9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Fantastic post CatHerder. Way Above vote coming your way. This one post went into far more detail and genuine evidence than the recent Channel 4 show about 9/11 conspiracies. Your post was fair, even handed and accurate. The evidence made sense. On the basis of this article, I believe that it was a 757 that stuck the Pentagon. The means and the motive behind the attack still cast doubt, however. Who was involved and why... but this article certainly dispels the technical myths surrounding the event. I can understand the skeptics to an extent. I believed there was something odd about the Pentagon strike, things didn't seem to add up. Reading your article and checking your sources almost conclusivly proves the story. I'll sleep soundly at night now... Have you considered trying to get this article published in a magazine or newspaper? Again, very well done. Mor

Originally posted by Morwenstow Have you considered trying to get this article published in a magazine or newspaper? Mor

Thanks for the kind words. As for this last bit... are you nuts? Then I'd have to tell people my real name.

. In the visual footage there is a huge fireball and not very much debris. Im not sure how much of a fireball to expect, but I would expect a good deal more debis to come from a full sized jetliner. Wings, seats, bodies, luggage, etc., certainly those kind of things would not have penetrated the concrete wall of the pentagon on their own. Others obviously see it differently, but i see no clear evidence in the video of an airliner and i see quite clearly something that could be a global hawk, which most dismiss as a puff of smoke. Hey, I guess everyone has there own viewpoints. Keeps the world interesting. .

No crap a plane hit the pentagon... IT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS!!!!! ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN THE PAST?!?!?!?!? What the heck... seriously... everyone already knows lol.. dude watch tv once in a while lol

. In case you were unaware there is no footage of a Plane hitting the Pentagon, on broadcast TV. Maybe you are tuned to a 'special' frequency that none of the rest of us get ~Beta 1.0~. If you could inform us of what channel showed the plane hitting the pentagon MANY people would like to see it. PS how is Oregon? Still green? take care dude. .

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween While I lean to the object as being an aircraft there are some oddities that don't add up for me. CatHerder has done a very good job of compiling the data, yet one of those oddities that I cannot reconcile with is the video of the object in that an aircraft the size of a 757 cannot be so obscured by that 4 or 5 foot high obstruction behind which it flies. That aircraft would have to have been quite a distance beyond the obstruction to appear so small, and especially considering that the depth perception relative to the obstruction itself is not significantly reduced. The picture below is obviously superimposed but it gives an idea why I would expect to see much more of the aircraft.

The problem with this photo is the 757 is completely out of scale. It wouldn't line up on the angle of attack in that position - and it has the nose in front of the aircraft controller tower (for the helipad), and the tail in this photo is 5 times as large as the tail in the background. I urge you to go to the airport and take some photos with a regular elcheapo 35mm camera (something without a zoom lens, similar to what the surveillance camera would have been) of airplanes. If you've ever done so, you'd already know that the photo you thought was a huge aircraft filling your camera lens turns out to be a small plane off in the distance (I've done a few like this much to my chagrin, and so have a couple other here who have related the same expereince to me via U2U's). That's the only problem wtih this example you've shown here - the 757 is not to scale and it's in the wrong position.

I recognize it does not line up as I recognize it is a superimposed picture. But that does not explain the smallness of the plane in the video, and in order for me to believe it was a 757, I have to have that reconciled. You seem to have many answers relative to the juxtaposition of the craft in the various photos, so perhaps you know the answers to these: How far away was that obstacle from the camera? How far away from the obstacle was the plane? Was the video taken in zoom, and if so how many times zoom?

How far away was that obstacle from the camera?

Perhaps 8 or 10 feet, the width of a lane of traffic going into the parking lot.

How far away from the obstacle was the plane?

500 feet maybe more.

Was the video taken in zoom, and if so how many times zoom?

I would have to say there is no zoom involved. The reason I say this is the camera is installed in a parking lot gate housing (like the one that is in the photo that obstructs the plane) it is focused in a way to see the driver of a vehicle as he passes through the gate perhaps 2-4 feet away.

