Unseen Pentagon Footage?!!?! Wow

reply to post by cashlink


Exactly. I'd like to see the original video, or a better quality video. The more pixels there are the more information there is to analyze.

kudos!

reply to post by matrix911



I took a second look at this video and the framerate appears to be 4fps.

This is based on observation of the original video, where the police car is seen "skipping" about four times per second. All the action in the video appears to be 4fps

based on that, it is plausible for the airplane to have travelled about 182 feet in a frame if it was traveling at 500mph.

By the way, playing this video frame by frame from youtube or from any other source that plays at 30fps would result in about 6 - 7 frames of stillness as each frame comes in. With interpolation the last few of those 6-7 frames might show what is about to come on the next frame.


The fireballs would not be seen "growing" because by the time they are shown they have already had some time to grow due to the missing time between frames.

As far as I can see there is nothing in this video to suggest foul play.

-rrr

The first half is kind of misleading.
I work with CCTV, and this happens all the time.
We see people freeze while the time continues, we see people split into two (cloning!) while the person continues and their "twin" is left behind on the frame.
The counting lapse was obviously added by the broadcaster.
But the rest is easily explained by the nature and low quality of modern CCTV recording.

The second clip of the plane or missile hitting the building as seen from above is clearly faked, and not by the gov't.

This is a misleading video not offering any evidence at all, no new information, and edited to suggest that the clearly amateur fake at the end was released by the gov't when it wasn't.

That's my opinion.

Oh yea, I def agree with you there. At 4 FPS there is plenty of missing visual information.

My point is that on the helicopter camera, which likely had a 29.99 FPS (likely much greater), there is a higher degree of visual accuracy. Even though the video itself looks like it's been compressed multiple times. It makes it easier to discern what exactly is happening in the video.

i'm pretty sure i saw the footage from this security camera a few months ago as a part of a reconstruction of what happened, they had a 3d model of the plane, calculated the trajectory and stuff, and there was no sign that the explosion would occur sooner that the plane crashed into the building... i'll try to find it, give me a few minutes...

edit:
here it is, www.youtube.com...
the interesting part starts at about 2:10 or so... its a camera in a security booth, you can see the plane in one frame, and in the next frame when the explosion starts the plane is gone... there certainly arent both things at the same time...

[edit on 19/11/2008 by ranswer]

reply to post by JipStix


No slowing down

I said the the missle was cruising along at its cruising speed, then at the programmed distance made a manuever and increased speed.

The optical illusion from this would look like a pause or a visual jolt at the point of increased speed and manuever.

Is that better?

As for the other debate:
If there are missing frames in the video presented, then a complete pause would be explained. Obviously those missing video frames and the time stamp would have to be determined by someone who is an expert at breaking down video footage and layering, also by accessing the original.

I would think this video and the truth is important enough to have that done.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by arizonascott]

OMG! THIS IS SO TRUE!

"That's not how explosions happen" and "Notice how the two images (from a ~5fps?) video are on the screen at the same time!"

This is it folks, this is the REAL deal! Even the part where he alleges that it takes 30 something clicks of the arrow to make the object move forward (it couldn't possibly have anything to do that the video was PAUSED by NBC there for about 4-5 seconds) because it's all about the FADE!

"Wait, it's getting brighter! What's going on there" Well, for starters light is completely out of the question. There is no way the sun is making that thing brighter! Obvious government cover ups!

lol@ "There's no way to explain this other than missing frames!"

Yeah, way to go genius. There's no other way to explain why the fire exists in a dimension where explosions occur in discretely staggered steps other than missing frames! missing frames! oh the missing frames!

I can't believe the "magic" fuselage appears, like magic, from the EDGE of the screen! Wow! That NEVER happens! Things just don't show up in an area that a camera can capture! It's all magic!

No wonder why people think 9/11 truthers are bonkers.

The chopper footage looks like a total fake to me and that makes me question the first half...

Is it not proof enough that there is no real proof at all.

I honestly cant say that i can see a big commercial airliner hitting pentagon from the evidence the government is producing.

Well this is have things are run when authority is running the truth.

You know government running the truth instead of the truth governing the government.

The only thing we have to go on is common sense. And it tells me that this is all a big lie. I cant prove it but i can feel it.

I watched the whole video and this is my opinion on it. First of all, I am a strong supporter of 9/11 truth and I do not believe for a second that a plane actually hit the pentagon, HOWEVER...I don't think the "helicopter" footage at the end was genuine footage. To me, it looks like CGI overlaid on real helicopter footage. I watched it several times and it actually looks poorly faked to me. I'm no video analyst, but the explosion doesn't look real, IMO.

Now, in regards to the officially released security cam footage, I think the anomalies could be from one of two things (or maybe both):

1) the slow frame rate of the cameras
or
2) doctored footage

The fade in of the object is clearly demonstrated in the video and I do not have enough knowledge of video editing to say why you can see a fade in. It could possibly be smoothed so that it doesn't look like a choppy frame by frame slide show (X....X....X....X....X....X).

My question is, who's idea was it to edit the evidence to a heinous crime like this? Who care's if it looks nice on tv? It's suspicious at best.

9/11's so fake its hillarious!! Pentagon video, hillarious!! Building 7, um, extra hillarious!!

Now the big question is what do we do about it?

Yours Truely,
Fellow Human.

