9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween 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...

Do you have a clock on your wall? Look at it from across the room (hopefully from 20 feet or more away). It's a clock right? Now, give yourself a thumb's up for knowing where your clock is - but as an added twist, extend your arm stright out towards the clock (while keeping your thumbs up pose). Close one eye and look up your arm toward the clock. HOW THE HECK does your 2.5-3 inch long by 1/2-1 inch wide thumb cover up, or mostly cover up, a clock that is 10-12 inches in diameter?! My god, you've discovered depth perception. The aircraft in the photo is over 1200 feet away, and the gate box is about 8 feet away... The camera is focused on the gate area and not the far off distance.

Why then is the so-called puff of smoke which appears to be at the same depth relatively well defined and in very bright white? And on a brilliantly sunny day not a single trace of detail can be seen where the 'supposed' aircraft is supposed to be? Do they pay you well to herd cats? .

Originally posted by slank Do they pay you well to herd cats? .

Don't you think that you could have made a point without this?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween 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. 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. 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

It weighs tons to paint an aircraft. Many airlines have gone with the idea of painting as little as possible to conserve on fuel and the coast with maintaining the paint jobs. SO� What you are seeing is that the sky is reflecting off the polished metal on the aircraft and making it look like it is blue in color. The different shades of the sky are causing you to see different shades of blue/gray on the plane, not only in the still photos, but also in the Pentagon AVI. You also have to consider that the ground was reflecting up on the belly of the plain at that low altitude making it appear darker. The actual paint scheme for AA is stainless steel brushed. The only painted parts are the parts not made of steel. These would be the Ray dome/Nose, the engine housing, and the Airfoil where the wings attach to the fuselage; these are painted in primer light gray. The tail is also painted in primer gray to add balance and show the logo better. The logo down the side is as you stated Blue/White/Red, with American written in Red letters with White outline. This is the same paint scheme used on all AA aircraft, from the MD-80 to the 727, to the 57 and 67. The only differences are going to be what areas are not metal and therefore painted gray. forgot a [ [edit on 9/24/2004 by defcon5] Added an F to off [edit on 9/24/2004 by defcon5]

One other point on airplane paint. In large fleets like United, often some planes have older faded paint, sometimes they have old schemes as they have not had a major overhaul yet etc. One of the reasons American goes with the shiny paint free exterior for most of its plane is it saves money in fuel and upkeep. United will use the minimum for the same reason.

Originally posted by CatHerder Do you have a clock on your wall? Look at it from across the room (hopefully from 20 feet or more away). It's a clock right? Now, give yourself a thumb's up for knowing where your clock is - but as an added twist, extend your arm stright out towards the clock (while keeping your thumbs up pose). Close one eye and look up your arm toward the clock. HOW THE HECK does your 2.5-3 inch long by 1/2-1 inch wide thumb cover up, or mostly cover up, a clock that is 10-12 inches in diameter?! My god, you've discovered depth perception. The aircraft in the photo is over 1200 feet away, and the gate box is about 8 feet away... The camera is focused on the gate area and not the far off distance.

First things first. The craft is not 1200 feet away, that is a guess it seems in that each outer wall is 921 feet along each outer facade www.greatbuildings.com... I have minimal doubt that the outer facade is each side, so I need only look to the corner buildings to see they are not the same length as the inner buildings. From there, I examine the picture of the obstacle closely, it appears to be placed at or near a corner section. For the sake of argument I assume it is at the corner, then I look to where the craft made it's entry, (this is a graphic that may assist you. www.usatoday.com...) Now unless I am wrong about the length of each of its 5 sides, and I may be since I assume the length to be the total side, the impact as you can already estimate is far less than the full width of 921 feet. But I digress. I asked you a question on how far from the camera the craft was, and your answer in essence seems to be that you can only guess. As you can see from the next graphic, the full length of the building and around the corner was not the point of impact, unless of course my dimensions are incorrect. I had already addressed depth perception for one, and the thumb does cover the clock, but does it lessen the ratio of clock length to thumb? I do not argue that the obstacle covers the craft. I make my case based on the size relative to the obstacle, and your graphic which depicts the incorrect placement of the craft, and I might add that whatever craft you choose to fit can be retrofitted. I haven't yet mentioned that in your retrofit where you show the AA craft, your wing placement is out of sync. Is it your determination to prove that teh vidoe I question is indeed as you state?

