New 9-11 video

[Tom]

The pentagon is releasing a new 9-11 video that shows the airlplane actually striking the building. This is the result of a lawsuit by Judicial Watch.
This from parking lot surveilance vidoe, so quality will not be that great.

Conspiracy theorists might say it took them this long to doctor the tapes!:cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

Any link to the video?

[Tom]

I haven't found one yet, but I just saw it on Fox News....very, small, very un-detailed image of something hitting. Really hard to see on the view they had because the area was highlighted green.

I'll bet Fox or CNN will have a link soon. Here it is....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

[Ponyplayr]

There are two videos...the second one is the best..I guess :mad:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html

[Tom]

Wow - I see it on that one - low to the ground - almost like a bus going in.
I was looking higher.
Thanks, ponyplayr.

[Ponyplayr]

Wow - I see it on that one - low to the ground - almost like a bus going in.
I was looking higher.
Thanks, ponyplayr.I had to rewind it a few times to see it. That plane was moveing fast.

[rrpic6]

The video is old news. The documentary, Loose Change 9/11, has used that footage in their movie. When will they release the other survelliance videos from the gas station and nearby hotel? The FBI confiscated those within hours of the crash?

[Tom]

This clip has just been released today, according to the pentagon.

[PaceAdvantage]

Those clips have been around since 2001. That can't be the "new" clip Tom writes about, can it?

And after watching those old clips again, I have to ask.....did you see a plane?

The plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't a small plane. I don't know what the hell that thing was, but it didn't look like any commercial passenger plane I ever saw.

That thing looked like it was hugging the ground like a cruise missile...anyone with any cruise missile experience care to comment?

[bigmack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSYQze1mSas&search=911%20pentagon
Stop it @ 1:26 and quickly stop/start through 1:29
How could that be a 747? With little hint of a LARGE object hit the 5 points!
Plane rate of speed approx? Rate of camera speed 30 frames per second.

[PaceAdvantage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSYQze1mSas&search=911%20pentagon
Stop it @ 1:26 and quickly stop/start through 1:29
How could that be a 747? With little hint of a LARGE object hit the 5 points!
Plane rate of speed approx? Rate of camera speed 30 frames per second.

Two quick points.


It wasn't a 747 that hit the Pentagon, that we know for sure. It was a 757, a smaller aircraft no doubt, but one that should definitely have more of a presence in that video.
The camera that was filming that video was definitely NOT filming at 30 frames per second. Your typical security camera films at a much slower rate.
And again, this video that people are posting links to is as old as the hills. I thought there was supposed to be a new video? Or have I been looking at classified material all this time without knowing it? :eek:

[bigmack]

[QUOTE=this video that people are posting links to is as old as the hills. [/QUOTE]



May I ask where you've seen this security camera footage before?

[JustRalph]

one frame every half second is what I heard yesterday. At 350mph it wouldn't show up for long............that is for sure.

[rrpic6]

May I ask where you've seen this security camera footage before?

Its been shown on the documentary, LooseChange 9/11.

[bigmack]

So where's the "previously unreleased" tape that the Feds just let out of the bag as they were waiting for that idiotic Moussawi trial to be over?

[Ponyplayr]

Two quick points.

It wasn't a 747 that hit the Pentagon, that we know for sure. It was a 757, a smaller aircraft no doubt, but one that should definitely have more of a presence in that video.
The camera that was filming that video was definitely NOT filming at 30 frames per second. Your typical security camera films at a much slower rate.
And again, this video that people are posting links to is as old as the hills. I thought there was supposed to be a new video? Or have I been looking at classified material all this time without knowing it? :eek:
In that video the people walking out of the Pentagon look like ants. You can see that the plane is quite large in comparison.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I think I'm understanding the problem with the video better. Some of you who understand photo finish pictures will understand this better.

The pictures themselves are not continuous, with frames of 1/30 of a second. Instead, they are separate snapshots taken several seconds apart. That is why the image of the squad car, which had stopped for the gate, and was slowly passing through, advances with gaps in the photos, not a smooth sequence.

