Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

[I Am The Scum]

Why go through all this trouble to make it look like a plane hit the Pentagon, when it would be much easier to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please link to where the info has been debunked and we can talk about whether it's really been debunked.

Let's hear someone address the evidence in post #1 that the craft in the picture was too small to be a 757.

Well it's funny you should ask that, because:

Look at the third picture from the top in this link.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf

I scrolled down too far in your link and found the conclusion instead: "The hidden sector is 40 metres wide at 250m distance... This is more than enough to cover the projected length ... of an incoming B757-200."

So you debunked your own claim with your own link. Nice job.

 

[Justin39640]

Well it's funny you should ask that, because:


I scrolled down too far in your link and found the conclusion instead: "The hidden sector is 40 metres wide at 250m distance... This is more than enough to cover the projected length ... of an incoming B757-200."

So you debunked your own claim with your own link. Nice job.

lol I noticed that too.

 

[jaydeehess]

Look at the top picture in this link.
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm

You can see the tail above the left side of the box. I don't know the technical name for it but it lifts and lowers the pole that stops traffic.

That is better, thank you.

I looked at the above view in the third photo from the top in this link.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf

The point where the green line touches the red line is about where the plane was and that's about as far from the camera as the point where the protruding wall ends on the right

.

Not much because the craft seems to be about two thirds the length of a 757. It's really pretty obvious just looking at it without doing any measuring.

I measured the lines in this picture.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
(third from top)

The difference was about twenty percent. If we do the calcs with a thirty percent difference which is obviously too much, the craft is still shorter than a 757.

Every time you use the term 'about' you are admittiong that there is a margin of error in this parameter. With every operation done on a set of parameters you increase the margin of error in the final numbers.

You have done nothing at all to derive the margin of error in your final numbers and instead jump straight to a conclusion which I suspect you had already decided would be the case before you began this exercise.

Let's hear your analysis of this proof.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

How about you satisfy my queries first.

 

[sylvan8798]

Why did you sign up in January and start posting lies today?

That would be January 2010. Perhaps he has been, ahem, indisposed?

OP, sorry to say you are as hopelessly late to the game here as you are to the "moon landing hoax". CT's need to find something new to focus on. Can't you set about proving O bin Lately is still around or something, instead of rehashing this tiresome stuff?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Let's hear someone address the evidence in post #1 that the craft in the picture was too small to be a 757.

Easy; the so-called evidence is wrong. Whoever made that picture with all the red lines on the Pentagon doesn't know anything about photogrammetry. No evidence is provided that the 757 added to the image is the correct size. The claim is simply an unsupported assertion.

Here is a video made with 3-D modeling software that shows the aircraft is in fact the correct size. Before you object, I use Solidworks in my job every day, and I've downloaded and checked this guy's models and found them to be substantially correct. The only thing I found wrong is that the height of the Pentagon is slightly off from published sources. But that's immaterial to the simulation.

 

[R.Mackey]

I had no idea Madrid was so close to Manchester.

 

[Dash80]

I had no idea Madrid was so close to Manchester.

I live about 30 miles from Manchester... seems to be a lot of woo coming from that direction.

 

[Dash80]

Well it's funny you should ask that, because:


I scrolled down too far in your link and found the conclusion instead: "The hidden sector is 40 metres wide at 250m distance... This is more than enough to cover the projected length ... of an incoming B757-200."

So you debunked your own claim with your own link. Nice job.

Lol OOPS!

 

[Travis]

If somebody ever tried to go public, we'd never hear about it as the press is controlled.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Schaap++-+The+Media,+CIA,+FBI+&+Disinfo.+&aq=f
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html

Also, if someone tried to go public, something would probably happen to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

Evidence that the press is controlled?

 

[Quad4_72]

Spamming a bunch of links to nonsense is not evidence of an inside job.

 

[Oystein]

I think everybody has seen this picture of the craft that hit the Pentagon behind the box.
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm

This proof shows that the craft is too small to be a 757.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

There is a section of the side of the Pentagon that has a protruding wall as can be seen in the top picture in this link.
http://0911.voila.net/index1.htm

The part of the Pentagon wall that's as far from the camera as the plane was when the picture was taken is about where the protruding wall ends on the right side.

I copied the picture and blew it up to a full page.
The length of the picture is 280 mm.

In the picture the height of the Pentagon wall at the point where it's as far from the camera as it is from the plane is 18 mm.

