Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

The Pentagon is 77 feet tall

Therefore I estimate that you can see about 308 feet in front of the building

The length of a Boeing 757 is 155 feet

308 + 155 = 463 feet

If the plane flies at 500 mph

it flies 0.139 miles per second

that is 733 feet per second

a camera typically takes at least 24 frames per second

it flies 30.5 feet per frame

463 divided by 30.5 = 15.1

According to my calculation the plane should be visible at least partially in as many as 15 frames

However, except for the very tip, the flying object does not appear in any pictures at all.

Who can explain this?

[media=]

[/media] Edited by lliqerty
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The camera wasn't capturing 24 frames per second. It was less than 10 frames per second (somewhere between 1 and 5 FPS I believe). It was actually quite lucky that it picked up the plane on any frames.

Edited by booNyzarC
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever was captured by the camera, and it appears something was, it was NOT a 757 :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't beleive it was a terrorist attack. Even Martin and Charlie Sheen questioned it and then Charlie goes nuts... Something not right there.

I jsut can't beleive a guy in a cave did it, I can't beleive passports cna be found when everything else is ash, i can't beleive jet fuel melted the structure supports when a few months before it was shown how this was impossible and that the twin towers could withstand planes being flown into them.

John lear said himself he couldn't fly a plane into those building on the first try.

I don't beleive the Taliban where even a threat, the CIA trained them and gave them weapans to fight the Russians years ago.

I've read endless information from both sides ont his and this is one conspiracy theory I think is true.

I feel sorry for every man and woman who serves in the forces and is being used. it's nto fair on good people who want to serve and protect their coutnry to be used like this. Veterans are laready throwing their medals back at the the people behind it.

Edited by Coffey
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another baseless and UN-evidenced claim from BR. Color me surprised. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't beleive it was a terrorist attack. Even Martin and Charlie Sheen questioned it and then Charlie goes nuts... Something not right there.

I jsut can't beleive a guy in a cave did it, I can't beleive passports cna be found when everything else is ash, i can't beleive jet fuel melted the structure supports when a few months before it was shown how this was impossible and that the twin towers could withstand planes being flown into them.

John lear said himself he couldn't fly a plane into those building on the first try.

I don't beleive the Taliban where even a threat, the CIA trained them and gave them wepoans to fight the Russians years ago.

This is one conspiracy theory I think is true.

Argument from Incredulity. Argument from Ignorance.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you blind Boo? Are these posts made in Braille too, for the unsighted?

Are you saying that picture shows a 757 low level across the lawn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Another baseless and UN-evidenced claim from BR. Color me surprised. :rolleyes:

Honestly Boon, do you see any part of a 757? What i see has a thin tip... but I can't make anything out in that video, I've seen survalience footage form building in the UK that are pretty much HD. How the hel does the pentagon not have better cameras etc?! Well the fact is they do, that's common sense. So why won't they release proper footage?

I'm trying to speka to you as a friend not in a debate.

I want your proper opinion and what you think and why?

Cause I've checked everything I can and you psot those links, I've checked as much from the Goverment etc as I cna and the problem is they withold loads of the information and evidence. Like video footage etc.

Edited by Coffey
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't beleive it was a terrorist attack. Even Martin and Charlie Sheen questioned it and then Charlie goes nuts... Something not right there.

I jsut can't beleive a guy in a cave did it, I can't beleive passports cna be found when everything else is ash, i can't beleive jet fuel melted the structure supports when a few months before it was shown how this was impossible and that the twin towers could withstand planes being flown into them.

John lear said himself he couldn't fly a plane into those building on the first try.

I don't beleive the Taliban where even a threat, the CIA trained them and gave them weapans to fight the Russians years ago.

I've read endless information from both sides ont his and this is one conspiracy theory I think is true.

I feel sorry for every man and woman who serves in the forces and is being used. it's nto fair on good people who want to serve and protect their coutnry to be used like this. Veterans are laready throwing their medals back at the the people behind it.

Amongst humans, conspiracies are perhaps more common than sexual relations.

Your suspicions are very well founded, for all the reasons you mention and more. :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was in 2001, HD was not even invented lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what was it then? a car? a UFO? a balloon? A radio? A giant? A paper Plane? God? A flying stick insect?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Honestly Boon, do you see any part of a 757? What i see has a thin tip... but I can't make anything out in that video, I've seen survalience footage form building in the UK that are pretty much HD. How the hel does the pentagon not have better cameras etc?! Well the fact is they do, that's common sense. So why won't they release proper footage?

I'm trying to speka to you as a friend not in a debate.

I want your proper opinion and what you think and why?

Cause I've checked everything I can and you psot those links, I've checked as much from the Goverment etc as I cna and the problem is they withold loads of the information and evidence. Like video footage etc.

Yes, I see a plane in the footage.

Not to mention the videos... one video in particular clearly shows an aircraft. (I'm confident that you're aware of this Q24, but others may not be.)

Google search this text to find the video from 911datasets.org:

11094135.AVI

The link is currently unavailable, but I downloaded this a while back and here is a direct link:

http://911datasets.o...YOMJWMXLPMBPS2P

Hopefully it becomes available soon. The file isn't very big, though the whole bit torrent was pretty large.

I'll upload two screen shots from that video, one from right before the airplane enters the frame and one from when it does enter the frame. I haven't seen any good YouTube videos of this because the compression ruins what meager quality is there in the first place. But if you get the original and view it on your own computer it is quite clear.

post-105506-0-04278300-1323927395_thumb.

post-105506-0-45061300-1323927417_thumb.

