Flight 77 videos

  • #1
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
This is probably old news, but I've just seen the 2 flight 77 videos.

Does anyone have a good idea of what the object is in the last frame before the explosion?

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/"
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-1_11094135.WMV" [Broken]
http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-2_11094237.WMV" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,552
118
Pictures aren't very clear (those cameras were never intended to record anything moving that fast), but it almost looks like some kind of jet aircraft, doesn't it?
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,837
Yeah, I didn't answer this thread before, but I'm a little confused. The thread title says "Flight 77 videos", the thread body says "Flight 77 videos", and the DoD site says "Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon" ...........

And then you ask what the object in the videos is. Huh?
 
  • #4
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
russ_watters said:
Yeah, I didn't answer this thread before, but I'm a little confused. The thread title says "Flight 77 videos", the thread body says "Flight 77 videos", and the DoD site says "Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon" ...........

And then you ask what the object in the videos is. Huh?

Did you watch the videos? :mad:


In the last frame before the explosion, an object is just visible at the very right edge of the frame. It is only in the one frame, since the next one is filled with the explosion.

It might be the plane, it might simply be a car on the road, I can't tell. The object is certainly the most intriguing thing in the video, I wonder if there's been any discussion and analysis of it.
 
  • #5
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,552
118
Didn't mean to be quite so sarcastic in the previous post, sorry. The object is more clearly visible in "Video 2". It is still just a blur, but it appears to be a long, narrow object, white in color, maybe 1.2 to 2 stories high, (judging by the windows in the builing), and about as long as the building is tall (perhaps a bit longer) although length is harder to discern.

That pretty well fits the description of a Boeing 757 with a landing gear up.
 
  • #6
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
LURCH said:
Didn't mean to be quite so sarcastic in the previous post, sorry.
Actually, that was directed at Russ .:tongue:. His post (possibly inadvertantly) made it sound like I couldn't tell an airplane if it ran me over.

LURCH said:
The object is more clearly visible in "Video 2". It is still just a blur, but it appears to be a long, narrow object, white in color, maybe 1.2 to 2 stories high, (judging by the windows in the builing), and about as long as the building is tall (perhaps a bit longer) although length is harder to discern.

That pretty well fits the description of a Boeing 757 with a landing gear up.

I see a very small, white, elongated thing just barely coming in frame-right. Could be a car on a road in the distance. OTOH, I may have my scale all messed up - it is a wide angle lens afterall - meaning "objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear".

[EDIT] Upon closer examination, I can see that it does look like a large object in the wide-angle image. Jet is pretty likely.

The reason I was analyzing it is because, as far as I know, while there has been no dirth of circumstantial evidence that the Pentagon explosion was, in fact, an airplane and not a bomb or missile (eyewitness reports moments before the fact, some debris found at the site - but not an overwhelming amount), this is the first piece of evidence that actually shows the impact event.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,837
DaveC426913 said:
Did you watch the videos? :mad:
Yes....
In the last frame before the explosion, an object is just visible at the very right edge of the frame. It is only in the one frame, since the next one is filled with the explosion.

It might be the plane, it might simply be a car on the road, I can't tell. The object is certainly the most intriguing thing in the video, I wonder if there's been any discussion and analysis of it.
I don't see how it could be anything else besides the plane. The only discussion I've seen is from conspiracy theorists who say it is a missile.
Actually, that was directed at Russ .. His post (possibly inadvertantly) made it sound like I couldn't tell an airplane if it ran me over.
That wasn't my intent. I just don't see how anyone can seriously entertain the possibility that it isn't Flight 77, and I really don't understand why the question is being asked.
The reason I was analyzing it is because, as far as I know, while there has been no dirth of circumstantial evidence that the Pentagon explosion was, in fact, an airplane and not a bomb or missile (eyewitness reports moments before the fact, some debris found at the site - but not an overwhelming amount), this is the first piece of evidence that actually shows the impact event.
Again, the forensic evidence is so overwhelming, I just simply don't see why anyone would be interested in examining poor quality videos. They just aren't very useful or important.

The thing about debris, btw, is one of the more egregous outright lies of the conspiracy theorists. They show pictures that don't have debris in them and claim that that means there is no debris when the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of pictures that do show debris.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
russ_watters said:
That wasn't my intent. I just don't see how anyone can seriously entertain the possibility that it isn't Flight 77, and I really don't understand why the question is being asked.
But I am not asking about whether there is a conspiracy theory or anything of the sort. I am simply examining a piece of video at face value, and trying to determine what could be in it.

In fact, to presume it must be the airplane because everything else tells us it is, is circular logic. This video acts and an independentpiece of evidence about the incident.


russ_watters said:
Again, the forensic evidence is so overwhelming, I just simply don't see why anyone would be interested in examining poor quality videos. They just aren't very useful or important.
Because, as I said, it is one of the few pieces of evidence that tells about the actual moment of the crash from so close a vantage point - as opposed to events before (eyewitness accounts of the plane in-flight) and events after (photos of the wreckage).