While the beginning of this video is very compelling about the missing frames and fade in and out of the "fuselage", the second part that shows the white object flying into the building is clearly fake in my opinion, Missiles don't travel that slowly... they move so quickly that you need a high speed camera to capture then on film, the white object moving towards the pentagon in this video is FARRR to slow to be a missile missiles travel between Mach 1 and Mach 2.5... And in that video it is not even close to these speeds.

I still think that the pentagon was hit by an air burst Jdam, My avatar illustrates the similarities of a typical air burst and the initial frame from the pentagon security cam videos.

reply to post by logician magician


Ya! I was impressed of seeing this huge 757 flying and stopping! Did you see the windows with the passengers waving, looks like one of the windows needed cleaning did you see the woman in the 8th window reading her book, I think the title was my pet goat.

Oh ya! There is sooo much to see I notice the grass under the (cough!) plane needed to be cut there is sooo much detail did you notice that too.

I admire the guys passion, but as several posters have pointed out he is analysing a TV broadcast (US 30fps I believe?) replaying CCTV footage at 3-4fps.

If you consider that, then it is obvious why the "object" suddenly materialises, sits there for a while then disappears to be replaced by a large explosion.
It's like taking timed photos of a TV and asking why it isn't smooth.

As for the fade in/fade out? Well have you ever owned a VCR and used frame advance? Or watched a Youtube video? Same principles.

Not the damning evidence people crave 7 years on. For some reason.

It looks like a missle to me.The impact fits with the way a crusie missle wolud hit a building.

You know how the government doesn't like to appear weak or easily entered.

Maybe the whole plane fabrication and film doctoring was to cover the embarrassent of how easy it was for someone to walk up, stand on the pentagon lawn, and fire a rocket laucher into the building. Or something similar-surface to air aimed linear.

It is a possibility. The problem when the government covered up this 'security breach'-if the case- is that then everyone jumped to blame the government for the problem in an intentional you did it sort of way.

I bet they wished they had the foresight on that advising 'whoops!".

Why would dc hit at it's best? I don't think they did. It just doesn't add up that we hit at ourselves, ourselves. It knocked out too much of the talent that keeps this place the former top of its game-and no one would agree to that.

It took out the people who would be able most likely to know who had done it. And now the dead can't speak. The people with those skills. DOD skills. Maybe they were on to something. It took out a large working force of our defense. Weakening our defenses.

Would we do that to ourselves? Begs the question: who are we? We are a nation divided claiming undivision. Anyone can get in-all they have to do is lie: a song and dance. In which case the only question is did who did it have citizenship. At which point there is the possibility by default that we hit at ourselves.

soapbox rant-sorry op. GRRRREAT FOOTAGE.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
The first half is kind of misleading.
I work with CCTV, and this happens all the time.
We see people freeze while the time continues, we see people split into two (cloning!) while the person continues and their "twin" is left behind on the frame.
The counting lapse was obviously added by the broadcaster.
But the rest is easily explained by the nature and low quality of modern CCTV recording.

The second clip of the plane or missile hitting the building as seen from above is clearly faked, and not by the gov't.

This is a misleading video not offering any evidence at all, no new information, and edited to suggest that the clearly amateur fake at the end was released by the gov't when it wasn't.

That's my opinion.

here's my opinion from growing up in D.C. with close family members who worked at the Pentagon:

If the footage in the OP was released to the media by the Pentagon from the Pentagon seurity cameras you can pretty much take to the bank that its a fake - at the very least edited and otherwise whitewashed...cover up is standard operating procedure for the military....especially at that level...

reply to post by arizonascott


I just want to point out that there is a staggering amount of evidence and expert testimonial proving that it was in fact the planes that caused the damages to all the buildings on 9/11. Now, I'm open to other possibilities, but one has to retain a certain degree of skepticism and look at evidence objectively, or risks looking like an idiot. Ask yourself which is more likely: the government orchestrated a massive attack on it's self, killing thousands of it's citizens and destroying one of it's greatest landmarks and symbols of capitalism... and for what? the ability to start a war in Afghanistan? ...wealthy Afghanistan, with all it's abundant and valuable natural resources... - OR - Did some lonely person with nothing better to do edit some videos he downloaded with any one of the several home video editing programs available today, so that he could get his fifteen minutes or prove his own lame and misconceived theory? Face it, in these times seeing is no longer believing. If you believe everything you see then you had better believe that there is a place called middle earth with elves, hobbits, goblins, orcs, ents, trolls, etc... any image can be manipulated on even mid-level consumer PC's. Don't be so quick to buy into every conspiracy theory you hear. Be smart. Think objectively. Look at the real evidence... peer reviewed evidence. Youtube and some jack ass living in his mom's basement don't count.

sorry to ruin the fun, kids.

reply to post by matrix911
I firmly believe that the Bush Administration orchestrated 911 to manipulate America into war and to justify stripping us of more of our freedoms.

The news media went along and handled out the information they were told to hand out to the people.

And the majority of Americans bought it.


www.whodidit.org...

The government has done such a horrible job of covering up 9/11. The only reason the powers that be will get away with something like 9/11 again is the people who refuse to admit that there is any fishiness behind the September 11 attacks.

I don’t know why they thought they could get away with it? Maybe they didn’t realize they were creating a conspiracy that would be torn apart by the digital age. The internet has changed the “game” so to speak.