It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Flight 77 Video and Actual Flight Path Revealed??

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:13 PM
Ok, since the PentaCon video is coming out, I went back in did my own analysis of the 2nd video released by the Pentagon that shows what looks like the nose of a plane entering into the video just before the crash.

Here's a still from of the video that shows the nose:

It is known that the Pentagon is 77 feet high. This screen capture shows the location where the explosion took place. I marked the impact location by looking at a still frame after the explosion. This is the spot where the smoke was rising from.

Since we know the roof here is 77 feet high, we can extend horizontal lines to the apparent fuselage of the plane entering into the shot. We also know that the fuselage of a 757 is 12 feet in diameter. When we extend the lines from the Pentagon, we see that the fuselage is too large in proportion to the roof line of the Pentagon.

The fuselage is between 25-33% of the height of the Pentagon, which means it would be about 20 feet in diameter. This can't be because we know that the fuselage is only supposed to be 12 feet in diameter.

So does this mean the video is fake? Not necessarily...

The official flight path shows Flight 77 coming in from about a 45 degree angle away from the camera. This is the path that accounts for the downed light poles. Here's a photo of the official flight path in relation to the camera:

But this can't be right because the fuselage would be too big in proportion to the Pentagon wall where it hit based on the above analysis.

But what if the plane came in at the angle that would correspond to the Citgo witnesses account? What if the plane came north of the Citgo, therefore closer to the camera?

This pic shows what that flight path would look like:

If the plane came in at this angle, 40% closer to the camera, then the fuselage would appear proportionally larger in relation to the Pentagon wall. Things that are closer appear larger.

If the flight path came in at this angle, then the corresponding diameter of the fuselage would be work out to be about the 12 feet that it's supposed to be instead of 20 feet.

This would explain why the fuselage looks too big (it's actually closer to the camera than expected) and it would corroborate the witnesses from the Citgo, AND the NTSB animation (if that animation is legit).

Any thoughts on this?

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:01 AM
Hey! I've been meaning to get back with you on the size issues. It's true that by the official distance and angle, the plane seems to look too big. Of course it isn't.. No one has even tried to make a case something bigger than a 757 hit the building, so this could mean three things
1) Sloppily doctored video - possible.
2) A different flight path, say to the north... that gets it closer to the Pentagon. Also possible. I'm instictively opposed but keeping an open mind.
3) Something else, like light glare making it LOOK bigger.

I guess I meant to get back after I'd one more research and I still haven't. but these pics and Qs give me a good basis. Soooo I'll be back.

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:46 AM
ive always thought that shot of the nose looks far too pointy to be a commercial airliner, looks far more like a fighter jet or even a missile to me

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:33 AM
I love how people love to say "that doesn't look like the nose of an airliner to me", yet they completely ignore what the building looks like in the film.

If I showed you the left hand side of that film, would you be able to tell me what building it was at random...no

The video makes it all look like crap. You have to remember that the camera and / or encoding process have a set number of pixels that they fill in with information. security camera's and low bit encoding don't always get it right. It this resolution it is simply impossible to make proper analysis of scale, exact shape, etc.

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:52 AM
My question has always been how could a person with the most basic of flight instruction take a commercial airliner with which they have absolutely no experience and fly it at high speed only a few feet off the ground and hit the Pentagon without bouncing it on the ground. I'm a very competent 500hr pilot. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to pull these manuevers off? The wake-turbulence alone of an aircraft that size and flying at that speed so close to the ground would create a great deal of roll instability. With a 124ft wingspan and 24ft wide body that gives a roll moment of ~50ft. At that height over the ground it would take only the most modest buffeting to put a wingtip into the ground. And forget that tha plane allegedly hit a number of lightpoles on the way in. How were they able to pull-off this Yeager-esque flying at their experience levels???

John Lear: You're the best informed to comment on this angle. What's your take?

[edit on 21-2-2007 by jtma508]

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:09 AM

I love how people love to say "that doesn't look like the nose of an airliner to me", yet they completely ignore what the building looks like in the film.

If I showed you the left hand side of that film, would you be able to tell me what building it was at random...no

The video makes it all look like crap. You have to remember that the camera and / or encoding process have a set number of pixels that they fill in with information. security camera's and low bit encoding don't always get it right. It this resolution it is simply impossible to make proper analysis of scale, exact shape, etc.

i didn't say it proved anything, just giving my opinion. To me it does look too thin long & pointy to be a commercial airliner but I would eat my hat if there was better proof that it wasn't, Im opened minded with this subject, it makes no difference to me if it was a plane, missile or ufo.

