Pentagon video analysis

[Somerandomguy]

Hi all! New to the forums. Recently I've been studying the claims of CT's and subsequent debunkings of their claims regarding 9/11... I'm forever a skeptic, though I remain unconviced either way about what actually happened.

I recently stumbled upon an analysis of the Pentagon security camera video, and it would be nice if someone attempted to debunk the analysis. I've searched the forums and found no reference to it.

The analysis is made by italian cinematographer Pier Paul Murru and he comes to the conclusion that the crucial frames have been tampered with. It is written in Italian but has been translated to English (though quite poorly).

He appears to be somewhat of a CT, though he declares his objectivity in the "Intent section". The analysis seems to me very credible and thorough, but it would be nice to get a second opinion.

Here it is. Add "www" in front of the address, as I can't yet post links...

Italian:
.immagine.it/pierpaolomurru/reportdod/site/

Translated english version:
.immagine.it/pierpaolomurru/reportdod/site/eng_version/

[uk_dave]

.. I'm forever a skeptic, though I remain unconviced either way about what actually happened.



Welcome to the forum.

Interesting comment you make. Why are you unconvinced about the official account of events?

Oh and the sites you linked to have been commented on previously here. The search function may help you, but I seem to recall that the general opinion was that it was an exercise in over analysis of poor data and that the analyst should get a hobby.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Somerandomguy. Do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

[Gravy]

Doctor Wood to the white courtesy phone, please. Doctor Wood to the white courtesy phone, please.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8790459932e1c9d06.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3434)

[Somerandomguy]

Interesting comment you make. Why are you unconvinced about the official account of events?
Well, because of my sceptical nature, I suppose. The historical track-record of the US government when it comes to telling the truth, especially regarding events leading up to war, should make any self-respecting sceptic at least somewhat sceptical regarding the "official account of events" as well. However, that doesn't stop me from finding 95% of the claims I've heard from the CT crowd extremely unlikely.

Like I said, I HAVE used the search function and I cannot find any references to the analysis. I suppose it can be argued that it is indeed over analysis of poor data, but the fact that the two videos shows perfect consistency except in the crucial frames seems to me odd, and I don't think it should be brushed aside too easily.

[Somerandomguy]

Welcome to the forums, Somerandomguy. Do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Thanks! And yes, I do.

[Gravy]

Cool. Since flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, I don't see any reason for the USG to fake a video, do you?

[Alt+F4]

Welcome!

You're right, the English translation wasn't very good. But anyway, here's an intresting video regarding the Pentagon security camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[Somerandomguy]

Cool. Since flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, I don't see any reason for the USG to fake a video, do you?
You didn't ask whether or not it hit the Pentagon, you asked whether I believed it. Me believing it doesn't make it true and me not seeing any reason for it being doctored doesn't mean there is no reason. I try looking at evidence without any preconceived notions.

Thanks Alt+F4! I'll have a look.

[Arus808]

okay, with all the evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon at the scene, do you believe it was Flight 77 or some other plane/missile/globalhawk/etc?

[Gravy]

It's a fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I was merely stating that. You're right that the USG could have doctored the video for reasons we can't guess. Then again, if they had something to hide they could simply have not released the videos. I'll leave the nitpicking over video frames for the experts. I have no reason to believe that the videos don't show flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

[Anti-sophist]

Haha, this looks familiar:
http://www.immagine.it/pierpaolomurru/reportdod/site/eng_version/approccio.gif

He didn't even give JDX credit for this! Thief!

[StoneWT]

You might want to consider what happens when an aircraft traveling several hundred miles per hour appears in the background of a low-quality security camera designed to capture the license plates of vehicles directly in front of it.

[Anti-sophist]

It's hard to tell if this guy knows what he's talking about and it comes off as gibberish because of the translation, or whether this is just pure gibberish. I'm going to give him the benfit of the doubt.

After having said that, and reading all of it, I barely even understand his point of view. More then half of the "pages" seem to support the official theory.

His claim (the only one I can identify, anyway) boils down to the fact that the two videos appear to be taking simultaenous frames, and therefore every frame should have identical content. He goes through alot of frames and alot of effort to show they have identical content. All of course, except this one:

http://www.immagine.it/pierpaolomurru/reportdod/site/eng_version/compa20.jpg

So we have 90/91 identical frames, and we have this odd one. Most will instantly recognize this as the most important frame, and recognize the area as the most important area of the video.

Of course, his assumption that both cameras have identical content also carries with it another assumption that both cameras can capture the content identically. Unsuprisingly, the only difference between the two cameras happens to occur in only frame with an object moving over 20 mph (about 25 times faster, in fact).

His case of "proving" that all the photos are identical is comparing content moving slowly, like smoke. Yes, the smoke is all identical in every frame, but the smoke is evolving slowly. The plane, however, is not "evolving" slowly and the tiny time slip error in frame capture synchronity are likely the cause of the "extra" smoke in one angle, and not in the other.

