[Merged]Flight 77 Pentagon Video

[cozmo236]

I was just curious if anyone had ever seen this analysis posted on youtube of the Pentagon footage of the attack and what they thought of it. It looks like the plane to me. This is my first post on these forums so I can't post URL's yet but just go to youtube and type in "9/11 Case Study: What really struck the Pentagon". I apologize if this is posted elsewhere on these forums.

[T.A.M.]

welcome to the forum cozmo236

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Welcome, cozmo. That's an interesting analysis, especially concerning the reflecting sky and grass, and blurred colors making purple. However, I don't see the level of detail in the stills that the author sees. But I'm no expert at video analysis, and I didn't bother sampling the colors (because I don't know how much color shift happens in the various generations that video's been through).

Edit: here's the video

8v8ai2-S0Q

[T.A.M.]

compelling, yes, couple of questions related to it....

1. Has a video expert analyzed these frames, and if so what were his conclusions.
2. What method did he use to isolate the image (he says he produced it from subtracting all of the pixels that were different from one frame to the next)
3. does the size of the alleged image of the jet, match the size of a airliner at that distance.

TAM:)

[Bell]

Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8v8ai2-S0Q

RKOwens4's Double Tree video analysis is very interesting as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QgUdMCZ5ik

[MetalliSociety]

Very interesting analysis of the fish lens video. I could always spot the tail of the plane in the camera that was further away, and I always thought that what you showed as the smoke in that camera was the fuseloge just coming into frame.

I would also like to know how he was able to subtract all the pixels leaving only what has changed.

Made me think none the less.

[T.A.M.]

Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8v8ai2-S0Q

RKOwens4's Double Tree video analysis is very interesting as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QgUdMCZ5ik

Very interesting. I wonder who this guy is...

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Very interesting. I wonder who this guy is...

TAM:)
Someone who wants to disprove each conspiracy theory about 9/11 1 video at a time :)

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

[T.A.M.]

ah...I see...but I was wondering more along the lines of if he was anyone of import, or anyone we might know...lol

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

ah...I see...but I was wondering more along the lines of if he was anyone of import, or anyone we might know...lol

TAM:)
Well...his/her name appears to be RKOwens. I woukd say any human with the notable exception of some of the more crazy woo is of import.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting, a commenter named "Shiftstyle" asks him to debunk the claim that "Hani Hanjour was not a terrorist".

I had never heard this one before. Anyone have a link or any info on this silly accusation.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Well...his/her name appears to be RKOwens. I woukd say any human with the notable exception of some of the more crazy woo is of import.

true...and I must correct myself to he/she...so sexist of me.;)

TAM:)

[apathoid]

I don't have the hawk eyes the author of the video has, but I definately see something else in the second frame besides what we've been(wrongly?) referring to as the nose.

[T.A.M.]

the website flight77.info has a much higher rez version of the Doubletree video. Looking at it, there is DEFINITELY something passing through the area Owens describes as a gap where the plane should be seen, but I am not sure it is going fast enough to reach where the explosion occurs just an instant later...others wanna look at the higher rez version and see what they think.

TAM:)

Edit: as well, looking at the same area, another, smaller object, seems to pass through that area a few seconds before Owens alleged flight 77 object...so I am not convinced yet...

[T.A.M.]

Actually, after watching the 15 minute higher rez version of the doubletree tape, the area that Owens refers to, show object passing through it at several times. I suspect they are vehicles moving along one of the other, adjacent roadways. He was fooled because in the 8 minute, low rez version he was examining, you cannot see with enough detail, nor is there enough time allowed, to see that other images do pass through that area.

As I have said above, even as little as a few seconds before the alleged 77 object, there is another object passing through the same area, smaller, but definitely there on the higher rez version.

Does this eliminate the possibility that the object he describes as possibly Flight 77, is in fact the doomed airliner, NO, but this coupled with the time delay between visualizing it and the impact, makes me a little less convinced.

Keeping it honest.

TAM:)

[uruk]

I wonder if Craig Ranke knows that the Doubltree video blows his hypothesis out of the water?

[T.A.M.]

I think he addressed it, but I cannot recall what he said...I am sure as per usual, he had some excuse for it.

TAM:)

[uruk]

I think he addressed it, but I cannot recall what he said...I am sure as per usual, he had some excuse for it.

TAM:) I think he mentioned something about the highway covering up the view, but if the plane flew over the building to hide in the fire ball the altitude of the airplane flying over pentagon should have been sufficient to be viewd by the camera.

