any mathemeticians in the house???

i was recalling the pentagon video clip...and was wondering if there is an equation that can be used to determine the speed of the object flying into the pentagon. i believe all the information is available. we know the dimensions of the pentagon to be 921 ft per side and given the aerial photos of the building we can fairly estimate that the path of the plane over the lawn after the highway is approximately half that distance, also from aerial photos we can easily see where the location of the cameras might be and therefore be able to estimate the distance between the flying object and the camera. and last but not least the timers on the video. This should give any mathematician enough to work with. I understand that the answer may be a little off based on the limitation of specifics but to my understanding, the plane flew somewhere between 350 and 550 mph* (depending on who you ask and the source they give you) Cruise missiles travel at subsonic speeds and travel low to the ground to avoid radar detection. The differences in speed between the two should show up in the answer...

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
i was recalling the pentagon video clip...and was wondering if there is an equation that can be used to determine the speed of the object flying into the pentagon. i believe all the information is available. we know the dimensions of the pentagon to be 921 ft per side and given the aerial photos of the building we can fairly estimate that the path of the plane over the lawn after the highway is approximately half that distance, also from aerial photos we can easily see where the location of the cameras might be and therefore be able to estimate the distance between the flying object and the camera. and last but not least the timers on the video. This should give any mathematician enough to work with. I understand that the answer may be a little off based on the limitation of specifics but to my understanding, the plane flew somewhere between 350 and 550 mph* (depending on who you ask and the source they give you) Cruise missiles travel at subsonic speeds and travel low to the ground to avoid radar detection. The differences in speed between the two should show up in the answer...

I was suggesting that, long time ago.

Basically built a finite element model of everything (Pentagon, aircraft, etc.) and see if the model match the reality.

But one variable will be hard to get: the Pentagon construction (how it is reinforce with concrete, etc.) is classified, so someone will have to guess.

I actually did this exercise in another thread.* It's in a thread about some theory a taxi cab got moved.

I'll see if I can find it.

*Let me qualify that statement: I did the calculations for the time it would take the jet to go from I-95 (about where the taxi was) to the wall it impacted. Since I-95 is in the video shots (you can see the cars going down), this might work for what you are wanting to do.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Valhall]

hey popeye, im not understanding the construction of the pentagon as being necessary to figuring out the speed of the object. I thought all you need is the distance, and the time, both easily accesible.... can you clarify?

Here it is.

Here is the post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

from this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hope this helps in some way.

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
hey popeye, im not understanding the construction of the pentagon as being necessary to figuring out the speed of the object. I thought all you need is the distance, and the time, both easily accesible.... can you clarify?

Sorry, I tought that you wanted to figure out if an airliner (knowing the speed, etc.) will do that type of damage into the Pentagon.

excellent thread, but i think you misunderstood....i was saying based on the released pentagon footage, how hard would it be to determine the speed of the object in question IN the footage....(be it a missile or a plane, which fly at totally different speeds). I think a mathematical answer verifying speeds similar to a plane could put to rest the issue that a plane didnt ever hit.

on the opposite side, an answer showing the object was flying lets say, over mach speeds, would mean it couldnt have been a plane, and that evidence was planted.

No, I understood. What I'm saying is, because the view of the camera includes I-95 (that's to the extreme right), you can take the time calculations I made and use them in this analysis. The next thing you need to get is the time between frames, and then we can go from there to see if we should be able to see the plane.

We can make the same calculations by just inserting the speed of the "whatever" in and get it for the "whatever".

the pentagon took photos of the crash at appx a frame per half second*

one frame we see the "nose" of said object in question, the next frame we see the beginning of an explosion, and the next we see the explosion getting bigger.

This means the object in question crossed the view of the camera definately within a half a second. that is our only "frame" of reference

the distance of the path over the lawn it crossed was roughly half the distance of one side of the pentagon....say 450 feet.

multiply that by the 2fps that the camera actually caught...450x2=900, meaning the "plane" was traveling roughly 900 feet per second...