As for the plane. Think about the photo finish and film speeds. The squad car is moving slower, and the image can be captured cleanly at the speed it is traveling. Since through a just raised gate, perhaps between 5 & 10 MPH.

The airplane is on a suicide mission, and is travelling at least 350 MPH and perhaps as fast as 600 MPH or greater.

The camera captures the light reflected into the camera during the time the lens is open and the image is being captured.

Because the plane is traveling so fast, much more of the plane, and therefore much more-multiple fast images are captured in the same single-frame image in the recording device. This would make the image seem distorted, as the image of the nose of the plane is captured from starting from wherever it began in the image, through the furthest point it reached, while the image was being recorded. In other words, it is blured from right to left as it quickly filled passed through the image space. This would also make the full image of the plane seem shorter, as it would pass through the focal point extremely fast.

For a comparison, recall the photo finish pictures at the track. To get a reasonable image, they have to adjust the speed of the recording/film to approximate the expected speed of the horses as they pass through the continuious small point that the camera lens focuses on. For Quarter Horses, they need to set the speed faster, so that the recording/film picks up the images, so there can be a closer to 1/1 relationship between horse and picture presentation. For good throughbreds, they likely have it set for rate that corresponds to between 24 & 26 seconds for the last quarter. For $5000 Maiden Claimers going a mile, they likely have to set it to a rate that corresponds to 28-30 seconds.

Have you ever seen distorted photo finish images? Of course you have! Sometimes the horses seem scrunched up. That is because the finish of the race was a bit too fast compared to the recording/film speed. So more of the physical image of the horse crossing the wire is captured on a smaller part of film, as more of the horses image is captured on more that 1 microimage of film, and quickly mutliply-exposed as more and more pieces of the faster horse's image is captured on the same pixels/fragments of film.

Likewise, an unexpected slow finish can make a horse's image appear expanded, and appear longer on the photo finish image. Eased runners, I'm assuming, would cause quite a long blur on a photo finish camera, and therefore any correlation to other blurred, pulled up horses has no relationship to true lengths, and are hence ignored, and not placed in the result chart, but listed as "Eased".

Since even horse that are run a final quarter in 30 seconds are running at 30 MPH, an airplane at 600 MPH would be traveling 20 times faster than a slower, but finishing, Maiden Claimer. Therefore I would expect an extremely small, blured picture representation from a single image snapshot of an extremely fast moving object.

Ever notice in a photo finish that sometimes the legs are distorted? That's because a horses legs, or parts of them, make fast or slow moves during their motion through the camera while being filmed.

Anyway, that, to me, is why a picture of this fast moving plane would appear to be cruched up image, without the small details of windows but enough to represent a large portion, like a wing, reperesneted as a smaller winged image. Therefore, I can see where the photo may misrepresent a fast moving plane as a cruched up, blured plane, which would more resemble a winged missile that an airplane, given the recording medium and airplane speed.

By the way. For the conspiracy theorists that are still unconvinced. If it wasn't an airplane, where is it now. The airline lost the plane. They lost the crew. They lost the people. Their families lost their loved ones. The Pentagon lost workers, and their families lost their loved ones. Please don't expect any ration person to believe they were all secretly rounded up and transefered in a witness-protection like program, and whisked off to Cuba and Gitmo, or to Poland, Turkey, or the places where some claimed there are alleged secret prisons. It was the plane. It really happened. It's logical. Grasp it, gradually if you must. But if those who want to believe in a conspiracy on this, please, seek help.

