Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 29
1
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
The area in green is a really nice chunk missing.

In the new video we get, they ZOOMED in so we couldnt get a clear view once again.Clever little buggers they are



What are you on about? We actually see a little more than in the leaked ones:

911research.wtc7.net...

You realise that the camera gives a fish eye effect, right?

There seems to be some sort of issue with where the plane hit in the CCTV video, this is obivously important to work out the relative size of the zircraft on the CCTV and as some people seem to find my estimation inadequate I would appreciate some input.
Then we can work out the relative size of the plane at that point, because as I said, the size of the aircraft to the Pentagon is obivously directly proportional.
Regardless of what lense was used if you place the tail of the aircraft at the same spot as the outer wall which was hit, it's height will be proportional with the height of the Pentagon, it won't be bigger, it won't be smaller than whatever that is.

When estimating the point of impact make these considerations:



Make sure you take note of the outer reaches of the fireball in the video, then compare it to a photo of the extent of damage taken immediately after the impact:



So make sure you bear in mind the impact point will be in the middle of the devestation and quite close to the end of the building.

Then by looking at the smoke trail (in the rectangle box) and attempting to pinpoint the area that the most dense smoke is coming from you should get an idea of the impact point:





That's why I think it was where I put it, but I'd welcome anyone else's opinon, then as I said when we have ascertained the impact point we can work out how the plane would have looked if it was in full shot.

(also bearing in mind of course that it hit the Pentagon at a 50 degree angle, so it would probably not have been perfectly side on to the camera view - and hence if the tail was angled away the aircraft would effectively look shorter and distorted).

[edit on 20-5-2006 by AgentSmith]




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
That 'How it should have looked' GIF is so grossly inaccurate. So much so I made a new one...

This is how, in my opinion, it would have looked if the plane was going at half the speed it was:



Feeedback is welcomed.

PS, this has no compensation for Fish Eye either so It'd probably look even smaller.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by CaptainLazy]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Everyone knows its a fish eye lens, so it has a wider field of vision which means its even less likely to miss the plane altogether but it just happens to catch the 1st couple of feet of something and then the impact, how convenient.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Everyone knows its a fish eye lens, so it has a wider field of vision which means its even less likely to miss the plane altogether but it just happens to catch the 1st couple of feet of something and then the impact, how convenient.


Lets break it down mathematically. Lets Assume the camera is recording at 1fps, the plane is travelling at 500mph and the space from the wall to the first apearance of the planes front at the right edge is 300meters.

That means that plane would have cleared the grass and hit the building in 0.02 seconds


Check yourself:
www.machinehead-software.co.uk...

So even if the camera was recording at 1frame per HALF second. It still would only catch one shot of the plane.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Here's one I made earlier.... Based on the view from the camera not including the freeway to the side, the wiew of the trees and the line from the checkpoint across the barriers I think this is a fairly accurate depiction of the view the camera has:



Based on this I think we'd be looking at a maximum of about 600 feet that the plane travelled.
If we use a figure of 400mph then it was travelling at approximately 586.67 feet per second.
Therefore if the camera was taking images at 0.5 second intervals, it makes sense that in the first footage we saw there is nothing, then the plane in the middle, then the explosion. If it records at 1 second intervals which is what it seems to play at, then you're lucky to get the plane in shot.
The second video covers even less distance, so again one would not expect to see the aircraft more than once in the footage.
If pushed, I'd also say I'm probably being generous with the camera's coverage.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
Lets break it down mathematically. Lets Assume the camera is recording at 1fps, the plane is travelling at 500mph and the space from the wall to the first apearance of the planes front at the right edge is 300meters.

That means that plane would have cleared the grass and hit the building in 0.02 seconds


Check yourself:
www.machinehead-software.co.uk...

So even if the camera was recording at 1frame per HALF second. It still would only catch one shot of the plane.
It looks like the only way wed get a shot of the plane is with a 30fps camera. I still find it hard to believe theyd have 1fps cameras where cars are being used, a car will easily pass through that frame going at 20mph if its close enough to the camera.

Edit

I make it 500mph = 800kph

800kph / 60 mins = 13.33km per min

13.33km / 60 secs = 222m per second

If that cameras field of view is 222m - planes length (47-54m depending on model) or more then we should see the plane again before impact.

