Pentagon - the missing footage

[k-robjoe]

Would like som second opinions on this one :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzh-EyxKwc

To begin with you get the impression that he´s not aware of the nature of the footage. But then it seems like he´s got a good point after all.

And it struck me, looking at the footage from the helicopter, it seems like the strike is more or less head on, not at an angle. ( This aspect has probably been discussed here allready, but if so, I missed it. )

[RC]

1. Drip, drip ,drip... It is slowing coming out that our own government did 9/11.

Eventually the evidence will be overwhelming that 9/11 was MIHOP.

I remember the first newscasts on CNN about the Pentagon said a truck, like a Rider moving truck exploded by the Pentagon. Later, that got replace by 757 flown by a skilled pilot. Yeah, right, none the box cutter welding hi-jackers could not even fly a Piper Cub.

[SDuderstadt]

2. "Eventually the evidence will be overwhelming that 9/11 was MIHOP."

Of course...after all, it's only been seven years...how long do you think it is going to take until the evidence is "overwhelming"? In fact, if it's so "overwheleming", wouldn't it be apparent after 7 years?

[LARED]

3. Based on the present rate of "overwhelmingness" I would

estimate it will take approximately 500 to 600 hundreds years to reach overwhelming

[SDuderstadt]

4. I was thinking more like...

1000 years.

[Realityhack]

12. 500-600 should be enough to start a religion. n/t

[RC]

5. Well, seeing how the perpetrators are still in charge, I can imagine

That they would still be trying to suppress the real truth, ya think?

[SDuderstadt]

6. Here's a simple question.....

if the "perpetrators" are "trying to suppress the real truth" and that's why the case is not overwhelming yet, upon what "evidence" are you basing your conclusion that our own government pulled off 9/11? Frankly, this whole exercise reminds me of the silliness of RWers I tangled with during Clinton's impeachment who claimed that the lack of evidence against him just "proved how sneaky he is".

[RC]

7. There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to ignore or discount it.

It has been hashed and rehashed here for years. You know as well as I do what the evidence is. There is no lack of evidence and you know it. 9/11 was a false flag attack to give Cheney and his oil buddies an excuse to invade Iraq on behalf of Saudi Arabia because they are running out of oil. Follow the money.
Iraq, a third world country has cost us many time more than WWII. Where did all that money go? Iraq should have been easy, but our upper echelon went out of their way to make Iraq a disaster by disbanding the existing government.
This country is almost bankrupt and now they are working to move GM to South America, leaving millions more out of work. Yeah, millions more unemployed. There are a lot of jobs that depend on suppling General Motors with parts and raw materials. None of this would be possible without 9/11 or some similar. Remember the "New Pearl Harbor"?
You claim to be a Liberal, yet you defend bu$h here and ignore the bigger picture, posting misleading info backed up by people having a stake in suppressing the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

8. If there's "plenty of evidence"....

then present it. Of course, it's been roundly debunked, but you won't admit it.

[RC]

11. Why don't you explain why the government confiscated all those

recording from the cameras around the Pentagon and the few they have released took law suits and FOI suits? And even then the government has not produced some of the evidence ask for. What is the government hiding?

Why should I copy and paste from existing threads and duplicate the links already in this September 11 forum, when all you have to do is go read them?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Gee, I don't know...what do YOU think?

Maybe it's CUSTOMARY PROCEDURE to secure evidence when a crime has been committed. Duh. Use your brain.

[RC]

15. A crime from 7 years ago? No real investigation as of yet.

More money was spent looking for Clinton's cigar than was spent on investigations into 9/11.
No one, in or out of government, is even a 'person of interest' yet, so why not release the videos the government has if they can help prove the governments case.

I can think of a reason. Those hidden videos would prove that our government lied to us. They would show that it was not a commercial aircraft that flew into the Pentagon. They might even show whatever it was only had a single engine. They might even show the Rider truck that CNN reported exploding outside the Pentagon on september 11, 2001. Those videos might prove embarrassing to the current administration.
With all the other crimes of the bu$h administration, why not see if the evidence leads back to them. After all the evidence is there. A crime was committed. Why not use the evidence to go after the guilty?

And I'm not using my head?

[William Seger]

16. No, your're not using your head -- or your eyes.

In addition to the numerous witness accounts (almost ALL of which reported a passenger airliner), and the missing 757, we have 757-sized and -shaped damage to the exterior wall:
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

How do you explain that damage if it was a smaller plane or a truck bomb? Are all those witnesses lying? And what happened to the plane?

You are definitely not using your head; you're using your imagination and just refusing to see or think about anything that doesn't fit your imaginary scenario.