If im not mistaken its the US government who put this video out as proof that an airliner hit, surely your point would be better directed towards them?

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Hey! I've been meaning to get back with you on the size issues. It's true that by the official distance and angle, the plane seems to look too big.

What's interesting is that this same disproportionate imaging might be in 4 different pieces of evidence:

1) Pentagon vid 1
2) Pentagon vid 2
3) Doubletree vid (if white thing is supposed to be plane wing), and
4) Smoke plume photographed at flight 93 crash site

1) Sloppily doctored video - possible.

What if the original videos accurately show *nothing* hitting the Pentagon? I.e., what if the plane was so small and moving so fast that it *looked* like a missile, if it was even visible at all?

Then the geniuses in the government panic, thinking they can't release something that doesn't show the 757, so they decide to enhance the video a little bit. But they're stuck because if they make the plane the right size, nobody would see it. So they fudge the size so people can actually see a plane.

2) A different flight path, say to the north... that gets it closer to the Pentagon. Also possible. I'm instictively opposed but keeping an open mind.

I just follow the evidence and the witness descriptions and see where they lead. If the NTSB video animation of the flight path is accurate, then Flight 77 (or a plane that's supposed to be Flight 77) came in from the north of the Citgo. This means that the light poles were knocked over by something that wasn't the same thing represented by the NTSB video.

Which means there's a whole lot more to the Pentagon story -like two planes.

Of course this scenario opens up an incredible can of worms, doesn't it? BTW, do you have any idea why the CTers aren't talking about the NTSB video being the ultimate smoking gun of this whole story? If the NTSB video is accurate, it blows away the little puffs of smoke, seismic waves, thermite, etc., etc., etc., in terms of hard evidence of fraud and government complicity.

3) Something else, like light glare making it LOOK bigger.

I don't know enough about digital imaging, etc., to even comment on what else could make something look bigger. But here's what I find REALLY odd...

If something is moving 400 mpg, give or take, you would think there would be a blur along the axis of movement. So how does Pentagon Vid 1 show what looks like a perfect shape of the vertical tail fin?

That said, maybe the fuselage looks bigger in the 2nd video because it has a slightly downward path, causing vertical blurring, or glare like you said. But the frame capture doesn't seem to show any horizontal blurring, which you would expect significantly more of since the plane was moving 400 mpg horizontally.

I guess I meant to get back after I'd one more research and I still haven't. but these pics and Qs give me a good basis. Soooo I'll be back.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this because you've done so much research already. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.

I'm still waiting for the NIST to get back to me on the whole WTC7 thing, so take your time.

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 09:44 AM

It this resolution it is simply impossible to make proper analysis of scale, exact shape, etc.

I understand your point. It's impossible to do a precise analysis. That said, certain types of comparative analyses can be done within a general margin of error that could reveal certain discrepencies.

When I did the analysis, I always erred on the side of trying to make the facts match with the official story rather than any new explanation. Even then, the measurements don't come out right.

I.e., something is not fully explainable to this point re the videos. Either there's a logical explanation that I'm totally missing, or there's an innaccuracy in what's been presented to the public by the government.

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Frakkerface
I would eat my hat if there was better proof that it wasn't, Im opened minded with this subject, it makes no difference to me if it was a plane, missile or ufo.

If im not mistaken its the US government who put this video out as proof that an airliner hit, surely your point would be better directed towards them?

No need to ingest headwear, but there's plenty of better evidence it was not a fighter or an A3 or Global Hawk.
Eyewitnesses
Physical Evidence: trajectory, impact, damage pattern, plane parts, fires, bodies.

JTMA: How could Hani Hanjour be the pilot: here's a nightmare scenario to consider:
Hanjour is an ace pilot, Saudi Air Force trained, special American tutoring, all fighter and commercial models, a real prodigy, an arab Luke Skywalker. He comes here and takes a few classes, acts dumb. The gov. someho fails to clarify this to us. Oops. We go off about how it's impossible he piloted, there's no evidence of a 757, must be a missile, inside job. THEN the files come out. Oh by the way...

