Pentagon Analysis: Three Questions

Attention detail freaks and research geeks! I've been working on examining the Pentagon attack and have three areas I'd like to solicit opinions/feedback on.

1) What I think I've established: Ground-floor outer support columns 15-17 WERE destroyed on impact, despite what nearly everyone so far has said. This makes a 757 yet more likely and explains the building's collapse at least as well as any hide-the-evidence demolition theory. To see my explanation of this here is my blog post: frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... ns-taking-stand-against.html Any thoughts?

2) What I'm still sorting out and have some confusion on: The black "tailfin" in the surveillance video vs. the white blur. I see the tailfin but still don't believe it, for a number of reasons: frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... But I'm open-minded on the issue. Opinions?

3) What I haven't really looked into much: The fourth floor fires. Just for reference, here's one of the photos showing these fires:

Notes: the plane hit and deposited burning fuel on only floors one and two of the impacted area. Floors 3-5 were totally unburnt in the areas above impact. the fires did burn laterally across the lower floors for quite a ways, but how did they burn up through two floor slabs to emerge halfway across the wedge on floors 3 and 4 (and 5 too for all we can tell - no windows there). What could have caused this? And apparently only on the left, not to the right/south.

Okay I forgot I did do some work on that last one over at the RigInt forums with pictures and links. No one responded there. Not geeky enough I guess.
www.rigorousintuition.ca... php?t=9834&sid=27e0bac72b5544d0974679d970aa4dbd

Great posts on your blog. You've obviously put a lot of time and thought into these questions.

1) I have no idea about columns 15-17. However, here are two thoughts:

a) If you're theory is right, we still can't determine exactly when the columns were destroyed. If by a 757, then they were destroyed on impact. If there was some other source of impact, and this was an inside job, the columns could have been taken down shortly after impact to cause the roof to collapse.

b) I saw a site once that went into great details about how many of the Pentagon photos were photoshopped. I'm not sure the source of the photos you looked at, but any "official" photos might be suspect regarding their authenticiy.

2) Has anybody done the trigonomtetry on the video frames to calculate exact dimensions of the images which show the plane/smoke, etc.? It seems to me this would be an easy calculation, and could reveal faked photos much in the way that Killtown analyzed the Val McClatchey photo.

My own personal opinion is that something just doesn't look right about the new video frames which apparently show the nose of the plane entering into the shot. It just looks wrong. For starters, it looks like it's angled downward too much. If it were comnig in at this angle, it seems like it would have hit the lawn in front of the building first, and it also would have been too high to hit the first light pole. At 500+ mph, there's not a lot of room to pull up or down that close to the building.

Also, great job on the plume vs. smoke issue. It looks like the spiral plume just vanishes, and all that's left is gray smoke. What's up with that?

And that tail fin also looks disproportionally too large. Do you have any links to the geometry of the site?

3) The fires always bothered me. Something didn't make sense about their location -how they just appeared so far over and up, without any signs of fires spreading between the impact site and the upper floor fires.

Maybe the Pentagon had some sort of self-destruct procedure to destroy the building and/or records in case the wall were compromised by attack. Who knows? It seems plausible that the DOD could have intentionally destroyed sections of the building rather than leave classified documents laying around for rescue workers to take home and sell on eBay.

Thanks for the thoughts, Nick.

Yeah, video tampering is way too easy. They could be covering something up or just adding noise to the system, or just made to look low quality, again demonstrating Rumsfeld’s concerns that the military was under-funded etc while also obscuring the issue. Or totally legit. I’ve generally taken them that way, but I dunno.
The tailfin – jeez - near the right height, but the rest of the plane, if a 757, is too far small if it’s as close to the camera as I thin. As for the trig of the area, that’s what I’m working on now. A lot of steps, a lot of “ranges.” Field of view, angle of attack, and I’ll need to find a way to correct for the fisheye effect. I don’t know how to do that. Wait, yeah I do. Maybe.

The fires have no good explanation I can see in the official story – they’re admitted and talked about but never explained. Only 2 good poss. I can see:
1) On-site sabotage for whatever reason. I like your explanation and it actually seems half-feasible. Security is breached, we're under attack, dump the documents. Nah, they'd probably have a better system than that, but it's an interesting thought. It'd have to be something more sinister to hid, like all the "Able Danger" files.

2) The plane hitting the building in many, scattering, flaming pieces, scattering especially to the north (as the attack angle velocity would urge). This raises new questions on the impact damage which is consistent with a relatively intact 757, and has only partial corroboration in the eyewitness accounts. Why it blew up first, if it did, is another story, but could have something to with the cordite smell.