A certain percentage (but not all) "truthers" decided that if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then they had a slam-dunk conspiracy case. That would be true, if they could prove it. Instead, by basing their case on bullshit, they have marginalized themselves into a position that will never be taken seriously by the vast majority.

Sucks to be you.

[RC]

17. CNN reported there was a truck outside the Pentagon.

Apparently it didn't do enough damage.
Something did fly into the Pentagon that day. That something only had one engine. How do I know? Only parts of one engine was ever found. The so called hole in the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to have made it. There are pictures of the damaged area before it collapsed. There was no 757 there. Something far smaller and lighter flew into it.

[William Seger]

29. Yep, that's what I'm talking about -- you've marginalized yourself and you're stuck there. (n/t)

[RC]

31. Another wasted post where you have nothing of substance to impart.

[William Seger]

32. Did you read the link I gave you?

That's a "truther" site, BTW -- it's just one that thinks no-planers are "disinfo agents."

But no, you didn't really read it, did you, because that might damage your fragile fantasy. You can't refute any of the real evidence that a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, yet you think that simply declaring I have "nothing of substance to impart" will dismiss it all. No, it does not disappear just because you close your eyes.

[RC]

34. No I didn't waste my time.

You posting a real reality based "Truther" link? I'll save the wear and tear on my mouse button. I've most likely seen it anyway.
This has nothing to do with the link and everything to do with the reputation of the poster.

[William Seger]

35. LOL, suit yourself

If no-planers really are "disinfo agents" intentionally trying to make the "truth movement" look ridiculous, I gotta admit it was a stroke of genius.

[NowHearThis]

53. What else would you expect from an UNtruther?

nt

[SDuderstadt]

57. "Truther Logic"

If you label your opponent an "UNTruther" repeatedly, after a while you don't have to engage in serious debate with them, you can just label them and everyone believes you.

[Realityhack]

33. LOL... so now you are claiming that...

a truck bomb went of, and THEN because it didn't do enough damage a plane (with one engine) was flown into the pentagon?

Do you have any idea how silly that is?

[defendandprotect]

39. I doubt we'd want to see these videos after 7 years in the wrong hands . . .!!!

Remember what director Oliver Stone said about the JFK evidence/documents . . . ?

This was at a National Press Club luncheon/speech at the time the movie was released.

Stone said it would be like leaving a Mercedes on the highway a week or so --

what would be left?

[smiley]

22. just like they confiscated the evidence, called steel, from the towers

[smiley]

21. Why do you read this forum then?

[smiley]

20. Then why do you keep coming to this forum?

[BeFree]

63. Could it be?

Simply to be entertained? It could be, she as much told me so in another thread. Kinda sick fun, don't you think?

[SDuderstadt]

65. I'm a guy...

which you'd know if you bothered to do something as simple as read my profile.

[NowHearThis]

64. You mean there are actually people trying to suppress...

the truth about 9/11 and other inside jobs? Well, okay, there was that group of (mostly) Young Republicans who tried to suppress
the vote counting in Miami in 2000 - and I have read on other forums that there are some people who may or may not be paid to try and suppress the truth about important events but so far that doesn't seem to be the case here, thank goodness.

What I've noticed here is that most people are only interested in learning the truth, understanding its implications, and exchanging
ideas. What the others are here for may well be just for entertainment purposes. Or for some other unfathomable reason which I can't even speculate about nor would I even if I didn't have a clue. "Fun's where the fair's at."

[smiley]

19. It is to me and a lot of others around the country.

But whenever the evidence tries to be presented, the name calling starts and we are just labeled tin-foil hatters.

[SDuderstadt]

24. And, of course....

I haven't called a single person a name. BTW, the steel from the towers was examined and representative pieces were kept. Gene Corley of ASCE testified to Congress that the notion they did not have adequate steel to investigate the collapses was simply not true. Ever heard of the Fresh Kills Landfill?

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

[smiley]

27. not in this thread you haven't.

Nope, never heard of the fresh kill landfill.

So if they had enough steel to examine, why didn't they examine it?

[SDuderstadt]

28. Jesus Christ....

they DID....have you bothered to learn anything at all about 9/11?

[defendandprotect]

40. Families were trying to get body parts out of the State Island land fill . .

last I heard ---

but the steel went to China --

[NowHearThis]

38. How long more do you think it will take until the Government...

provides proof of the Official Conspiracy Theory. OBL will be dead before that proof that Bush said would prove his guilt is ever produced. And your grandchildren will still be waiting for genuine video footage of an airplane crashing into the Pentagon. I guess the Untruther spin will be that the reason there's no credible footage is due to incompetence, negligence, and intel failures, so we'll just have to settle for the Nike swoosh images that were allegedly taken on September 12th in the parking lot.