If this were a murder case, it would be equivalent to
- eyewitnesses seeing a man entering a house with a gun in his hand
- parts of a gun found at the scene after the fact

That's pretty damning, but it's still circumstantial. Yes, I know you have lots of other evidence, but this is ostentibly have a recording of the actual murder itself. As either of the attornies, would you not want to examine it?


Don't get me wrong. (No, really, don't get me wrong) I am not looking for any conspiracy. In fact, this video could very well be the smoking gun that it is the plane.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,279
1,338
Five or ten frames per sec, unknown shutter speed, field of view maybe a couple hundred feet at point of impact, object travelling 7-800 ft/s --- that's one or two blurred frames of plane --- at best. Never gonna be 'nuff to shut up the nutters, and probably not enough to even establish an impact velocity.
 
  • #10
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,837
DaveC426913 said:
But I am not asking about whether there is a conspiracy theory or anything of the sort. I am simply examining a piece of video at face value, and trying to determine what could be in it.
Well, ok - it just seems like a pointless waste of time to me.
In fact, to presume it must be the airplane because everything else tells us it is, is circular logic.
Huh? No. Circular logic would be the video of the airplane proving that the video is of an airplane. What we have here is other evidence proving that the video is of an airplane.
This video acts and an independentpiece of evidence about the incident.
But so what? We have thousands of independent pieces of evidence. What is so special about this one that it is worth the trouble of analyzing? The quality is so poor, it certainly won't ever be considered useful in drawing a conclusion.
Because, as I said, it is one of the few pieces of evidence that tells about the actual moment of the crash from so close a vantage point - as opposed to events before (eyewitness accounts of the plane in-flight) and events after (photos of the wreckage).
Ok, but how is that useful?
If this were a murder case, it would be equivalent to
- eyewitnesses seeing a man entering a house with a gun in his hand
- parts of a gun found at the scene after the fact

That's pretty damning, but it's still circumstantial. Yes, I know you have lots of other evidence, but this is ostentibly have a recording of the actual murder itself. As either of the attornies, would you not want to examine it?
That isn't what "circumstantial evidence" means. http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence
Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.
What you have here is direct evidence: pieces of a plane on the site of an explosion are direct evidence that a plane crashed there.

And a person seeing the plane hit the building is the same type of direct evidence that the video would be - the only difference is that the video allows everyone to witness the event.
Don't get me wrong. (No, really, don't get me wrong) I am not looking for any conspiracy. In fact, this video could very well be the smoking gun that it is the plane.
We already have thousands of smoking guns. This one is unnecessary and because of its poor quality does more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
russ_watters said:
Well, ok - it just seems like a pointless waste of time to me.
...
This one is unnecessary and because of its poor quality does more harm than good.
Hm. There's no way to way this without it sounding harsher than I mean it... :uhh:

I'm not asking whether you think it's a waste of time, or whether you think it does any harm. I'm not even asking if it goes toward validating or refuting the theories or the accepted events.

You are actually (again, perhaps inadvertantly) hijacking the thread. (The fact that you're turning the thread only a tiny bit is offset by the fact that there is a very large 'loaded issue' waiting there.)

I'm simply looking for an analysis. If you have something to say about the footage, great, but if you don't... :uhh:
 
  • #12
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
Bystander said:
Five or ten frames per sec, unknown shutter speed, field of view maybe a couple hundred feet at point of impact, object travelling 7-800 ft/s --- that's one or two blurred frames of plane --- at best. Never gonna be 'nuff to shut up the nutters, and probably not enough to even establish an impact velocity.
And again.

One frame. One object. No motion, no shutter speeds. Just asking for someone to analyze the object and tell me what you think it looks like.

Jeez.

(Frankly, when it first caught my eye, I took it for a car on the road.)
 
  • #13
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
Keep in mind that you've "poisoned the pot" by saying they are videos of flight 77. So people viewing it will be predisposed to seeing an airplane, and if someone happened to make an objective analysis that concluded it's an airplane, you'll be predisposed to reject on the basis that they know they're supposed to see an airplane.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
Hurkyl said:
Keep in mind that you've "poisoned the pot" by saying they are videos of flight 77. So people viewing it will be predisposed to seeing an airplane, and if someone happened to make an objective analysis that concluded it's an airplane, you'll be predisposed to reject on the basis that they know they're supposed to see an airplane.
1] I haven't poisoned anything. I didn't name them. Nor am I trying to hide anything.

2] I can't believe you would paint this whole membership with the brush of an inability to be objective in an analysis. If these people can't analyze it objectively, nobody can.

3] What on Earth makes you presume to know that I am predisposed? Let alone which way?

Look, I am asking a fair question here. I've presented piece of media and asking for an analysis of two still shots.

