PentaCon trailer is up

Never saw Jack Tripper or anyone post it, so allow me to draw attention to the PentaCOn trailer that's up at their website. Sorry if it has already been posted and I just missed it.
www.thepentacon.com...
It's been there at least a few days. Opinions?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Never saw Jack Tripper or anyone post it, so allow me to draw attention to the PentaCOn trailer that's up at their website. Sorry if it has already been posted and I just missed it.
www.thepentacon.com...
It's been there at least a few days. Opinions?

Why doesn't anybody seem to care about the NTSB animation that shows Flight 77 coming in at the wrong approach path?

If this is really a legit NTSB animation, and if they have witnessed that saw the plane north of the Citgo which would confirm the NTSB animation flight path, doesn't this mean that Flight 77 didn't take out the light poles, and therefore something is drastically wrong with the official story???

I feel exactly the same way.

I've always steered clear of the Pentagon debate since both sides seem to have solid grounds to back their positions. But Pilots for 911 Truth's analysis of Flight 77's FDR could well change that. I am staggered that few people, many of whom will argue ad nauseum about Silverstein's use of the word 'it', see this as a potentially significant development.

Does anyone know if there is any doubt as to the veracity of the animation, or the results of the analysis, which show the aircraft too high and too far to the right when compared with the official account?

Both flight paths are wrong..the "flyover" is REALLY wrong.

Look guys, I am telling you the plane BANKED just as it was comming into the pentagon.


The whole Flatbed- Semi argument on the (doubletree video) Is illogical.

If you cannot see the windshield or the tires , or even the wheelwells on a truck, but you CAN see only the airdam above the cab..what makes you think you can see a flatbed.

Illogical. Even the poles are knocked over in the sequence a banking, then diving plane would hit them.

I don't care if you believe me or not...I have no stake in this, I am not pro-government by any stretch. I just know what I see.

Isn't this about how the Citgo employees say that the plane didn't fly in the direction that would've knocked down the lightposts, BUT didn't the citgo station have the plane on tape?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Isn't this about how the Citgo employees say that the plane didn't fly in the direction that would've knocked down the lightposts, BUT didn't the citgo station have the plane on tape?

I think it's about witnesses from the Citgo station saying the plane flew in from the north side of the Citgo station, which would corroborate the NTSB animation of the flight path. This would also prove false the "official" flight path which has Flight 77 going south of the Citgo station and taking out the light poles.

From the best of my memory, the Citgo station camera didn't show an airplane at all because the camera was facing the wrong way.

Here's the Citgo video:

Originally posted by GwionX
Both flight paths are wrong..the "flyover" is REALLY wrong.

Look guys, I am telling you the plane BANKED just as it was comming into the pentagon.

The whole Flatbed- Semi argument on the (doubletree video) Is illogical.

If you cannot see the windshield or the tires , or even the wheelwells on a truck, but you CAN see only the airdam above the cab..what makes you think you can see a flatbed.

I'd really like an in-depth analysis pointing out everything on this DoubleTree motel video that you claim to see. It is very granular, spotty, and if you are able to see that much detail you have eyes like a hawk.

Please set up an in-depth analysis of the video pointing out the the sections you are talking about. Thanks!

Originally posted by GwionX
Both flight paths are wrong..the "flyover" is REALLY wrong.

Look guys, I am telling you the plane BANKED just as it was comming into the pentagon.


The whole Flatbed- Semi argument on the (doubletree video) Is illogical.

If you cannot see the windshield or the tires , or even the wheelwells on a truck, but you CAN see only the airdam above the cab..what makes you think you can see a flatbed.

Illogical. Even the poles are knocked over in the sequence a banking, then diving plane would hit them.

I don't care if you believe me or not...I have no stake in this, I am not pro-government by any stretch. I just know what I see.

Did you even bother looking at the painstaking analysis I did that proves beyond all doubt that the white blob in the Doubletree video can't be a plane?? It's moving way too slow -unless the plane is coming from the opposite direction, north of the Citgo.

Here....

Take a look and let me know what you think... there's no way the explosion could be 6 seconds after the wing dips below the overpass.

P.S. Sometimes people see what they want to see... just do the math and calculate the path and the speed and see if you think the white blip is traveling at 400+ mph.

Originally posted by nick7261
Some people think that they can see the "wing tip" of Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon just before the explosion in the Doubletree Hotel video relseased last year.

Here are some screen captures with the corresponding time stamps that prove beyond all doubt that what is shown in the video is NOT Flight 77.



The first time the "wing tip" appears is at 9:34:03 on the video. Here is a still with the time stamp and "wing tip" visible.

The second still shows what some people think is the larger version of the wing. Here iit is with the time stamp showing 9:34:05

At 9:34:06 the "wing" isn't in the shot. By 9:34:10 there is no still no explosion or "wing" in the video.

Here are the stills to show this:

Then at 9:34:11 you see the fireball.

So here's what this means...

A plane traveling 400 mph is moving at about 600 feet per second. In the two seconds between the images that some think show the approach of Flight 77, the plane would have moved about 1200 feet. However, from the time Flight 77 would have entered the field of view of the Doubletree camera, it would have been less than 1000 feet from the Pentagon.