Thanks for your take skibum. 757 Dark blue upper with a white Stripe below, red stripe below that and grayish underbelly. American is written in red with a white outline on the dark blue area starting from behind the cockpit window, and is larger in height than the red and white stripes, so should be visible. 767 Instead of a dark blue upper area there is a lighter blue/grey followed by a dark blue stripe, then white then red, then a greyish underbelly. American is displayed as it is with the 757. The following are the 5 uncropped frames as produced by CNN and before anyone started fiddling with them. The picture in question is 569x347 and as you can see is quite clearer than the sample CH provided. 911research.wtc7.net... www.911research.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> Now if I enlarge this AA picture in photoshop I can see a good outline of the craft. It appears dark blue, red stripe then white stripe then a lighter blue underbelly.Review the stripes then; 757 Dark blue; white; red; greyish 767 blue/grey; dark blue; white; red; grey Oddity no. 1 Note the pattern despite the two different top colours: dark blue; white; red; greyish The video: dark blue; red; white ;lighter blue or greyish. Oddity no. 2. I can see no visible markings to indicate the word �American� despite a very large part of the front of the craft showing, and despite teh fact that the writing is considerably larger than the red stripe which can be seen. Now if I reduce the image of the 757 to 386 x 169 I still see the outline of the word �American.� Oddity No. 3 Using the enlarged version of CNN�s picture, it is clear to see that the tail fin is direct above the obstacle and DOES NOT protrude from the back. Now take a look at the CH graphic, the tail fin has not yet crossed the obstacle: 69.57.144.30..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> So how this fits is still a mystery to me: 69.57.144.30..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> Review the colours again: AA 757- ������..AA767�������.Video������Debris ����������.blue/grey��������...................... Dark blue; ��...dark blue�����..dark blue��..light blue/grey white; �����...white�����..��red����......white red;������.�red���....�����white��...��red grayish����...grey������..�..greyish��..�.blue/grey

I never said it "showed the plane hitting" but in case you do not know....it did happen 300 or so people died.... and why would they lie? why just blow the pentagon up.... god you guys are stupid...Listen.. it happend sure deny ignorance.. but dont be stupid enough to ignorantly deny a fact... bye im right face iit

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween Oddity No. 3 Using the enlarged version of CNN�s picture, it is clear to see that the tail fin is direct above the obstacle and DOES NOT protrude from the back. Now take a look at the CH graphic, the tail fin has not yet crossed the obstacle: 69.57.144.30..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Dude... that was just a quick sloppy job not even using an AA image - I have updated the anim to use a to-scale AA 757, but I can't update the original post in this thread... I also can't replace the image because they are now stored locally on the ATS server. The tail IS t an angle in the photo, and it IS the exact shape of a 757 tail. I just did a crappy job the first time I tossed the anim together in a rush. This is what the anim above should have been replaced with - one I spent 3 or 4 minutes on instead of 30 seconds. Even still it's not "correct" because the 757 is not at the proper angle - it should be more "towards" the camera on the nose end.... oh well. It's not like anything hinges on THIS crappy set of photos anyway. There's tons of plane wreckage (literally), there's 64 bodies and DNA recovered, there's piles of eye witnesses who saw a jet airliner crash into the building, there's the ATC transcripts, and there's the flight data recorder (apparently the cockpit voice recorder was too badly burned to recover anything from, or so I've been told from a few different media sources). The only reason I included it was because too many people thought the smoke from the damaged engine (which hit light poles...) was the aircraft. I guarantee that if there wasn't as many people who just happened to catch the 2nd plane hit the WTC on their video camera the SAME people who claim no plane hit the Pentagon would be saying no plane hit the WTC... It's just too bad nobody on the freeway had a video camera with them, or thought to use it.

For what it is worth, here is a simple comparison of how the type of lens used can distort the near far relationships of objects. Note in the photographs how the foreground object stays the same, yet the background differs between each image. Yes, they moved the camera for each picture, but the point is that the camera and lens set up has a distinct influence in the apparent sizes of the background objects. Since you have no real way to calibrate the actual size of an object against its apparent size in the gate camera video, all of these comparisons don't really prove much.

Originally posted by Skibum

Who? Which site?

Not sure, as widely disseminated as the video is it would probably be har to tell. I think the film was originally shown by CNN and it did not have the "date-stamp" on it.

