9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween CatHerder, what is the length of each of the five sides of the pentagon?

Sorry I'm not CatHerder, but I can answer that. Each outer wall of the Pentagon is 921ft long, and just over 77ft high.

Originally posted by Banshee Sorry I'm not CatHerder, but I can answer that. Each outer wall of the Pentagon is 921ft long, and just over 77ft high.

Thank you for your answer, you are the only person to respond to my dimensions and in fact corroborate them. If my and your dimensions are correct, then CatHerder�s assumptions are incorrect, and as I have stated, his hypotheses are assumption and not fact based. Consequently, the picture where he superimposes a 757 using a retrofit cannot be substantiated. Further, I have posited observations which remain non-refuted; 1)The �American� logo above the stripe which is wider than same, is not identifiable in the original picture I provide, but both the red and white stripes are. This makes no sense. 2)The stripe colours are out of order. 3)The tailfin is displaced in that in the original picture I provide has it is located directly above the obstacle and not to the right of same as in CH�s superimposition. This can be carefully scrutinized by the vapour trail placement as well. 4)The wing placement of the AA craft used in CH�s later superimposition of the still in question does not correspond with the aft placement of the wings as depicted of a 757 on the AA site I provide. At this time I wish to introduce two other issues that I have; The vapour trail in either the original or CH�s version does not seem to align with where the wing placement should be. The tailfin of the craft seems to have a T like shape (I am not aircraft savvy so forgive my description) which is specific only to the video still showing the craft�s outline, whereas, the 757 has no such tailfin.

Originally posted by Agitator Ok so only the outer wall was reenforced then right? That would make sence then. Is that the case only the outer wall of the pentagon is reenforced? [edit on 26-9-2004 by Agitator]

Yeah. The three outer rings are NOT separated from each other in the first and second floor. I mean: The three outer rings have a common first and second floor. Look at the picture and count the windows: @CatHerder: thanks a lot for your great work. It is the best "No-plane" debunker site I have ever seen! Salana [edit on 27-9-2004 by Salana]

As I've said before, if you leave enough info out, or be very selective you can make anything of the events. I've seeen 100's of websites, some saying they have "evidence" it was a boeing, other saying they have "evidence" it was not a boeing. I say it's all about your personal opinion, you will believe those reports that are supporting your believes. I still say it could not have been a Boeing 757-200. That's simply against the laws of physics. It must have been a flying object, I wonder why some of you think it was a boeing 757-200. Because the authorities are saying so ? Remember how many things they told us before the Iraq invasion that turned out to be LIES ? Forged evidence etc ? www.911truth.tv is so far the most convincing report I've ever seen. I know most of you ignore my posts, but ask your self, if it really was a boeing 757, why don't we know that for sure yet ????? Why aren't they releasing the vital evidences that can clear this all for once and for all ? Think about that.... All you peoples can do is Believe !!! You don't know anything for sure.

Originally posted by Salana

Originally posted by Agitator Ok so only the outer wall was reenforced then right? That would make sence then. Is that the case only the outer wall of the pentagon is reenforced? [edit on 26-9-2004 by Agitator]

Yeah. The three outer walls are NOT separated from each other in the first and second floor. I mean: The three outer rings have a common first and second floor. Look at the picture and count the windows: @CatHerder: thanks a lot for your great work. It is the best "No-plane" debunker site I have ever seen! Salana

Damn, I missed that. Good catch. It was even apparent on this graphic from page 1

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

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.

CatHerder, what is the length of each of the five sides of the pentagon? Is it 921 feet in total or 921 feet per module? If each module is 921 feet then even your 1,200 feet is more than acceptable. if however the total of each side is 921 feet, then you must accept that the camera had to have been no further than the corner of an end module unless it can see around corners, and that the crash site was not in the centre module reducing the 921 feet by the full length of that end module. Consequently, if it is the former, then I give you your 1200 feet, in fact I would concede 2,000 feet, but if it is the latter, then even your 1,000 feet is not correct would be exorbitantly liberal. The whole point of your exercise is then called into question if you are not using facts to support your position. [edit on 9/25/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Please, look at the photo in my post I supplied for you. Please read the post, please read the pentagon information supplied in the original article and in subsequent posts. ALL OF THIS WAS CLEARLY STATED! It's all freely available information from thousands of different library sources. It's all freely accesible information from the Pentagon site. It's all freely available information from any non-government source! THE RED LINE IS 921 feet (the outerwall of each pentagon segment is 921 feet). I dont know how to make it clearer for you. The red line is 921 feet. The line from the camera to the position of the aircraft is longer than the red line on the pentagon wall. Therefore the distance to the aircraft is greater than 921 feet. This isn't even taking into account that the photo is taken from a satellite that is not directly over the pentagon, but instead is at a slight angle (I'd say about 10 degrees based on how much of the wall of Pentagon is visible in the lower left corner of the photo). If you did factor in perspective, and used basic geometry and calculus, you'd arrive at a slightly longer line than what is on the photo for the distance from the gate camera (X) to the aircraft postion on line B-|-FlightPath. But even without doing this it's still longer than the wall of the Pentagon. I don't know how you can respond to something that is provided for you, and completely dismiss it without even reading it... [edit on 28-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by WisdomMaster I believe your article is a professional social engineering work or "deception" and that you an employee of Mr. Bush. I don't believe a word of what you say. I think the video is fake and also I think the tail of the aircraft tail you pointed out is too small, yeah perhaps that of jet fighter! but it could be fake. It just does not fit, no matter what science you apply to it. Show me the real juice, the real videos confiscated. This is crap. I am amazed how people believe to this crap. Bye.

