77, the aircraft pieces and parts, and the lack of damage from a explosive pressure wave all show it was a jet.

Everything presented as missile evidence is based on truth movement fabricated myth.

a reply to: WhatItIs

the lack of damage from a explosive pressure wave all show it was a jet.

What about these pictures. David claims this smooth curved deformation of a steel structural support was due to the AA77 wing hitting it. Where is the impact damage to the structural steel when hitting the wing? That is going to leave a mark.

For the steel to bend like that looks more like the pressure shock wave from a nearby explosion.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

the lack of damage from a explosive pressure wave all show it was a jet.

What about these pictures. David claims this smooth curved deformation of a steel structural support was due to the AA77 wing hitting it. Where is the impact damage to the structural steel when hitting the wing? That is going to leave a mark.

For the steel to bend like that looks more like the pressure shock wave from a nearby explosion.

You mean the piece of steel not pitted, washed, eroded, worked on by explosives or shrapnel? Showing signs of being hit by a physical object and no evidence of being worked on by explosives creating shrapnel?

a reply to: WhatItIs

Something caused these steel beams to bend and rotate. For the damage to the front of the Pentagon to be caused by an AA77, the right wing bent and rotated around one of these steel beams as the wings folded up like a dragon fly.

To do this with the kind of forces of a 757 in flight, I expect to see a lot more damage at the impact point of the steel beam even if this folding wing theory is even possible. I doubt it.

As for the evidence of an explosion taking place, the evidence is strong.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

Something caused these steel beams to bend and rotate

Ok?

Are the warped beams on the Lewis and Clark Bridge a safety concern?

www.koin.com...

Such as an applied mechanical force.

. For the damage to the front of the Pentagon to be caused by an AA77, the right wing bent and rotated around one of these steel beams as the wings folded up like a dragon fly.

Just because so something like a bullet deforms doesn’t mean it has the power/energy to damage bone.

Supersonic Ping Pong Ball Going Through Paddle

youtu.be...

The wing can only damage what it contacts.

As for the evidence of an explosion taking place, the evidence is strong.

And yet. By there being no erosion and no shrapnel damage on the steel, there is no evidence it was worked on by explosives.

a reply to: kwakakev

Ever think you kwakakev post too much, and it hurts your effectiveness…

a reply to: WhatItIs

Ever think you kwakakev post too much, and it hurts your effectiveness…

I know it hurts my head at times trying to work through this convoluted mess. Already had a few wrong conclusions in the past, will likely have some more when sorting out the facts from the fiction.

It's not always easy to find that rock solid, hard data to prove things beyond any reasonable doubt. Finding that place is the most effective in making sense of it all.

One problem with this object being twice the Pentagon height at impact means that it hit head on at around a 90 degree angle.

For the 45 degree path to be valid, the object is more inline with the far corner of the Pentagon with its distance from the camera. With a change of reference for the depth of field measure, this will alter the relative lengths used to measure the object.

The length profile of the object will also be reduced due to its angle of approach. The plane is approaching the building at 45 degrees. The offset of the camera is estimated at 15 degrees. 45 + 15 = 60.

155 ft x sin(60) = 134 ft is the viewable length of AA77 from the camera position when on a 45 degree approach to the pentagon.

In trying to find a more accurate measure of this object, the tail height is also another one to consider in cross referencing the calculations. On first trying this I got an approach angle around 65 degrees. There is still I lot I need to do to clean this up and find a more accurate line. With just how far my first results where off using the Judicial Watch Youtube video, image quality can make a mess of results. Now that I have something a bit better to work with, results will be a bit closer, but still very pixelated and grainy. It is going to take a while to work through it.

Have done some binge watching here. It does make a good case. While I gave David a hard time on this image:



It does not mean he is fully wrong, at least at this stage. It is very easy to fudge these things to get any result you want. As for where I am coming from in making sense of things so far:

When reviewing a missile theory, the object is not the usual cruise missile shape but was dressed up to look like a commercial passenger jet. It is smaller in size than a 757. From all witness reports it did look like a plane with wings and a tail. Describing the missile as a drone is also accurate.

Dick Cheney is the prime suspect in ordering the 9/11 attack as he was the one in charge at the Pentagon that day. With the amount of planning on this one, he knew he would be safe where he was as events unfolded. It is reasonable to expect that a similar level of planning, resources and effort went into the attack at the Pentagon as to what happened with WTC 1,2 & 7. With the potential damage a plane load of jet fuel could do to the Pentagon complex, a more controllable explosive with a smaller, but still significant amount of damage was decided.

Being a plane shape, the wings did damage the ground floor. This damage was not to the extent that a 757 would do. The length of the damaged wall at the Pentagon is about 100 feet. With a 45 degree approach angle, this will put the width of the plane at 70 feet. 100(sin 45) = 70. A 70 foot wing will leave a 100 foot long mark when intersecting at a 45 degree angle. Errors to this calculation include the possible loss of a one wing tip on contact with the poles or a different approach path.

There is still a lot to do to prove things either way and find a more accurate measure. With the poles that got knocked down on the 45 degree approach, what is the minimum wing span length to do that?

a reply to: kwakakev

With the poles that got knocked down on the 45 degree approach, what is the minimum wing span length to do that?

In dealing with the mind bending nature of light, I can see something that needs some work for a clearer picture of the reality. The GIMP Lens Distortion is not a perfect tool to fully remove all the distortions in an image, but it does get closer when working with the lens distortion issues of the 9/11 Pentagon gate video. Perhaps in time better algorithms will emerge, until then this endeavor is a step in that direction.

