Definitive 9.11 Pentagon EVIDENCE.

One correction to the recent math is how David's theory is for an approach angle of 52 degrees, not 45. This does put both our results a lot closer with a recent calculation of approach angle at 55 degrees. For a 52 degree approach angle, AA77 will leave a mark:

1 / Sin(52) x 124 = 157ft



In trying to understand why there is not the same type of jet fuel fire ball as with WTC 1&2, Perhaps it dumped all of its fuel when at 14K ft above the target and glided in on the fumes. This will reduce the mass of the wings and its overall force.

That initial explosion was very different as well from WTC 1&2. There is some of this initial effect on impact:

But it was not strong enough to counter whatever went boom.

Looking closely at the shape of the fire ball and it does curve around the flight path of the object in, demonstrating some of the force above.

Another question with the Davids work:


When approaching at +500 MPH, the engines do appear to drop a lot in a short distance. More so the right orange engine after getting a big push up to roll the plane. For a more aggressive downward pitch, the tail getting a strong hit like on the generator will do it. Not sure how the nose of the plane went it, would also have an effect on how the rest followed.

I am struggling to understand the wing pivot theory with a plane traveling at +500MPH. It does take a lot of force to bend a wing back on itself, why not just shred up and smash into lots of pieces as it usually goes. For now I see it fits with a lot of things and a reasonable theory. As for being fully convinced, not there yet.

To refine the small plane theory as an alternative to the folding plane theory, the biggest concern is the damage to the facade of the Pentagon at 100ft long. It is assumed the small plane will have a similar profile to a 757.

The dimensions of AA77 is 155 ft long, 44 ft high, 124 ft wing. To find some dimensions that fit, the approach path will be at a larger angle to fit with the smaller height profile. Will start with a 60 degree approach angle as a rough estimate.

Wing span = sin(60) x 100 = 87 ft
Length = (87 / 124) * 155 = 109 ft
Height = (87 / 124) * 44 = 31 ft



In looking at a small plane theory with the Pentagon gate video, these are approximate dimensions to work with. I am not aware of any other supporting evidence or how to counter all the large plane theory evidence. In how I live with the events of 9/11, at least looking at different perspectives helps.

When look deeper at the argument David promotes, it is not a clear and consistent line with this presentation.



The theory is that David promotes is it was the engine hitting a light pole that kicked a steel bar a few hundred feet into Floyd's car. Yet in this video, if the engine hit the first pole, would there still be enough wing length to hit poles 2,4 & 5? It might get some, but not all on initial inspection. It is promoted pole 3 gave a big engine hit for the contrail in the gate video, yet the above animation misses that mark.

Could a wing span of 87 ft fit between hitting these poles? On the approach in there are a lot of poles around, gonna hit some. Could some pole strike be legitimate, some fake? Pole 5 looks suss compared to the others. One flatbed truck with a few guys and the stage is set in a few minutes.

Got a bit of work on so will take a while to do these numbers.

Here's all the evidence you need about the Pentagon end of the 911 hoax: there's about 16 thousand videos from 16,000 angles of the supposed January 6th insurrection thousands of hours of video footage.

There's one video of 10 seconds of the supposed airplane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

I'm a former US Marine and I've never looked at this nation and primarily our government in the same manner since I've become privy to the obvious evidence of the horrible, ruthless, malevolent and utterly sickening conspiracy which is incorrectly labeled the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001!

This country has not been the same since and only been getting worse and the farther away from what it once was year by year.

Thomas Jefferson said: we need a revolution every generation to keep our sovereign Democratic Nation intact!

We are a few generations overdue for sure they tried on January 6th but that was foiled by the evils that be, but that sure is f*** doesn't mean we need to stop trying trying!

originally posted by: Misterdata
Here's all the evidence you need about the Pentagon end of the 911 hoax: there's about 16 thousand videos from 16,000 angles of the supposed January 6th insurrection thousands of hours of video footage.

How many are from videos from cell phones?

Technology that was not mainstream in 2001, and very limited on 2001 cellphones.

The first commercially available camera phone was the Kyocera Visual Phone VP0-210, released in May 1999. They called it a “mobile videophone” at the time, which had a 110,000-pixel front-facing camera and stored 20 jpgs which could be sent over email. The first true cell phone that contained a camera that could send images directly to another phone was the Samsung SCH-V200 in June 2000.

It was released in South Korea in November 2000 and later came to other parts of the world. It contained a much higher resolution 350,000-pixel resolution camera. .the first mass-market camera phone was the Sharp J-SH04, released in Japan in 2000 and introduced in the UK in 2001. For reference, it was only six years later, in 2007, when we’d see the first iPhone introduced with its 2-megapixel rear camera.


www.diyphotography.net...

a reply to: kwakakev

Please show the impact hole into the pentagon.

a reply to: kwakakev

I’ll help you out.


