This has been gone over many times in the past. You are looking at a fisheye lens and a slow frame rate as is common on security cameras. The image (as I termed it 'blur') is distorted. I believe Fangbeer can explain it far better, or you could research it on your own. ETA: the exchange between Fangbeer, DDave and Scott in the following thread address the questions you seem to be leading to. Particularly this post by Fangbeer.
Jango, did you watch the video I posted done by the forensic team? It interpolates the video seen from the security camera with what should have been seen given the distances involved and the distortion from the fisheye lens. To answer your question it depends on what point of the plane you are measuring. The plane itself is 18'4" from the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage. The fuselage itself is just over 13'. The tail fin is 36'11" from the bottom of the fuselage to the top of the fin. With the wheels down it is 44' 6" from the wheels to the top of the fin.
(Sigh) . . . I fear he is a lost cause. But let's jump ahead for a bit. If you're implying that the video DOES NOT show a 757 therefore no 757 impacted the Pentagon, please tell me what took out the light poles?
I am implying that. The dimensions are not adding up. And I have no idea about the light poles. Are you implying that the video DOES show a 757 AIRPLANE?
Twice, as a matter of fact. At 0:30 on the tape from the far camera, notice that the top of the gate control has a mor noticeable lip, and that there is a vertical structure which appears as tall as the trees behind it over the right rear corner of the control box. Behind that, we see a trail of smoke rolling along the ground much as would the smoke trail that an aircraft projects during an aerobatic performance at low altitude. This is consistant with its being released from an engine damaged in a collision with a light pole on the way in. At 5:00 notice that we now see a distinct trail of white smoke com,ing from the right of the screen. Immediately ahead of that and just a little bit higher, just below the level of the tree tops, we see a light-collored line about as long as that part of the smoke trail that is seen in the frame. If you monitor has good enough resolution, you shoul be able to see that this line is actually one of three of red, blue and silver, and that the front end of the object there is white. This is a match for the American Airlines livery. Those who fail to see these things either do not want to or do not know what they are supposed to be looking for. Some people know that these things are there but lie to you any way to advance their own political cause, like destroying people's faith in government in order to get the RaHoWa off to an earlier start. Then we have a really despicable retired general who had long since lost his marbles quacking about the hole being the wrong size. His brain is just too fried by his own wierdness to measure stuff any more. We also know that he is a total sleaze bag and an unethical horndog who tried a trick so pathetic that the the state of Virginia uses it as an example of how you may NOT screw an ex-wife out of alimony. (He quit his paying job to go place house with the bimbo he was doinking while still married to a sick wife who raised his kids, then tried to claim reduced income.) You may also encounter statements about the inconsistancies in the crash scene based on the works of one Pierre-Henri Bunel. Dismiss them out of hand. He isi a liar and convicted felon who thinks that Americans deliberately screwed up his military career. He claims to have been an expert on aircraft crash investigations and airfield fire fighting operations. Any fire fighter (like me) can tell that he is lying his ass off about that. Also discount anything Chris Bollyn says about it. He's a Nazi, so you can assume he is lying. That's what they do as a profession.
So what doesn't add up? You saw the video. That wasn't done by the government, but by a company that specializes in professional forensic recreation. You had hundreds of eyewitnesses NONE of whom say it wasn't a plane. You have several witnesses who specifically identify it as a 757. Parts from the 757 were found in the Pentagon. The human remains in the Pentagon were proven through forensic testing to be the passengers of Flight 77. Nobody saw a plane leaving the scene. Many saw the plane actually impact the building. The FDR was found in the wreckage, positively identifying the plane as Flight 77. Yet you want to throw all this evidence away because something doesn't "add up". As for the light poles, that information was gone over in the video I posted. You SURE you watched it? It proves a plane with a wing span of at least 100' went through that flight path and clipped the flight poles on the way.
The facade also bears marks of impact by a solid object consistant with an aircraft having the same wing dihedral as a 757. No Global Hawk or Sky Warrior made those marks.
Don't be fooled by math that uses a faulty base as a start. The analysis I have seen takes assumed measurements from a picture taken by a slow speed security camera with a fish eye lens and Google Earth. Not really a rock solid starting point if you are trying to prove something conclusively. You can't have one without the other. If a plane did not impact the Pentagon then Scott's claim that the light poles were planted comes into play. Does that sound logical to you? I am implying that the video shows a 757 airplane passing through its field of view. It is a slow speed camera (taking about 1 frame per second if I recall) with a fisheye lens and the plane was moving very fast. The video is not the only reason I believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon. There were lots of eyewitnesses and other supporting evidence. If your objective is to find the truth, keep looking, you will find that evidence.
As I said, Dave, the dimensions are not adding up. The blur that came across the screen should be bigger if you want me to believe that it is a 757 airplane. And name some of the witnesses, please, as well, the other supporting evidence. I'm thinking about the light poles thing. Get back with me on it.
Why do you think it should be bigger? Look how tall the builidng is at the same distance. It is the right size.
How tall the "blur" should be depends on what part of the plane was in front of the camera when the photo was taken. Did you watch the video that Patriot posted? I believe it shows all that. If you are REALLY concerned about perspectives from both sides, you shouldn't need me to point you to that info. If you are unwilling to look for yourself then nothing I can provide you with will change your mind. But since you asked politely, here you go. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary I did come across a couple of expired links on that page but the majority of them work.
How tall the "blur" should be depends on what part of the plane was in front of the camera when the photo was taken. Did you watch the video that Patriot posted? I believe it shows all that. If you are REALLY concerned about perspectives from both sides, you don't need me to point you to that info. If you are unwilling to look for yourself then nothing I can provide you with will change your mind.
They could have easily set up the light poles beforehand so they prove nothing. http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=137250&postcount=1
Scott, you ran away from defending your other theories, so I fully expect you to run from your latest bit of lunacy. WHY would anyone set it up before hand? Would ANYONE (other than an insane truther if he had thought of it) have claimed the light poles NOT being touched would be proof that the plane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon? So why add yet another layer of complexity on an already monstrously complex and hard to hide conspiracy that gains you absolutely NO VALUE? Is the only proof the fact the lightpoles got hit? Nope. Not even close. Yet truthers can't even refute one aspect of the Pentagon, much less the sum total of all evidence. Its fun watching truthers try though.
More ridiculous fantasies. You should hop on over to the Let's Roll forum. You'd be right at home with those guys.
Many witnesses to the plane hitting. Including those that saw the light poles hit by the plane. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/20...n-attack-what.html#_Witnesses_described_the_4
Sorry but physical evidence... http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 ...trumps witnesses as witnesses may be plants who are lying. In an operation as big as this one lots of lying witnesses would be a logical part of the plan and they don't make the clear physical evidence go away.
Keep running Scott. You have no evidence. I know it. You know it. Everyone else knows it. You would have presented it long before now, yet you can't. All you do is spam discredited sites as though they can speak for you. Lies, even when they come from other sites, are still lies.
Bull flops. None of the idiots who concocted that crap have a freaking clue what they are talking about. Some idiot planted the meme that the end of the smoke trail was the nose of the aircraft, when the entire aircraft is visible as a blur well in front of and above that point. NO, a shaped charge would not have produced the damage and the fire ball. Get a real scientist to explain it to you.
Nothing about your version of "the plan" is logical. Which begs the question of why do you doubt the "official" story? It's certainly more believable than the silly made up "plausible scenarios" that you put your faith in. And you have no physical evidence. You have amateur photo and video analysis by a bunch of basement dwelling half wits who couldn't identify logic if it slapped them in the face.