Originally posted by defcon5 It weighs tons to paint an aircraft. Many airlines have gone with the idea of painting as little as possible to conserve on fuel and the coast with maintaining the paint jobs. SO� What you are seeing is that the sky is reflecting of the polished metal on the aircraft and making it look like it is blue in color. The different shades of the sky are causing you to see different shades of blue/gray on the plane, not only in the still photos, but also in the Pentagon AVI. You also have to consider that the ground was reflecting up on the belly of the plain at that low altitude making it appear darker. The actual paint scheme for AA is stainless steel brushed. The only painted parts are the parts not made of steel. These would be the Ray dome/Nose, the engine housing, and the Airfoil where the wings attach to the fuselage; these are painted in primer light gray. The tail is also painted in primer gray to add balance and show the logo better. The logo down the side is as you stated Blue/White/Red, with American written in Red letters with White outline. This is the same paint scheme used on all AA aircraft, from the MD-80 to the 727, to the 57 and 67. The only differences are going to be what areas are not metal and therefore painted gray.

And the sky is blue at midday because of the reflection of the sun's rays bouncing off the earth and hovering over the Tucson sky for 20 minutes, while reflecting particles at 4 times the speed of light in an outward array heading NNE. Please, do not use rush supposition with me, especially one such as that which is devoid of scientific evidence.

Originally posted by FredT One other point on airplane paint. In large fleets like United, often some planes have older faded paint, sometimes they have old schemes as they have not had a major overhaul yet etc. One of the reasons American goes with the shiny paint free exterior for most of its plane is it saves money in fuel and upkeep. United will use the minimum for the same reason.

You are absolutely correct� Actually there are even a few other factors involved. Skydrol tends to stain light colored paint yellowish. The belly on a plane that has been in service for a while without a good cleaning is just plain NASTY, especially the anywhere below an engine or APU. The other factor however; that is going to effect the silver color of the planes is how long since it was last polished, and how many times it has been polished. In the second picture above, you can see the swirls in the metal, which means it has been polished in the field, and is not quite as shiny. I think that the first picture is a brand spanking new plane, its an in-flight picture and most likely taken by the airlines, or the manufacturer. That plain is going to be as shiny as the day it came off the assembly line.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween And the sky is blue at midday because of the reflection of the sun's rays bouncing off the earth and hovering over the Tucson sky for 20 minutes, while reflecting particles at 4 times the speed of light in an outward array heading NNE. Please, do not use rush supposition with me, especially one such as that which is devoid of scientific evidence.

Huh? I don�t get it. If you are trying to say that my post insulted your intelligence, go by a model of an AA jet, or take a trip to your local airport, there is no light blue paint on a AA jet� If you just trying to be funny, then HaHa�

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by CatHerder Do you have a clock on your wall? Look at it from across the room (hopefully from 20 feet or more away). It's a clock right? Now, give yourself a thumb's up for knowing where your clock is - but as an added twist, extend your arm stright out towards the clock (while keeping your thumbs up pose). Close one eye and look up your arm toward the clock. HOW THE HECK does your 2.5-3 inch long by 1/2-1 inch wide thumb cover up, or mostly cover up, a clock that is 10-12 inches in diameter?! My god, you've discovered depth perception. The aircraft in the photo is over 1200 feet away, and the gate box is about 8 feet away... The camera is focused on the gate area and not the far off distance.

