The Pentagon on 9/11 - MODERATOR WARNING ISSUED

It's you Scott and here's why. The dimensions you say you are getting are 114mm for the Pentagon wall and 16mm for the red line beneath the plane between the two red lines that represent the camera view.

114mm divided by 16mm equals 7.15. That means you should be able to fit just over seven of your 16mm red line/plane sections into the 114mm wall section. Using my dimensions of 22mm for the red line beneath the plane and 114mm for the pentagon wall, that's 114mm divided by 22mm which equals 5.18. That means I should be able to fit just over five of my 22mm red line/plane sections into the 114mm Pentagon wall section.

So that's what I did below. I copied the red line/plane section end to end, in a row, below the Pentagon wall.


I can only fit JUST OVER FIVE of the red/line plane sections into the Pentagon wall. If you were telling the truth, we could get SEVEN to fit beneath the wall.

You're done here.

 

2018 and you still don't own a computer. Wow, that is astonishing.

Nobody is lying - except you. It has been pointed out to you, but your non-truthing instincts refuse to accept your shortcomings.

Dead simple procedure:-

1. Download the actual image.
2. Position the cursor on the right corner of the Pentagon wall. The left integer figure shows 1318.
3. Position the cursor on the left corner of the Pentagon wall. The left integer figure shows 1035.
4. Subtract 3 from 2 and the result gives the length in pixels as 283.
5. The Pentagon wall is 281 metres which is near as dammit 1 metre per pixel.
6. The upper tip of the plane image. The right integer figure shows 319.
7. The lower tip of the plane image. The right integer figure shows 354.
8. The difference is 35 metres. This figure corresponds to the side on view of the plane and it is 115ft.

The actual side on figure is 110ft. A 1.5 pixel error with the superimposed plane image would cater for that.

Basically, Scott/cosmored/rocky/fatfreddy has shown a complete lack of knowledge on this simple subject matter.

 

What about simple trigonometry? What about simple orthographic projection?

The known values are the location of the camera, the distance to the impact zone, and the dimensions of the Boeing. Simple trig can be used and OP too.

Whatever object that was captured on the parking lot camera, it WAS NOT a Boeing. Sorry.

 

well said ... show us your math ...

 

YOU show the math that supports your insane position Mr. Shinebox.

You will not, because it blows the official story out of the water.

 

Ok, show us your "simple trigonometry" or "simple orthographic projections" that you performed to show it was NOT a Boeing. Or perhaps someone else's math that you looked at that proves this? Scott's not having very good luck thus far with his "simple" math is he?

 

Like you do?!



Every time you're asked to provide proof or evidence, your response is "It's no longer on the internet".

 

I can't WAIT for Eleuthera to "like" Scott's "simple math" posts that he's completely screwed up.

 

I'm not claiming to be a math expert am I? ... you made the claim of simple trigonometry and orthographic projections ... back your claims E ...

show us your card E ... simple right? ...

 

This is old news indeed, that AA77 did not strike the Pentagon, and that the several frames from the parking lot camera proved that, because even just applying common sense, whatever object was photographed in that picture, it was much too small to be a 757.

Years ago at least one poster skilled with computers applied the rules of trigonometry and orthographic project to overlay a 757 on those photos. It showed what common sense predicted--the object is much too small.

Both common sense and trigonometry seemed to have been unavailable for your "analysis", and that's why you will make no effort at all to attempt to defend your absurd position. AA77 did not strike the building.

 

I talked to a guy who knew about computers yesterday. He said his specialty was software and the pixel issue really isn't in his field but he said your view sounded fishy. He thought the pixel method could probably be used for obfuscation.

Do you think all of the viewers agree with you?

 

Absolutely.

It's been proven you have no clue what you're doing. The simple procedure that I did in post #1676 proves it. You're lying just to push your bogus views.

 

Everybody look at this.

(post #1641)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-83#post-1069957724

If you divide 114 by 16 you get 7.125. It works when you use my measurement of the space instead of yours. You said you got totally different lengths from mine on your computer screen. If you do the calculations with your length of the space with my length for the side of the Pentagon, you get a totally meaningless figure. I can't see how you've proved anything. Your post looks like an attempt at obfuscation. Hey Betamax. Do you think she's right?

 

Yeah?

I've been in the computer industry for 20 years now. The fact that you AND he think the pixel issue is "fishy" is beyond ridiculous. What's even funnier is the fact that the picture and website you keep referencing actually USES pixels for the scale. 1px (pixel) = 1m = 1.09 yards. See below:


The pixel measurement stays the same no matter WHAT zoom level you're at. I can open the picture in GIMP 2 (free image editing program) at 100% zoom, 400% zoom, 250% zoom and use the measurement tool within that program. It doesn't matter. The measurement I get for the red line at ANY zoom level is always 51.4px (pixels). That's 51.4m according to the scale shown above. That's about 168 feet.

 

Right!

If I copy the section of the red line and place copies of it, end to end below the wall, I can only get just over five of those red line sections to fit. According to your number you just posted, you should be able to fit seven (and a little bit more) of those red line section beneath the wall and have them all fit into the wall dimension.

 

Do you even understand what 7.125 means in this scenario Scott?

 

Scott.

Where are the images showing your FULL monitor screen with the image pulled up and showing the ruler measurement for both the red line and the Pentagon wall?

 

I see my mistake. I looked at my ruler wrong. I had to hold it backwards because it was too long to fit on the screen and I misread it. Now I get 82MM. Now it works out to 180 feet. I guess I have to eat crow on this one. I've got to stop drinking so much coffee.

 

Now I have to go back and change everything.
http://letsrollforums.com//proof-757-didnt-hit-t32668.html?p=277724&posted=1#post277724

 

Oh really?

Give your truther brethren a reason to NOT think YOU'RE a paid sophist sent here to spread lies and misinformation? Why would anyone believe you just "made a mistake"?

I guess I'm still a paid sophist even though I proved you wrong and forced you to admit you screwed up right?

 

Hey Eleuthera...

What do you think of Scott's "math" now? Are you going to blindly "like" more of his garbage just because you hold the same views as him?

 

For me this whole measurement issue is mostly trivial. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. In this case the claimant is the US government. The US government has not proven its claim that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 nor has the US government proven its claim that Hani Hanjour piloted AA77 when it allegedly crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. In fact, they did everything in their power to hide evidence that could have supported their claims and failed to conduct any legitimate forensic investigation into the matter. As such the default position is that the US government is LYING, since that is what the US government does most of the time with any and all significant issues. Furthermore the US government has been proven to be lying about the WTC towers and many other 9/11 claims so it stands to reason that it can't be trusted to be truthful about any part of their official 9/11 story, including of course the Pentagon.

 

Looks like neither you nor Scott are good at either one of the above.

 

of course ... the "old news" cop out ... you're such a fraud ...

 

As a rule, when somebody admits an error, I tend to be magnanimous in the extreme. In your case however, I have no such feeling. Numerous people pointed out your mistake, that you spammed elsewhere and instead of simply re-measuring you chose to call everyone else a liar. You suck as a truther. You are truly the most incompetent individual I have ever encountered.

It takes almost an earthquake to make you admit your stunning and sadly persistent errors. It may come as a flash of blinding light to you, but you are not a smart person and the internet is full of people considerably better equipped to analyse the numerous crappy contentions you blunder through.

You had the ruler the wrong way round?!