What I believe happened...in photos

reply to post by jthomas

The object's subtended angle from the camera is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, NOT a Global Hawk, so right off the bat a Global Hawk is eliminated from consideration.

Thats only if one really believes the official story. Taken into account the outline of the Global Hawk placed in the frame, I dare say that the 757 proposal just vanished because if the outline measurements added up then the GH outline wouldn't fit.

reply to post by jthomas


Oh yes, the hole, the hole.

First one must consider that if an airliner struck the building there would be massive damage unless we are to fall for the "Shanksville theory" that it vanaished into the Pentagon as the story says happened in Pennsylvania. That story is just stupid altogether. If the airliner hit the Pentagon the hole would BIGGER than the oil website shows. The columns are blown outwards providing evidence of explosives used. If the story were true regarding the airliner then all of the fuel burned up outside the building when the wings sheared off then. And not much blast force went inside the building.

The only was to get that damage was from an explosive laden bomb/missile going into it.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas

 

The object's subtended angle from the camera is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, NOT a Global Hawk, so right off the bat a Global Hawk is eliminated from consideration.

Thats only if one really believes the official story.

The only "official story" is the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of independent sources that converge on the conclusion of what happened on 9/11 of which the government never had control to begin with.

Taken into account the outline of the Global Hawk placed in the frame, I dare say that the 757 proposal just vanished because if the outline measurements added up then the GH outline wouldn't fit.

Incorrect. You cannot ignore that the specifications of the security camera are known, the size of the Pentagon is known, the sizes of Boeing 757-200s and Global Hawks are known, and the distance to the "object" from the camera are known. From taking the subtended angle of the "object", one can immediately determine the length of the object in the distance. That angle tells us that the length of the object is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, not a Global Hawk.

This is not a matter of drawing outlines. It is factual evidence that anyone can demonstrate to themselves. Give it a try; you can do it too.

Just by doing that exercise one can say it is possible that the object is a Boeing 757. It is NOT possible that it is a Global Hawk.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas

 

Oh yes, the hole, the hole.

First one must consider that if an airliner struck the building there would be massive damage...

There was massive damage. It is obvious.

....unless we are to fall for the "Shanksville theory" that it vanaished into the Pentagon as the story says happened in Pennsylvania.

BOTH crashes have been explained. There is nothing surprising about either AA77's crash into the Pentagon or Flight 93's crash, appeals to incredulity to the contrary.

That story is just stupid altogether. If the airliner hit the Pentagon the hole would BIGGER than the oil website shows.

How would you be able to claim that? The hole was at least 90 feet wide. Some say 120 feet. Now, show us your calculations on how big the whole "should have been."

The columns are blown outwards providing evidence of explosives used.

Hardly. The interior shots show clearly that the columns were bent in the direction of movement.

If the story were true regarding the airliner then all of the fuel burned up outside the building when the wings sheared off then. And not much blast force went inside the building.

According to whom? Sources please.

The only was to get that damage was from an explosive laden bomb/missile going into it.

There is no evidence for explosives or missiles. We've already eliminated Global Hawks and no one reported seeing that or a missile.

reply to post by jthomas

This is not a matter of drawing outlines. It is factual evidence that anyone can demonstrate to themselves. Give it a try; you can do it too.

I understand what you are referencing however sometimes things in life are not hard as cut & dry "by the book" as many want others to think. The question remains valid:

What are the odds that the outline of a Global Hawk would superimpose over the purported outline of the 757?

Both cannot fit within that frame no matter what. So either "the science" is wrong menaing the distance to the object, shape of and known dimensions of the plane and the type of camera used with the aperture being incorrect or,

There was a Global Hawk flying around that day.

reply to post by jthomas


BOTH crashes have been explained. There is nothing surprising about either AA77's crash into the Pentagon or Flight 93's crash, appeals to incredulity to the contrary.

* Actually neither have been explained partially and no where near satisfaction for many folks. That is other than those who have fallen into the rabbit hole theories and keep supproting the lies of the government and other who are complicit as well.