But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit.

Exactly. You believe what you want to believe. Lets look at some of your beliefs. 1: I work for George Bush. A: Nope sorry, he doesn't live in Canada, and he doesn't like Canadians. 2: My "work" is a socially engineered work of deception. A: Sorry no. I'm a private Canadian citizen who thinks some people need to read more non-fiction and fewer supermarket tabloids. 3: "This is crap" A: You are entitled to your opinion. At least I back mine with some facts and information, and I take the time to research what it is I am talking about before I post rude and ignorant posts on a subject I know nothing about. 4: "But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit." A: No sorry, I am just one individual. I learned to read when I was young. And having learned how to read I use that as a tool in my adult life to educate myself on subjects I know little about (I choose to better myself through educating myself instead of going through life not knowing how things work and why things work). Instead of going through life jumping from one belief to another, I choose to proove things to myself by reading, researching, and coming to an educated conclusion on topics that interest me. You should seriously try it sometime. I believe when I close my eyes the world ceases to exist. Can you prove me wrong? I don't think you can. Therefore, I must be right! Keep that in mind the next time you blink - the entire weight of humanity is in your hands buddy!

Yes the fa�ade length is 921 feet. You do not have to make clearer to me what I have provided for you. So then... first you respond that the craft was 1200 away from the camera, then you say 1,000.

The line from the camera to the position of the aircraft is longer than the red line on the pentagon wall. Therefore the distance to the aircraft is greater than 921 feet.

Incorrect. The line from the camera traces laterally to the fa�ade, the only variant to the measurement would be how many feet away from the corner of the building the camera was placed. Go into your backyard, measure the width of your house, then stand as many feet as you want to away from the house at the corner, walk a straight line to the other end of your house and tell me how many feet more you have traveled. Your statement relative to a satellite photo to justify the distance is just silly. To be liberal, I will equally divide the 921.6 feet between the three modules, now look at your �satellite� photo, does the gate camera look to you like it is as far away from the building as the 307.2 feet length of the module it is closest to? Then there is this photo which shows the impact in the centre module thereby reducing even further your estimation of 1,000 by well over 300 feet. www.serendipity.li..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> In addition, you have made a claim that the craft was a 757 and offered up graphics including retrofitted planes to support your position that you have proven your hypothesis. Yet, I noted that your aircraft placement relative to the obstacle was incorrect, your revised placement has an incorrect wing placement, the order of colours of the craft in the original photo provided by CNN do not correspond to the order of colours of an American Airline�s air liner. The logo is wider than the stripes which are visible, but the logo is not. All in all, CatHerder, my dispute is not with your tremendous effort extended by you in post one, it is that the information you base your 757 graphic illustration on is not fully fact based but subjective, relying on erroneous assumption such as your calculations as per the distance. So as I said earlier on, I have not yet been convinced it is a 757, much less an AA 757. Now how you can dismiss all of that has me as puzzled as you seem to be of me.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween Yes the fa�ade length is 921 feet. You do not have to make clearer to me what I have provided for you. So then... first you respond that the craft was 1200 away from the camera, then you say 1,000.

It was a guess, an estimate, an assumption based on looking at the lines without going deep down and measuring it pixel by pixel... Whoops.

The line from the camera to the position of the aircraft is longer than the red line on the pentagon wall. Therefore the distance to the aircraft is greater than 921 feet.

