| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Re-visiting the Pentagon security video; For David C | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 3 2009, 05:57 PM (2,654 Views) | |
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 3 2009, 05:57 PM Post #1 |
|
This thread is for the purpose of identifying what is shown in the Pentagon security camera, and also to try and find out whether the size of any objects in the video is congruent with it being Flight 77. I've started it so the Apollo thread can remain for discussion of Apollo evidence, rather than discussion of specific pieces of evidence related to 911. Judicial Watch requested the security camera footage, and hosts them on its website (links below). http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg You can also find them on Youtube, and there are many individual frames available on the net. For the time being I'm going to focus on the first video, since David C is making the claim that there appears to be some kind of military (fighter?) plane, as indicated in this image.  I think this is most likely smoke/debris coming from an engine, and the plane itself is just in front of this. The Pentagon security cameras recorded at one frame per second: comparing the frame immediately prior to the this one, and converting to a GIF (zoomed in 400% on the section in question), gives this:-  Here's another annotated GIF, showing three frames before the plane comes into view, then cycling between the last two frames, with various features arrowed for clarity. Note, due to the size of this GIF, the Photobucket website automatically re-sizes the GIF, so check the annotations against the previous GIF.  I think the evidence supports what I've highlighted above, rather than the interpretation that the 'dust cloud' is actually a plane. It's too easy to look at an individual still miss the actual plane, which is why I made the GIF using the previous frame, which makes it a lot clearer (although not conclusive). Please feel free to comment. I'd also like to move on to the second video, and show that the size of the plane in that video is compatible with a 757, using David C's preferred method. |
 |
 
|
| BoneZ | Sep 3 2009, 07:40 PM Post #2 |
|
There's clearly a plane there. However, I don't see any possible way that an unskilled "terrorist" pilot can bring a large 757 down from altitude and manage to get it mere feet off the ground and keep it level straight into the Pentagon. |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 4 2009, 09:44 AM Post #3 |
|
First of all the wreckage is not consistent with a large jetliner's having crashed at the site. http://www.withfriendship.com/user/images/532/Pentagon-crash.jpg There would have been more damage to the walls as these two pictures show. http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/strike.jpeg http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi You're picture with the arrows pointing to nothing are a joke. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg There's nothing in front of the object at the right of this picture which seems to be the nose of a fighter or other small supersonic craft. A 757 wouldn't fit behind the box in the picture released by the government. http://0911.site.voila.fr/ldsxox.gif The pictures of the damage are consistent with these analyses. http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/5053_comment.php http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html http://www.physics911.net/missingwings http://web.archive.org/web/20040603023133/http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is so clear that some pro-government sites simply close conspiracy threads with lame excuses when their people can't discredit the evidence. Here's an example. http://www.booktalk.org/the-us-government-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-t6222.html Edited by David C, Sep 4 2009, 09:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 4 2009, 10:07 AM Post #4 |
|
The arrows are not pointing to nothing. They're pointing to the alleged plane that hit the Pentagon. You may need a different monitor or something to see it, but I have a 28" high-def LCD monitor and the plane is clearly there. It is the shape of a 757 and the color of American Airlines. It also appears the white smoke is coming directly from one or both engines. Does that mean it's real? No. The parking camera videos could easily have been faked. And I would even agree to that since I don't see how a 757 can be that close and level to the ground with an unseasoned pilot at the controls, and without hitting more objects besides light poles on it's way to being that close and level to the ground. Edited by BoneZ, Sep 4 2009, 10:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Alfie | Sep 4 2009, 10:45 AM Post #5 |
|
I find it difficult to discern much but I do think the tail fin, against the sky, is pretty clear. That being the case, It seems most likely to me that the pale cloud is smoke/dust from or kicked up by the port engine. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 4 2009, 11:17 AM Post #6 |
|
That's a good point you bring up about the monitor. The quality of someone's monitor could make a huge difference in whether they can properly view this image, bearing in mind the lack of contrast between the plane and the background. Even a brand new TFT monitor with a cheap TN panel might not be as clear as a decent, high quality, properly calibrated S-IPS screen with a large colour gamut. That said, the laptop I'm using only has a cheap screen, and I think the GIF makes it fairly clear that there is indeed something visible in the image that resembles an AA 757, with smoke coming out from behind it. I agree that it may well be possible to fake such a video, and don't really know enough about the flight envelope of a jet plane to make an objective judgement on whether it would be possible to fly that close to the ground. (Just to be clear, I still think a 757 hit the Pentagon). That's not the issue I'm getting at here though. I'd like to look at the video itself, and see if their is any evidence in the video that precludes there being a 757 in either video, given the known dimensions of the Flight 77 757 and the height of the Pentagon. |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 4 2009, 11:21 AM Post #7 |
|
Are you referring to this picture? http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm (top picture) I'm referring to this one. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg Anyone who says there's a plane in front of the object at the right is really stretching his imagination. Please make your positions clear as this is the skeptics section-- Do you both think that 9/11 was an inside job? I think it was an inside job and HeadLikeARock "Says" he thinks it wasn't but I think he knows it was. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 4 2009, 11:57 AM Post #8 |
|
I think the GIF shows it's quite clear. As Bonez pointed out, if you can't see it then perhaps it's a problem with your monitor? You post from an internet cafe, so it's likely they have budget monitors that aren't accurately adjusted.
Yup. Difference of opinion isn't allowed in your world. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Sep 4 2009, 07:06 PM Post #9 |
|
Of course not. If you don't agree with DavidC then you're automatically a shill and don't even believe your own arguments! Very convenient that way for DavidC! On a serious note, I can see the plane in the gif as well. I can see the tailfin against the sky in both videos. Comparing the image to the one before it like that makes it much easier. Do you have a similar gif for the other video? I am currently using a 15 inch widescreen Acer laptop screen. |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Sep 4 2009, 07:55 PM Post #10 |
|
I wonder why they won't let the public see some other angles of the same thing - possibly with greater clarity?
