Video on Pentagon to be released

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What does the planned hatched by some military fools in 1962 have to do with 2001?

The fact that the document was ever conceived and got as far as it did is enough to not take information from a supposed Democratic freedom loving government at face value. Whenever there is doubt there is no doubt.

Move the clock forward almost 40 years and the US still has an interventionist foriegn policy.

I see no reason why I should take information at face value when questions remain unanswered and evidence not presented. It may be a simple case of incompetence on the part of government but over the years that seems to point towards the criminal aspects of even incompetence. Technically you don't even need to consider conspiracy at this point. That was 5 years ago. Today there's enough weight in sheer incompetence. Assuming that's what this is.

Without a full investigation that doesn't leave as many questions as it answers we will never know. There's simply not enough information to draw conclusions from.

 

[Genx87]

Watch the movie, use common sense, it will help you in the long run.

 

[johnnobts]

its like having video footage of Jesus coming out of the tomb, the kool-aid liberals won't believe this even if they do see it.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Genx87
What does the planned hatched by some military fools in 1962 have to do with 2001?

Whenever there is doubt there is no doubt.
.

If you're rational, you will doubt everything to some degree. What's funny is you pulled that line from the movie "Ronin." Your reasoning process as displayed here is absolutely abysmal

 

[Polish3d]

BTW, the Northwoods plan called for ***FAKING**** civlian deaths

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Genx87 said it first. And it wasn't abandoned - it was rejected. Which sets precedent and really weakens the case rather than strengthens it.

We also used to have Slavery and Jim Crow laws. How are they relevant to today?

Your general tone and questions also show that you believe there was a conspiracy - you've never once said you were being a "Devil's Advocate".

And tell us about 3 dimensional thinking, please

So you compare slavery to a terrorist act conceived by members of the military which in its very conception was a lawbook definition of a conspiracy. Regardless that it wasn't acted out. A federal crime.

Speaking of precedent. Was anyone involved with this ever tried for treason or conspiracy? If so I would like to know because that would certainly set precedent.

As far as 3 dimensional thinking goes, in a case like this, it's knowledge of you and your society used against you. It's an act that starts a chain reaction of events. They don't have to be pre-conceived or planted and therefore no conspiracy need take place among the thousands whom would be involved since they would be involved completely without their knowledge. It's like playing domino.

As far as playing Devil's Advocate I don't see YOU or others offer an advisory with every comment you make. Should I link you a dictionary definition of "hypocrite" or am I to assume that you are completely for what the government tells you through the media?

 

[Stonejaw]

So I was looking at the two frames which show "new" stuff the first showing the white tubular blur and the second showing the impact flash.

I decided to do a little investigating myself. Using math and logic we can get a rough idea of what this object is.

Our known variables are:
Pentagon height is exactly 77feet 3.5inches tall or 77.29 feet
A Boeing 757 fuselage is approximately 14feet 2inches in height or 14.14 feet

Knowing these two things we can assume that 14.14/77.29 = .1829 meaning the Boeing 757 should be 18.29% of the height of the Pentagon.

Now we need to look at the two frames of video in question:

I took both frames and expanded them on my computer so they were both the same size, I just needed to expand them to see better. I then measured the height of the white tubular object. It was exactly 2mm on my screen and then I measured the height of the pentagon at the point where the impact occurred it was 15mm. We can assume that the location of the object in frame one is the very close to the same distance from the camera as the distance from the impact point of the pentagon is from the camera.

So 2/15 = 0.133 or 13.3% the height of the Pentagon.
Well this does not match the 18.29% from above which would be a 757.

So what is 13.3%? We take the height of the Pentagon 77.29 * 0.133 = 10.28 feet.

That is a substantial height difference what could the object be?
Well no missile is 10 feet thick so that?s not right.
Perhaps a leer jet? That would explain the smaller engine components found at the site reportedly.
Or as it has been suggested before that an A3 Sky warrior was the culprit so let?s see the size of such a craft is.

Well I took a photo of an A3 I found on Google image
http://www.alamedanavalairmuseum.org/a3raven.jpg
That one.

Since we know that the A3 is 22.8feet tall from tip of the tail down we can calculate the height of the fuselage. So again I measured the height from tail down as 20mm and height of fuselage as 9mm using a little cross multiplying we come up with the fact that the fuselage was 10.26feet high.

Well that is almost exactly what I had estimated (10.28feet) the white object to be.

These planes also use jet fuel which would of course burn but not for long as in the video the impact site almost turned immediately to black smoke after the impact. Perhaps if the fighter was carrying some weapons on board it would have helped cause more damage.

But that?s just analysis of the video

Thanks for listening.

 

[Gibsons]

rofl, what's your margin of error on those measurements? How many feet tall is one pixel?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Frackal
BTW, the Northwoods plan called for ***FAKING**** civlian deaths

Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor.
Source
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L.
103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), 108 Stat. 2147.)



source

 

[alchemize]

Kamikaze Fighter! I bet the millitary is full of fighter jocks just begging for the opportunity to auger into their own building to make Bush's oil friends rich

Man now I have visions of a geek with his ruler on his computer screen furiously scribbling down computations and shouting "Eureka!".

