It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Video Footage of Flight 77 Hitting Pentagon Released

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
Well to me it seemed like a cruise missile, but how come, on the screen shot version of this relaeased you dont this this screen grab, im trying to grab the screen i see and upload it, but im sure people can find it.......


I downloaded the video then opened it with VLC player then ran VLC at its slowest speed then took this screen shot.



As you can see it is about the size that a 757 would be at than distance. Note the nose pointed down slightly. Then note you can almost make out the United logo just where it is on most of their planes. The color is also Uniteds color.

What I did to get the picture to this stage was changed it from png to jpeg and increased dpi from 96 to 244 then inserted the arrow and finally cropped it to show only the portion wanted.




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
um what logo what colours or am i missing something


maybe i just to go find my glasses lol



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
What I did to get the picture to this stage was changed it from png to jpeg and increased dpi from 96 to 244 then inserted the arrow and finally cropped it to show only the portion wanted.


Hi Shots...

Whenever we do thinks like that to an image, the original information 'can' change somewhat, making it tough to really know what's there. I made an animated GIF, blown up without altering the pixel data here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...





It's hard to tell. We don't know how the camera focal point might alter the perspective of distant objects, or if what we're seeing is effected by some motion blur. But based on the original unaltered pixels we see "something" that looks like it "might" be too small.

The best solution is for someone (somehow) to redigitize the original in a high resolution format for deeper analysis. I don't think we have enough data for a solid conclusion.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
subz,

I suggest you take a look at a photo of Boeing757 and compare the shape of the nose to what you see in the photo. It is TOO point and too sharp for this nice curved passenger aircraft nose.

Definetly NOT a Boeing.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

this is a bbc commentary by Paul Reynolds about the recent release as it pertains to conspiracy theorists. He even goes as far as to say part of the reason we think the government had a hand in it is because we are hate America. He doesn't use those words, but he comes dangerously close.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well I have to agree with Alex Jones on this. (IMHO) The next video if it is released will be from the gas station and we will see a jet fly over but not long enough to see it hit the Pentagon. Thus it will keep us bickering over what impacted the building that day. What about NORAD standing down, Why no discussion about WT7, there are so many problems / inconstancy's with the government story, it in it's self is a conspiracy.






www.prisonplanet.com...

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op
Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them.

(Snip)

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.

At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.



[edit on 17/5/2006 by Sauron]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Wow it took them THIS LONG to doctor some video? Hell I could have done a better job with my computer in a week!

WHy is the most secure place in the world using a webcam you can get for 20bucks to defend the Pentagon?

Man if that kind of video proof is what it takes to prove something then all you people who say this is proof NEED TO ADMIT BIGFOOT, LOCH NESS MONSTER, AND SANTA CLAUS ARE REAL!

Oh forgot to mention all the videos of Chupacabra, Skunk Ape, Jersey Devil, Dover Demon, Bush Not on Vacation and Telling the truth, Aliens/UFOs, and anything else that was shot with such crappy quality.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by StarkMan]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Hi Shots...

Whenever we do thinks like that to an image, the original information 'can' change somewhat, making it tough to really know what's there. I made an animated GIF, blown up without altering the pixel data here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



SO you are right; My bad and I do recall your mentioning that a while back, but it slipped my mind while doing it. What you just showed is exactly what I saw here b4 I did what I did. I just wanted to make it clear that I had altered the photo so no one could accuse me of wrong doing. Just trying to be honest is all I was doing, but in the future I will try and remember your wise words of wisdom next time



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarkMan
Man if that kind of video proof is what it takes to prove something then all you people who say this is proof NEED TO ADMIT BIGFOOT, LOCH NESS MONSTER, AND SANTA CLAUS ARE REAL!



santas not real?







posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
It is TOO point and too sharp for this nice curved passenger aircraft nose.

We need to remember that the plane came in at an angle, and that the 'point' may be part of the far wing-tip and not the nose of the plane. Many seem to be assuming that we're looking at a straight horizontal path across the field of view, and it wasn't. There's not enough image data here to tell if we're seeing the far tip, then nose.

