Height discrepency with 757 & Pentagon. OPINIONS please.

This is a questions that I have just began to ask. I also haven't seen any references to this discrepancy in the past. I am unfortunately not as good on the computer as many whizzes I've seen here, so my assertions aren't going to be as detailed with pics and graphs, as I would like.

Well, my point is simple. Taking the crappy, grainy, single-framed footage first released of the pentagon crash, I deduced that comparable size could be a smoking gun.

Essentially I am proposing that the white blob (aka flight 77) is not 44 feet six inches that the construction plans claim. The pentagon is 77 feet. Therefore the white blob should APPEAR to be over half the size of the Pentagon, which it clearly is not.

Any takers?

General characteristics
Crew: 16 flight crew (varies with mission)
Capacity: 45 passengers
Length: 155 ft, 3 in (47.32 m)
Wingspan: 124 ft, 8 in (37.99 m)
Height: 44 ft, 6 in (11.02 m)
Max takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,700 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt and Whitney 2040 engines, 41,700 lbf (184 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 530 mph (Mach 0.8) (850 km/h)
Range: 5,500 nautical miles unrefueled (10,186 km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,727 m)

Main building
Cost of building: $49,600,000
Gross floor area: 6,636,360 ft² (620,000 m²)
Cubic contents: 77,015,000 ft³ (2,000,000 m³)
Length of each outer wall: 921 ft (280 m)
Height of building: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)
Number of floors, plus mezzanine and basement: seven, five above ground, two below
Total length of corridors: 17.5 miles (28 km)

Remember, before the white blob first appears in the scene, there is another white blob in the bottom right hand corner. So when the plane enters, it blends in with this other white Blob to make it appear larger, though still too small.

AAC

[edit on 18-2-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

[edit on 18-2-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation


Well, my point is simple. Taking the crappy, grainy, single-framed footage first released of the pentagon crash, I deduced that comparable size could be a smoking gun.

I think you may have stumbled across something, but I think you have it completely backwards.

The height of the plane is 44 feet from ground to the top of the tail fin in the back. From what I remember, the diameter of the fuselage is 12 feet.

This may be the "smoking gun" you're talking about.

The "white blob" when enlarged has a distinctive angled shape like the front end of the plane. However, keep in mind that the "white blob" is only the fuselage, not the tail fin. And the fuselage is 12 feet in diameter.

Now here is why the "comparable size" as you called it is completely wrong.

A 12 foot fuselage would be about 1/6 the height of the Pentagon. However, when you enlarge the still from the video and extend horizontal line from the top and bottom of the fuselage to the Pentagon wall where the plane is said to have hit, the height of this fuselage takes up about close to 50% of the height of the building. This would put the diameter of the fuselage at close to 38 feet, not 12 feet.

But wait, it gets worse!

Remember, the plane was coming in at roughly a 45 degree angle, give or take. This means that when the "white blob" appears in the video, the plane would be much further away from the camera than the spot where the plane hit. In other words, the size of the fuselage should look even SMALLER compared to the height of the Pentagon.

Based on the angle the plane is coming in, and the relative size of the fuselage, and without actually doing exact calculations, I'm estimating that the "white blob" in the video would be about 50 feet high, not the 12 feet in diameter of a 757.

Interestingly, it seems that the same error of relative size casts a lot of doubt on the photo of the smoke plume of Flight 93 too.

This doesn't mean that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, but imo I think this actually might be a "smoking gun" that the Pentagon video was faked.

All excellant points. Though I was looking at it with regards to a blurry tracer from the tail entering the screen. But the distortion NEVER goes higher than the beginning frame where the cockpit enters first.

But perhaps it is as you suggest, the video was tampered with. Either way, suspect.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
All excellant points. Though I was looking at it with regards to a blurry tracer from the tail entering the screen. But the distortion NEVER goes higher than the beginning frame where the cockpit enters first.

But perhaps it is as you suggest, the video was tampered with. Either way, suspect.

AAC

I wasn't looking at the "blurry tracer" video. I was looking at the most recently released video with the additional frames.

In this video it seems that there is a relatively clear image of the nose of a plane entering the shot from the right side of the frame.