Incorrect. The line from the camera traces laterally to the fa�ade, the only variant to the measurement would be how many feet away from the corner of the building the camera was placed. Go into your backyard, measure the width of your house, then stand as many feet as you want to away from the house at the corner, walk a straight line to the other end of your house and tell me how many feet more you have traveled. Your statement relative to a satellite photo to justify the distance is just silly. To be liberal, I will equally divide the 921.6 feet between the three modules, now look at your �satellite� photo, does the gate camera look to you like it is as far away from the building as the 307.2 feet length of the module it is closest to? Then there is this photo which shows the impact in the centre module thereby reducing even further your estimation of 1,000 by well over 300 feet. www.serendipity.li..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> In addition, you have made a claim that the craft was a 757 and offered up graphics including retrofitted planes to support your position that you have proven your hypothesis. Yet, I noted that your aircraft placement relative to the obstacle was incorrect, your revised placement has an incorrect wing placement, the order of colours of the craft in the original photo provided by CNN do not correspond to the order of colours of an American Airline�s air liner. The logo is wider than the stripes which are visible, but the logo is not. All in all, CatHerder, my dispute is not with your tremendous effort extended by you in post one, it is that the information you base your 757 graphic illustration on is not fully fact based but subjective, relying on erroneous assumption such as your calculations as per the distance. So as I said earlier on, I have not yet been convinced it is a 757, much less an AA 757. Now how you can dismiss all of that has me as puzzled as you seem to be of me.

You are correct in the fact that I was mistaken with my guesstimate of 1200 feet. It's more or less 950-975 feet away (the front of the tail of the aircraft that appears in the picture). Regardless - the 757 overlayed on the photo is to scale (within reasonable accuracy) because it's a fact that it would take 7.4 757's lined wing to wing to equal 921 feet (one outer wall of the Pentagon). Now that we can both see that it's around 950-975 feet away. What has changed in your argument? Nothing has changed in mine. It's still a far off object for a small surveillance camera designed to take close images of traffic coming and going at the one gate. It is absolutely, positively, further away from the camera than 921 feet. Period. The impact on the building, is of course closer than 921 feet, if I took the time to figure out the cos and sin of the angles I'm sure I could tell you fairly accurately how far away it was - but I'd estimate it's about 675 feet away from the camera. The plane hit about 3/4 of the way along the wall (away from the camera) not the middle of the wall. (see original images of the Pentagon impact area in first post of this thread - they're all clickable and link to very large versions) As for your observations on the peice of wreckage with part of the logo, where do you see anything remotely like the dark blue stripe that you keep aluding to?? That is ~2 feet below the chunk in the photo. There wouldn't be any blue paint stripe from a peice high up on the fuselage. And contrary to what you claim regarding the size of the white stripe around the letter, it IS the right size... Gosh... I really don't know what more I can do to help you here.

Yes you guessed, and your guess was incorrect, that does not proof make. So it begs the question on your camera angles you are now using to come up with your 966 feet. How do you know that is the angle from which where the photo captured the craft? I want you to take a good look at the CNN photo again and compare it to what you provided. You may even refer to the two photos with your differening axes if you wish. One of yours: 69.57.144.30..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> Tell me what buildings lie directly behind the point of capture of the craft that you are offering on your Y axis? CNN photo: www.cnn.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> Now tell me if the camera angle is toward the Pentagon or away from? Examine the camera angle relative to the obstacle; how much area to the right of the obstacle is displayed, and then tell me that it is not a narrowing view as opposed to a widening view you are presenting? Now look again closely at your photo specifically at the scenery where you have placed the craft. How many buildings do you see being obscured by the front half of the craft? Then examine the CNN photo again, enlarge same to full screen view and notice the building behind the front half of the craft and the colour of that building, then locate same on your photo. This latest rendition is also incorrect. With regard the dark blue stripe, you may wish to reread my posts on that and take a closer look at the colour comparison chart I made, and you should note that you have incorrectly identified the piece of debris as being the focus of my analysis relative to the stripes. That focus was on the craft in the CNN picture versus the AA stripe pattern. And you haven�t helped me yet support your case. With so many assumptions, incorrect analyses, and changes, unfortunately I have to conclude that your rendition of the 757 proof has no basis in fact. Sorry.

. Isn't the camera aimed towards the center of the pentagon outer wall? [observe center to center] This would imply that when what you, cat herder, attempting to present as an airliner comes into view it would infact be far closer to the camera than 921 feet. In your diagram, cat herder, you have the cameral incorrectly splaying out into an oblique angle away from the pentagon building. At a rough estimate i would put it around 75% of the length of the pentagon's outer wall. 0.75 * 921 = 690.75. This would put it at an approximate maximum distance of 700-750 feet. .

