Flight 77 Tail Inconsistencies

After looking through the Doubletree video of Flight 77, I realized that there is a serious problem with the fact the tail appears in the video. As you can see from the video below, the position of the camera taking the footage is located BELOW the roofline of the Pentagon (i.e. you can't see the roof of the Pentagon itself). With that in mind, anything that is level with, or below the roof line of the Pentagon will NOT be visible.

The tail of a 757 is approximately 25 ft high (measured from fuselage to tip - the 44ft often quoted is actually from the ground to the tip See Page 9 Here (PDF) ). The roof of the Pentagon is approximately 75 ft high. For the aircraft to hit the building where it did, the altitude of the tip of the tail would be around 50 ft, or 15 ft BELOW the top of the roof line of the Pentagon. The implication is that you can't see the tail from this (Doubletree) cameras position.

Allowing for the altitude of the jet to hit around the 1st/2nd floors, this puts the jet around 10 ft above the ground. This reduces the distance, but still places the tail 21 ft (75-44+10) below the roof line of the Pentagon. Based on other data and physical damage, this altitude is nearer 4 or 5 ft at the time of impact, putting the tail 36 ft (75-44+5) BELOW the roof line of the Pentagon.

In this image, you can't see the roof of the Pentagon. Note carefully how much of the tail you can see.




In this next image, you still can't see the roof of the Pentagon. Note that the amount of tail that you can see is almost identical to the amount of tail you can see 5 seconds earlier (see above). Given the 25 ft tail and the 75 ft high building, to see approximately 10 ft of tail (to be visible at this range and aspect on the poor quality video) this puts the aircraft at approximately 75 - 25 - 10 = 40 ft above the ground, or somewhere around the 3rd floor and NOT the 1st/2nd floor (allowing for 15 ft per floor).




In addition, when you view the following video (go to 1 min 30 secs) note the time it takes for the tail to move across the Pentagon roof from when it appears in the video, to the time of impact. I estimate this time to be 8 seconds. From the FDR data I approximated its rate of descent to be around 2500 ft/min. This 8 seconds of video equates to 333 ft of altitude. Allowing for 2000 ft/min that would be 266 ft of altitude. With that in mind, you should be able to see the ENTIRE AIRCRAFT enter the shot and watch it disappear behind the Pentagon immediately before it crashes. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. In this video, the aircraft HAS to be flying level, something which we know it couldn't do for several reasons (not least because of the terrain, and the FDR data).

Note very carefully that the camera is equipped with a fish-eye lens. Anything following natural curves in the image are actually moving parallel to them. You must be careful of parallax however with respect to the aircraft. Given the information above however, parallax can be out-ruled.

Please feel free to rip this apart - I think you'll find it is bullet-proof.



[edit on 30-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

If that was really the tail it would prove the official story false AND that this video has been manipulated to remove flyover.

Some people say you can see the plane through the trees continue on over the Pentagon.

I personally feel there is zero reason to assume validity in any way of this perpetrator sequestered and supplied data so I would never cite it.

Here is the location compared to the Pentagon and official flight path:


This is the view from the sidewalk out front:


And just for you MOD here are some unreleased images of the camera itself:




Here is a shot I took from the top floor:




As you can see the side of the Pentagon that was attacked is not visible at all from the Doubletree property.

But why isn't there more and better footage available from other camera views at the DoubleTree or other buildings in Pentagon City such as the camera you can see at 400 Army Navy Drive in the upper left corner of the image above?

Clearly they have something to hide.

Craig, thanks for the photos, especially that last one. As you say:

As you can see the side of the Pentagon that was attacked is not visible at all from the Doubletree property.

That's not a tailfin. It's been discussed here and here. Most likely the same unladen semi trailer w/airfoil that emerges from the other side of the explosion at its original speed.

This camera would however afford an excellent view of the alleged flyover, rising above the Pgon from northwest to southeast, towards the camera. It doesn't show this, so obviously it's doctored.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

This camera would however afford an excellent view of the alleged flyover, rising above the Pgon from northwest to southeast, towards the camera. It doesn't show this, so obviously it's doctored.

Yes obviously it would be doctored since it was controlled and released 5 years after the event by the very entity you accuse of this crime.


It would be rather ignorant to suggest they would release a video that proves they are treasonous mass murders.

However the notion that it would be an "excellent view" is more than an exaggeration considering the fact that a tree completely blocks it and it is horrible quality.

Great images!

I was trying to show that it doesn't show the aircraft, when it should. Thanks to your photos posted above, it should be quite clear as you're looking at it side-on. You can clearly see the trucks in the video - you should be able to see the aircraft, too.

If it flew in from the side the witnesses claim they saw it, then it is possible you couldn't see it at all in that video.

The few bits of footage they did release that claim Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon currently show zip of Flight 77. As you said:

I personally feel there is zero reason to assume validity in any way of this perpetrator sequestered and supplied data so I would never cite it.

...and I agree. After watching the video again after CLs post, I see where people are going with the roof of the truck. It does seem to tie up (it was something I looked at, but with another truck).

If it is indeed just the airfoil of a passing truck (as it appears to be), then clearly the video has been made to appear that said spoiler is the object (Flight 77) that hit the building as the explosion curiously occurs exactly the moment the airfoil passes (or would pass) that point.