[twindouble]

Steve;

That's interesting, Thanks. Can you make any sense of the video we watch in horse racing, speed of the camera verses the changes in tote and the graphics involved online? I don't know if I'm asking the question right but it was said the graphics effect the time involved in what we see when it comes to tote changes. In other words it appears that the race is further on than when the actual tote change takes place.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Thanks Twin Double! Oh I wish I could get rid of that tote update problem! Only time, money and commitment from the racing industry, esp. the mutuel companies can do that. I hadn't heard that they'd replaced the ancient technology yet. (Like 54k modems, and earlier! The race is off before the last of all the collected data gets transmitted where it needs to go for the final total. Plus I've learned there is a 3 second delay so the mutuel clerks can still cancel mistakes (otherwise they have to pay for the unwanted ticket).

Seems the some tracks did the easiest thing lately, and took the odds they used to show under the numbers off the screen, so we were less likely to see them change during the race. Problem still exists, but trying to hide it, or at least fool us like in the days before the graphics companies learned how to put the odds and the horse numbers on the screen. I'm sure the problem must have existed for a long time.

[rrpic6]

Steve the StatMan:

I don't want to believe in any conspiracy theory so give me your fair odds that an untrained pilot could fly, not crash a commercial jet perfectly into the side of the pentagon. We do have instant replay, but the FBI won't let us see it. Gas station, hotel and Interstate surveillance cameras all caught it, but no head-on or pan shots for the viewers to make their decisions.

[Ponyplayr]

Steve the StatMan:

I don't want to believe in any conspiracy theory so give me your fair odds that an untrained pilot could fly, not crash a commercial jet perfectly into the side of the pentagon. We do have instant replay, but the FBI won't let us see it. Gas station, hotel and Interstate surveillance cameras all caught it, but no head-on or pan shots for the viewers to make their decisions.If I can get this on the Net...Imagine what the Taliban gave to Osama and his group.

http://www.fsinsider.com/product/

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm not sure how much training those hijackers had. Remeber Mousauii(whatever) the guy who just got life? He went to flight school, and asked to learn how to just fly a plane, take offs and landings weren't important.

I reccon they researched the GPS coordinates, as in the WTC, and altered the autopilot for the destination. Not sure if they made the coordinate changes, or forced the pilots to make the GPS changes before taking them out. Imagine the pilots were asking where they wanted the plane to go, as in standard hijackings, and the hijackers instructed by GPS coordinates, not naming the destinations. (Whole different world, thinking hijackers want the plane to crash and to die, as opposed to diverting flights, and all that 60's-70's fly to Cuba crap that seems so tame by Post 9-11 standards).

I'm rather relieved they hit the side and crashed through the 2 and part of a 3rd layer of the 5 layer Pentagon. The deeper inside, the more sensitive the operations. To get at the biggest of the big, they'd have had to come down at a much steeper angle to avoid the outer layers, almost kamikazi/dive bomb style.

Actually, that picture seems to show them coming in pretty low. They were pretty much going to hit the side of the Pentagon. The only real question was, how deep could they penetrate, and how much damage could they wreak. I imagine even just an outer layer only hit would have been considered a huge success in their evil eyes. That would have happened with a high speed crash on the ground just shy of the building. Anything else, like they had, was likely just a twisted bonus.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Yes, Ponyplayr, that type of Flight Software is also a highly likely type of training tool! These terrorists were so devoted to their cause, anything about flying and crashing! It's a PC flight too, no instructor to flunk them!

Heck, they sure had time. They normally didn't go out drinking and smoking. Not sure if they worked Full-Time jobs, or more than 40 hours a week. They weren't devoting all their spare nights and weekends learning handicapping and going to the track!

Guess we can change the addage: Close only counts in Horseshoes.

Now, my list is up to: Close only counts in Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, Atom Bombs, Air Planes, and Dancing (from an old girlfriend, RIP).

[JustRalph]

Steve the StatMan:

I don't want to believe in any conspiracy theory so give me your fair odds that an untrained pilot could fly, not crash a commercial jet perfectly into the side of the pentagon. We do have instant replay, but the FBI won't let us see it. Gas station, hotel and Interstate surveillance cameras all caught it, but no head-on or pan shots for the viewers to make their decisions.

I am sure they have the radar tapes that show it from start to finish. It is pretty easy to figure out.