How would you be able to claim that? The hole was at least 90 feet wide. Some say 120 feet.

* OK, which is it then? 90 feet by your own fact based statement of such or is it 120 ft based on what "some have said"? The size of it don't matter in the big picture because first, we need to figure out what impacted the building.

The columns were blown not only outward but in directions that go against the travel path purported by the OS. I have seen them myself and no OSer on this site can honestly say that ALL of the columns were bent in the direction of the OS based lie. That is a lie I know for myself is just that...a lie.


If the story were true regarding the airliner then all of the fuel burned up outside the building when the wings sheared off then. And not much blast force went inside the building.

According to whom? Sources please.

* I do not do other people's work nor research but the sources are on the internet if you care that much, then you'll find them as I did. Again, I stopped playing the "feed me" game with people who ask for sources, links and refs for anything they do not agree with.


The only was to get that damage was from an explosive laden bomb/missile going into it.


There is no evidence for explosives or missiles. We've already eliminated Global Hawks and no one reported seeing that or a missile.

* No one has eliminated anything as far as the Pentagon is concerned. No one one here has ever made a concrete case that there was only an airliner that crashed into the building that day. NO ONE!

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jthomas

 

This is not a matter of drawing outlines. It is factual evidence that anyone can demonstrate to themselves. Give it a try; you can do it too.

I understand what you are referencing however sometimes things in life are not hard as cut & dry "by the book" as many want others to think. The question remains valid:

What are the odds that the outline of a Global Hawk would superimpose over the purported outline of the 757?

Actually, that question is not valid. It is simply a diversion away from the evidence.

If you want to have a rational discussion, let me know.

reply to post by jthomas


Thanks for your input just the same. Take care.

I'd love to see those pix of the 120 ft wide hole in the Pentagon, Mr. thomas.....

Never even heard of such claims....

I saw the one pic of a 20 ft hole, totally inconsistent with it being a big Boeing...but 120ft??

Lets see your sources Sir....

Nice thread Mike...lots of unanswered questions remain....lots.

Originally posted by jthomas

If the story were true regarding the airliner then all of the fuel burned up outside the building when the wings sheared off then. And not much blast force went inside the building.

According to whom? Sources please.

Well the photo i posted shows the wings did not make it into the building. most of the fuel is carried in the wings.

reply to post by mikelee


"mikelee", you have quite a few problems with this "hypothesis", or what you 'believe'. UNLESS you provide far, far better proof, from your resources.

The Global Hawk does NOT carry an FDR, or CVR.

The GH uses an Allison turbofan engine (one), model AE3007H for propulsion, not the Rolls Royce RB-211-535 (two) as installed on American Airlines B-757, operating flight 77 on 11 September, 2001.

NO parts, or identifiable components, matching that engine type, were found in the Pentagon wreckage. No paerts or components of the GH were found. However, MANY parts and identifiable components FROM a Boeing 757, and the R/R RB-211 engines, were found.

(Do not be confused by the fact that the Allison company has been acquired by, and merged with, Rolls Royce).

The GH does NOT carry passengers, nor crew, yet the DNA of ALL passengers and crew from the AA flight 77 have been positively identified.

AA 77 was OBSERVED by an Air National Guard pilot, flying a C-130, enroute Andrews AFB to Minneapolis, his home base. An aviation professional, and ANG pilot, would NOT mistake a GH for a B-757!

The AA 77 was OBSERVED by the ATC personnel at DCA, from the Tower cab.

AA 77 was TRACKED on ATC radar, after it was re-acquired subsequent to being lost when transponder switched to "Standby" by the terrorist hijackers. ARTCC radar coverage is wider-range, and harder therefore to positively track an unknown 'primary' target (skin paint), however the TRACON radar IS better able. This has to do a lot with proximity to the antennas, and the amount (size) of the airspace being 'covered' by any particular radar location. ALSO, the lower altitude of AA 77 as it was approaching the DC area contributed to making it easier to find, using only 'primary' skin paints. The target was seen, and tagged in the computers to facilitate further tracking. It was given the designation "LOOK". The target was tracked until contact lost, at the Pentagon.