First things first. The craft is not 1200 feet away, that is a guess it seems in that each outer wall is 921 feet along each outer facade www.greatbuildings.com... I have minimal doubt that the outer facade is each side, so I need only look to the corner buildings to see they are not the same length as the inner buildings. From there, I examine the picture of the obstacle closely, it appears to be placed at or near a corner section. For the sake of argument I assume it is at the corner, then I look to where the craft made it's entry, (this is a graphic that may assist you. www.usatoday.com...) Now unless I am wrong about the length of each of its 5 sides, and I may be since I assume the length to be the total side, the impact as you can already estimate is far less than the full width of 921 feet. But I digress. I asked you a question on how far from the camera the craft was, and your answer in essence seems to be that you can only guess. As you can see from the next graphic, the full length of the building and around the corner was not the point of impact, unless of course my dimensions are incorrect. I had already addressed depth perception for one, and the thumb does cover the clock, but does it lessen the ratio of clock length to thumb? I do not argue that the obstacle covers the craft. I make my case based on the size relative to the obstacle, and your graphic which depicts the incorrect placement of the craft, and I might add, whatever craft you choose to fit, can be retrofitted. I had not yet mentioned that in your retrofit where you show the AA craft, your wing placement is out of sync. Is it your determination to prove that the video I question is indeed as you state?

Originally posted by defcon5 Huh? I don�t get it. If you are trying to say that my post insulted your intelligence, go by a model of an AA jet, or take a trip to your local airport, there is no light blue paint on a AA jet� If you just trying to be funny, then HaHa�

No I wouldn't say you touched on my intelligence at all, funnny bone perhaps. My challenge remains though, scientific proof not wild theories and guess work is what I require to acknowledge plausibility of denial.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween No I wouldn't say you touched on my intelligence at all, funnny bone perhaps. My challenge remains though, scientific proof not wild theories and guess work is what I require to acknowledge plausibility of denial.

I cannot give you scientific proof of something that is a fact. There is no blue paint on an AA jet beyond the blue stripe, a blue A, and the Eagle. I used to work right across the ramp from AA and have fueled some of their planes, and can tell you this from experience. If you look at the second picture you posted, REAL CLOSE, you might notice a line in the metal right above where the blue stripe is, that is from a in field polish job, it is where the buffer ended on that pass down the aircraft. I fail to see what is funny in my post, what is your experience, and level of knowledge in the aviation field?

I mean I am new here but give me a break, I mean how could it do that external image Mod Edit: Image size only. [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by mothergoat I mean I am new here but give me a break, I mean how could it do that

Originally posted by mothergoat I mean I am new here but give me a break, I mean how could it do that

It could not. It is an intentionally misleading picture to show that there would be more damage higher up on the exterior of the Pentagon building. The nose would be in the dirt, and the engines, if not totally collapsed/removed, would at least be much less, what is the word� Round.

Originally posted by defcon5 I cannot give you scientific proof of something that is a fact. There is no blue paint on an AA jet beyond the blue stripe, a blue A, and the Eagle. I used to work right across the ramp from AA and have fueled some of their planes, and can tell you this from experience. If you look at the second picture you posted, REAL CLOSE, you might notice a line in the metal right above where the blue stripe is, that is from a in field polish job, it is where the buffer ended on that pass down the aircraft. I fail to see what is funny in my post, what is your experience, and level of knowledge in the aviation field?

I see no such line. I do not care what you flew or say you flew, I have already quoted veteran pilots who gave their names and that is more credible than a font on an internet site. I do not believe your "buffer" claim just because you say so, I do not see what you see, and your post is funny given the context within which I defined. also; 1) I do not understand why you would call it fact if you have no proof. 2) I will ask you the same question more or less that I asked another and then ask you another after that: I have never met Usama Bin Laden does that mean that from the evidence I procure I cannot form a judgement on whether he is a terrorist or not? and; 3) If you try to make the point that one can only comment based on their expertise, then should whatever posts you make relative to any other subject be considered hogwash? That is a juvenile stance by the way, case in point: You are of voting age I presume? It is unlikely that you have the expertise of the politicians to know what information is factual and what is not, yet you take a stance on the party's position do you not? Now for the record, and to dismiss your point of reference as mundane, kindly refer once more to the colour analysis I gave, you will find light blue/grey, or from memory; blue/grey. However you choose to analyse same, you cannot explain the difference between the white and blue layers I have brought forward. So what exactly is your point? Please get to it. [edit on 9/24/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by CatHerder Do you have a clock on your wall? Look at it from across the room (hopefully from 20 feet or more away). It's a clock right? Now, give yourself a thumb's up for knowing where your clock is - but as an added twist, extend your arm stright out towards the clock (while keeping your thumbs up pose). Close one eye and look up your arm toward the clock. HOW THE HECK does your 2.5-3 inch long by 1/2-1 inch wide thumb cover up, or mostly cover up, a clock that is 10-12 inches in diameter?! My god, you've discovered depth perception. The aircraft in the photo is over 1200 feet away, and the gate box is about 8 feet away... The camera is focused on the gate area and not the far off distance.