However, does seem overall too small.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We need to remember that the plane came in at an angle, and that the 'point' may be part of the far wing-tip and not the nose of the plane. Many seem to be assuming that we're looking at a straight horizontal path across the field of view, and it wasn't. There's not enough image data here to tell if we're seeing the far tip, then nose.

Well, if the wingtip would be at that point, the plane would be Severly turning to another side, then just running straight ahead at the Pentagon. If you would take 2 pixels from the top of the nose, it would look like a Boeing - poor Psy-Ops Photoshop work!




However, does seem overall too small.

Agreed - too small...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
subz,

I suggest you take a look at a photo of Boeing757 and compare the shape of the nose to what you see in the photo. It is TOO point and too sharp for this nice curved passenger aircraft nose.

Definetly NOT a Boeing.


First I am not Subz and of course it does not look like a boeing in bright yellow but it does when you look at in in United colors.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well, if the wingtip would be at that point, the plane would be Severly turning to another side,




It does seem as though the wings might be too far back to be visible from the angle of the camera and the anlge of attack.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I think this is a GOOD presentation of how it would look like IF a Boeing757 crashed into Pentagon:


How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?

Wary therefore we are of the potential for the government to eventually release clear footage of the impact from the 84 other cameras that were dotted around the Pentagon and would have easily documented the event to debunk 9/11 skeptics.


The NEW tape from Pentagon does not Solve anything...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Does anyone know where I can get the other video shown?

I am talking about the number two video which shows the pylons and the two cop cars.

I would like to get my hands on that one and then do a screen capture of what several of us perceived to be the outline of the tail in the flames.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Except for the company that suddenly would have one more plane than they thought they did.



There would be maybe a couple of people in the company that would have any idea how many planes they actually had. BTW you have seen the pictures of the jets parked in the desert right?


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
The mechanics that do the major work, and possibly those that do the run throughs of the planes at every airport, would notice. No doubt they would say something, as there would be no way that they could keep all of them quiet. Also, if they changed serial numbers (not the FAA registration numbers) I'm sure the mechanics would pick up on that too.


The mechanics work on endless jets. I doubt they have time to do background checks on registration numbers. It isn't their job.


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Right, but the damage that was left over would show the construction of the Pentagon. That is what I said before when I said the potential to be a problem for national security.


We've seen pics all around the Pentagon after the crash including photos from an angle that let you see inside the building. So a video from across the lot wouldn't be an issue. We've already seen it all.... except that pesky 757.

One last note. While the jet may be made out of aluminum for the most part there is a significant amount of titanium in the engines. What happened to all that titanium?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I think this is a GOOD presentation of how it would look like IF a Boeing757 crashed into Pentagon:


Actually that video isn't accurate. If you look at the animation you posted you'd see they'd have the 757 nearly on the ground while the tail section came about as high as the roof. Accourding to...

www.infoplease.com...

... the building is 77 feet tall. A 757-200 series jet is 44 feet 6 inches from landing gear to top of tail. You'd have 15 feet of clearance at the bottom and top of the jet. The video you post would indicate a jet closer to 60 feet tall. The dimensions of a 767-200 would be 61 feet tall.

Additional note: While I believe 100% that the video released was doctored I will say the item in the video appears to be approximately 1/5th the height of the Pentagon. The Pentagon is 77' high. 1/5th of that is 15.4'. That is approximately the top to bottom dimensions of a 757-200 hull. I believe that is also approximately the size of the hold that was made initially in the building. Also compare the explosions in that video to the explosions in NY. They all 3 have the same bright fireballs associated with exloding jet fuel.

But the 757-200 isn't the only vehicle that uses jet fuel and they are still trying to get us to believe that a poor flight student unable to manage a Cessna somehow pulled off stunt pilot type moves.

They are basically claiming they have proof that bigfoot exists but aren't showing the proof.

[edit on 5/17/2006 by Indy]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
the OJ effect in full bloom


those inclined to see a hoax say the video is made up, those inclined to think it was a plane say "told ya so !"

Are there any posters out there that have changed their minds in the past year ?

Has this changed anyone's view ?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Let me ask everyone this question...

If the parking lot and hotel videos got release and it didn't show an American Airlines 757-200 what would your opinion be about this "war on terror"?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Glad they finally cleared all this up. I was beginning to think they weren't evil fascist whores. But, as I assumed...they are!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join