I have brought this up before and been hammered for it. But here goes, It isn't that hard, with minimal training.........most people could do it......

[bigmack]

So where's the "previously unreleased" tape that the Feds just let out of the bag as they were waiting for that idiotic Moussawi trial to be over?

I repeat the question.

[JustRalph]

I repeat the question.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

at 1:26 in the 2nd video from the bottom, you can see that the aircraft actually landed short of the building and appears to me to probably bounce up a little prior to hitting the building. At 350mph a 1/2 second per minute camera sure as hell wasn't going to catch much.......and didn't.

350 mile/hour (mph) = 513.333 333 333 foot/second

250+ feet in that 1/2 second...........

[bigmack]

thought PA was saying that's the same video that's been around since hills?
Where's the lastest or is that it?

[Ponyplayr]

thought PA was saying that's the same video that's been around since hills?
Where's the latest or is that it?
That is the video..Not sure why they filed the Freedom of Information thing unless they thought there was a smoking gun.

[toetoe]

Steve,

I love the photo-finish stuff. If you haven't read "Handicapping Speed" by Charles Carroll, check it out. Lots of photo stuff in that book. :ThmbUp:

I'm not advocating this view, but I suppose the plane could be crashed somewhere else (not very sensible, I know). It could also happen that it was crashed somehow much earlier, giving "them" time to massage the story. Another possibility is to gang up the couldabeen Pentagon plane with the wreckage of the plane in Pennsylvania. Speaking of which, does anybody have anything more on the "proof" that that plane was shot down?

[PaceAdvantage]

This explains what I was seeing years ago:

This video was released by the government in coincidence with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which was filed by the Judicial Watch legal activist group. It was an extended, more comprehensive adaptation of still-frame images that were uncovered by the news media in 2002.

The odd thing is, the video I saw yesterday looked exactly like the "shortened, less comprehensive still-frame images uncovered by the news media in 2002."

Nothing in this new video looks any different to me than the still-images pieced together years ago. I thought it was the exact same video....

I'm still waiting for the videotapes supposedly confiscated by the FBI from a gas station across the street within an hour of the crash.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't want to believe in any conspiracy theory so give me your fair odds that an untrained pilot could fly, not crash a commercial jet perfectly into the side of the pentagon.

I've been asking this same question for 5 years now.

We are being told these guys had little or NO experience flying heavy, yet I am supposed to believe they hit their target PERFECTLY at near TOP SPEED while on a suicide run? There is no ILS in the Pentagon to guide them in that I am aware of.

To me, that was a 1 in a million hit. No marks on the lawn in front of the Pentagon means they did not bounce off the ground. They hit the damn thing PERFECTLY. It's completely unreal.

Anyone who says othewise just isn't being realistic. I have lots and lots of hours flying all sorts of aircraft in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, and there is no way in hell I'd be able to land a commercial jet on a regular runway with ILS, let alone hit the side of the freakin' Pentagon while going at top speed.

So, these guys have some flying experience in a prop plane, and probably lots of hours in a flight sim (whether it is PC or real heavy stand-alone simulator), and they are able to perform miracles of flight on the first take. Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it...

[rrpic6]

Steve,

I love the photo-finish stuff. If you haven't read "Handicapping Speed" by Charles Carroll, check it out. Lots of photo stuff in that book. :ThmbUp:

I'm not advocating this view, but I suppose the plane could be crashed somewhere else (not very sensible, I know). It could also happen that it was crashed somehow much earlier, giving "them" time to massage the story. Another possibility is to gang up the couldabeen Pentagon plane with the wreckage of the plane in Pennsylvania. Speaking of which, does anybody have anything more on the "proof" that that plane was shot down?

Not really proof, but, as I've mentioned on other occasions, a co-worker saw two military planes following a low flying commercial jet about 15 minutes before Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pa. The flight pattern of 93 would have taken it directly over my neighborhood. A logical assumption was made that the military shot it down before theories like the LooseChange 9/11 movie came about.