I know showing nothing doesn't prove anything, but the fact they released this footage with the intention of saying "here is Flight 77" and yet it is nowhere to be seen, looks very suspect.

I didn't realize Flight 77 (official story version) would fly across the frame quite that much. I don't see anything (not even a faint smudge).

However the notion that it would be an "excellent view" is more than an exaggeration considering the fact that a tree completely blocks it and it is horrible quality.

I don't even see an aircraft at the beginning where it should be most apparent, never mind behind a few trees.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

There is no possible way that camera would have caught a view of the plane on the official flight path.

It would be too far and too low.

I figure it would be around 300 ft AGL (actually, 300 ft above the Pentagon as the ground slopes down towards it). If we can see the trucks, we'd see it. The FDR data would have to be further tampered with for the aircraft to remain 50 ft AGL the whole time. The rate of descent is too great for it not to appear. I do realize both video and FDR data came from the same source and all that brings, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think the FDR data and this video together are proof of a cover-up. Two sources (I know...) directly contradict each other clearly, and are supposed to back up the official story (which neither manage to do).

This OTOH does support your witnesses in so far as not following the official flight path, and knocking down those light poles. As for a fly-over - again - you'd see the jet. I know the video is grainy, but unless it has been erased out of the video, you would see it - a 757 isn't so small that it wouldn't appear on that footage. Again, I cite the clarity of the trucks on the highway.

I think at this point we have reached a impasse - if your witnesses saw a jet looking like Flight 77 flying low and towards the Pentagon, but then fly over (was this the general consensus?) you should be able to see it on the video (but you can't). Now this suggests a cover-up in the video.

If your witnesses saw it hit (Sgt. LaGasse I think said he saw it appear to yaw as it hit), then this would make sense for no fly-over being visible in the footage. There remains this problem however of it not being visible at all pre-impact. Again, could be a sign of an edited video, but if the point is to show Flight 77 hit, why would they do this? We have something in the other video from the security booth but is inconclusive.

As you said - with all these other cameras, why only these?

If your witnesses are correct in their assertions, why the need to cover it up in the videos? Something isn't making sense here. If the official flight path doesn't add up to the video footage - it would be easy for them to turn around and say "oops - yeah - we were wrong - here is the amended flight path" and be done. Instead, they obfuscate when, apparently, there is no need.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

The witnesses were deceived as intended.

The fact that they all saw it on the north side proves it can not be what hit despite the fact that they were all fooled by the military sleight of hand deception.

There is zero room for error in the official flight path BECAUSE of the physical damage so no....they can not turn around and say oops and change it.




The flight path fatally contradicts all physical damage starting with the light poles and ending with the C-ring hole.
(light poles in yellow)





[edit on 2-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

There is zero room for error in the official flight path BECAUSE of the physical damage so no....they can not turn around and say oops and change it.

Good point - I retract that particular comment.

Did Flight 77 go the same way as Flight 93 then? (remembering Flight 93 was reported as landing at Cleveland with UA even confirming it had landed there). It would certainly clear a few things up if BOTH aircraft were landed some place else. Flight 93 is just too incredulous a story to be true. For Flight 93 and Flight 77 to be landed elsewhere would make more sense. Was the Captain of Flight 77 a trojan horse? If he had something to do with previous planning at the CIA...

What military bases are around DC where Flight 77 could have been taken? They're not going to want that jet flying around longer than necessary. Is it why DCA was shutdown quickly? On a Peninsula you're not going to see much. Was DCA one of those where the controllers were forced out of the tower? There were 3 towers involved in that, weren't there?

Sorry for going slightly O/T but just throwing some ideas out there.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

The plane that flew treetop level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion was definitely not flight 77 and we'll be releasing evidence very soon proving this.

There is no evidence that flight 77 was ever anywhere near Arlington or DC after it took off from Dulles.

In fact it was completely lost as early as 8:56 when it was by the Ohio/Kentucky boarder in fact ATC even thought it had crashed.

Details regarding this are here. courtesy of excellent researcher/Team 8 plus member Woody Box.

This gave the perpetrators plenty of time to pull off an operation northwoods style plane swap.









[edit on 2-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

This gave the perpetrators plenty of time to pull off an operation northwoods style plane swap.

That thought crossed my mind, too.

I'd like to correct the article you posted - Primary RADAR is always used to track traffic. Secondary (or Surveillance) RADAR is the RADAR that interrogates the transponder, and without it, speed/altitude data doesn't exist. You only get RANGING with Primary (oh, and a target of course).

FYI: RADAR = RAdio Detection And Ranging (sorry if that is starting the obvious).

There are a few ways it could have dropped off RADAR: it went into RADAR shadow (e.g. behind a mountain), or landed, or flew below RADAR coverage.

www.airwaysmuseum.com...

Primary may be an option on the controllers scope to filter in/out, but without it, you can't see non transponder equipped aircraft, so if I'm out flying in uncontrolled airspace VFR, I have no requirement to have a transponder fitted. You wouldn't see me without Primary. Usually the two are used together for continuous coverage, and in the event of aircraft transponder failure or secondary RADAR failure.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]