From the time of the 2nd still showing the larger image of what some people think is the wing until the fireball, 7 seconds go by. In 7 seconds, the plane would have travelled nearly 1 mile, not a few hundred feet into the Pentagon.

Here's an overhead shot of the area from Google Maps with the scale shown in the lower left corner:

This shows that the Doubletree Hotel video does NOT show Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon -at least not along the official flight path.

What's interesting is that the white image doesn't appear to be a car either. Notice how it comes up behind the truck on the onverpass then disappears from the shot.

So what is the white image? A sloppy attempt to re-enact the final approach of Flight 77?

Or is it more CT bait that's being put out there just to set up the "9/11 Truth" movement for a later fall?


The only way this white image could be Flight 77 is if Flight 77 came in from a different approach angle than the official version states. If the video is real, and the white object is a plane traveling at around 400 mph, then the only way it would have taken so long to hit the Pentagon would be if it traveled a further distance in the same amount of time.

The only way the video could show the plane traveling a further distance would be if the plane was coming in from due west, or even from a slightly northwest direction.

Below is an overhead image that shows where the plane would have been coming from so that the timing of the video matches up with the speed of the plane:

Interestingly, this angle of approach matches the witnesses who said the plane came from north of the Citgo, and it also matches the flight path of the NTSB video.

What it doesn't match is the layout of the lamp poles that were knocked over, or the official 9/11 Commission report on the flight path.

Something's seriously not right about this....

I am working on it.. I wish I was a master at putting Flash presentaions together.

Right now I am just working with Fireworks Macro.

I feel that the initial post on the "9/11: a boeing 757 hit the Penatagon" MEGA THREAD goes a long way proving the plane did hit.

My theory shows a hard banking maneuver that would happen between the citgo and the Pentagon...This would explain some eyewitness accounts of flightpath (if their view was, at some point, obscured by walls, terrain ect.)

It would also explain why some poles were knocked down and others were left upright. IOW if the plane was comming in "flat" it would have leveled all the poles. If it was unstable and banking (then diving a bit as well) some of the poles would be hit, others wouldn't.

My contention is that the Doubletree video shows the bank, and dive ..as blurred as it might be.. We can get ALL caught up in wing size issues, flatbed truck issues and perception of distance issues if you want..but it is just another circle of distraction..IMO.

Also you cannot just focus on the stills..you have to look at the stills ..then look at the video..to fully understand the FLOW of MOTION. THAT is the key. Watch it small, then watch it "Full screen" you will see.

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 20-2-2007 by GwionX]

Banking at ground level with a wingspan as large as a 757, you got to be kidding, and then a banking at high speed is simply ridiculous, the so called Inconsistencies of the "official data" are trying harder and harder to put together pieces that simply are silly.

The only way a "suposedly 757" could make a hole in th epentagon was at very high speed, and at high speeds the comercial jets are not very fast changing course....

Each day more and more cracks in the history appears, I am waiting for the pentacon video.....

It isn't at ground level...it is over 77 feet in the air...until it levels out and dives at the very end.

The plane wasn't sideways.. with its wingspan the "ground-side wing" would be very close to hitting the ground during the bank, no doubt.. but when the plane leveled out there was still enough ground clearance to dive.

The only way a "suposedly 757" could make a hole in th epentagon was at very high speed, and at high speeds the comercial jets are not very fast changing course....

The only way a 757 could make a hole in the pentagon was at very high speed....... Hmmm.. I think speed + acceleration at or just before the point of impact ARE important...you must look at both. Most people want to think the plane had to be flying at 400+ MPH all the way in..for miles and miles.. I think a bank then last minute acceleration would be enough.

There is no data to support the MPH at the time of impact, and there is no other event where we can compare a 757 crashing into a building with the structural make-up of the pentagon.

All assessments of what force would be needed in order for the damage to result as it did are speculation.

One can apply science in attempt to explain, but there are too many variables to take into consideration.



[edit on 21-2-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by GwionX

My contention is that the Doubletree video shows the bank, and dive ..as blurred as it might be..

Your contention has been proven invalid. There's no way the white "wing" in the Doubletree video can be the plane because it was 6 seconds between the "wing" and the fireball. A plane traveling 400 mph goes about 600 ft. per second. The overpass is right next to the Pentagon.

As much as you'd like the video to fit what you want to believe, facts is facts dude. The speed of the white thing in the video is more on the order of 60 mph, not 400 mph.

We can get ALL caught up in wing size issues, flatbed truck issues and perception of distance issues if you want..but it is just another circle of distraction..IMO.

Why are so adamant about not letting go of the Doubletree video? If it doesn't show the plane, so what? It doesn't have to for the rest of your opinion to be true. By trying to hang on to the video as evidence of the plane, you just weaken your own argument.

Also you cannot just focus on the stills..you have to look at the stills ..then look at the video..to fully understand the FLOW of MOTION. THAT is the key. Watch it small, then watch it "Full screen" you will see.

