Pentagon attack 3-D rendering

I'm sure this might've been posted before, but I found it very interesting if a bit tedious:
www.flying-dragon.com...
- it's like a flash thing and then a 3-D animation (that loops) on the Pentagon attack that's pretty accurate and brings into question the size of the attack plane in the famous crappy CCTV video. It's not enough to disqualify either the 757 or the video IMO, but it's interesting and does raise some questions.

In the 5 CCTV stills, the fireball comes back and is seen touching the lawn, but lawn pics show no fire damage on it. My conclusion is the fireball in those still is fake.

killtown.911review.org...

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Killtown]

Found this on the same website after some digging (hope the owner dont mind hehe), added information and some more insight into the 757 3d page and video:

www.flying-dragon.com...

Originally posted by Killtown
In the 5 CCTV stills, the fireball comes back and is seen touching the lawn, but lawn pics show no fire damage on it. My conclusion is the fireball in those still is fake.

killtown.911review.org...

There you have it, more bull shi-it from Killtown again.
A fuel explosion isn't like a high explosive explosion. High explosives produce their own oxygen as they explode and that is why they burn so violently. However fuel, in order to burn, needs to be feed oxygen so it grabs the oxygen from it's surrounding. So a fuel explosion is really nothing more then a fireball with very little heat to it applied over a very short period of time.

You can clearly see a violent looking fuel explosion here:
www.youtube.com...
But the explosion is really just a fireball ....notice how the grass wasn't even burned underneath? Notice also how the explosion wasn't even powerful enough to blast off the simple plastic moldings off of the car? In fact if you were to put your head inside a fuel explosion fireball you might get your hair and eye lashes singed off but nothing more.

Killtown is really good at using extrapolated evidence and distorted science to push his ridiculous "conspiracy kook" theories, but make sure to understand that not everyone here is like this. Some of us do use our brains.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
There you have it, more bull shi-it from Killtown again.

Pepe, I don't buy KT either but relax. It is what it is, and pretty obvious and far from exclusive to him, we're all discerning adults, dealt with this before, etc...
But otherwise, yeah what you said. It's just a passing fireball, so what if it didn't burn the lawn?


[edit on 8-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Re the Fireball and the Lawn... (sounds like the name of a new tv series on Fox to me...)

If the fireball doesn't have the capacity to burn the lawn, then how did the fireball from Flight 93 torch 100 trees? If you look at the pics and vids of the Flight 93 site, there were no fires raging in the trees when the first responders got there. The only conclusion that can be made is that the initial fireball torched the trees.

Also, I've seen several other airplane crash photos where the entire area around the crash site was burned black. This type of burnt ground is missing in both the Pentagon and Flight 93 sites.

Any ideas why?

Originally posted by nick7261
If the fireball doesn't have the capacity to burn the lawn, then how did the fireball from Flight 93 torch 100 trees?

Because Flight 93 probably didn't really crash there. That's my opinion anyway. Don't know where it did go. I'm sure you guys are aware of the idea.


I was going to ask, would the angle at which the plane hit make a difference here? If the angle was larger from the perspective of the Pentagon camera, then the plane would have been growing in size from smaller to larger, where if it came in perpendicularly to the camera, it'd stay about the same size the whole time. And how would this fit in with the angle of damage in the actual building?

I would offer that leaves and branches catching a fireball moving laterally thru trees would cause greater burning by far than a fireball mostly going inside the Pentagon via a vacuum effect and only touching the crew-cut lawn briefly. Nothing much to catch it and spread it.
That'd be my guess.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was going to ask, would the angle at which the plane hit make a difference here? If the angle was larger from the perspective of the Pentagon camera, then the plane would have been growing in size from smaller to larger, where if it came in perpendicularly to the camera, it'd stay about the same size the whole time.

Thanks for the thoughts...
It was coming from pretty far away, about 50 degrees from perpendicular, and about 600 feet from the camera so was much further from the lens than the cop car. I'd wonder about the fisheye effect, but the cop car is in the same spot and so warped the same. But then the animation gets the angle and location right and it still looks a bit too small (tho this time the fisheye effect is ignored in the model-plane comparison) ...

And how would this fit in with the angle of damage in the actual building?

The engine-fuselage-engine penetrating core of a 757 is about 50 feet total out of the 125-foot wingspan, at a 45 degree angle (thx Pythagoras), the damage'd be about 71 feet wide minimum, a bit more since it's actually 39 degrees. First floor columns removed for about 90-100 feet.
In case you haven't seen such an anlysis yet, check here to see how I figure:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
It's just a passing fireball, so what if it didn't burn the lawn?

Evidence it's Penta-Lawn technology or that the fireball is fake.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
There you have it, more bull shi-it from Killtown again.
A fuel explosion isn't like a high explosive explosion. High explosives produce their own oxygen as they explode and that is why they burn so violently. However fuel, in order to burn, needs to be feed oxygen so it grabs the oxygen from it's surrounding. So a fuel explosion is really nothing more then a fireball with very little heat to it applied over a very short period of time.



Killtown is really good at using extrapolated evidence and distorted science to push his ridiculous "conspiracy kook" theories, but make sure to understand that not everyone here is like this. Some of us do use our brains.

Ok, let me break this down so everyone gets it this time. No more posts of this manner. Discuss the topic and not the poster. I see this again and the red flags fly, no matter who it is.

No further discussion is required on this.

The fireball going into the wodds vs. over a lawn is also perhaps a useable metaphor for dealing with flaming from fellow members BTW. Not accusing KT of flaming, he's just making points. But others and elsewhere, a good thing to think of regarding one's flamability...

And as for the video being fake, well Killtown I can't prove otherwise but don't see any good reason to doubt it's authenticity. It fits with everything else pretty well, including eyewitness accounts of the blast and also its capture from the Doubletree camera, occly stamped at 3 1/2 minutes early:

... If you haven't figure how that one was faked too, please have fun with it.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
The fireball going into the wodds vs. over a lawn is also perhaps a useable metaphor for dealing with flaming from fellow members BTW. Not accusing KT of flaming, he's just making points. But others and elsewhere, a good thing to think of regarding one's flamability...

And as for the video being fake, well Killtown I can't prove otherwise but don't see any good reason to doubt it's authenticity. It fits with everything else pretty well, including eyewitness accounts of the blast and also its capture from the Doubletree camera, occly stamped at 3 1/2 minutes early:

... If you haven't figure how that one was faked too, please have fun with it.

Was there a point to your post I didn't understand?

People often take the CCTV videos the only that exists and base their doctoring charges in part on the 'fact' that there's only one camera's view to doctor, not multiples where they'd get into discrepancies that could be discovered by intrepid investigators such as yourself. So now we have at least two videos of the blast, and two instances of faking. Have you already looked at this and found the seams? If so feel free to share, if not have at it.
My own best guess until I see good evidence is they both captured a real event as it happened.

Originally posted by Killtown
In the 5 CCTV stills, the fireball comes back and is seen touching the lawn, but lawn pics show no fire damage on it. My conclusion is the fireball in those still is fake.

It is possible for a brief fireball not to burn anything. Whilst hot, it isn't sustained long enough.