Here's a video that zooms in on the nose of the plane:



Disregard the "blue object" that they're trying to point out... I have no idea what they're talking about.

I did a capture of this video and put it into photoshop. I then extended lines from what looks like the top and bottom of the fuselage to the left across the Pentagon. The fuselage lines take up roughly 50% of the height of the Pentagon wall where impact occurred. This can't be right, especially since the plane would have been even farther away since it was coming in at an angle.

Anybody have the overhead diagram showing the exact distances between the camera location and the Pentagon?? It wouldn't take much to calculate how big the plane SHOULD have been if the video were legit.

Lot of confusion here - what's smoke trail vs. plane? size, distance, angle, etc...

The blue object or blue plane escaped me too, Nick, but I see it now - and wouldn't ya know it, it's exactly concurrent with the dark tailfin and a blue rectangular digital artifcat in the video - at least how I looked at the stills I have, which I think were from "zebra's" page:
homepage.ntlworld.com...
Tho I admit I've also blown them up and whatnot, so any such artifacting could be from Photoshop... jeez, I dunno.
But along with bits of the background, this tailfin looks like a jumbo-sized Global Hawk to some eyes.
membres.lycos.fr...
I don't have this figured out, but think this video may well be slightly doctored or even digitally mangled. Here's my full analysis of the White Blur which is worth precisely what it is.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
and other video questions:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... ml

Oh, and also, duh... the whole point of the video record is IT SUCKS! Best evidence always is the physical evidence:
Again my page, blatant self-promotion
100 feet of removed wall and columns on firstfloor, consistent with a 757's chassis, wing faring,andengines hitting at a 40 angle - 15-20 feet of wall and columns, and several feet of floor slab removed on second floor, consistent with upper fuselage/lower tailfin damage on sacle of a 757. Rest of wings and tailfin: tinsel.

Iagree this is SOMEONE'S smoking gun.

And the eyewitness accounts, which I've heard seem a bit varied but mostly agree on something quite like Flight 77. Nothing original myself on this and no great comment.
www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html
eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
www.ratical.org...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Lot of confusion here - what's smoke trail vs. plane? size, distance, angle, etc...

The blue object or blue plane escaped me too, Nick, but I see it now - and wouldn't ya know it, it's exactly concurrent with the dark tailfin and a blue rectangular digital artifcat in the video - at least how I looked at the stills I have, which I think were from "zebra's" page:
homepage.ntlworld.com...
Tho I admit I've also blown them up and whatnot, so any such artifacting could be from Photoshop... jeez, I dunno.
But along with bits of the background, this tailfin looks like a jumbo-sized Global Hawk to some eyes.
membres.lycos.fr...
I don't have this figured out, but think this video may well be slightly doctored or even digitally mangled. Here's my full analysis of the White Blur which is worth precisely what it is.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
and other video questions:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... ml

Thanks for the links!

Since you've already done a lot of work looking at the videos, what's your opinion of the size issue re the apparent fuselage in the 2nd video released?

To me, if the fuselage is supposed to be 12 feet in diameter, the nose appearing on the right side of the video seems way to big at that distance. I just did a simple line drawing in photoshop, and it looked like the fuselage was height was close to 50% of the pentagon height at the impact location.

I thought the same thing about the tail fin that some people think they see in the video. If you look at Catherder's drawing that's on your blog, notice that he cut out the Pentagon when he drew in the outline of the 757. If the outline of the 757 is correct, then the same problem comes up re the fuselage diameter -it's too big relative to the Pentagon wall.

Any thoughts on this?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
And the eyewitness accounts, which I've heard seem a bit varied but mostly agree on something quite like Flight 77. Nothing original myself on this and no great comment.
www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html
eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
www.ratical.org...

You would think since most of the people who work at the Pentagon are military they would know the difference between a large commercial jet and a small business jet.

Also you have to consider the witness that stated they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told afterward it was a 757. I wonder how many more witnesses were told afterwards that it was a 757.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
- Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

Great quote on your blog page!

So what are the right and wrong questions to ask?

Based on all the crap that's been put out there by the government, could it be that the wrong question to ask is, "Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?"

They're at the point now where all they have to do is release one definitive video of Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon and they will, in one fell swoop, destroy the credibility forever more of anybody who ever questioned ANY PART of the official story.