Another aviation professional, a helipad Controller at the Pentagon ALSO saw the Boeing 757. These people ARE familiar with the differences, and would not be fooled by a Global Hawk.


In 2001, the Global Hawks were new, and there were a mere handful of early prototypes:

On March 21, 2001, aircraft number 982003, the third ACTD aircraft produced, set an official world endurance record for UAVs, at 30 hours...

en.wikipedia.org...

(Perhaps, IF you could find a valid resource that shows the inventory as MISSING a Global Hawk, from around the time of late fall, 2001, your "beliefs" might gain some credibility...)


The specifications of the GH belie its ability to perform, as per your "belief":

Performance

Cruise speed: 404 mph (351 kn; 650 km/h)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,812 m)

(ibid)

If you note the wing design, and read about its development (i.e., it was designed using the Lockheed U-2 'spyplane' as inspiration) and if you know anything about aerodynamics, then you'd understand why it would be very difficult for this aircraft to achieve the speeds seen, and displayed by, the American Airlines Boeing 757, as flight 77.

The wing has virtually no sweep-back. It is long and thin, and made from composites, not aluminum.

The fuselage is mostly of conventional aluminum airframe construction, while the wings are made of carbon composite.

(ibid)

The cruise speed in the specs would be AT the higher altitudes. Unlikely, even in a sustaind dive, that the GH could achieve speeds similar to what a B-757 can, when it is pushed similarly.

Also, let's look at the payload of the early version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk:

The RQ-4 is powered by an Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan engine with 7,050 lbf (3,200 kgf / 31.4 kN) thrust, and carries a payload of 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms).

(ibid)

2,000 pounds is NOT much of a payload, for your "belief" to hold any credibility, if you wish to attribute that to some sort of explosives, carried as payload.

Speaking of "explosives", there also were no indications of anything OTHER than the Jet-A, that was carried by the American Airlines Boeing 757, as flight 77, to explain the initiation of fires at the Pentagon, post-impact.



Unfortuantely, this entire OP hinges on the very "open-to-interpretation" squinty-eyed look at the few frames from the parking lot gate video camera capture...a camera that, if you recall, was programed to only take one frame about every second, or so.

There is NO clear image of any sort defining the object (the Boeing 757) that struck the Pentagon. At the airplane's velocity of ~750-800 feet per sec, and given the width of the camera's field of view, it is highly improbable that amy image OF the actual airplane was captured by that camera.

Your estimation of size, in any event, makes your assertion moot. If you would notice, the camera's lens is a "fish-eye' type, as you can see by comparing the relative perspective of objects (known, such as buildings) in the far distance, and aproximately along the track of American Airleins 77. This has the effect of rendering objects disproportionately smaller, farther they are from the camera lens, than would be interpreted by the Human eye.


I am sure I've missed several other salient points....but those are just the major ones to pop into my head.

Speculation can be entertaining, but when it is fruitless, and baseless, then it should be abandoned.

reply to post by weedwhacker


As stated Weed, its just my opinion there by its not right nor wrong. I'm reviewing all of your reply for consideration. However, I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent reply's you always provide. Take care...Mike

Originally posted by benoni
I'd love to see those pix of the 120 ft wide hole in the Pentagon, Mr. thomas.....

Never even heard of such claims....

I already posted it on the first page of this thread.

I think you may have fallen for the claim of the 20 ft hole in the picture
that boxed one section off as the 20 ft entry hole.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by mikelee


I totally forgot to mention, in my initial post...this:



I suggest that this photo is dubious, at best. What is its provenance?

IOW, where did it come from? I believe THAT should be a serious line of inquiry, because it smells. The picture, I mean. Smells. Badly.

