9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Someone tell me they it too, 1.26 on that video posted above...

Originally posted by Denied Someone tell me they it too, 1.26 on that video posted above...

Looks like a Freakin' Missile to me too! The nose is too sharp and pointy - maybe it looks like one of the fighter aircraft, like a nose of an F/A-18 - but DEFINETLY not like a well rounded nose of a Boeing!

Originally posted by Denied OMFG look far right centre, i see a nose of a rocket, could that be the nose of a plane?????

Here's an animated GIF that cycles between that frame, and the frame before it. Now that does indeed look... uh... funny.

get your mind out of the gutter, SO. the "pointy" part looks like the far wing tip to me

That is a passenger airliner hitting the Pentagon. It appears "small" because the Pentagon is "big". A missile would look much smaller. It is also far to low to the ground to be a missile. Cling to your conspiracy if you must, but I think this is settled for the rational. CatHerder: Amazing piece of work. You obviously spent some hours on that and deserve some recognition.

Suggest you take a look at this "Montage" how it would REALLY looks if a Boeing would struck Pentagon:

How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look? Wary therefore we are of the potential for the government to eventually release clear footage of the impact from the 84 other cameras that were dotted around the Pentagon and would have easily documented the event to debunk 9/11 skeptics.

Oh yeah, that's really how it would look on a camera that takes one frame a second. A plane travelling at over 500 mph would show up that nicely in three frames. Sure it would.

What do you think about it?

I took two frames from this new movie and play a bit with Gimp. I think this object is to big to be a missle or fighter.

You can't tell for sure WHAT it is, but it's quite a lot bigger than either a Tomahawk, or an A-3. That's a pretty substantial object.

Originally posted by ronint What do you think about it?

I took two frames from this new movie and play a bit with Gimp. I think this object is to big to be a missle or fighter.

That was horribly done, no offense. You superimposed a 757 over trees, not the actual tiny white object. Just in case you didn't see the relevant white object, look at this gif that shows the tiny white object appearing at the right center of the screen:

Originally posted by Leto That was horribly done, no offense. You superimposed a 757 over trees, not the actual tiny white object. Just in case you didn't see the relevant white object, look at this gif that shows the tiny white object appearing at the right center of the screen:

I don`t think so. I think that white object is a smoke from damaged engine(or some kind of dust). This smoke is also visible in the first movie. If you check my image again you will see that color changes between this two frames - from green to some kind of blue - exactly in place where plane should be. [edit on 17-5-2006 by ronint]

Does anyone know the distance from that Cam to the area of impact? The size of that "nose" just doesn't look right in fl77-1_11094237.WMV That black ring (band) around the front of it just looks like a military marking tho. I haven't seen any pics of Boeings with a ring. Most of the noses are snubnosed and blacktipped. The ring is set back on that pic. If you look at the DOD film fl77-2_11094237.WMV and pause it with VLC player at about 23secs it does look like a much larger object tho and does resemble a passenger plane. I can't do a snapshot .

You can't tell for sure WHAT it is, but it's quite a lot bigger than either a Tomahawk, or an A-3. That's a pretty substantial object

I agree, though from the video released yesterday, i thought it was pretty clear it was a jet liner. Not to mention that the trajectory and altitude is wrong for a bomb or missile.

Would a plane smash all windows in the area it hit. Check this out, would a plane or missile do this. No broken windows underneath.......

Being friends with a Helicopter Pilot, and my Grandfather also being a pilot (for his own amusement) they were telling me of how nearly impossible the piloting of the WTC planes were. They commented about the way the terrorist managed to at the last second twist the plane at such an angle that the wingspan added to the impact, a stunt that is (According to them) very hard to do at such speed and in such a short amount of time. But seeing this video really puts it in perspective... The pilot, flying a commercial airliner, which is not very maneuverable, going at a speed of 600+ Miles per hour, hitting light-posts and other obstacles, AND FLYING AT SUCH A LOW ALTITUDE and still managed to hit the Pentagon directly. As for anyone still not convinced at the lack of wreckage, The reason why there is still an actual "PLANE" during most plane crashes is because a plane usually falls at an angle and most of the time at reduced speeds. Pilots are trained to raise the nose of the plane, much like landing procedures, incase of an imminent crash. This is done to reduce the speed of the plane, and impact as well. Planes are made out of basically aluminum alloy; they are supposed to be light and generally flexible. THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO WITHSTAND DRIECT IMPACT GOING AT TOP SPEEDS AGAINST SOLID OBJECTS. @ Denied How can you tell if the windows are broken or not? are you saying there not broken because the frames are not broken? [edit on 17-5-2006 by Invalok]

Is the lack of video footage... 1) (Atleast in Los Angeles) there are trafic cameras in almost every stop light... 2) Tourist, usually have cameras, the Pentagon being somewhat of a tourist attraction. 3) The Pentagon, only has 2 Cameras, which if I may add, are very crappy, watching that side of the wall? 4) Don't police cars usually have cameras in them too? Now, what I find somewhat wierd is... How come both cameras have the same refresh rate, which happens at basicaly exactly the same time. Both cameras managed to record what appears to be the tip of the plane... nothing more? I would imagine that atleast one video feed would have managed to capture a little bit more.

Originally posted by vandalizor That is a passenger airliner hitting the Pentagon. It appears "small" because the Pentagon is "big". A missile would look much smaller. It is also far to low to the ground to be a missile. Cling to your conspiracy if you must, but I think this is settled for the rational. CatHerder: Amazing piece of work. You obviously spent some hours on that and deserve some recognition.

Yessum master, I believe dem state lies likem you told me sir! Sorry but I see a missile or a drone or a similar small aircraft and nothing else because that is what I see and not what I want to see. We are still waiting for all the other vids to come out and really convince us as to what hit the pentagon. If you are close to the inside can you put an order in for all the rest of us to see that? thanks so much.

Originally posted by Denied Would a plane smash all windows in the area it hit. Check this out, would a plane or missile do this. No broken windows underneath.......

Those windows were also designed not to break if a massive truck bomb went off almost directly against the side of the building. They're blast resistant glass, and I'd have to say they did a pretty good job that day.

Check this out, would a plane or missile do this.

Both could do this. The aircraft used in this attack and the WTC are, for all intents and purposes, crude, albeit very large guided missiles. The video shows the aircraft coming in on a level trajectory only a few feet off the ground. Bombs and missiles do not come in to target on that trajectory. The glass used in the pentagon is shatter-proof, made to withstand car bombs and bullets. it is likely that the panes of glass would be blown whole out of their frames or shattered but still intact and in their frames or even melted from fire. Edit: By level, I mean a flat trajectory parallel to the ground. [edit on 17-5-2006 by vandalizor]

"Ok, but how did a hollow tube, made of mostly aluminium, manage to punch through the Pentagon? I'm happy to try to help explain it with the aid of the good folks at Perdue University. We'll get to that in a moment" you cant be serious?....that reproduction has the wings breaking through the outer walls and taking out the majority of the support beams...do you see any damage from the wings in those photos? APU wheel? hasnt this been covered 10x over? why is there no damage from the rear stabilizer? where is it? where are the engines? they obviously didnt make it through the outer walls....