Ive used www.csgnetwork.com... to confirm my manual findings.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by Flyer]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
It's a checkpoint, cars tend to stop, due to the barrier and all.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
It's a checkpoint, cars tend to stop, due to the barrier and all.
yeah but if someone was doing something illegal like fleeing (which is the whole point of the security cameras) hes hardly be likely to stop at a check point, would he?



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Ive used www.csgnetwork.com... to confirm my manual findings.


What am I doing wrong?





posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I wouldnt have thought any video camera would record one frame per second unless they are just saving space, which is possible.
Either way its not important because we either get decent video of this or we dont as this one isnt good enough.


Agent Smith, i dont think it realisitic about moving the controls forward on the plane at the last minute. It already appears to be extremly low coming in level at a high speed. Just wouldnt have been possible

Im not sure about ground effect, i think most real pilots will tell you anything below 50 feet at high speed is very close to the ground and would be extremely difficult to do even in a fighter jet. This aircraft looks low from that camera, it smashed into near the base of the pentagon anyway.
Very tough to believe.
I cant work out why a hijacker pilot would fly the way they did, doesnt make sense to me.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why do they NEED a faster one? How long does it take you to pull up to a gate at the entrance to a parking lot, either pull a ticket, or use your pass, and then drive into the lot? A 2fps camera is all they need, and it stretches the time between changing tapes a lot.


Allow me to interject again. All federal buildings have ultra-high resolution monitoring systems in place that capture data at 30 fps and cover every inch of their campus. There are no "dead spots". That is a security hole, and those are quickly closed. The overlap in the camera placement creates a mesh where nothing is not on two cameras simultaneously. Its called redundancy, and is a requirement. These systems do not require tapes to be changed as they are digital and are written to data recorders (hard drives), which in highly secured facilities are housed in a farm where terabytes of data can be stored, allowing for continual archiving of data (another requirement). This is not some cheesy system installed at the local Qwiki Mart.

The footage released is bogus. There is no way that the most secure building in Washington is going to be monitired by an X10 quality device capturing data at 2 fps. It is not only against common sense, but it is also against federal security guidelines. Where is the real footage from the real system?



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
And this is still the Pentagon we're talking about. Washington, and the military are nortorious for "We're not changing things until we HAVE to change them" mentalities. Why do you think the USAF is still flying planes that were built in the 1960s? Not designed now, actually built. The primary tanker, and now second line bomber are older than 90% of the people that fly them, and as of right now there are no plans to change that for a long time to come.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why do they NEED a faster one? How long does it take you to pull up to a gate at the entrance to a parking lot, either pull a ticket, or use your pass, and then drive into the lot? A 2fps camera is all they need, and it stretches the time between changing tapes a lot.


Allow me to interject again. All federal buildings have ultra-high resolution monitoring systems in place that capture data at 30 fps and cover every inch of their campus. There are no "dead spots". That is a security hole, and those are quickly closed. The overlap in the camera placement creates a mesh where nothing is not on two cameras simultaneously. Its called redundancy, and is a requirement. These systems do not require tapes to be changed as they are digital and are written to data recorders (hard drives), which in highly secured facilities are housed in a farm where terabytes of data can be stored, allowing for continual archiving of data (another requirement). This is not some cheesy system installed at the local Qwiki Mart.

The footage released is bogus. There is no way that the most secure building in Washington is going to be monitired by an X10 quality device capturing data at 2 fps. It is not only against common sense, but it is also against federal security guidelines. Where is the real footage from the real system?


so this is confirmed? your not just making it up because your on the internet and can hide behind your computer screen. I can take your word that its regulation that there are digital security cameras monitoring the pentagon and redundancy?



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy

Originally posted by Flyer
Ive used www.csgnetwork.com... to confirm my manual findings.


What am I doing wrong?




800km per hour = 800,000 m per hour or 222.22m per second

So if distance to be covered = 220m
The time taken will be 220/222.22 = 0.99 seconds

If a camera is running at one frame per second, an object moving at 800km/hour can only be captured in one frame maximum


[edit on 20/5/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here's one I made earlier.... Based on the view from the camera not including the freeway to the side, the wiew of the trees and the line from the checkpoint across the barriers I think this is a fairly accurate depiction of the view the camera has:




It's not just right. But a good start.


I just calculated the tail of the plane with your drawn view and got 38 pixel (for the 707x423 pix) which is way too large.

Take Google earth and zoom in where you placed the camerea and check the camera pic. You can see the 3 white strips of the asphalt in the left side.
It almost opens to the corner of the building.
On the right side you could be right...but I would check with the sphalt too and the building behind the freeway. I would also draw the center view of the camera.