[Shrinker]

Sorry gang the video in the OP is as phoney as truther junk. There is no way he got from a mush of pixels to that perfect plane cutout without applying his own very liberal interpretation. Difference keying is never ever that clean. Recall my analysis of Ace Baker's fake video for a genuine difference key result.

He's probably right about that being the plane though.

[Bell]

I just downloaded the movies at http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml
but the size is pretty small. Are there higher resolution versions available?

BTW, notice in those clips all the debris raining down in the foreground.

[T.A.M.]

sort of OP, but I found this little tidbit while surfing through some Pentagon related stuff...

It is a recounting of events by Captain Ed. Blunt of the Arlington County Fire Department (EMS supervisor)....


Captain Ed Blunt, an Arlington County Fire Department EMS supervisor, recounted Sept. 11 on JEMS.com, web site of the Journal of Emergency Medical Services:

I had already seen the first tower get hit on the news that morning. I was actually en route to a fire in Rosslyn (Va.) when the Pentagon was attacked. On my way out the door of the fire station, I warned my crew to stay alert. One of them just looked at me and said, “This is Arlington. Nothing like that will ever happened here.” When I saw him later that day at the incident, he told me he’d never say anything like that again.

Engine 101 actually saw the jetliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, “Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon. I made a quick U-turn and was on scene within a minute to a minute and a half of the initial impact. En route, I remembered my wife was scheduled to be on a flight to Dulles at 10 a.m.

http://arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com/2005/03/attack-on-pentagon-sept-11-2001.html

TAM:)

[Mangoose]

I have made similar observations about the security video. I disagree that it is clear enough that you can have a neat cut-out of a plane there, because the tone of the plane at that distance blends in with the background, but there is enough discoloration in the area in front of the white streak to convince me that the plane was located there in the frame. Particularly if you compare that frame with the many frames before this, you can see that the grayish color change across that area accompanies the white streak. It is best seen if you toggle the opacity between the frames in Photoshop, or as the video does on Youtube. The most convincing element ahead of the streak is the element that would correspond to the vertical stabilizer....this matches pretty well what is seen in the other security video (where the tail is clearly in view). Here I've overlaid a 757 at the approximate approach angle to suggest how it might match up:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6599/flt77comp1uy6.jpg

The smoke origination lines up pretty well with where the port engine should be.

I also disagree with the video creator about the Doubletree video. I don't think it was simply possible to see through the freeway gaps to the area where the plane flew. I have seen photos of the view from the Doubletree and I've walked the area myself, and I don't think there is a clear view there.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4697/doubletreearmynavy4tp9.jpg

I think this was Russell Pickering's photo? (not sure)

[Slayhamlet]

Here's a blow-up of the plane in higher resolution. The one on top is the frame immediately before the plane comes into view.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_16603471bb3ed597f8.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8889)

[Mangoose]

Slayhamlet: What is the source of your images? Flight77info.org or the DoD site? I think mine were from DoD from the WMV files.

I tried to subtract the difference between the pixels by layering them in Photoshop (with the plane photo underneath), selected Blend Mode "Difference", and pushed the opacity to 100%. Then I enhanced the contrast and this is the result:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1277/subtraction2ro1.png

This is what I got a month ago when I did the same to my version of the image (I think the curves are from the interpolation algorithm):

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6048/vlcsnap1000509bsx9.png

In either case, the result is not exactly plane-shaped, but there is clearly something in front of the smoke trail.

[Bell]

I tried to use the 'difference' filter in Photoshop as well (you should 'invert' the result to get a positive image), but I didn't get any desireble results. So I tried the same with a frame of the Pentagon with and without the police car, to see what actual happend when applying the filter, and found out that both pictures merge when using that filter.

Note in the picture below that you can see the sidewalk and road shine through the police car, and also that the colors are bleached.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11696471bc60a413b7.jpg

(Yes, I look like a real troofer, doing this Photoshop stuff :p )

[pomeroo]

I wonder if Craig Ranke knows that the Doubltree video blows his hypothesis out of the water?


It can't be repeated often enough that he doesn't care.

[Slayhamlet]

Slayhamlet: What is the source of your images? Flight77info.org or the DoD site? I think mine were from DoD from the WMV files.

I tried to subtract the difference between the pixels by layering them in Photoshop (with the plane photo underneath), selected Blend Mode "Difference", and pushed the opacity to 100%. Then I enhanced the contrast and this is the result:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1277/subtraction2ro1.png

This is what I got a month ago when I did the same to my version of the image (I think the curves are from the interpolation algorithm):

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6048/vlcsnap1000509bsx9.png

In either case, the result is not exactly plane-shaped, but there is clearly something in front of the smoke trail.