Flow of motion?? What "flow of motion???" The white thing is only in TWO frames. Bip..Bip.... it's gone. 6 seconds later a fireball explodes. How did a plane traveling 400+ mph take 6 seconds to go a couple of hundred yards?

So "flow of motion" is not the key. Physics and mathematics is the key. The white thing wasn't the plane. I'm not saying for sure it's a truck, but I know for sure it's not the plane unless the plane was going 60 mph, OR the plane was coming in from the other direction. But even then, if it was coming in from the other direction, it would probably be too small to see in the video.

Originally posted by nick7261
Why doesn't anybody seem to care about the NTSB animation that shows Flight 77 coming in at the wrong approach path?

If this is really a legit NTSB animation, and if they have witnessed that saw the plane north of the Citgo which would confirm the NTSB animation flight path, doesn't this mean that Flight 77 didn't take out the light poles, and therefore something is drastically wrong with the official story???

I care, but I also admit I've been slow to tackle the issue.This one seems compelling at the moment butI've seen hoaxes come and go so often my instinct is to describe this video project, as I did on my video links section "Brand new video finds 13 Sam Danners and a clearly wrong NTSB animation to prove Flight 77 flew over the Pentaon, and something else cut the lamp poles and pierced the building."

Maybe I'm being too harsh. I'll be looking into the issue more, and seeing the video as soon as I can. But that's my gut reaction. I'm with Gwion on this one, tho we'll probably wind up disagreeing on trivial points...

I don't know if anyone knows what im talkign about... but i think the flight path was wrong that was given by the govt. because if you watch the doubletree hotel they said you should have been able to see it come in because the flight path that was given should have allowed the plane to be seen on the video... but no one saw anything. Does this sound right to anyone?

Planted Light poles???

The goverment planted light poles across the highway! They paid off a 70 year old cab driver. Set up the guy in the Saturn and paid him off.

" WOW look at the Pentagon...it just got HIT!".... oh.. wait I cant see those men placing broken light poles in front of my car!"

The broken fence: PLANTED
The damaged Generator: PLANTED
The Cabbie: PLANTED
The Witnesses around the Saturn: PLANTED
The DNA and body parts: PLANTED
The Plane wreakage: PLANTED
The Witnesses that saw the plane HIT the Pentagon in JAcks Video: REAL

Yes 3 of the 4 people Jack has as witnesses say they saw the plane go into the Pentagon. They actually SAW what Jack's movie says they DIDNT see..!

Hello? Is this thing on???

Originally posted by Mck526
I don't know if anyone knows what im talkign about... but i think the flight path was wrong that was given by the govt. because if you watch the doubletree hotel they said you should have been able to see it come in because the flight path that was given should have allowed the plane to be seen on the video... but no one saw anything. Does this sound right to anyone?

I think we did a pretty good job on another thread of showing WHY it should not have been visible at all from the Doubletree. Just look at the frames, find the Pentagon roofline, follow the plane's trajectory at near ground level up to the bulding - oh wait, there is no roofline visible. So no plane visible, unless they got its high dive, which I'm pretty sure would have been off frame.

Mr. Fox is on the right track here, if indeed the movie claims that. I 've been unable to verify what they actually think of the lamp poles and damage pattern, but if they try to pull any crap like that, their case won't draw breath for long.

Originally posted by Mck526 if you watch the doubletree hotel they said you should have been able to see it come in because the flight path that was given should have allowed the plane to be seen on the video... but no one saw anything. Does this sound right to anyone?

Who are they? The people that made that video of the video where they inserted an arrow and the words "should be able to see plane on this path?" The gov. never said it showed it. Gwion thinks it does. I don't see any good reason we should see it.

Originally posted by GwionX
It isn't at ground level...it is over 77 feet in the air...until it levels out and dives at the very end.

Source this statistic, please.

Also, if you could please clarify that in comparison to the official Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 and the same time the source is claiming it is seventy-seven feet in the air, that'd be great. Thanks!

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP

Originally posted by GwionX
It isn't at ground level...it is over 77 feet in the air...until it levels out and dives at the very end.

Source this statistic, please.

Also, if you could please clarify that in comparison to the official Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 and the same time the source is claiming it is seventy-seven feet in the air, that'd be great. Thanks!

I find it amusing..that this whole 9/11 conspiracy take of the pentagon is based completely on conjecture. With wild unfeasible plots unsubstanciated and without any shread of evidence. Many myths that have been proven false..but nothing!

But my lil theory, sure does get a lot of micro-managing. And as I have said before, I will continue to check the stats....work on my flash skillz...until then...

Originally posted by GwionX
I find it amusing..that this whole 9/11 conspiracy take of the pentagon is based completely on conjecture.

Not the whole thing, but a dishearteningly huge portion. Always a new question. Answer it and they'll pose another until no one's looking and then revive one of the old ones.

But my lil theory, sure does get a lot of micro-managing. And as I have said before, I will continue to check the stats....work on my flash skillz...until then...

You did it. I was there. I hope you were just trying to illustrate your point. I'm pretty sure I'm right but I backed down cause frankly I don't care. I don't have as much free time as I used to, and I can't begrudge some other becuase they still do, and better screen-capture abilities to boot.