Nick: It's true I tend to use the gov. numbers as a default, but I'm willing to admit a discrepancy if I see it. An analysis can be done, but I'm not sure either you or me can accurately place the location of the hit on that building or esp. the end of the building. At least I can't. The readings are therefore suspect until we can scientifically decide what's what and rule out doctoring with little scrambles to throw everything off or whatever. I would note:
- apparent lateral height could also be effect of angles, banking wings blurring in and expanding its apparent vertical height. It was wobbling and banking slightly the whole way. In fact there is almost certainly some of this involved. Look at the pic below - possible left wingtip in second square, possible right in squares 4-5.
- At the angle they say, it has a length of 100 feet plus, so a 757 fits length-wide. So how does a height/width comparison hold up?
So about 7:1. Lets say its a nealry full 757, 140 feet - yeah, that 20 feet "high," or 20 feet of fuselage and banked wings/engines. Say its only 100 feet. that gives us about 14 feet. So this all seems in the range of reason and I see no good reason to see this as off from the official story.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:06 PM
I really do enjoy the analysis that everyone is doing with these videos, but the fact of the matter still stands. The government has over eighty-five recordings of the Pentagon on that day - some of which Jack Tripper has proven to be from cameras on the Pentagon lawn - and how many have we seen? Two? Three?

There have been numerous attempts to obtain all the recordings, but the plaintiffs in the cases have been denied time and time again. If there is nothing to hide - or nothing to show for that matter - make these tapes public.

Source

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
I really do enjoy the analysis that everyone is doing with these videos, but the fact of the matter still stands. The government has over eighty-five recordings of the Pentagon on that day - some of which Jack Tripper has proven to be from cameras on the Pentagon lawn - and how many have we seen? Two? Three?

There have been numerous attempts to obtain all the recordings, but the plaintiffs in the cases have been denied time and time again. If there is nothing to hide - or nothing to show for that matter - make these tapes public.

Source

I presume you mean from this camera:

Jack says it's very durable, and it's not melted to a liquid, so maybe this is more hidden footage of the non-plane? It wouldheve been an excellent view,so why haven't seen it? Hmmm....

And thanks all fora stimulating thread.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:43 AM
it is a bit odd that the most protected place on the planet (possibly) only has two 2 grainy vids of its biggest breach of security

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:48 AM
Perfect, thank you. See above photo for a clue why there might be less video than otherwise expected where an exploding 757 flew through that breach.

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:16 AM
Sorry I didn't respond to this specifically earlier friend.

Originally posted by nick7261
What's interesting is that this same disproportionate imaging might be in 4 different pieces of evidence:

1) Pentagon vid 1
2) Pentagon vid 2
3) Doubletree vid (if white thing is supposed to be plane wing), and
4) Smoke plume photographed at flight 93 crash site

Interesting. I can see the poss. of alterations in any of these. Many possible reasons. one of them being...

What if the original videos accurately show *nothing* hitting the Pentagon? I.e., what if the plane was so small and moving so fast that it *looked* like a missile, if it was even visible at all?

Then the geniuses in the government panic, thinking they can't release something that doesn't show the 757, so they decide to enhance the video a little bit. But they're stuck because if they make the plane the right size, nobody would see it. So they fudge the size so people can actually see a plane.

I've wondered that myself, especially regarding the "blue tailfin." It's quite plausible. It's also a fairly innocent-looking doctoring that doesn't mean much as far as cover-up.

I just follow the evidence and the witness descriptions and see where they lead. If the NTSB video animation of the flight path is accurate, then Flight 77 (or a plane that's supposed to be Flight 77) came in from the north of the Citgo. This means that the light poles were knocked over by something that wasn't the same thing represented by the NTSB video.

Which means there's a whole lot more to the Pentagon story -like two planes.

If the animation is right - that's a big if. The animation has its problems, tho I haven't sorted it all out. At Dulles, prior to takeoff, the altimeter reads 300. At the Pentagon, just a few miles away, it ends with the plane about 100-150 feet above ground, and the alt. reads 180. This seems odd to me. As does it ending like that, even tho the time is 9:37:45.

The path is different and it raises a ton of questions with the plane that have largely already been answered. So it introduces two planes, an attack one (that cliiped the poles and hit the building, so obv. built like a 757) and a fool people plane, also obv. looking like a 757. So why not put the FDR in the attack plane so it'd be accurate? And if it was alrady was shaped like a 757, why not paint it that way and make it the fool people plane? If this be a government plot, I'm not seeing the advantage in it yet...

I don't know enough about digital imaging, etc., to even comment on what else could make something look bigger. But here's what I find REALLY odd...

If something is moving 400 mpg, give or take, you would think there would be a blur along the axis of movement. So how does Pentagon Vid 1 show what looks like a perfect shape of the vertical tail fin?

That said, maybe the fuselage looks bigger in the 2nd video because it has a slightly downward path, causing vertical blurring, or glare like you said. But the frame capture doesn't seem to show any horizontal blurring, which you would expect significantly more of since the plane was moving 400 mpg horizontally.