First things first. The craft is not 1200 feet away, that is a guess it seems in that each outer wall is 921 feet along each outer facade www.greatbuildings.com... I have minimal doubt that the outer facade is each side, so I need only look to the corner buildings to see they are not the same length as the inner buildings. From there, I examine the picture of the obstacle closely, it appears to be placed at or near a corner section. For the sake of argument I assume it is at the corner, then I look to where the craft made it's entry, (this is a graphic that may assist you. www.usatoday.com...) Now unless I am wrong about the length of each of its 5 sides, and I may be since I assume the length to be the total side, the impact as you can already estimate is far less than the full width of 921 feet. But I digress. I asked you a question on how far from the camera the craft was, and your answer in essence seems to be that you can only guess. As you can see from the next graphic, the full length of the building and around the corner was not the point of impact, unless of course my dimensions are incorrect. I had already addressed depth perception for one, and the thumb does cover the clock, but does it lessen the ratio of clock length to thumb? I do not argue that the obstacle covers the craft. I make my case based on the size relative to the obstacle, and your graphic which depicts the incorrect placement of the craft, and I might add that whatever craft you choose to fit can be retrofitted. I haven't yet mentioned that in your retrofit where you show the AA craft, your wing placement is out of sync. Is it your determination to prove that teh vidoe I question is indeed as you state?

A 757 to scale is how big beside the Pentagon? The above diagram shows how large a 757 is beside the Pentagon, actually 7.4 757's lined wing to wing equal the length of the outerwall of the Pentagon. Lets examine this further.

First, lets point out obvious objects on the horizon of the surveillance camera (A,B,C,D).

Then, lets point out where the camera is located (green).

Next, lets draw lines from the camera to objects A through D (yellow)

Next, lets position a 757 to scale on the overhead with the tail matching the position of the tail in the surveillance camera

Next, lets compare the length of an outerwall segment to the distance from camera (X) to the 757. [note: I may have the actual flight path of the 757 off by a few degrees, I didn't corrolate it precicely to the downed light poles when I made the above diagram] 1200 feet? Maybe not (doesn't look like it, I hate approximating things before I check and measure [sorry about that]) - but 1000-1100 feet? Absolutely. While I may have been off by 100 feet (give or take) you can clearly see that a 757 lines up with the position I have approximated on the video camera (frame 1). Like I've said from word one - the 757 in the photo is not at the perfect angle (I couldn't find a 757 photo that was banking slightly to port and was yawing to port as the flight data recorder states the aircraft was doing in the moments before the crash). However, with the above diagram, you can certainly see that I am not very far off in my distance suggestion, nor is the 757 too small or too big to fit in the photo exactly where the tail is on the horizon! [edit on 24-9-2004 by CatHerder]

I am in my thirties; I question more if you are an adult? I spent 5, almost 6 years as a lead agent, and ramp supervisor for a ramp servicing company. I spent an additional year some years later helping that company when it was short on fuelers, as a part time job. I have also spent years in the computer/electronics and medical field. Now using your same logic prove that you even read my posts and are not just raking up arguments with everyone because you have nothing better to do? For instance, what did I say that I flew? NOTHING, I never said I was a pilot (although I have taken some lessons), and to be honest, only pilots, mechanics, and support personnel that have spent any amount of time around these planes would I qualify to say anything, certainly not your friend that is a private pilot and flies Piper Tomahawks. Those small planes HAVE LITTLE in common with a passenger jet. Now as far as the line goes, there is an uneven line of light that is reflecting right over the blue line down the length of the plane. Unless you are as blind as your logic seems to be, anyone else can see it. The reason that this line is uneven is that it is created with a circular buffer. Those buffers rough up the skin of the plane, and give it a swirled brushed effect, like a DeLorian. That causes the plane to reflect light with the pattern of the polishing disk. The blue/gray as you are now calling it, I assume you mean the primer gray areas. I mentioned this in my first post, IF YOU READ IT. That is the non-metal areas on the aircraft; those are the non-pressurized, non-metallic, Plastic or Fiberglass areas on the plane. THAT IS GREY, NOT BLUE, NOT LIGHT BLUE, GREY.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween 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