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 4 2009, 09:06 PM Post #11 |
|
I took the liberty of blowing up just the part of the image where the plane is in hopes that you can see it. If you can't see it, then we can't help you:  If you're asking me that question just because I can see the plane, then all you need to do is look in my signature to see where I'm a member of.  Edited by BoneZ, Sep 4 2009, 09:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 4 2009, 11:15 PM Post #12 |
|
i wonder why there aren't "104 witnesses" to a plane leaving a trail of smoke at the pentagon...... |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 5 2009, 09:27 AM Post #13 |
|
That's an interesting question. Frank Legge came up with a possible scenario. The 'perps' have much clearer video of the 757 crashing into the Pentagon, but are keeping that as an insurance policy in case the Truth movement gets close busting the whole thing wide open. They just release the withheld footage and use it to discredit the Truth Movement en masse. "They said the Pentagon wasn't hit by a 757, here is video that proves it did, therefore they can't be trusted." http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf (See point 30 at the bottom of the page) |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 5 2009, 09:43 AM Post #14 |
|
I've had a quick look, but it's not in GIF form ready for uploading yet. You can see the tail fin quite easily. It's more difficult to see exactly where the nose of the plane is: there is some change between the two frames, but it's difficult to be certain whether it's due to the nose of the plane, or the inherent difficulty of comparing small sections of zoomed in parts of a small frame, filmed using a security camera, downloaded from the net in compressed form. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Sep 5 2009, 10:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Sep 5 2009, 10:24 AM Post #15 |
|
I know Frank quite well.. he's from my town in west oz and over the last couple of years I've participated in public-outreach actions with him. He's somebody I have the utmost respect for - both as someone dedicated to the cause of truth and as a most disciplined follower of the scientific method - he also contributed to the nanothermite paper. I can see his point about the possibility of there being footage in possession of the perpetrators and wheeled out at the last minute to the detriment of the truth movement... but at the end of the day it is also more speculation - albeit speculation that we should most certainly take heed of. However due to all the anomalous factors re. the pentagon attack I just can't see a 757 doing/causing what it is said to have - especially in light of the north side (flight path) witnesses and evidence. If such footage actually exists, it would open a whole other pandora's box. In my opinion the existence of clearer, genuine footage showing such a thing is highly unlikely.
...another good point to consider there...
Edited by Lin Kuei, Sep 5 2009, 10:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
| noeffects | Sep 5 2009, 01:52 PM Post #16 |
|
the word "clearly" sounds too definitive imo... do you believe NOC flightpath ? |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Sep 5 2009, 02:46 PM Post #17 |
|
I think you are probably right that no witnesses have referred to the apparent cloud of smoke or whatever it is. However, does that not tend to confirm that we are considering genuine pictures ? After all, why go to the bother of faking something no-one has mentioned. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Sep 5 2009, 03:07 PM Post #18 |
|
I just don't see an image match myself. And it has nothing to do with monitor resolution. It looks like a doctored image to me. It does make you see a plane where you can't otherwise.  MM |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Sep 5 2009, 05:34 PM Post #19 |
|
MM At a minimum, there is something cylindrical with a tail fin. Are you sure you aren't just in denial ? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 5 2009, 06:55 PM Post #20 |
|
As I stated earlier, I have a 28" high-def LCD monitor operating at 1920x1200 pixels. I can clearly see the fuselage, the tail section, starboard wing, what appears to be the starboard engine. I can't tell if the smoke is coming out of the starboard or port engine. I can also see the color scheme which appears to be consistent with American Airlines. The plane is definitely there. Now whether it is real or not, that's the ultimate question. Without a doubt. I'm a skeptic of the fly-over theory and also the Lloyde accusations, but just the two Pentagon officers alone, for me, is proof enough of NOC. Then there's the gas station employee that also confirms what the officers say as well. So, yeah, there's no doubt of NOC. Make sure you all don't misunderstand me. There is a plane the shape of a 737/757 in that video. But I doubt it's real as I can't fathom an unskilled pilot bringing that large of a jetliner that close to the ground and level it out without hitting or bouncing off the ground or unless the pilot had considerable room to be able to ease it down that low and level. Or, of course, unless it was being controlled remotely.  |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Sep 5 2009, 06:57 PM Post #21 |
|
That image is of the smoke. The plane is in front (left) of the smoke. If you guys want me to trace the plane out for you so you can see it more easily, I can. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Sep 5 2009, 07:59 PM Post #22 |
|
please do so. It would give some better perspective to the thread...thanks |
|
|
|
| logos | Sep 5 2009, 08:23 PM Post #23 |
|
has anyone ever addressed the fact that no shadow of a plane can be seen in frame 1? http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm frames 2-5 there is a shadow on the ground from the fireball but it frame one, based on the smoke and if there is a plane in front, at that particular height shouldnt there be a shadow somewhere in the picture? Edited by logos, Sep 5 2009, 08:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Sep 5 2009, 08:38 PM Post #24 |
|
Thank God someone finally said that. Yes, that is correct. We've already noted this on our site: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-security_video.html No shadow is cast on the ground.   Also...two frames appear to be missing: |
|
|
|
| logos | Sep 5 2009, 08:54 PM Post #25 |
|
couldnt that be because of the distance between the 2 cameras and seeing as how they are motion activated, maybe thats why there is the discrepency? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
4:36 PM Nov 23