Smells of PhotoShop..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

As Exhibit 'A', I invite a better glance at the photo, once more.

Look closely, and focus on the AFT portion. Perhaps in a moment, you may see my point.

Not yet?

Hint: What is missing from the "photo"? And, more importantly, WHO is the dimwit who left out a key component of the ACTUAL Global Hawk, before editing the image to add the American Airlines fake livery?


...........

Still with me, need the answer?


One word: RUDDERVATOR


(Yeah, it's a real word. Describes the function of the control surfaces, in that particular configuration design).



[edit on 15 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You do realize it isn't actually real....right? It's a suggestion nothing more.

reply to post by mikelee


:face/palm:


Well....good to admit that!

A little late, perhaps though....can you not see what sort of damage it does, what impression it leaves in impressionable (aka-gullible) minds?

Ah, well.....c'est la vie!

reply to post by weedwhacker


My god, man. The picture is meant only to show you how easy it would be to impersonate the airliner.

Come on, now.....you're way better than this.

reply to post by OnTheFelt


"impersonate" the airliner?

You can't be serious?

Too many people who are familiar with the Boeing 757 could not be fooled....too many who saw the actual airplane.

AND...this is a biggie (literally)...

The Global Hawk will NOT present the same primary radar return as the much larger B-757.

Recall, please....the WINGS of the GH are made out of composite. Not aluminum.

Originally posted by jthomas

That doesn't work:

Global Hawk: Length: 44 ft 5 in (13.54 m), Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Boeing 757-200: Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m), Height 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)

The object's subtended angle from the camera is consistent with the length of a Boeing 757, NOT a Global Hawk, so right off the bat a Global Hawk is eliminated from consideration.

Ah I see you are using scaling and respective sizes of aircraft with no apparent calculation method on which to cross reference the relative size differences, let me help you with that.........

Firstly.... Something to use as a basis to calculate measurements, which can then reliably be used as an accurate tool to cross reference, or project a certain size in comparison to an objects documented dimensions which of course can then be used as a solid foundation for size comparisons. For this we will use an overhead picture depicting scaled to size measurements at important vantage points......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c9d0920df3d.jpg[/atsimg]

Using the above picture we have a very accurate assessment of size comparisons in relation to the location of the plane, captured in the released CCTV footage, a good plan here would be to insert a scaled to size Boeing 757-200 into the above picture and use it as a template set against the known dimensions of the heliport, and then compare that to the image on offer, no need for you to do that though, here`s one I prepared earlier...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86eec8ab5299.jpg[/atsimg]

All we need now is a way to transfer the measurements from the aerial map to the captured video frames and we are good to go, pixels and a known measurement are your friend here, simply calculate the amount of pixels at one point, and then how many from a further away vantage point to which the measurement is known, workout the percentage difference from the two set points and you have a formula to work with........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6513b458f5db.jpg[/atsimg]

Ooops, I just know you will mention that the video footage was captured via a lens thus creating an inaccurate image to work with, thus creating a false comparison, this was remedied....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/486dc0d1ce73.jpg[/atsimg]

Hope this helps, as your assessment appears to be incorrect, feel free to bring up any points as to why this method gives a false reading, compared to your findings, which, by the way, were calculated using what method?.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

My god, man. The picture is meant only to show you how easy it would be to impersonate the airliner.

It would have to be a mighty ignorant "conspirator" to believe that a disguised Global Hawk could fool every possible eyewitness around.

This illustrates a problem the 9/11 Truth Movement has with understanding the assumptions and implications of claims Truthers make. It actually is true of every conspiracy theory. Those who entertain this missile theory haven't thought out what a "conspirator" would have to ensure in order for that "plot" to succeed.

If those here who think the disguised Global Hawk "theory" is plausible, try taking the position of we skeptics and think of every way that idea could not work and post them here. Think of everything you can that would have to be satisfied for that plot to succeed.

I bet you would be surprised how easily it would be to show how the idea would not work.

Anyone game?