I got it from the Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml) site. The file is an MPG.

[leftysergeant]

Okay, I am not an engineer, but it seems to me that that image that Ryan produced is TOO plane-shaped. Shouldn't there be more distortion, being viewed through a fish-eye? I still think that the more visible image is the front end of the fuselage, slightly ahead of the wings. The smoke trail would have been more rugose even that close behind the aircraft due to the vortex.

The DoubleTree does, however, blow Lyte out of the water. There is open sky above the fireball and not a trace of an aircraft above the fireball anywhere.

[Magenta]

I can see what Ryan Owens is getting at, but I can't see the plane where he says it is. Like LeftySergeant, I thought the white bit entering the frame was the forward part of the plane, not vapour coming from the engine.

So, it's interesting but inconsequential when compared with all the other evidence. In any case, I think the nutters who are still denying AA77 hit the Pentagon won't have any trouble dismissing this video.

[MetalliSociety]

Not only does it blow Lyte out of the water, but the whole "a plane shot something and then flew over the Pentagon" was a popular thing with the Pentacon boys. Doubletree clearly shows that nothing went over the Pentagon, only into it.

[MetalliSociety]

I can see what Ryan Owens is getting at, but I can't see the plane where he says it is. Like LeftySergeant, I thought the white bit entering the frame was the forward part of the plane, not vapour coming from the engine.

So, it's interesting but inconsequential when compared with all the other evidence. In any case, I think the nutters who are still denying AA77 hit the Pentagon won't have any trouble dismissing this video.

I was jsut like that. But then I looked at this video closely, and I see a dark body infront of the smoke, and also see the suddent jutting upwards of the dark body, which I'd imagine being the tail. I normally only saw it in the camera that was further away, with the rest of the planes body being covered by the post that the camera he uses is in.

[Thunder]

i see the tail. i see the body of the plane. it was a fish eye lense, with the plane at an angle. the plane is right there...in "plain" sight.

[GT/CS]

Okay, I am not an engineer, but it seems to me that that image that Ryan produced is TOO plane-shaped. Shouldn't there be more distortion, being viewed through a fish-eye? I still think that the more visible image is the front end of the fuselage, slightly ahead of the wings. The smoke trail would have been more rugose even that close behind the aircraft due to the vortex.

The DoubleTree does, however, blow Lyte out of the water. There is open sky above the fireball and not a trace of an aircraft above the fireball anywhere.

I'm pretty sure he took some minor artistic liberties to make the final result.

[Slayhamlet]

His plane-shaped cut-out is almost certainly wrong, as are most of the "key features" which are way too specific for the blur of pixels from the video, but I'm now convinced that there is definitely something in front of the white bit which I had previously taken for the fuselage.

[Unfit4Command]

Interesting, I never noticed the tail in the video until now. I made the same mistake as many, I thought the white blur was the nose of the plane.

As for the Double Tree video and Lyte. The footage is probably faked.

[gumboot]

It would be hard to comment on the analysis because he states he used the original footage released by the FOIA request. You Tube compresses video enormously, not to mention changes it to a flash format.

Having said that, the analysis does appear to be rather dishonest in its findings. The obvious point being that the object he highlights has nowhere near the resolution he claims it does.

Another thing that is seldom taken into account by amateur video analysts is chroma subsampling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling). This is especially important in this analysis. Simply put, chroma subsampling compresses chroma more than luma to save bandwidth, because the human eye is more sensitive to luminance than to colour.

-Gumboot

ETA. He also makes an error with one of his claims, that being that red and blue = purple. This is only true of subtractive colour mixing, which occurs when mixing paints or dyes. Light, however, follows the additive colour mixing model, and when red and blue light are combined the result is a bright magenta.

[cozmo236]

Better quality videos can be found at http : // 911files.info /index.php

[beachnut]

Better quality videos can be found at http : // 911files.info /index.php
That web site is the home of a nut case. He thinks the radar data, and the FDR position, and the DME are all wrong or changed by the evil someone. He is not rational and he studies the INS position data and uses it to make some analysis, but does not understand the INS drifts, and the INS is updated as the aircraft flies. Therefore the FDR position is not exactly moving exactly as the plane moves.

The video was ok.

And that web site, the guy actually got the radar data which confirms the final track and the DME after the plane drops off the last radar sweep. The poor guy does not understand reality.