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Kamikaze Fighter! I bet the millitary is full of fighter jocks just begging for the opportunity to auger into their own building to make Bush's oil friends rich

Man now I have visions of a geek with his ruler on his computer screen furiously scribbling down computations and shouting "Eureka!".

You of course have something to say to refute/debunk such a claim.

*note the lack of question mark*

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: alchemize
Kamikaze Fighter! I bet the millitary is full of fighter jocks just begging for the opportunity to auger into their own building to make Bush's oil friends rich

Man now I have visions of a geek with his ruler on his computer screen furiously scribbling down computations and shouting "Eureka!".

You of course have something to say to refute/debunk such a claim.

*note the lack of question mark*

You have somehow gotten into your head that anyone owes YOU any kind of explanation or proof. Since you're challenging the conventional explanation, the proof is YOUR burden.

 

[Stonejaw]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
rofl, what's your margin of error on those measurements? How many feet tall is one pixel?

Um I never said anything about the height of a pixel I used the mesured heights in the video and and the real hieghts of landmarks(pentagon) to use ratios to approximate. (ie grade 8 math).

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Stonejaw

Originally posted by: Gibsons
rofl, what's your margin of error on those measurements? How many feet tall is one pixel?

Um I never said anything about the height of a pixel I used the mesured heights in the video and and the real hieghts of landmarks(pentagon) to use ratios to approximate. (ie grade 8 math).

You were measuring pixels.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: alchemize
Kamikaze Fighter! I bet the millitary is full of fighter jocks just begging for the opportunity to auger into their own building to make Bush's oil friends rich

Man now I have visions of a geek with his ruler on his computer screen furiously scribbling down computations and shouting "Eureka!".

You of course have something to say to refute/debunk such a claim.

*note the lack of question mark*

Why would I run around trying to debunk moronic claims? The burden of proof is on the tin-foilers and 3rd dimensional thinkers, not me. Any moronic claim like this can be debunked with a simple follow up question.

Where are the passengers, plane, and crew?

You'd think the tin-foilers could come up with an answer since they are so good at putting all the other pieces together...

 

[Stonejaw]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Stonejaw

Originally posted by: Gibsons
rofl, what's your margin of error on those measurements? How many feet tall is one pixel?

Um I never said anything about the height of a pixel I used the mesured heights in the video and and the real hieghts of landmarks(pentagon) to use ratios to approximate. (ie grade 8 math).

You were measuring pixels.

Um no I was using mm (millimeters) but yes the piture was composed of pixels but I was not counting them so indirectly I was counting pixels good for you.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: alchemize
Kamikaze Fighter! I bet the millitary is full of fighter jocks just begging for the opportunity to auger into their own building to make Bush's oil friends rich

Man now I have visions of a geek with his ruler on his computer screen furiously scribbling down computations and shouting "Eureka!".

You of course have something to say to refute/debunk such a claim.

*note the lack of question mark*

You have somehow gotten into your head that anyone owes YOU any kind of explanation or proof. Since you're challenging the conventional explanation, the proof is YOUR burden.

Information is denied. Formal investigation is a farse (hard issues to which no answer is provided is conveniently left out).

What many people, including myself, would like is a proper investigation that has access to all infromation deemed classified or not and for information to be not kept from the public.

You gotten into your head that everyone against the conventional explaination needs to be painted with one broad brush.

Hey that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Don't expect everyone to swallow it tho.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stonejaw
So I was looking at the two frames which show "new" stuff the first showing the white tubular blur and the second showing the impact flash.

I decided to do a little investigating myself. Using math and logic we can get a rough idea of what this object is.

Our known variables are:
Pentagon height is exactly 77feet 3.5inches tall or 77.29 feet
A Boeing 757 fuselage is approximately 14feet 2inches in height or 14.14 feet

Knowing these two things we can assume that 14.14/77.29 = .1829 meaning the Boeing 757 should be 18.29% of the height of the Pentagon.

Now we need to look at the two frames of video in question:

I took both frames and expanded them on my computer so they were both the same size, I just needed to expand them to see better. I then measured the height of the white tubular object. It was exactly 2mm on my screen and then I measured the height of the pentagon at the point where the impact occurred it was 15mm. We can assume that the location of the object in frame one is the very close to the same distance from the camera as the distance from the impact point of the pentagon is from the camera.

So 2/15 = 0.133 or 13.3% the height of the Pentagon.
Well this does not match the 18.29% from above which would be a 757.

So what is 13.3%? We take the height of the Pentagon 77.29 * 0.133 = 10.28 feet.

That is a substantial height difference what could the object be?
Well no missile is 10 feet thick so that?s not right.
Perhaps a leer jet? That would explain the smaller engine components found at the site reportedly.
Or as it has been suggested before that an A3 Sky warrior was the culprit so let?s see the size of such a craft is.

