UPDATED 1/29/20: I rewrote the first part of this article (above the spacer) to take into consideration the sharp angle the incoming object came in at. The broken light poles show the less than 45° angle flight path. My simple experiment proves the incoming object was 757 size, and much larger than a Global Hawk, and many times larger than a missile.
UPDATED 3/11/15 — after finding an email I wrote in May of 2006, in which I shared my exact measurements
Scroll down for video
Just because the official 9/11 story has been proven false (see articles linked below) doesn’t mean a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Many thought the incoming object in the surveillance footage was too small to be a 757, and loudly claimed it was a missile instead. My findings refute that, as well as:
When the Pentagon security camera footage was released in 2006, I had a higher resolution copy on our digital TV cable box, which I recorded from Democracy Now (online footage at minute-7:25 isn’t as clear). I measured the fuselage diameter and the height of the building with a ruler, and then compared these numbers with the known numbers of the building height and the forward portion of a 757 fuselage, using cross multiplication: replacing one of numbers on the right with ‘x’, and then comparing. It’s easy to do, especially with a wide-screen TV and better quality video, which I no longer have.
known Pentagon ht. ft. v. TV Pentagon in.
known 757 diameter ft. v. TV projectile in.
known Pentagon ht. ft v. TV Pentagon in.
X v. TV projectile in.
When I did my measurements on the large TV screen in 2006, I incorrectly assumed the plane came in at a right angle to the building. Actually, the flight path over the knocked down light poles was less than a 45° angle to the building, so the distance of the incoming object was closer to being a right angle with the back of the building, much further back from where the object actually hit.
My measurements put the diameter of the incoming object we see in the video at minute-1:26 to be 9.63 feet. But if I would have measured the height of the Pentagon on the TV screen near the back of the Pentagon, in a right angle to where the incoming plane really was in the photo, it probably would have been closer to 2 inches tall on the TV screen, instead of 3 inches. A 2 inch number would have calculated out to be a fuselage of 14.4 feet high, which is close to the actual fuselage size of 13.2 feet.
Someone could do the measurements more precisely, but I have proven that the diameter of the incoming object is 757 size, much larger than a Global Hawk, and many times larger in diameter than a missile.
I said in my email that:
“the object in the photo is at least (probably more, because I chose the closest possible impact point) 10 feet….”
On our TV, the plane measures about 3/8 inch high, while the building measures about 3 inches; though, I’m not sure where the point of impact actually was. It could have been where the building would measure even 2.5 inches or so.
I remember measuring behind the helicopter pad, but not far behind. If I put the 2.5 inch figure into the equation instead of 3 inches, the result is 11.55 feet, which is really close to the known 12 foot number [and even the 13′ 2″ number, if that is the correct height of the forward fuselage].
77 v. 3 or 77 v. 3
x v. .375 x v. .375
Cross multiplied, the results are 9.63 and 11.55 feet, respectively.
Many who have seen this video surmised that this object is far too small to be a 757, but that’s because this is shot with a wide angle lens which makes distant objects appear smaller than they really are, including the height of the Pentagon in the distance, as it radically tapers off in size.
My conclusion was that this footage shows an object the size of a large jet did hit the Pentagon. Of course, the video could have been doctored, but the Democracy Now TV image on our wide screen TV was clear enough to pretty easily measure. Many theorized that this object was far too small to be a 757, but it really isn’t.
Many said this was a missile, but it’s way too large. A Tomahawk missile is only 20.4 inches in diameter, less than 2 feet!
The official story on 9/11 has been proven to be a fraud and an inside job (see my links below), but that doesn’t mean that planes didn’t hit these buildings, except for Building 7. It’s very possible they weren’t the American and United Airlines planes claimed, though.
If anyone knows of a higher res video or really clear still I’m interested. Some I’ve seen online look like the plane has been removed. The object was easily seen in the Democracy Now TV video, similar to what we see here, but clearer.
* * *
More of my 2006 email:
There are other reasons why I think a 757 hit the Pentagon, but the main one I’d like to share here is what I discovered by taking some measurements of the footage that Democracy Now recently aired; therefore, I was able to check it out on my widescreen TV. I’ll send you some of the things I sent Joel, this morning, which I think proves that what we see in this video is much larger than a missile or a Global Hawk, and is consistent with the size of a 757 fuselage.
This is kind of a hodgepodge, but the bottom line is that the diameter of the plane can be determined by measuring the height of the building at the point of impact and measuring the object (plane or missile). Because we know the building is 77 feet high, the diameter of the aircraft can also be determined, which is just about exactly the 12 feet that a 757 is. […]
On our TV, the plane measures about 3/8 inch high, while the building measures about 3 inches; though, I’m not sure where the point of impact actually was. It could have been where the building would measure even 2.5 inches or so. […]
This is the equation I used to determine the object in the photo is at least (probably more, because I chose the closest possible impact point) 10 feet in diameter, just two feet smaller than a 757.
Pentagon height (77 feet) / height of plane (unknown) = 3 inch TV measurement) / .375 inches TV measurement
77 times .375, divided by 3 equals 10 feet
Pause the video at minute-1:26[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzT0QnwtTE]Pentagon Security Camera video from 9/11
Uploaded on Jan 26, 2008
This is video footage from a security camera at the Pentagon made on 9/11 (first of 2). It shows an explosion, apparently when the building is impacted by an airliner. Relevant event in the History Commons database: May 16, 2006: Pentagon Releases Two Videos of Pentagon Crash, But Quality is Poor. Link: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/co…
(video) TRUMP QUESTIONED 9/11 – Yay! But 767 wings COULD PENETRATE the steel outer wall — “Both wings could be considered VIRTUALLY ‘SOLID’ STRUCTURES since they were filled to capacity with fuel. LIQUIDS ARE NOT COMPRESSIBLE.” And at that speed…
(video) A&E for 9/11 Truth Architect Richard Gage on C-SPAN 8/1/14 — “The ends of the BEAMS were partially EVAPORATED! That takes 4000 DEGREE temperatures. The only thing we’re aware of that can create that is thermite”
(video) Top architect explains why 9/11 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and Al Qaeda didn’t have the technology or access to do it. Who did? Two months before the ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT, Nick ROCKEFELLER predicted a 9/11-like event to trigger war!
(audio) Rebekah Roth: Methodical Illusion – Missing Pieces of 9-11 — Flight attendant applies her intimate knowledge of the airline industry’s protocols, procedures and technology, uncovering AMAZING details of what really happened on September 11, 2001!
(audio) Airline Captain Philip Marshall with John B. Wells on ‘Coast to Coast AM’ 9/8/12: “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror” — Fasten your seatbelt — the sad truth is that all of the solid evidence points to a dark collaboration between members of the Bush Administration and a covert group of Saudi government officials. The hijackers were trained at a CIA-operated airport in Arizona.
Architect Richard Gage on 9/11 truth: “98% of those who watch this presentation end up agreeing with us…. We really only get called conspiracy theorists and kooks by those who are UNWILLING TO LOOK at the evidence.”
All of my 9/11 truth posts in reverse chronological order (latest posts appear first, 10 posts per page)