[cozmo236]

That web site is the home of a nut case. He thinks the radar data, and the FDR position, and the DME are all wrong or changed by the evil someone. He is not rational and he studies the INS position data and uses it to make some analysis, but does not understand the INS drifts, and the INS is updated as the aircraft flies. Therefore the FDR position is not exactly moving exactly as the plane moves.

The video was good.

And that web site, the guy actually got the radar data which confirms the final track and the DME after the plane drops off the last radar sweep. The poor guy does not understand reality.

Oh yes I'm quite aware of the absurd beliefs of the individual who runs the website.

[beachnut]

Oh yes I'm quite aware of the absurd beliefs of the individual who runs the website.
It is funny, sometimes they have the best data around. ( I was reading his stuff, he is unable to understand much of anything about 77 )

[Caustic Logic]

I wonder if Craig Ranke knows that the Doubltree video blows his hypothesis out of the water?

Yes. He alleges possible/probable doctoring, and tries to dismiss that it has the perfect view (SE) to see the flover (rising and from the NW) due to a tree.

Sans flyover, the Doubletree video should not show the plane at all, too far away and view totally blocked. The Pentagon itself is not even visible, just the blast rising above it, in case anyone's confused about this. Anything tailfin looking is explainable in terms of highway traffic.

As for Wilson's animation, it's good and basically correct but falls for the mistake of seeing a black plane hidden behind the traffic pillar thing. I figure the plane seen is about 600 feet away from the cameras, and by my mapping about the entire length of it is visible in the original video. The white stuff is plane IMO, and the dark 'tailfin' is background plus slight artifact I can't quite explain. All artifacting (the tailfin and purplish 'ghost' in the second video release last year)happen right in front of the white stuff, so likely an effect of light glare off the nosecone?
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/02/white-blur.html

Oh, and the Citgo video... just wait 'till I finish that analysis. It clearly shows a large airborne object on the official flight path about 100 feet AGL 2 seconds prior to impact. Serious. Next few days (suspense...)

[Mangoose]

1) I don't think one should assume that the plane ought to have appeared light-colored in the video frames. The white dome of the Washington Tower, which was very reflective in the 9:45-9:55 time frame (as other photos show) appears very dark in the security footage.

2) I don't believe the "tailfin" is nothing more than an artifact because it appears in both security videos at approximately the same height in the frame. I have made a video which segues between the two video views with the backgrounds matched for both, and the "plus" pixels that look like a tail appear to switch places between the two views.

3) The "purpling" in the second video ahead of the "white stuff" extends a long way beyond it and terminates at a spot that lightens. As posted earlier, a 757 at the approach angle does fit nicely in that space, with the "white stuff" starting just behind where the port engine should be. I am in agreement with the video mentioned in the OP on the position of the plane, but I think the video maker takes some liberties in marking out the plane -- the original image is too ambiguous and low-contrast to allow one to be precise.

4) In support of the white stuff being smoke, the subsequent frames show a trail of white smoke extending across the whole area to the Pentagon. The smoke has dissipated somewhat and becomes more opaque and diffuse as time goes on. My hypothesis is that the smoke appears thicker and whiter in the "plane" frames because these frames show the smoke very close to its point of origination. The white stuff in both plane frames also, frankly, does not look much like a plane. I have not been convinced by the suggestion that the plane is "blurred" as the "white stuff" because the cloud shows some definition uncharacteristic of a mere blur (imho).

5) Mike Wilson's explanation of the smoke (damage from the lightpole impacts) is quite plausible but ultimately unverified. I personally believe that the few witnesses who claimed that the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building were viewing at a distance (such as Tim Timmerman from Pentagon City, who was in a building higher than the plane was off the ground) and what they were really seeing was the plane hitting the lightpoles (with debris flying) and the smoke trail was interpreted as dust kicked up as the plane skidded the ground. Looking down at the plane from a building at a distance, I think the plane looked like it had already reached the ground and the lightpole impacts looked like the plane hitting the ground over the highway. (Just my own hypothesis here)

I agree that the Doubletree video should not show the plane through the gaps underneath the interstate, which did not have a clear view all the way across to where the plane was. I'm not 100% certain but that is how it looks to me. Also the fireball emerges too fast (especially considering the fact that we cannot see the early progression of the fireball before it comes into view) after the moving flash is seen through the gaps.

[Caustic Logic]

We're in disagreement over the CCTV video - the smoke is gray, not white, except in the 'plane' frames, where it's white, dense, and behind a plane that's the same color as the background. ?? I don' think the plane should necessarily appear white, but it seems it does.

but the Doubletree one, somehow I missed that there's supposed to be something passing thru the gaps. I'll have to go back and check on that - all 'plane' sightings I'd seen before were visible above (on) the highway. Hmmm...