Look at the curvature of the roofline. It's a wide angle lens.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween If anyone got my point at all, it was not about the light blue/grey since I went to the trouble of using "/" as the accepted indicator of either colour, such that one might use; him/her, to someone when gender is unknown. The issue I have on the colour I thought self-evident especially given the way I charted the colours of the 3 crafts. so I provide same again, and this time highlight what to me is the obvious dissimilarity.: 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

Sorry, I have been off the web a bit lately, and just got your post. I did not realize that your discrepancy with the paint was about the striping on the wreckage. I already posted that the scheme was:

Originally posted by Defcon5 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

It seemed so apparent to me that this piece of wreckage was part of the lettering that is Red Outlined in White, that it just flew right by me. Catherder put a nail in that coffin already, better then I could have. As far as the video goes, you cannot even see the stripes or lettering on that grainy, lo-res, piece of film.

. If the plane is comming in at a steep angle to the camera, why is the 'puff of white smoke', which is presumably coming from the plane hitting something coming off at such an oblique angle to the path of the plane. It appears to be essentially flat (broadside) to the camera. What could/would make such a large distinct and bright white puff of smoke come off the plane (or ground) at such an odd angle? Why would a puff of smoke be so linear and have all those funny kinks and bends in it? Don't most explosive clouds tend to be globular and round in nature? (or possibly elongated if kinetic action is involved?) And what would make such a brilliantly white cloud like that? *shrugs* To me that so called 'puff of smoke' looks quite cohesive and real and where you sketch in a plane is like mud. .

Can't read all the replys on this one but as someone said, what does it change if it was or it wasn't? Oh, perhaps if it was, than it means a big relief to the americans as it if it wasn't who the heck did it? And then, if it wasn't when goverment says it was than you are in a big trouble. I think more than a goverment itself the americans want and need to prove to themselves and to the world that this was an american plane led by terrorist. The plane was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so, according to the broken fences and the height of the hole in the building? Sure, it was in attack mode with no wheels out of the body.... but flying that straight, and being on the air cushion and at the same time being so closed to the ground? No flaps open? Well, the speed was then higher that 200 miles per hour... No nose up, even under those circumstaces? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above? Nope, the plane crashed straight while flying parallel to the ground, the hole is round and perfect! F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this. [edit on 30-9-2004 by An VanderVeld]

Originally posted by An VanderVeld It was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so? Sure, under attack with no wheels out of the body...but straight, newertheless on the air cushion being so closed to the ground? No nose up? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above? Nope, the whole is round and perfect! F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this.

Wow, what a totally incomprehensible reply.

The plane was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so, according to the broken fences and the height of the hole in the building? Sure, it was in attack mode with no wheels out of the body.... but flying that straight, and being on the air cushion and at the same time being so closed to the ground? No flaps open? Well, the speed was then higher that 200 miles per hour... No nose up, even under those circumstaces? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above? Nope, the plane crashed straight while flying parallel to the ground, the hole is round and perfect! F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this. I edited this one so you can understand the second part of my post. I assume you did understand the first one, the non quoted one.

Originally posted by An VanderVeld The plane was "flying" damn low, hehe. 1o feet or so, according to the broken fences and the height of the hole in the building? Sure, it was in attack mode with no wheels out of the body.... but flying that straight, and being on the air cushion and at the same time being so closed to the ground? No flaps open? Well, the speed was then higher that 200 miles per hour...

If you don�t understand how ground effect works, then say so. Basically it means that as the plane gets closer to the ground, the wings get more efficient at lift. This is exacerbated at high speed and the fact that the plane was in a very shallow angle of attack related to the ground.

No nose up, even under those circumstaces? Or nose down if it was under a certain angle coming from above?

What is your issue here? As for the pitch of the nose, the pilot was aiming for the building. Nope, the plane crashed straight while flying parallel to the ground, the hole is round and perfect! based on this it is apparent that you did not bother to read any of the pages in this thread, even if you did not state so. Are you talking about the impact hole or the exit hole?

F...'n good pilots, yes, mam! Ask any non american pilot how to do this.

Are you suggesting that only American pilots can fly a plane? Nope, your post is still pretty much gibberish. [edit on 30-9-2004 by HowardRoark]

It still seems that you don't understand my manipulation here. I added my second part to my thread just to catch another "tech- geek" that rather than asking more importnat questions is choosing to dive into details that doesn't answer the main question. Why are you so terribly despertly trying to demonstrate there was a plane and there was a terrorist attack? Again, perhaps because if it wasn't that plane and terrorists in it than your major ideals and beliefs are in danger, right? [edit on 30-9-2004 by An VanderVeld]

Originally posted by An VanderVeld Again, perhaps because if it wasn't that plane and terrorists in it than your major ideals and beliefs are in danger, right?

I love it when the conspiracy geeks get totally flustered by facts and have to resort to this kind of ad hominem mumbo-jumbo.