Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Flight 77 videos

  1. Sep 17, 2006 #1

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?

    US DoD website
    video 1 (.WMV)
    video 2 (.WMV)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 20, 2006 #2

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
     
  4. Sep 20, 2006 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
  5. Sep 20, 2006 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  6. Sep 20, 2006 #5

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  7. Sep 20, 2006 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.

    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: Sep 20, 2006
  8. Sep 20, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes....
    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.
    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.
    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: Sep 20, 2006
  9. Sep 20, 2006 #8

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.


    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: Sep 20, 2006
  10. Sep 20, 2006 #9

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  11. Sep 20, 2006 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, ok - it just seems like a pointless waste of time to me.
    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.
    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.
    Ok, but how is that useful?
    That isn't what "circumstantial evidence" means. http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence
    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.
    We already have thousands of smoking guns. This one is unnecessary and because of its poor quality does more harm than good.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2006
  12. Sep 20, 2006 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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:
     
  13. Sep 20, 2006 #12

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.)
     
  14. Sep 20, 2006 #13

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Sep 20, 2006 #14

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Sep 20, 2006
  16. Sep 20, 2006 #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.
     
  17. Sep 21, 2006 #16

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  18. Sep 21, 2006 #17
    still frames...


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

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 21, 2006
  19. Sep 21, 2006 #18
    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.
     
  20. Sep 21, 2006 #19

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Bzzt. Only if you are biased towards a positive vs. negative outcome.

    Still hijacking...
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2006
  21. Sep 21, 2006 #20

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Flight 77 videos
  1. Im voting yes on 77 (Replies: 21)

Loading...