[Mangoose]

Yeah in the Doubletree video by RKOwens, he writes: "Specifically, through the gaps made by S. EADS ST. and S. FERN ST., there should be a brief, unimpeded view of the flight path." And right before the fireball, you see a flash move towards the building in that area. But too soon before the fireball, and I think the author is wrong that the view is "unimpeded".

As for the other videos, I did mention that the smoke in the subsequent frames was becoming more diffuse, so the change of color from "white" to "gray" is expected, and I suggested that the smoke appears "dense" because it is near its point of origin in the "plane" frames. In the other frames, it is no longer near the plane and some time has elapsed. As for the plane being the same (or similar) color to the background, I also addressed this fact by pointing out that the white dome of the Washington Tower is also the same color as the background. The trees and buildings also blend together due to the lack of contrast. It seems that what gets lightened in the frame (aside from the smoke) are the things facing towards the east or northeast. That includes the River House that is light in color at the right margin of the frame as well as the part of the pillar facing northeast. The part of the pillar that is facing northwest is in shadow. The other shorter pillar that is facing north is also in shadow and darker in color. Similarly with the police car that drives into the scene. The front hood of the car is brightly lit because it faces the east while the rest of the car is much darker. The white dome of the Washington Tower, moreover, faces north as well from the camera's vantage point. So I think the main part of the plane that would have been brightly lit would have been the nose and the wing root, which are the parts that most clearly faced eastward. The rest of the plane would have faced more to the northwest and -- like the northwest face of the pillar -- would probably have been darker in appearance. The interesting thing about my mapping of the 757 on the security image (posted on the first page of this thread) is that the parts of the image that noticably brighten are the parts that correspond to the nose and the wing root.

btw I do not regard my interpretation of these ambiguous and problematic frames as conclusive or certain....but I find this explanation as more probable and explanatorily more adequate than other explanations I have seen.

[Alex C]

I'm assuming everyones already seen http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 ?

[Gravy]

I'm assuming everyones already seen http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 ?That's referred to a few times in this thread as Mike Wilson's video.

[CurtC]

Here's my analysis of the RKOwens Doubletree video:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/DBTREE.jpg

The view under that overpass would have to be of the grass on the side of the hill for the next overpass over. You can also see the green in Mongoose's photo in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3078562#post3078562), but the security camera is higher, and the view through the overpass would necessarily be lower. Therefore the only thing you could see would be cars passing on that roadway I've indicated.

[CHF]

Good lord, there were over a hundred witnesses to the crash of Flight 77!

Why is this still even an issue?

[Mangoose]

Thanks CurtC...that is a convincing analysis. :)

[T.A.M.]

As I said earlier, wrt the RKOWENS analysis of the Doubletree video.

If you watch the higher rez video version, available at flight77.info (140MB I believe), you can see objects passing through the "window" where the suggested image of 77 passing is made, through the minutes before the crash, and after.

TAM:)

[CurtC]

Deleted

[Mangoose]

This probably wouldn't be of any use to anybody, but I thought I'd try to remove the noise and compression artifacts in the security footage by using an astronomy image stacking program, which is typically used with webcam/video input. I took the second security video, edited out the car scene and everything after the plane frame, selected one frame per second, saved as uncompressed AVI and then registered and stacked the frames in RegiStax.

Here is a sample frame from the original footage:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4791/beforecx3.jpg

And here is the result derived from the 77 frames contained in the video that show the scene before the plane comes into view (and without the car in the scene):

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/8425/afterau3.jpg

This eliminates the noise that is idiosyncratic to each frame. However, it does nothing for the individual frame that contains the image of the plane.

[T.A.M.]

you notice that we are critically analyzing a video that supports our stance.

I wish the truthers would watch and learn from this...but alas...

TAM:)

[Bell]

you notice that we are critically analyzing a video that supports our stance.

I wish the truthers would watch and learn from this...but alas...

TAM:)

Allthough we know that's AA77 in those images, judging by the image alone it's not possible to tell WHAT we see. The resolution is just too low.

I'm wondering if there's some higher resolution available though, because I remember last year (I think on some guy's webthingy) seeing pictures that used the same technic to isolate the pixels, but there the airplane WAS recognizable... for what I remember of it.