I think it's safe to chalk this one up to CTists not understsanding error.

[Somerandomguy]

Brilliant Anti-sophist! That's the kind of stuff I requested. Yes, that appears to be the gist of his argument and I thought it a pretty convincing one seeing as the content of all but one frame appeared identical. What I hadn't considered, of course, was the speed of the aircraft in relation to the smoke and other moving things. Any expert on camera things around here to comment on the error this would display?

[Anti-sophist]

Brilliant Anti-sophist! That's the kind of stuff I requested. Yes, that appears to be the gist of his argument and I thought it a pretty convincing one seeing as the content of all but one frame appeared identical. What I hadn't considered, of course, was the speed of the aircraft in relation to the smoke and other moving things. Any expert on camera things around here to comment on the error this would display?

Not without a datasheet and the schematics of the devices in question.

It's incorrect, always, to say that two things happen at the same time. Two cameras do not take pictures at the same time, ever. Any "sychronous" system will have some time-slip error built in. If the differences between the two cameras was 1 nanosecond, only objects moving at X speed would show a difference. If the error was 1 micro second, it'd be Y, with Y less than X.

Because the 20mph objects all appear identical, it puts an upper limit on the time error between the cameras. It says nothing, however, on how a 500 mph object should appear.

[Somerandomguy]

Right, so I suppose if we knew the speed with which it was flying and the approximate distance between the location of the plane in the frame in question, one could calculate how out of sync the time is in each frame? Do we know the speed of the plane?

[beachnut]

Right, so I suppose if we knew the speed with which it was flying and the approximate distance between the location of the plane in the frame in question, one could calculate how out of sync the time is in each frame? Do we know the speed of the plane?

yes

[beachnut]

Right, so I suppose if we knew the speed with which it was flying and the approximate distance between the location of the plane in the frame in question, one could calculate how out of sync the time is in each frame? Do we know the speed of the plane?

463KIAS 526 mph 771 fps 235 mps to (488 KIAS 554 mph 813 fps 247 mps missing data?)

From the FDR - 463 KIAS (526 mph) a second to 5 seconds before impact. If you are good at this use the ballpark of 463 - 488 KIAS. If you are real good you need the corrections or best guess from Boeing if these are the real speeds since the plane is well into overspeed condition at 100 feet MSL.

BTW the angle of the impact looks good from FDR.

You plane is going 771 to 800 feet per second when it hits the Pentagon.

Your camera is a half second or worse! Do you know?

The camera lens is real bad fisheye. Other sites have distances.

[Gravy]

approx. 530 mph (777 fps)

ah, beachnut is on the ball. And he made a good point: we don't know how accurate that airspeed measurement is.

I believe the cameras are 1 frame per second.

[Somerandomguy]

I emailed the guy and asked him about whether he thought the sheer speed of the plane could not produce the incompability of Frame 20. Here's the reply, again, in poor english: (I wonder if he uses babelfish for them)

The /object /speed it's a false problem because the two CCTV
were far from filmed object (210/250 meters - 700/820ft) and the
relative representation of speed (in pixel/frame) of the plane it's
measurable in 6/8 pixel for frame. In every second of a NTSC video
system there are 30 frame (subdivided in 60 fields) and the Time Lapse
Recording save only one frame (on only field for frame) per second. So
the plane in frame 20 frame introduce a position change of only 6/8
pixel but the real 757-200 have a dimension in pixel of 37px. It's not
possible to cancel a 37pixel object in 6/8pixel movement. The shutter
speed of cctv cameras are very efficient and their speed come from
1/60sec to 1/500sec. If you look to the high speed debris in the air,
you can see that their representation in pixel is very clear. There is
not blurred trails. There is not blurred movements.

The 3D model of 757 that you have seen in my report are rendered with
real speed and simulated shooting cameras. Every virtual camera
introduce shutter speed and real frame rate so the things you see it's a
high detail reproduction of dynamics representation. No way. Frame 20
doesn't represent AA77.It seems to me that he mainly answers whether the speed could have an effect on the visualisation of the object, not whether a slight dissynchronisation could cause the plane to be further along in one frame as than the other. However, if you look at frame 21 and 22 under the "Sync Comparison", surely there are objects moving at higher speeds than 20 mph in the debris?

I'll email him the follow-up.

[ktesibios]

The claim that two cameras in a security system will be synchronized is wrong.

Unlike studio video cameras, the cameras sold for video surveillance systems have no provision for genlocking, that is, syncing their horizontal and vertical scan to an external source. Look on the back of a professional video recorder, switcher, effects device or camera and you'll find a SYNC IN jack, to which you connect blackburst from your master sync generator. You won't find anything of the sort on a surveillance camera. They just run on their own internal timebase. Date/time window burns on a security cam recording are generated by the recorder, which syncs to the sync information in the incoming video signal.