900 feet divided by the amount of feet per mile the equation should look like this

900/5280= .17045454545454545 ad infinitum miles per second.

.1704545454545(blah blah blah) times 60 seconds per minute

10.227272727272 times 60 minutes per hour, is roughly 600mph,

give or take for miscalculations, ie the distance being shorter/longer or the time (obviously being close too but less than a half second),

now here's where it gets interesting....600 might seem a reasonable speed for an aircraft, but i was giving it the benefit of the doubt.

From this conclusion i can tell you first off, that the footage was doctored, as i dont know of anybody that sells security cameras that only capture 2fps....why the pentagon would have them is beyond me, which makes it safe to assume that frames were dropped, probably not so much altered just taken out.....sorry got sidetracked....

ok like i said, within a half second, we see the nose, then the explosion, so like i said i was giving the official story the benefit of the doubt....redo the equation with anything less than a half a second but to be fair no less than a 3rd of a second.]


at a 1/3 of a second the speed of the object would be going 920 mph

so could i say it safe to assume that the object in question is traveling between 600
and 920 mph??

The cameras only shot 2FPS because they were taking pictures of cars entering the parking lot. Why do you need to spend tons of money on cameras that shoot faster than that if you're only taking a picture of a car that's sitting still. Someone on the board did something similar already, and came up with roughly 600mph, and IIRC it was released that the black box showed 534mph.

old cameras had a fps (frame per second) rate of between 6-8fps
new cameras up to 120 sometimes more (taken from Wikipedia), seems how the video is in color it is safe to assume its newer, and considering it is the pentagon. I have yet to find anyone that sells cameras that take pictures that slow. even cheap gas station security cameras catch more than just 2fps, as you can tell by watching any robbery footage. I doubt the pentagon WANTED less.

You have to learn how the military works. They go for the lowest, cheapest product they can get away with to do the mission. It's entirely possible that they were special built just for the Pengaton. They're not going to spend millions on 120fps cameras when they only NEED 2fps. They're going to open bidding, and says "These are the specs of what we need." and if it doesn't meet the specs they throw the bids out.

creating Newer, crappier cameras would be less cost effective than buying cheaper cameras that are manufactured in bulk quantities.......I know the pentagon which isnt just the military, its the Department of Defense for the entire US, uses the most expensive fire alarms on the market, the same that are used by the Smithsonian museum, i think the manufacturer is Ditech or DeTech something like that. and an average install on a home is several thousand dollars, you want me to believe they go out of their way to create cameras that are still color, but capture less than cameras in 20's

No, I didn't say that they DID make them. I said it's POSSIBLE. I know how the military works. They're going to buy the cheapest possible to do the mission. Why do you think the B-52 and C-135 families are still in the inventory. Because it's cheaper to keep flying them, even with upgrades, than to replace them.

but they didnt nor would they, create a color camera that captures less than its standard 30fps....which is the universal standard for cameras in america. or 29.97 to be specific.....i think europes is 25fps. if you can find anyone who makes security cameras that only shoot 2fps i will be more apt to see your side.

When did those standards go into effect? That camera could be older than the standards.

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
if you can find anyone who makes security cameras that only shoot 2fps i will be more apt to see your side.

These aren't for broadcast video, aAny decent security camera will shoot whatever frame rate you want (within reason), especially if you're recording the results. A quick Google search shows plenty of potential 2fps candidates.

If I got it correctly, the security cams do shoot at higher rate, but just the two FPS are being recorded as it spares the tape place.

there is no way that the plane would have been going 900+ mph on impact, 200 mph above the speed of sound. Sonic booms would certainly have been reported. It could exceed the speed of sound going straight down with engines at full throttle but not in near level flight; if anything the terrorists probably had to throttle down to make sure that they hit the target. Normal cruising speed for a 757 is about 550 mph so a range of perhaps 350 to 600 is more likely.