[Mangoose]

There are only 10 pre-plane frames in the other video (as it starts only when the car drives through the check stop), so the results aren't as good, but here is what I got in terms of noise reduction:

Sample frame:

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3521/before2ajf8.jpg

RegiStax processed frame:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8210/secondvid2ate1.jpg

[Mangoose]

Finally, I thought I'd clean up the Doubletree video. Here is a sample "before" frame:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6739/doubletreeframebeforeuf7.jpg

And here is the stacked image based on 536 individual frames:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2350/doubletree2afterbm2.jpg

:D

[CurtC]

you notice that we are critically analyzing a video that supports our stance.
I started my above analysis thinking that the object in the Doubletree video was likely the same smoke trail seen on the Pentagon security video. I really thought that was it and set out to show how it could have been so.

Unfortunately, the evidence led me in the opposite direction.

[Mangoose]

Anyone know where I could download a hi-rez copy of the Citgo footage (not the Youtube version)? I would like to try my hand at cleaning up the image there as well.

[SpitfireIX]

Slayhamlet: What is the source of your images? Flight77info.org or the DoD site? I think mine were from DoD from the WMV files.

I tried to subtract the difference between the pixels by layering them in Photoshop (with the plane photo underneath), selected Blend Mode "Difference", and pushed the opacity to 100%. Then I enhanced the contrast and this is the result:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1277/subtraction2ro1.png

This is what I got a month ago when I did the same to my version of the image (I think the curves are from the interpolation algorithm):

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6048/vlcsnap1000509bsx9.png

In either case, the result is not exactly plane-shaped, but there is clearly something in front of the smoke trail.


Here (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/41575-pentagon-releases-aa77-video-14.html#post748638) is a similar analysis done by someone on bautforum last year, in the form of an animated gif.

[BenBurch]

Unfortunately, the evidence led me in the opposite direction.

See, that is science. A Conspiracist would have either; Improved the image until it showed what he wanted, or declared the video to be doctored.

[Mangoose]

Spitfire: Thanks very much for that link, very interesting!

Approach path was about azimuth 240deg, while the Sun was at azimuth 113deg, altitude 32deg. The view from the cockpit would have the Sun at about 2 o'clock position, while the security cam would be at about 11 o'clock. I don't think there is a way the plane would be "mostly sunlit" on the side turned towards the camera. In fact, the opposite is far more likely - the side exposed to the cam would be mostly in the shade. If anything, the polished aluminum fuselage might reflect some of the surrounding scenery, which would be mostly green and blue. The tail vertical stabilizor, on the other hand, was completely in the shadow, at least the part turned towards the cam, and was painted. I guess it would appear pretty dark on the video, just like the rest of the shadows.


Cool, that's the same point I was making earlier on this page.

There might not be eyewitness reports about smoke coming out of plane's engines, but I remember some reports about plane crashing on the lawn before hitting the building. Smoke might account for those reports, since there is no visible damage to the lawn itself.


Wow, so I'm not the only one thinking that too?

So, anyone like the de-noised video images? I thought I'd try this method because it is good to have a control "before plane" frame, and we are not necessarily left with just the poor quality in any individual frame .... it is possible to abstract away most of the compression artifacts by drawing on data in multiple frames. So, viewing one part blown up, instead of this:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2103/beforecloseuplh5.jpg

We have this:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5800/aftercloseup2ic6.jpg

And I think that makes for a better, clearer image in trying to identify background features with the helipad, trees, buildings, and the roadway. My suspicion, based on the identification of the position of the plane that is discussed in this thread, is that the "plane frame" in this particular video shows that plane right as it was striking the last light pole. I'm far from certain, but the plane seems to be in the right location for that. Vehicles can be seen moving across the roadway in earlier frames, and I think that can be used to reconstruct the precise location of the roadway in the plane frame.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting, yesterday, the flight77.info site (copy and paste url or you might get a porn redirect), was updated for the first time since July...seems another truther has decided the movement is dead...


October 22, 2007
This site has become as cluttered and directionless as the 9/11 Truth Movement itself. I'm removing most of my personal comments and links to anything other than the 3 years of documentation that has lead us here... Where is here? Still waiting for the 70-plus videos we've 'ordered' from the below 6 page Menu.

This site has done some good work over the years. We've put the 9/11 Truth Movement in front of a few million more eyes. But alas, that wasn't enough. 9/11 has gone the way of JFK, sorry to say. The only truly interesting thing left about the 9/11 Truth Movement is (how can I say this kindly?) how stupid it has become. And I do actually mean that kindly.

http://www.flight77.info/

Sounds like he has finally seen some sanity return. To be honest he sounds like he isn't all that bad, perhaps he could show another sign of maturity and sanity, and get rid of the porn pic redirect he has for people linking to him from this forum.