Main: -30
Edge: 10
Zoom: 100
Shift X: 30
Shift Y: -10

Before getting deeper into the pixel measurements, I do want an Image I can be confident with. Finding the right main setting has been a problem. The curvature of this main setting is not the same as the curvature of the fisheye lens on the camera. It does get close in setting the overall strength of the concave / convex distortion, but something is off with how these curves line up over the distance from the lens distortion origin.

To find the best, approximate setting I used the perspective of the road lines while moving the Shift X&Y around. A Main setting of -18 was working better when closer to the origin. A main setting of -30 works better in the road lines of the image when the distortion origin is closer to the object. There is no discernable difference to the distortion origin area between these settings.

It is reasonable to assume that a negative main setting is required to cancel the fisheye dome of the camera. Over the larger image from the distortion center this is true. The barrel lens distortion approach by David is reasonable. As for getting all these settings right for a more accurate measure, this is where I am up to.

I would not be surprised if this post leaves most reading this scratching their head. For anyone trying to replicate the results by David and myself I am trying to be open, candid and transparent in where this leads. If I do make an error somewhere, hopefully it will be easier to find with such a record.

In going ahead with a Main: -30 it is a middle of the road approach. If it is out, it's not a lot. When dealing with such a pixelated, grainy mess already have enough error to work with and don't won't to add to it. If anyone has a better approach I am listening.

With the state of the debate, is the profile of this object consistent with a 757 on a 45 degree approach to the Pentagon?



This photo is an actual 757 on a similar profile. There is not enough resolution in the Pentagon gate video to use any reliable wing measurements.

The dimensions of AA77 is 155 ft long, 44 ft high, 124 ft wing. This has a length to height ratio of 3.52.

The dimensions of the object in the Pentagon gate video is 103 Pixels long to 35 pixels high. This has a length to height ratio of 2.94.

To account for these different length / height ratio is the objects angle of rotation with the camera.

3.52 Sin(57) = 2.95.

To help define what this Sin rotation is in relation to the camera, I added a Sin (47) measure from one of the images used in David's work.



What all this means for an object that has the same profile as a 757 is that the angle of approach is out 10 degrees and supports a 55 degree approach with the Pentagon. Maybe there is some error, or a few of them compounding. I do aim to try a few other measures and see what results that gets.

To look for where this 10 degree error might be, will see how many pixels would this difference be.

3.52 Sin(57) = 2.95
3.52 Sin(47) = 2.57

Length error calculation:
103 p = 2.95
x p = 2.57
p = 2.95 / 103 = 0.02864
x = 2.57 / 0.02864 = 90
103 - 90 = 13 pixels error along the length of the object measured for a 10 degree offset in rotation.

Height error calculation:
35 p = 2.95
y p = 2.57
p = 2.95 / 35 = 0.08428
y = 2.57 / 0.08428 = 30
35 - 30 = 5 pixels error along the height of the object measured for a 10 degree offset in rotation.

If these calculations are reasonably accurate, another alternative with the 55 degree approach to the Pentagon is that a smaller plane was used with a different length / height ratio.

The smaller plane on a 45 degree path to the Pentagon is one to consider with some of the evidence so far.

A calculation to help determine the objects size and location is to reference the depth of field. Using the impact point on the Pentagon works well if the approach angle is 90 degrees. For a 45 degree approach, the depth of field measure is more in line with the distant edge of the pentagon. This part of the building is not viewable from the cameras due to trees and other buildings in front, so a reference plane has been projected from the part of the building we can see.

To determine the height of pixels to find the same depth of reference between the Pentagon wall and a 757.

35 p = 44
x p = 77
p = 44 / 35 = 1.25714
x = 77 / 1.25714 = 61 pixels

The result does look comparable between the far edge of the Pentagon and a 757 in distance from the camera. It might be off a little. About 10% from the first calculation is reasonable if a 757 on a 45 degree is accurate.

With both these calculations together, a small plane theory is only valid if it approached on a more direct angle with the building. There is some error room that a smaller plane did approach on a 45 degree, but this plane would not be much smaller and still a significant size.

With AA77 124 ft wing on a 45 degree approach I am not able to explain the 100 ft entrance hole.

1 / Sin(45) x 124 = 175ft is the length of wall contact damage a 757 will make on a 45 degree approach.

I am not able to explain the pole and generator damage should a smaller plane on more direct angle of approach be valid. Looking at the general damage to the Pentagon and radar data, a 45 degree approach does fit well. As for how 40% of the wing span is not able to penetrate the outer wall does not compute. I can understand some of the steel structural beams just bending and twisting. With how a plane breached the steel walls of WTC 1&2, something is not adding up.

Another big problem in this regard is where did the tail impact? The height of a 757 is 44 ft with the landing gear down. With the plane bumping over the generator on it way in this would of placed the top of the tail in the top half of the building.



To resolve this conflict, most of the Pentagon narrative is placed in doubt as being, staged, setup or twisted to deceive the public and control the narrative is one approach. If so, then is the gate video the Pentagon was forced to release accurate? With only one frame of the object to edit, the result is generally consistent with the official narrative.

Since joining this thread, a lot more evidence for AA77 being the object has been presented. A lot of it does fit together well. With some important pieces still not fitting right it does present quite a mystery for what exactly happened.



One criticism of the pole data is this picture and how tarnished the impact location is. It is hit by a violent horizontal force, more so than the other pole damages around. It also appear oxidized, like this damage has been left in the weather for some time once the paint was removed. It does not look like fresh damage. Maybe it is a lighting issue?

This in not the first time being stuck in the quicksand of doubt when dealing with 9/11. Either step away from it entirely or keep pushing on.