Only a disinfo agent would say that no plane hit the Pentagon

[FatFreddy88]

Why would the shadow be under the spot? It wasn't noon you know

Look at the shadow of the Pentagon.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

If we compare the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon, we can see that the shadow of the alleged 757 would not be out of the picture if it were there. In order for it to be out of the picture, the angle would have to be a lot shallower than the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon.

 

[twinstead]

Look at the shadow of the Pentagon.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

If we compare the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon, we can see that the shadow of the alleged 757 would not be out of the picture if it were there. In order for it to be out of the picture, the angle would have to be a lot shallower than the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon.

I disagree, but I could be wrong because I'm no photo analyst, and I assure you your photo analysis prowess is no better than mine, even though you fancy yourself some kind of super sleuth.

 

[Crazytimes]

Look at the shadow of the Pentagon.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

If we compare the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon, we can see that the shadow of the alleged 757 would not be out of the picture if it were there. In order for it to be out of the picture, the angle would have to be a lot shallower than the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon.

In the photo you posted the sun is up and to the left creating the shadow below and to the right of the pentagon. Which would mean the shadow of the plane would be mostly behind it and not under it. With the all of these pictures being so grainy, I don't know how you would see a shadow at all though. I don't see any shadows in the blown up pictures.

 

[Animal]

Look at the shadow of the Pentagon.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

If we compare the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon, we can see that the shadow of the alleged 757 would not be out of the picture if it were there. In order for it to be out of the picture, the angle would have to be a lot shallower than the angle of the sun shining on the Pentagon.

You still do no understand the concept of a fish eye lens do you?

 

[LSSBB]

You still do no understand the concept of a fish eye lens do you?

Throw that on the pile of "things not understood". It's amazing how Conspiracy Theorists can build towering fortresses of conspiracy out of their own ignorance while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that they just plain don't know everything.

 

[Animal]

throw that on the pile of "things not understood". It's amazing how conspiracy theorists can build towering fortresses of conspiracy out of their own ignorance while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that they just plain don't know everything anything.

ftfy

 

[Clayton Moore]

So you've never taken off or landed in a plane?

Have you, at 500 mph?

 

[twinstead]

Have you, at 500 mph?

So is your expert position that it is impossible for a jet liner to fly as close to the ground as fast as it did, therefore no plane hit the Pentagon?

 

[Crazytimes]

Have you, at 500 mph?

Are you going to explain your original statement like people have asked ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

And here we have a classic example of the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy. Clayton Moore has no idea how far a plane could fly that close to the ground at 500mph before crashing, nor how far a plane did fly that close to the ground at 500mph if at all before hitting the Pentagon, but from his pedestal of utter ignorance seeks to claim that it's self-evident that one of these numbers is smaller than the other. It's that kind of absence of content that's the hallmark of the true 9/11 truther.

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

Actually the disinformation came when much of the world's IAs were leaked/came upon the basics of 9/11. The IAs then dutifully reported the basics back to the US IAs and the US ignored it.

 

[NoahFence]

I have no idea what you mean by "IA", but I do know you're wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually the disinformation came when much of the world's IAs were leaked/came upon the basics of 9/11. The IAs then dutifully reported the basics back to the US IAs and the US ignored it.

So disinformation is truth? Very Orwellian.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

Have you, at 500 mph?

They slow down when they land but they are perfectly capable of flying low at speed. Most planes can do that, but apparently not in Trutherland.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I have no idea what you mean by "IA", but I do know you're wrong.

Kewl.

Intelligence agency.

 

[twinstead]

Actually the disinformation came when much of the world's IAs were leaked/came upon the basics of 9/11. The IAs then dutifully reported the basics back to the US IAs and the US ignored it.

So now you DON'T think it was impossible for the plane to fly that low at 500mph and hit the Pentagon?

 

[332nd]

Stop trying to change the subject Clayton. Why would the plane have crashed if it were flying about 500mph that close to the ground?

 

[A W Smith]

No it doesn't. If there were a blurry image of a 757 where you say there is, it would block the trees in the background. The shadow of the 757 would be under the spot where you claim the 757 is.


I tried to post a comment on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

I brought up the issue of the lack of a shadow under the spot where the plane is claimed to be. A note came up saying the comment would have to be approved before it would appear. Let's see if it appears. I'll bet it doesn't.

Where you expect to see a shadow the topography drops off because of the cloverleaf underpass flight 77 flew over diagonally.

the trees are on the south west side of that cloverleaf, And they ARE blocked as far as I can see, The only other trees that would appear through a fish eye lens would be a pair alongside Washington boulevard across from the helipad. Those disputing the expected length of the plane should compare the angle of flight in relation to the security camera. I have to laugh at those who try to draw lines of perspective on buildings and objects via screen grabs complaining about the height of the pentagon compared to the size of the plane and its assumed altitude when viewed through a fish eye lens.

 

[A W Smith]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

No, you are wrong as usual. you never disappoint.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95715

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Has any argument been presented yet that overcomes the:

• Radar data
• Airfone/cell phone calls
• FDR
• Eyewitnesses
• Human remains (same link as "Eyewitnesses" above)
• Wreckage
• Air Traffic Controllers statements (sure, I could sort of lump this in with the radar data above, since they were the ones viewing the data... but why not separate it out? It's still it's own line of observations).
• First responders statements (separate from "Eyewitnesses", as those I define as the ones who personally witnessed the jet crash, not just the aftermath. Of course, there's some overlap here as some of the first responders were indeed also crash eyewitnesses).

Granted, these are the conspiracy peddlers here. They do think single pebbles are somehow the equivalent of towering mountains, but still... in the rational world, have they managed to bring up anything about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that actually changes the basics of what we know about that day? I've not seen it, but I'm only one guy...