TAM:)

[Mangoose]

Wow, this is great...I think with the image linked on the page brought to my attention by SpitfireIX (an image I've never seen before), I've just figured out what all the background blobs and light patches correspond to in the security frames. If anyone is curious, I'll post an image with parallels between the two pics marked up. The key is that objects faced eastward are lit while those facing north or northwest are in shadow.

[Mangoose]

Okay, here is my analysis of the background in the Pentagon security images. Understanding what is in the background would allow us to know where the plane was located in both security views. In the two images below, I've compared a "before" security frame ("A") with image quality improved with RegiStax with the high resolution photo ("B") that is linked on the page mentioned by SpitfireIX:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1961/mastercomp1st5.jpg

The prominent corners of the Pentagon building itself (a, b, c) are obvious in both "A" and "B". The large blob after the building (d) in "A" is not another building but a tree as seen in "B"(d). Then (e) is the left corner of the Metropolitan building in Pentagon City. The dome in (f) is Washington Tower in Pentagon City, and (g) is the right edge of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Finally, (h) is the right edge of the Metropolitan building. I give "C" as another example of the foreshortened view of the three buildings.

Here is the second half of the scene in both "A" and "B", with other views of the buildings supplemented:

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8485/mastercomp2qp5.jpg

Here things get more difficult. In "A"(i) there is a smallish dark protrusion, and that corresponds to the location of the tree in "B"(i) and "C"(i). That tree stands on the knoll that rises up to the interstate (I-395) and from the vantage point of the security video would have blocked the left corner of the Pentagon Row building. Then in the security video there is a larger hump at "A"(j), and that corresponds to the location of the northeast-facing wing of the Ashley River House (visible at "B"(j)). The Ashley RH is visible in two other images ("D" and "E") taken on the morning of 9/11 and this wing is less brightly lit than the face of the wing that faces due east (the bright patch just to the left of "D"(k) and "E"(k)). "B"(j) also shows a tree on the interstate knoll in this approximate position which may or may not have influenced the lighting of the building in "A". And just to right of this hump between "A"(j) and "A"(k) there is a light spot that dips down, and that corresponds to the bright part of the Ashley that was facing due east (see especially "D"(j, k) and "E"(j, k)).

Then there is another dark protrusion at "A"(k) that rises higher than the bump at "A"(j). That corresponds to the dark penthouse of the Ashley and the side that faces westward (which would have been in shadow). This is most clear in "D"(k) and "E"(k). Then there is a flatter, lower dark region at "A"(l), and this matches the side of the Ashley that faced due north (see "B"(l), "C"(l), "D"(l). Since it faced north, it was more in shadow.

Then at "A"(m) there is a longish white patch that the dark protusion of "A"(n) seems to creep over on the right. This white patch is the east-facing side of the Potomac RH, seen in "B"(m) and "G"(m). The only image I could find taken on 9/11 that shows the lighting condition that morning is "F" which shows that this east-facing wing was well-lit. Then rising higher than the white spot of "A"(m) is the dark proturberance of "A"(n). This matches with the penthouse (and north-facing side) of the Potomac, which rises higher than east-facing wing and would have appeared dark. But there is a light spot under this proturberance in "A"(n) that merges with the brightly-lit wing. I think "B"(n) suggests something in this location and the satellite view shows that from the perspective of the video camera, the tower on the west end of the Pentagon Row building would have been visible at that spot. The best view of the Potomac in "G"(n) shows the penthouse clearly, and a second penthouse on the northwest-facing wing. Both penthouses (in a step-down appearance from left to right) are also visible at "B"(n) and "F"(n). The second penthouse is lower in apparent height (from the POV of Pentagon lawn), and similarly, in "A"(n), there is a decrease in height of dark protrusion a little more to the right.

Finally, there is a very bright building starting at "A"(o), which has a bit of pink color, and that corresponds to the northeast-facing side of the James RH as seen at "B"(o) and "G"(o). Since it is facing towards the sun, it is brightly lit as "F"(o), "H"(o), and "I"(o) show. Then at "A"(p) the tone darkens, and that fits well with the corner for the north-facing side of the James RH wing, as found also in the the light-dark contrast in "F"(p), "H"(p), and "I"(p).

Anyway, I think the correspondance is pretty easy to see in "B", as long as you keep in mind that the buildings at (m) and (o) are supposed to be brightly lit in the morning.