You guys are polluting the thread with your fancy footsteps. Now, if you have a constructive contribution, out with it. Otherwise, gidaddahere! :grumpy:
 
Last edited:
  • #15
When you analyse something there are 3 possible outcomes. Positive, Negative, and Inconclusive. I think it's fairly obvious that with the quality of the videos and based on the evidence of the video only - you will never get a positive or negative, you are asking for something impossible.

The analysis, of the video as independant evidence (not takin' into account the debris etc.) is unconclusive as everyone here has said. But when you do take into account other evidence (damage, wreakage, etc. etc. etc.) It is conclusive.
 
  • #16
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,279
1,338
DaveC426913 said:
And again.

One frame. One object. No motion, no shutter speeds. Just asking for someone to analyze the object and tell me what you think it looks like.

Jeez.

(Frankly, when it first caught my eye, I took it for a car on the road.)

Lurch's #5, with a couple dark smears on it --- it's large enough to obscure shrubbery of unknown size and decent sized buildings on the skyline between the lot gate and edge of the picture at a distance half to two thirds of the length of the building side --- looks like the profile of an airliner fuselage nose, but could be anything.
 
  • #17
970
3
still frames...


I have pulled the still frame images and uploaded them as attachments.
 

Attachments

  • fl77-1_11094135 001_0001.jpg
    fl77-1_11094135 001_0001.jpg
    12.2 KB · Views: 406
  • fl77-2_11094237 001_0001.jpg
    fl77-2_11094237 001_0001.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 383
Last edited:
  • #18
137
0
From what I can make out, about 50 seconds in to video one, a car is clearly visible driving from frame left to right to give you a sense of scale. It's driving almost at the same spot the nose of the object comes into view. Even the little bit of the object that comes into frame later is over twice as tall and over 3 times as long as that car.
Video 2 shows the entire profile of the object a split second before the explosion. And thanks to Orion1's still, even looking at the stills in windows picture viewer and zooming in on it, although quite blurry, I can make out the fuselage and even see how it tapers into a tail section. My un-expert opinion would say it's definately a plane.
 
  • #19
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
When you analyse something there are 3 possible outcomes.
Bzzt. Only if you are biased towards a positive vs. negative outcome.

Still hijacking...
 
Last edited:
  • #20
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
Orion1 said:

I have pulled the still frame images and uploaded them as attachments.
Thank you. I was almost afraid to ask if someone might do this. I don't have the s/w.

Could you take it one step further and do the same for the preceding frames? Can't tell what's new if we can't tell what was there in the first place.
 
  • #21
DaveC426913
Gold Member
20,082
3,388
RVBuckeye said:
Even the little bit of the object that comes into frame later is over twice as tall and over 3 times as long as that car.
I do not see any other frames that have this object.

[EDIT] Sorry, I think I misunderstood. I thought by "the little bit of the object that comes into frame later" you were saying that you saw more than one frame of the object.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,837
DaveC426913 said:
I'm not asking whether you think it's a waste of time, or whether you think it does any harm. I'm not even asking if it goes toward validating or refuting the theories or the accepted events.
Aren't those the same question? The answer is the same, in any case (or, perhaps, one answer is the reason for the other): it does nothing toward validating or refuting any theory. That is what makes it a waste of time.
You are actually (again, perhaps inadvertantly) hijacking the thread. (The fact that you're turning the thread only a tiny bit is offset by the fact that there is a very large 'loaded issue' waiting there.)

I'm simply looking for an analysis. If you have something to say about the footage, great, but if you don't... :uhh:
Well, actually, that's partially a "mentor hat" thing - I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to decide if I should recommend closing the thread. 9/11 conspiracy theory is a banned topic. This is, after all, the "Skepticism and Debunking" forum.

I'm also going to connect this with UFOology, but that's for another thread...
 
Last edited:
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,837
DaveC426913 said:
Bzzt. Only if you are biased towards a positive vs. negative outcome.

Still hijacking...
Are you saying that an inconclusive result is useful or that there are more than three options? Gelsamel Epsilon hit the nail on the head: because no conclusive result is possible, investigating it is ether useless or counterproductive.
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
993
I don't think there is enough information to be of any use. If this were on film, or at least a high resolution video, it might be more useful. Beyond that, I don't see the point.

What seems to motivate much of this generally [maybe not in this case] is the alleged lack of airplane debris, but this is common in airline crashes. I remember one that crashed into the ground, nose down and at full speed, in California, much like in Penn on 911. There was hardly a piece left that was larger than one's hand. Here is a video provided by Hurkyl that shows a jet "atomizing" while hitting a concrete wall. http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall

Also, my apologies to Dave who tried very hard to and did stay within the posting guidelines. I appreciate the effort. Threads are usually closed when I feel that they no longer offer any basis for a productive discussion.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Flight 77 videos

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top