Well, I have to burst that bubble Skibum. www.cnn.com... NB: the original CNN article from 7 Mar '02 was changed. This article was re-written on 8 Mar '02. The original was basically the same as the AP report, and how the Washington Post reported on the AP report on this page: www.washingtonpost.com... From the report: Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. Now, as for the date of September 12 being "photoshopped" on there by some dude from a "conspiracy site".. please watch the video on that CNN site I posted.

Cat Herder:

# Review the facts # Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high) # Rims found in building match those of a 757 # Small turbine engine outside is an APU # Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine # Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos # Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo # Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211 # Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes # Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object # Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion # Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner # Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon # 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building...

I can accept that, but:

It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.

not that. You didn't prove that, that is your conclusion. I highly doubt that the WTC attack was an inside job while the Pentagon attack wasn't. Doesn't make sense. If one was an inside job, it is obvious they all were.

Now, as for the date of September 12 being "photoshopped" on there by some dude from a "conspiracy site".. please watch the video on that CNN site I posted.

I can't get the link to cnn video to work but the other link to the washington post descibes it as

Security photos show Pentagon as a hijacked plane hits the building on Sept. 11. Officials say date and time may have been added when photos were catalogued. (AP)

So I stand corrected. However the photo on the CNN site looks cropped from the one on the post site.

Here are their names: www.ratical.org...

I can't get the link to cnn video to work

I couldn't get the Real or Quicktime video to work but the Media Player file worked for me.

Catherder, it really matters little to me if your attempt was a sloppy job or not, although in the grand scheme, it shouldn't be a sloppy job, nor do I consider it one. But regardless, the positioning of your craft is not matching up. Anyway, I did some looking around and came across a few live webcam sites from places with which I am familiar, and in viewing same I still cannot reconcile the smallness of the craft with what I see on those webcams. Couple that with the oddities I mention and I am not convinced it is a large passenger jet. These are the cams I viewed. It was difficult to find an airport cam especially one that would allow for comparison of a jet. The following link is the airport cam in Edmonton. I would say that this camera is more than 500 feet away from the vehicles that can be seen. www.edmontonairports.com... This is a link to Toronto�s web cam offering multiple views of the city. The camera does have zoom capability which it sometimes utilizes, but it is obvious when it is not in use. I can personally guarantee you that whatever scene you view it is from much more than 500 feet away. How much difficulty is there making out cars and buses? If you are lucky enough when viewing the lake, miles away, you might see a passing boat. All easily distinguishable, and none looking so out of proportion as the pentagon craft.. www.toronto.com... I can also look at all sorts of angles of highway traffic and still not understand how that craft could appear so small www.mto.gov.on.ca...

It may distort size, But you can still see color and shape in the exhibited images. In the pentagon security tape there is NO color, NO clearly defined shape. In fact you could probably draw any number of shaped outlines over the grey blotch area in question. Perhaps a line of 'dancing bears', where the last one on the right is waving at us? In the pentagon video the area in question is indistinguishable from the background. edit spelling [edit on 21-9-2004 by slank]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween Anyway, I did some looking around and came across a few live webcam sites from places with which I am familiar, and in viewing same I still cannot reconcile the smallness of the craft with what I see on those webcams. Couple that with the oddities I mention and I am not convinced it is a large passenger jet. . . .

Are you sure your are not comparing apples to oranges? The security gate camera tape is obviously an older, analog system. Furthermore you have to deal with the distortion obscuring effect caused by the housing window. The web cams are much newer technology and are digital.

Originally posted by slank It may distort size, But you can still see color and shape in the exhibited images. In the pentagon security tape there is NO color, NO clearly defined shape. In fact you could probably draw any number of shaped outlines over the grey blotch area in question. Perhaps a line of 'dancing bears', where the last one on the right is waving at us?

In the pentagon video the area in question is indistinguishable from the background. edit spelling [edit on 21-9-2004 by slank]

Which proves that it is a crappy video, nothing else.

Great post CatHerder. This is the best informative post with evidence that truly denies ignorance that I have read while a member of ATS. I think this post also positively proves that there is a percentage of people who are only going to believe whatever they want to believe despite the facts. Keep up the good work CH.