Well I took a photo of an A3 I found on Google image
http://www.alamedanavalairmuseum.org/a3raven.jpg
That one.

Since we know that the A3 is 22.8feet tall from tip of the tail down we can calculate the height of the fuselage. So again I measured the height from tail down as 20mm and height of fuselage as 9mm using a little cross multiplying we come up with the fact that the fuselage was 10.26feet high.

Well that is almost exactly what I had estimated (10.28feet) the white object to be.

These planes also use jet fuel which would of course burn but not for long as in the video the impact site almost turned immediately to black smoke after the impact. Perhaps if the fighter was carrying some weapons on board it would have helped cause more damage.

But that?s just analysis of the video

Thanks for listening.

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

So much for three dimensional thinking, eh?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Genx87

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

So much for three dimensional thinking, eh?

lmfao omg that was good hahahahaha

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Genx87

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

So much for three dimensional thinking, eh?

lmfao omg that was good hahahahaha

Hope you don't mind if I interrupt this intellectual circle jerk by reminding both of you that I never agreed with that conclusion but simply pointed to a hypocritical statement in reference to a comment on it.

I would say something witty but it would obviously go over both of you.

 

[Stonejaw]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stonejaw


I took both frames and expanded them on my computer so they were both the same size, I just needed to expand them to see better. I then measured the height of the white tubular object. It was exactly 2mm on my screen and then I measured the height of the pentagon at the point where the impact occurred it was 15mm. We can assume that the location of the object in frame one is the very close to the same distance from the camera as the distance from the impact point of the pentagon is from the camera.

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

If you think my theory is wrong then just prove to me that a boeing 757 hit then without using blind faith in what Bush told you is correct. There are no markings legible nor does the video show key features of the object in order to identify it. This is just a joke but we could call it a UFO (unidentified flying object) haha.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stonejaw

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stonejaw


I took both frames and expanded them on my computer so they were both the same size, I just needed to expand them to see better. I then measured the height of the white tubular object. It was exactly 2mm on my screen and then I measured the height of the pentagon at the point where the impact occurred it was 15mm. We can assume that the location of the object in frame one is the very close to the same distance from the camera as the distance from the impact point of the pentagon is from the camera.

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

If you think my theory is wrong then just prove to me that a boeing 757 hit then without using blind faith in what Bush told you is correct. There are no markings legible nor does the video show key features of the object in order to identify it. This is just a joke but we could call it a UFO (unidentified flying object) haha.

I think we already disproved your silly theory as you forgot to take into account that an aircraft x amount of feet away from the camera will look y amount smaller.

Now go cook together another half thought theory to throw at us.

I would say something witty but it would obviously go over both of you.

Does it required 3d thinking?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Stonejaw

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stonejaw


I took both frames and expanded them on my computer so they were both the same size, I just needed to expand them to see better. I then measured the height of the white tubular object. It was exactly 2mm on my screen and then I measured the height of the pentagon at the point where the impact occurred it was 15mm. We can assume that the location of the object in frame one is the very close to the same distance from the camera as the distance from the impact point of the pentagon is from the camera.

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

If you think my theory is wrong then just prove to me that a boeing 757 hit then without using blind faith in what Bush told you is correct. There are no markings legible nor does the video show key features of the object in order to identify it. This is just a joke but we could call it a UFO (unidentified flying object) haha.

Rather than "blind faith in what bush told me", I prefer to believe 1) the ATC controllers that tracked the plane 2) the witnesses that saw the plane strike the building 3) the police and fire that responded 4) the families of the victims.

See, rather than apply partisan hackery to this, I can apply reason instead and conclude that you are the whackjob.

 

[Stonejaw]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stonejaw

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stonejaw


I took both frames and expanded them on my computer so they were both the same size, I just needed to expand them to see better. I then measured the height of the white tubular object. It was exactly 2mm on my screen and then I measured the height of the pentagon at the point where the impact occurred it was 15mm. We can assume that the location of the object in frame one is the very close to the same distance from the camera as the distance from the impact point of the pentagon is from the camera.

Compression, and lets not forgot the plane was x amount of feet away from the camera lmao.

If you think my theory is wrong then just prove to me that a boeing 757 hit then without using blind faith in what Bush told you is correct. There are no markings legible nor does the video show key features of the object in order to identify it. This is just a joke but we could call it a UFO (unidentified flying object) haha.

I think we already disproved your silly theory as you forgot to take into account that an aircraft x amount of feet away from the camera will look y amount smaller.

Now go cook together another half thought theory to throw at us.

I would say something witty but it would obviously go over both of you.

Does it required 3d thinking?

Um no I didnt forget to take into account that it looks smaller thats why you compare the object to something the same distance away of a known height the pentagon is a known hieght and the impact point is pretty much the same distance away from the camera as the object was so you can do a direct comparison between the two.