911research.wtc7.net...

originally posted by: LaBTop

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.

Hello LaBTop,
I'm pleased to see that you are posting here again! I've read many of your early posts, and tried to contact you to discuss some Pentagon evidence, but you disappeared for some time. Ive been researching the Pentagon solidly for some years, and have found a lot of new evidence that would interest you.
I tried to PM you this morning, but my post was deleted. I got the message,
"You are not allowed to PM anyone here except ATS moderators."
There was no explanation so I am mystified!
Could it be because I am a new member and have to reach some posting score before being entitled to PM anyone?

I'm surprised that you give Chandler & Co so much leeway! They are known by the researchers I most respect as "Team Treason" because of their mystifying 99.9% support for the official story.

The most erudite and admirable of researchers on the topic of the Gatecam footage, is Xander Arena. He is a long-term student of the Pentagon event. He is amply qualified to write the last word on this subject. He has recently published this paper, in which he has used the best software, drawing and and measuring tools to precisely calculate the length of that blur on those security videos.

Whereas Chandler estimated that the Field of View of the cameras was about 75°, Xander has found that it was 110°.

Using these data, he has found that the blur on the images cannot possibly be AA77. It is far too small.
I hope you enjoy reading his presentation!!

pentagontruth.org...

What's strange to me is that surely a terrorist wants to cause as much damage and death as they can -twin towers being an example.

So why try what was surely deemed even by the pilot a ridiculously difficult target given the size of it and the speed of the plane over just ploughing into a residential area or high rise?

The big question remains - if it wasn't flight AA77, then what happened to that plane?

originally posted by: stu119


So why try what was surely deemed even by the pilot a ridiculously difficult target given the size of it and the speed of the plane over just ploughing into a residential area or high rise?



The big question remains - if it wasn't flight AA77, then what happened to that plane?

Width of the twin towers about 207 feet wide. 1000 feet tall.

The width of runways 50 to 200 feet on flat surfaces…

a reply to: stu119

One side of the pentagon is something like 900 feet wide. And the building takes up 26 acres. And the plane almost crashed in front on the lawn.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: stu119


So why try what was surely deemed even by the pilot a ridiculously difficult target given the size of it and the speed of the plane over just ploughing into a residential area or high rise?



The big question remains - if it wasn't flight AA77, then what happened to that plane?

Width of the twin towers about 207 feet wide. 1000 feet tall.

The width of runways 50 to 200 feet on flat surfaces…

not sure i follow your point, i havent been on many flights where the plane attempts to land on a runway at 500+mph

a reply to: stu119

The towers would be easy to hit even at that speed because they're so tall. You can line up from a long way out and just fly straight.

The Pentagon isn't that tall, but it's a very large building. If you were aiming at the wall and missed, you'd just crash into the center of the building, or the lawn in front of it.

Neither is that difficult to do. Seriously, try it on a simulator. I was shocked how easy it was to hit the Pentagon on a flight sim at high speed. I even tried the "impossible" turn they did and I nailed it on the first try.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I'll take your word for it, using a simulator to do that is just asking for the FBI to kick in the front doors

originally posted by: stu119
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I'll take your word for it, using a simulator to do that is just asking for the FBI to kick in the front doors

Not really. I did it years ago. And I've told people about it before. Haven't seen the FBI.

You really think the FBI thinks no one since 9/11 was curious how feasible the official story was and innocently tried that on a sim? ONLY future terrorists?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Nah but I believe they monitor searches etc when people do things online and tag it.

originally posted by: stu119
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Nah but I believe they monitor searches etc when people do things online and tag it.

That won't in any way, shape, or form tell them what you do on your flight sim. The only way they would know you've done that on a simulator is if you post about it on a site they monitor. And even then, context is important. Saying you tried it to disprove the boneheaded conspiracy theories isn't gonna raise many eyebrows.

Are you one of those people that thought SAMs should have come out of the Pentagon lawn to shoot down the plane?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

No but I do find it strange there was a warship capable of striking the pentagon moored In position at that time and that the lawn was unscathed, those inside the pentagon never heard a plane, they heard what they thought were multiple explosions, that no one on the plane was harmed or killed when they took control, that the government won't release all footage, that rolls Royce said give me the jet turbine manufacturing code and we can confirm the plane and they were told no, that witness statements were very vague after a few weeks of interrogation.

a reply to: stu119

You know , they sure were making 747's back in 2001 look kind of Small when Viewed in Photographs , eh ?