Two such cameras that start up in sync will probably stay in step over the short term; They generally use crystal oscillators for timing and nowadays even garden-variety crystals have +- 100 ppm tolerances and good stability.

However, the time difference between when camera 1 starts scanning line 1 of field 1 of a new frame and when camera 2 does the same could be anywhere up to an entire frame interval (approximately 33 ms for the NTSC system) and will depend on the timing relationship when the cameras were powered up, the absolute accuracy of both of their timebases and the history of any timebase drifts in each since they were first powered up, all of which are random and unpredictable.

Any analysis which is based on the assumption of frame-accurate synchronization between surveillance cameras fails at the outset because that is not a valid assumption.

Unless, of course, evidence establishes that the security cameras at the Pentagon were in fact genlocked to a master sync source. Has anyone ever seen any evidence of that?

[Somerandomguy]

Brilliant post Ktesibios. No, I suppose there is no evidence of that. I guess that's what he's trying to prove, showing that all other frames are in perfect sync, but considering how fast the plane moves it's probably inadequate.

[Somerandomguy]

Here's his second reply:

EDIT: I was the one who brought up cable length (I'm clueless about these things)...

In multiplexed CCTV system all the camera are connected to the converter
A/D that switch from one camera to another in "real time". There is not
any kind of problem relative to cable length. Cable Length introduce
quality signal problem (if you use very long cable without signal
amplifiers) in their electrical component, not in transmission speed and
not in sync. Every camera shoot the same time at same speed and in same
standard. Every signal are converted by Time Lapse Recording into the
multiplexed system. The only "offest" sync possible in this kind of
systems it would be measurable in 1/60sec (one field) between camera
signals accessing trough converter.

In this time (1/60sec) the plane at 530mph introduce one movement in
pixel of 3/4px. So the maximum offset plane position into cam1 and cam2
it would be measurable in 3/4 pixel.Can anyone confirm that the offset can only be 1/60 second? Sounds like he's just making an assumption. And would the movement only represent 3/4 of a pixel? Hmm...

[Larry Lovage]

530mph at 1/60th of a second is 13 ft. What is that, a cockpit's length or thereabouts?

[Anti-sophist]

That 1/60th figure seems to be completely fabricated, as best as I can tell. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of this CCTV system, but, for me, any claims that don't reference the datasheets seem to be unfounded, at best.

That 1/60th of a second equals 3/4 of a pixel claim seems even more suspect, to me. I'd like to see the math.

Furthermore, he has failed to prove empirically that the simultaneity of the cameras ensures equivalent frames for objects moving 500mph. His analysis only shows similarities for objects moving 1/25th of that speed. Therefore, he is left to rely on the theoretical differences which seems conspicuous in it's lack of technical documentation of the specs of the system.

[ktesibios]

That 1/60th figure seems to be completely fabricated, as best as I can tell. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of this CCTV system, but, for me, any claims that don't reference the datasheets seem to be unfounded, at best.

That 1/60th of a second equals 3/4 of a pixel claim seems even more suspect, to me. I'd like to see the math.

Furthermore, he has failed to prove empirically that the simultaneity of the cameras ensures equivalent frames for objects moving 500mph. His analysis only shows similarities for objects moving 1/25th of that speed. Therefore, he is left to rely on the theoretical differences which seems conspicuous in it's lack of technical documentation of the specs of the system.

An NTSC-standard camera will start scanning a new field 59.94 times each second. That's probably where he gets his 1/60th of a second.

It takes two fields to make a complete frame. Field 1 contains all the odd-numbered horizontal scan lines and field 2 the even-numbered lines. This is called "interlaced scan". Frame boundaries, which are what's important to most video recording equipment, occur 29.97 times per second.

I agree with Anti-sophist. Lacking detailed technical information about the system that made the original recordings and also about how the video files found on the 'net were derived from them, all this hair-splitting about timing between two different videos is pointless. So is zarking around with vectorscope displays. It's a fertile field for finding "anomalies", if you use the customary CTer definition of "anomaly" as "any physical evidence which violates my expectations", because it's impossible to have any informed expectations.

They're zarking compressed video files on teh Intarweb, for Zarquon's sake. Endlessly poking at them in the hope of finding some "anomaly" which will magically overthrow the massive preponderance of evidence about exactly what hit the Pentagon is simply an exercise in JAQing off. One might just as well sing "The Anomaly Song" for all the good it will do.

It was a praying mantis!
From Atlantis!
Well, it was a lot like a praying mantis from Atlantis
But, that's the thing
That's the anomaly
It is, because it isn't not, and that's the part that goes up.

D'ooooohhhhhhhh!

Fish works in the shipyard
Building submarines
Teaching all the workers there
What the "dialectic" means
But, that's the thing
That's the anomaly
It is, because it isn't not and that's the part that's traumatic

-edo, the Anomaly Song