With the opening you could just measure the opening distance (bow ) in the distance of interest (where the plane enters) and devide trhough the camera resolution. Ok the camera distortion is then not handled right but it should come close. When the camera has square sized pixuel you then can map it to the hight.

According to your drawing the plane enters the picture at the little road bend. Didnt check this but when it's right you could maybe use the car that drove in the background I asume on that road for as a plausibility check after you calculate dthe size. I believe it was the police car that appears in the fron later.

I like how you are working out the size and the result will be interesting.

At the end just dont forget one thing. This videos from the gov are edited IMO and therefore worth nothing at the end except showing the dishonesty of the gov once more. I dont know what they edited and why.

byway that slwoly disapearing smoke trail over several frames of ignoranceisnotbliss work is interessting. It is very visible in the original video also when you pay attention to it. I wondered if it could have benn caused from the low fly of the aircraft .causing a dust ground cloud..but it was gras a lawn what I could see...so I dont think so. speaks against a 757 once again.

edit: oh ps. just see you took the closer camera.. but I would check this again also..or the tail gets very hight.
I refer to the camera more at the white building.

edit2:
recalculated with an own measurment on google earth for the old camera:
result: 27 pixel high: (that's still an estimation and not high precise)

would looks like this (limit is the black horizontal bar 44' not the vertical, the vertical are the wrong 38pixel)



[edit on 20-5-2006 by g210]

[edit on 20-5-2006 by g210]

[edit on 20-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Is there any other path the plane could have taken to hit the Pentagon without hitting more light poles, trees, or other structures before hitting the Pentagon.

Think about how the path the plane did take vs any other possible path at the same altitude to any other side around the Pentagon.

How planned is it?



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
800km per hour = 800,000 m per hour or 222.22m per second

So if distance to be covered = 220m
The time taken will be 220/222.22 = 0.99 seconds

If a camera is running at one frame per second, an object moving at 800km/hour can only be captured in one frame maximum


[edit on 20/5/2006 by alienanderson]

Wrong, you have to take into account that the nose has to be at least 46m into the pentagon for the tail not to be caught on camera.

If the field of vision is 178m or more, the government have withheld video frames, even on a 1fpd camera, if the plane cannot fly at 15m above ground at 800km/h due to the ground affect, the camera field of vision becomes less for proof that frames are missing.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy

Originally posted by Flyer
Ive used www.csgnetwork.com... to confirm my manual findings.


What am I doing wrong?


Use the calculator below.

800kmh, 1 sec = 222.22m



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by alienanderson
If a camera is running at one frame per second, an object moving at 800km/hour can only be captured in one frame maximum

Wrong, you have to take into account that the nose has to be at least 46m into the pentagon for the tail not to be caught on camera.


Of course - I forgot to factor in the length of the object in question. So it could in theory be caught on 2 frames if camera running at 1fps

I'm not even sure if a commercial jet is able to come in at such a flat trajectory at high speed. I quoted this before but I think it needs repeating and I'm not sure if the claim has been debunked anywhere else:


physics911

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)



[edit on 20/5/2006 by alienanderson]


SMR

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by SMR
The area in green is a really nice chunk missing.

In the new video we get, they ZOOMED in so we couldnt get a clear view once again.Clever little buggers they are



What are you on about? We actually see a little more than in the leaked ones:


Perhaps you didnt LOOK at my image enough.IT IS cropped! If you cant see that, then you are very much in denial sir.The green area is following the lens conture and is plainly cropped out.
This is from the first footage we got years back.And the NEW footage is only a zoomed in version of this...so far as I can tell.It may be altered as well since it looks like the same area, but with no yellow box somehow.




Now we see this new image.Where is that little object peeking out from? Is it right after the yellow box? If so, then why is it cropped? Where is the rest of the image to see that this is a 757.All we get is a blurry Snoopy nose.

Here is a little animation of the zooming showing proof it is and that a large area is being left out...cropped.I scaled your image over one I had to match up the building.I then drew a reference line that lines up showing that it is zoomed in and you can see this because the yellow box is gone, yet the building reference is the same.
It is a cropped image and they could have/should have left it alone to see what is on the right so we can see what this little object really is.Instead, we get a cropped/zoomed in image with a little spec coming in.The rest of 'it' was croppped out.






new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join