I think this information is useful because it can be used to show where the plane was located on the lawn when photographed at both security frames. The first image shows the plane (accepting the analysis given in this thread), immediately after or while it hit the last light pole on the Pentagon lawn. That is because the tail is seen just back of (and rising higher than) the penthouse of the Potomac RH (that is, midway between "A"(n) and "A"(o)). From the vantage point of the security camera (as determined by the satellite view), that would put the plane's tail just past the road that goes around the southwest corner of the lawn. That is, the plane is photographed just after it entered the lawn in its entirety. In the other view, the plane is slightly closer to the building. The tail in that image appears at and just a little behind "A"(k), and thus blocks the view of the penthouse of the Potomac RH. If the pillar wasn't in the way, the plane would appear from that vantage point to be over the helipad (the helipad is visible in the other view as a yellow horizontal line that dips down).

One other tidbit I found is that Route 27 is not visible in either video. There is a roadway visible with vehicles moving in the view lacking the pillar, but actually the forshortened view conflates two roadways: the road encircling the corner of the Pentagon lawn that joins traffic onto Route 27, and the cloverleaf roadway that exits Route 27 and goes underneath the street. Traffic going on the first road onto Route 27 move left-to-right and appear brighter and larger (possibly because they are closer). Vehicles going on the cloverleaf move right-to-left and typically are fainter. One interesting thing in this video is that for three seconds or so before the plane comes into view, there is a car that was going on the cloverleaf, having exited Route 27. When the plane appears (and accepting the analysis given previously), the vehicle is substantially down the cloverleaf, possibly at the bottom of the loop. If that car had entered the cloverleaf just seconds later than it did, it could have been struck by the third lamp pole.

As before, I am tentative in my analysis and welcome suggestions and/or criticisms.

[RKOwens4]

A while back a conspiracy theorist on YouTube showed a zoom-in on the Pentagon surveillance footage, showing a "blue object" ahead of the white smoke trail. But looking closer at the footage it seems like the blue object is indeed a clear view of Flight 77 front to back. The following is a picture of what I'm talking about:

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/8839/757gw8.png

For comparison, this is a photo of the plane pre-9/11:

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1897/b757aaairlinersnetphotopb5.jpg

The white nose of the plane and blue, white, and red lines seem to be visible in the Pentagon footage. In pictures of American Airlines planes you'll often notice the mirrored surface reflecting the blue sky, and the sky on 9/11 was famously blue, which is what is probably making the object appear bluish. You can zoom in on the footage yourself to confirm this isn't added. I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but I haven't read about any analysis of the online. Someone with better video tools can probably clear the image up a little. Does anyone know if this has already been done?

[OldTigerCub]

Since the image is from a surveillance video (not still) camera, and since the scan speed of even the best video surveillance camera could not complete a frame during the time in which flight 77 passed through it's field of view, it is doubful that a cleaned up immage is possible, but that is just my opinion. BTW...I enjoyed seeing your Dick Cheney/NORAD video earlier today. Keep up the good work!:D

Edit: BTW...congrats on reaching the 15 post limit...it's good to see you can post links and pictures...but it would be better to see you post a whole lot more...and get involved in the dicussions...you have a lot to offer and a real talent for putting the facts down in a medium that makes them credible.

[Mangoose]

We had a discussion of this video recently here:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597)


I agree that Flight 77 is visible in this frame. I've used some Photoshop filters in the above thread to confirm that there is something visible ahead of the white blur, and I was able to clean up the view BEFORE the plane comes into view using image stacking software. This helped me identify all the background features of the view, the lighting of which is predictable (objects facing east or northeast are brightly lit, objects facing in other directions are dark). This leads me to expect that most of the plane would be in shadow, except for the nose and the leading edge of the wing where it attaches to the rest of the plane (with a portion of the engine facing eastward), and these fit well with the parts of the "plane" that lighten considerably in the "plane" frame. The most conspicuous feature though is the tail which is visible at the same level as the "tail" in the other video.

I don't think the plane looks just "bluish", more "bluish-grey", and this varies.

[Mangoose]

I finally, finally found a view of the background that has the same lighting conditions that existed when the CCTV security video was taken. I found a photo taken on the morning of 9/12 facing south that shows the background buildings lit in pretty much the same way that they were lit on 9/11. Unfortunately, the photo is overexposed so I had to adjust the levels to get the contrast to the point where the buildings are distinguished from the sky:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2130/comparison2mc5.jpg

This shows even better than the other photos what the background objects were. I was also correct in my guess about the west parapet of Pentagon Row, which would have been brightly lit in the CCTV frames, and which is seen on the video as a light area below the dark overhang at "A"(n). In the new photo, it doesn't occur in exactly the right spot because the photo was taken further east than the location of the security camera. I have illustrated below how the parapet would have lined up in the actual CCTV security view.