Save these images to the same folder and use any picture viewer to switch between the two and see how obvious the aircraft is. Then compare it to actual images of AA77 available from airliners.net from before 911. In particular, I found these two to be good comparisons:

compare 1

compare 2

I'm honestly surprised that there is anyone left on the planet who still thinks that there is any chance at all that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon on 911.

As for the supposed 'other footage', you might want to give this a gander.

(Edit: by the way, 911datasets.org is back up. It was briefly down last December, but not for long.)

Edited by booNyzarC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was in 2001, HD was not even invented lol

HD tv's yes, but HD NO. HD has been around since the 70's..

Studio Gear in the 80's was all HD.

Plus the military is usually 10+ years ahead of what civilians have.

You enver wondered how they can redo old films in HD? It's cause the original was HD.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever was captured by the camera, and it appears something was, it was NOT a 757 :no:

Actually, I can identify the vertical stabilizer of a B-757.

spplane.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Boon, I can see it now. You can see the Tail and the whole body. I thought the white thing was supposed to tbe the plane, but it's the smoke/debris.

Still doesn't prove it wasn't an inside job though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HD tv's yes, but HD NO. HD has been around since the 70's..

Studio Gear in the 80's was all HD.

Plus the military is usually 10+ years ahead of what civilians have.

You enver wondered how they can redo old films in HD? It's cause the original was HD.

Oh I thought they just enhance the film

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Boon, I can see it now. You can see the Tail and the whole body. I thought the white thing was supposed to tbe the plane, but it's the smoke/debris.

Cool, glad that helped.

Still doesn't prove it wasn't an inside job though.

Considering that nobody has demonstrated that it was an inside job, I'd say that the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of conspiracy theorists.

Do you not find it odd though that when scrutiny is applied to CT claims that they fall apart?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I thought they just enhance the film

Some do in a sense, depends if they can get the original or not. Or a copy of the original. True HD is when the original is used though. All expensive cameras back then where recording in high definition. Whats happened with tehcnology is that you now watch everything as it was filmed, where as before you didn't. It was always an inferior copy to the orignal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I jsut can't beleive a guy in a cave did it, I can't beleive passports cna be found when everything else is ash,...

Believe it.

CNN: 'Hijacker' Visa Found in Flight 93 Wreckage

CNN is

reporting that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah's visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Ziad_Jarrah_Passport_Photo.jpg

...i can't beleive jet fuel melted the structure supports when a few months before it was shown how this was impossible and that the twin towers could withstand planes being flown into them.

The fires were hot enough to weaken steel, not melt it. Part of the structure was taken out at impact and heat from the fires finished the job.

John lear said himself he couldn't fly a plane into those building on the first try.

Then, John Lear is a very poor pilot because I did and the maneuver was too slow to have been a standard 2-minute 360 turn and was well within the limitations of a B-757.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...still doesn't prove it's a 757. Indeed, it suggests strongly that IT WAS NOT a 757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Considering that nobody has demonstrated that it was an inside job, I'd say that the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of conspiracy theorists.

Do you not find it odd though that when scrutiny is applied to CT claims that they fall apart?

Not all fall apart. I mean this was a minor issue. So all it proves it that a plane went into the pentagon, but 2 planes where put into the twin towers anyway. So I can't see much difference.

However I find it weird that Martina nd Charlie Sheen questioned it and Charlie Sheen even made a proper video to Obama asking him for answers. Obama did not reply. Tehn Charlie Sheen goes nuts... he was not "crazy" at all during the time he questioned 9/11.

I also don't understand a whole load of things involved in this. There is hundreds of points.

Why did that woman who said she had information and went public saying she would never kill herself.... Was found dead in her shed by her mother...

Why was the Fireman who said he seen bodies in Building 7 (is that right "building 7" - been a while since I looked at this stuff) found dead ro soemthing. Loads of mysterious deaths etc surrounding this. Loads of firemen saying they heard explosions before the planes hit.

How did these terrorists fly these planes with very basic training? And manage to plow them into buildings?

How did these terrorists overpow ex military pilots?

Then, John Lear is a very poor pilot [/color]

Are you serious? Do you know who he is?!

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cut3.jpg

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the supposed 'other footage', you might want to give this a gander.

from the link

56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the subject, I just see that it does not mention that Flight 77 was not capture on film, just not the impact. Are we to assume that none of them caught it in flight on the way there? Also were all the videos ever release and analysis by the public? I'm not suggesting anything with this, as I know little on the subject, just a curious cat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

Wow Coffey, you really aren't up on these things are you?

That was cut by the clean up crews. As for your other list of questions in the previous post, I'm not familiar with some of what you said and I'm not sure if this is the thread to address them anyway. But Charlie Sheen? You don't seriously think that he went crazy because of influence from some government cabal do you? Aren't the drugs enough of a reason for his behavior?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the link

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the subject, I just see that it does not mention that Flight 77 was not capture on film, just not the impact. Are we to assume that none of them caught it in flight on the way there? Also were all the videos ever release and analysis by the public? I'm not suggesting anything with this, as I know little on the subject, just a curious cat.

I would consider it a safe assumption to make. The link doesn't mention that the footage did not show Big Bird either, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it didn't. :P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.