Lack of blurring - well it looks pretty blurry to me. in the "plane" frame from cam 2? The one relesed in '02? I'll have to go back and look. the dark blue "tailfin," as I've said, is probably not part of the plane. (i explain that here.) I don'tknow where that came from, but is one of the clues of possible doctoring.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this because you've done so much research already. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.

I'm still waiting for the NIST to get back to me on the whole WTC7 thing, so take your time.

Well thanks. I like to feel useful. The WTC7 thing? I must've missed that. I actually miss a lot of stuff. You got a request in huh?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

- At the angle they say, it has a length of 100 feet plus, so a 757 fits length-wide. So how does a height/width comparison hold up?
So about 7:1. Lets say its a nealry full 757, 140 feet - yeah, that 20 feet "high," or 20 feet of fuselage and banked wings/engines. Say its only 100 feet. that gives us about 14 feet. So this all seems in the range of reason and I see no good reason to see this as off from the official story.

You're one of the only people I know who thinks the white squiggly thing in the pic is the plane and not a smoke trail. Of course, you're probably right.

When you do an overhead on the angle (which I didn't save and upload yet) the left wing almost has to be in square 7, all the way to the right. The nose has to be in square 1, all the way to the left. Then you look at square 6 closely and you can see a bit of white extending vertically above the horizontal center line. That might be the vertical fin. The width of the fuselage is in the right range to fit the 12 ft. diamter to within the margin of error that we can measure on this pic.

However, that still leaves as a mystery what the black think that looks like a tail fin is to the left of square 1??? This is the only frame this object is in. CatHerder and almost everbody else think it might be the plane.

This still isn't making sense to me... something doesn't seem right about the pic.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by nick7261]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
JTMA: How could Hani Hanjour be the pilot: here's a nightmare scenario to consider:
Hanjour is an ace pilot, Saudi Air Force trained, special American tutoring, all fighter and commercial models, a real prodigy, an arab Luke Skywalker. He comes here and takes a few classes, acts dumb. The gov. someho fails to clarify this to us. Oops. We go off about how it's impossible he piloted, there's no evidence of a 757, must be a missile, inside job. THEN the files come out. Oh by the way...
[edit on 21-2-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Caustic... is this a known fact or speculation? I hadn't heard this before. And if it WAS true why would it even be necessary to send him to flight school? What would that possibly accomplish?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by jtma508]

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:46 AM

Originally posted by nick7261

However, that still leaves as a mystery what the black think that looks like a tail fin is to the left of square 1??? This is the only frame this object is in. CatHerder and almost everbody else think it might be the plane.

This still isn't making sense to me... something doesn't seem right about the pic.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by nick7261]

there is an analysis somewhere else on the forums, which clearly shows that the "black thing that looks like a tail fin" is actually in every frame of film- ie. its a tree or building in the background. hope this clears that up!

im pretty sure the white stuff is the plane/aircraft/missile.... but lets be honest, these clips are just not even worth trying to work out.... i mean, its something white. we can only guess, until other videos come to light (not the ones from the pentagon, the ones that were seized by the FBI from elsewhere, before someone argues!)

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 02:39 PM
JTMA: Just a nightmare scenario. A keep you on your toes, contigency planning moment. What does going to flight schhols accomplish then? His psyop - his bad acting - his "I couldn'ta done it, it must've been your own gov." By this scenario if it came "true," all such arguments would look like part of the 9/11 attack themselves, seeded discord.
So ultimately I'm just saying his acting like a bad pilot doesn't necessarily MAKE him a bad pilot. Nor could any level of skill on his part totally rule out remote control.

Purple: You got the right idea - the white is the plane. It has a shadow, it's remrkably more compact than the moke in the other frames, a different color from it, and it's the same color as the nosecone in the other video. The only thing making it look like a vapor trail is that "tailfin."

But unfortunately it IS only in this frame, at least that sharp and high. I can't explain this well from actual visuals I'd excpect - it could be something like a lamp pole flying out in front, pole #5 was pretty close, but taht'd be shiny. It could be just a digital glitch caused by the brilliant nosecone, bleeding over into the next pixel sector or something... or slight doctoring to mess with us a bit. So it does come and go with the plane, but I still don't think it's the plane. It's still a mystery to me.

Nick: As for wing placement and all, I'm just gonna have to let it be for the moment. Maybe I'll just be lazy and pretend it's totally doctored and worthless. Had enough of the blur.

new topics

top topics

0