The space between the left side of the box and the tail of the plane is 20 mm. If we increase that by twenty percent to allow for the angle, it's 24 mm. Since a 757 is twice as long as the Pentagon is high, a 757 would be 36 mm at that spot. The craft in that picture can only be a maximum of two thirds the length of a 757.
...
I think the fact that the craft in the first picture above is too small to be a 757 proves the government planned and carried out the 9/11 attack all by itself. Does anyone want to check my measurements and math?

On my screen, the far side of the protruding part is about 9.5mm high, and what I speculate is the plane (I see its nose to the left of the box) is about 11.5mm. If I assume it's not the nose I see and measure like you do, I have 10mm.

Here is a very rough draft of the line of sight and the flight path:

The angle between the lines is about 140°. The apparant length of the plane would not get shortened by 20%, as you assume without argument or prove, but by 1-sin(140°) = 36%

The distance from camera to far edge of protruding part is about 65mm, to the line of sight (where the blue and red line cross) 75mm. That would further reduce the apparent length of the plane by 1-65/75 = 13%.

Now, if building height of 9.5mm corresponds to 77 feet in real world, then the length of a 757-223, which is 155 feet, would correspond to 9.5mm * 155/77 = 19mm
These 19mm get shortened due to angle by 36% -> 12.24mm, and further shortened due to distance by 13% -> 10.6mm.

This nicely corresponds to what I measured.

My approach has a number of sources of error: imprecise measuring, flight path and line of sight only approximately, etc.
Still, I am satisfied that you result "maximum of two thirds the length of a 757" is imprecise. Your sources of error are more substantial than mine: You underestimate the effect of angle, and disregard the difference in distance.

 

[Arus808]

• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2
• http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
• http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
• http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56161 (note the date on this thread: 2006)
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-124734.html
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197206
• Oh hell, there are too many forum links. Just browse through the seach returns on the tag "Pentagon": http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=pentagon

From the inestimable Gravy (more specifically, his above linked site):... and there's even more - waaaaaay more - but this post is long enough as it is.

Oh. 240-185 had a very relevant post from a french forum, regarding the commonsense questions to ask of Pentagon-9/11 conspiracy peddlers:

Can we stop engaging with trolls repeating 5 year old debunked crap? EL Mondo succinctly ended this thread with his posts. guys its been 10 years. OBL is dead.

End of story.

 

[Oystein]

...
I looked at the above view in the third photo from the top in this link.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf

The point where the green line touches the red line is about where the plane was and that's about as far from the camera as the point where the protruding wall ends on the right.

"about as far"?
Hmmm.
On my screen,
- camera to end of protruding wall = 145mm
- camera to plane position = 161mm
apparent shortening is thus 1-145/161 = 10%.
You failed to take these 10% into account, by implying "about as far -> 0%"

Not much because the craft seems to be about two thirds the length of a 757. It's really pretty obvious just looking at it without doing any measuring.

Once you measure, you will find that what seem obvious is not always true.

I measured the lines in this picture.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
(third from top)

The difference was about twenty percent. If we do the calcs with a thirty percent difference which is obviously too much, the craft is still shorter than a 757.

You totally disregard the effect of angle. You link to a paper that has all the images, all the measurements, all the math, but fail to notice its conclusion? Here is the conclusion from the evidence that you just linked to yourself:

"My calculation showed that ... (e)ven assuming an error of 10% in determining the used length and the angles ... the plane would still fit behind the ACSC [the yellow box with the traffic arm]"​

Amazing! You can't read, let alone understand, your own evidence!

 

[Athyrio]

The theory is that a 757 actually flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport behind it and the killer plane came in at a different angle.

I thought Dylan didn't like no-planers.

Just another truther with nothing better to do than abuse the privilege of using the internet.

 

[twinstead]

This is another example of a truther starting with an assumption that 9-11 was an inside job, and believing ANY source that confirms it no questions asked.

Yet they call us sheep. LOL

 

[Oystein]

This is another example of a truther starting with an assumption that 9-11 was an inside job, and believing ANY source that confirms it no questions asked.

Yet they call us sheep. LOL

This particular truther even believes that a source supports him that in fact meticulously debunks him.

 

[Sunstealer]

Are truthers blocked from using the search function on this forum?

 

[ComfySlippers]

But you can't fit a 757 in the search box. I measured it.

 

[NoahFence]

Well it's funny you should ask that, because:


I scrolled down too far in your link and found the conclusion instead: "The hidden sector is 40 metres wide at 250m distance... This is more than enough to cover the projected length ... of an incoming B757-200."

So you debunked your own claim with your own link. Nice job.

It's funny when they do that.