Ok here is the problem with your analysis all AA aircraft have this paint scheme, except American eagle, which is a subcontract company: 757�s and 767�s Bare Stainless Steel Dark Blue Stripe White Stripe Dark Red Stripe Bare Stainless Steel Non-Metal parts Are Grey Tail is Grey Tail has one Red A and one Blue A with a Blue Eagle The word American is Red surrounded with White THIS is a FACT, there is NO question about it anywhere in reality land. If you wish to continue questioning it, waste someone else's time... Can someone kill that huge graphic, and link the image to one of the hundred smaller copies of it, so we don't have to scroll off the side of the screen! [edit on 9/24/2004 by defcon5]

This pretty much says the same thing as my, "opinions" posted earlier:

Paint comes at a price. It's heavy, adding to drag and therefore increasing fuel costs. "It's definitely more expensive to fly," Leatham said. "But for us, the other side is the aircraft is a huge representation of brand that not many companies have."

Not all airlines paint. The world's largest, American Airlines, champions the utilitarian look of buffed aluminum with a minimum of markings. That goes back to the 1930s, when the carrier became the launch customer for the Douglas DC-3. Managers admired the metalwork and saw no reason to obscure it, a practice that continued even as aluminum gave way to Alclad. The thin sheet of pure aluminum bonded over various other metals is now used to form the half-inch skin that comes between passengers and the outside. In addition to corporate markings, polished planes have paint on composite areas such as tail cones and engine nacelles. They also must be washed more and polished up to three times a year with a special compound.

www.newhouse.com... [edit on 9/24/2004 by defcon5] [edit on 9/24/2004 by defcon5]

Originally posted by slank Why then is the so-called puff of smoke which appears to be at the same depth relatively well defined and in very bright white? And on a brilliantly sunny day not a single trace of detail can be seen where the 'supposed' aircraft is supposed to be?

Pretty simple actually. The smoke is not moving at 500mph. The aircraft is moving at 500mph. A video surveillance camera does not use highspeed film for taking motion shots - it would of course record a much better image of a more or less stationary object compared to one moving...

Do they pay you well to herd cats?

Yeah... the men in the black vans pay me large sums of money to respond to posts like yours.

. Light still travels at 186,000 mps. [I know it's redundant, but to keep our thinking clear] Low shutter speed should have a moving object smeared in the image. The so-called tail is not smeared. Please explain? Thanks So they operate out of a black van? Do they pay in unmarked bills? Do they have any job openings? edit: light speed. oops [edit on 25-9-2004 by slank]

Originally posted by slank . Light still travels at 186,000 mph. [I know it's redundant, but to keep our thinking clear] Low shutter speed should have a moving object smeared in the image. The so-called tail is not smeared. .

Maybe, maybe not. The amount of motion induced blurring of the image is rather hard to determine given its overall poor quality. Motion indused blurring is dependent on a number of factors, shutter speed being just one of them. The others are the relative speed of the object perpendicular to the camera, and the distance of the object to the camera. We don�t know the shutter speed of the camera, but it is a good guess that the camera had a fairly wide dynamic range in order to operate in various lighting conditions. Given the fact that it was a clear sunny day, it would be safe to assume that the automatic exposure compensated with a higher shutter speed. (just guessing there, since I have no dat on the tech specs of the camera in question). The absolute slowest possible shutter speed for a video camera is 1/60 sec. (based on the standards). At this speed, even nearby objects would be blurred if they moved slightly, which would make it a poor choice for a security camera. At a speed of 400 mph, how far will an object move at various shutter speeds? 4.69 feet in 1/125 sec, 2.35 feet in 1/250 sec. 1.17 feet in 1/500 sec. Now, since the degree of motion blurring of an object is also dependent on the distance from the camera and if this object is about 900 feet from the camera, then it is entirely plausible that there is minimal motion blurring of the object as it is depicted in the Pentagon video frame.