[William Seger]

44. Why do you pretend that it would matter?

If we had a clear video of UA77 flying into the Pentagon, all that would prove is that the conspirators faked a video. If we had 20 videos, all that would prove is how industrious they were in faking videos. If we had a signed confession from OBL, all that would prove is that the conspirators think we're really gullible.

Guess how I can confidently predict those reactions to any evidence?

Evidence really plays no part in the "reasoning" behind conspiracism; it's just a game played after the fantasies are fully formed. Conspiracists simply deny any evidence that doesn't fit there their fantasies, while blindly accepting dubious or even imaginary evidence as confirming their fantasies.

Why are you pretending that lack of evidence is the reason you don't accept the "official story?"

[NowHearThis]

45. You must believe the crime was carried out by one person.

Either that, or you don't have access to a dictionary. Which is it? Both? 9/11 was a conspiracy. It wasn't a game. You seem intent on exonerating the conspirators and that's sad but predictable, coming from an Untruther.

[William Seger]

47. The reason you think there's an equivalence

... is that you simply don't understand the role played by evidence in rational thinking. That's exactly the game I was talking about. If you ever find that elusive smoking gun evidence for your conspiracy theories, you won't be called a conspiracy theorist anymore. Ironic, huh.

And, btw, you do realize that to a lot of people, when the "truth movement" wanks around making accusations that it can't back up with evidence, while ignoring and denying all the evidence we have of who the guilty parties were, it's going to look a lot like you are trying to exonerate the murderers? I'd lay off that angle, if I were you, until you are prepared to prove your accusations.

[whatchamacallit]

42. What's with this idiotic "7 years" argument?

Where is it written: "If something hasn't been proved within 7 years it is automatically disproved"? Even if we had access to all the pertinent evidence and data for the last 7 years - which is not the case - this is a totally nonsensical argument that smacks of "when all else fails" desperation.

[SDuderstadt]

43. nice strawman...

i didn't sat it was disproven. i was just noting the difference between the word ''overwhelming'' and the lack of a smoking gun after a reasonable time.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Really man

what is "a reasonable time"? 7 years under the most opaque American government (possibly) ever? There's 0 logic to this one, you are simply pulling a number out of your ass.

[SDuderstadt]

58. You mean it hasn't been 7 years since 9/11?

Really? Actually, it's going on 8. BTW,if you don't have the evidence because of the opacity of the Bush administration, then upon what grounds do you make your goofy claims? Did it ever occur oto you that the reason you can't find the evidence to prove your theory is because you're wrong and the evidence simply doesn't exist? Why don't you petition President Obama to release all this evidence because I am certain he supports your cause, right? Oh, he doesn't?

[William Seger]

9. "There's no way to explain this, except missing frames"

Well yes, the QuickTime movie he's pretending to analyze seems to be missing one frame -- the first explosion frame, which is severely over-exposed in the original video that the Pentagon released -- but that's only part of the explanation. The rest of the explanation is that he is a fucking idiot.

Like all no-planers, he is a completely clueless about video, but worse, he didn't even have enough common sense to try to get the original one-frame-per-second video that the Pentagon released and compare it to his slowed down version of a bad QuickTime version. Then the fucking idiot claims that "someone doctored" the video he's looking at? Yes, "someone" did -- but it wasn't the Pentagon.





(On edit: The "helicopter" video appears to be either a fraud or a fraudulent misrepresentation of a simulated video. Since he doesn't mention a source, I can't guess which it is.)

[k-robjoe]

10. Morphing

Yes, waking up this morning I was thinking that the thing is that MSNBC was using this morphing thing. From one frame to the next. So that's why they are mixed together.

The helicopter footage must have been discussed here earlier?

[William Seger]

13. First time I've seen that helicoptor video

It looks like a bad attempt to fake a video of a missile hitting the building, but it hits the wrong part of the wall from the wrong angle. I'll also have to strongly disagree with the YouTruther that the explosion in that video is what "real" explosions look like.

[smiley]

23. your great at name calling.

[William Seger]

30. Thanks!

You may have also noticed that I explained exactly WHY he's a fucking idiot?

[defendandprotect]

41. The Pentagon photos remind me of the CIA photos of Oswald at the Mexican Embassy . . . !!!

[NowHearThis]

46. How about the JFK autopsy photos. They don't show the damage

done to the back of JFK's head. Nearly every witness who observed JFK before and after he was brought into Parkland Hospital described a large "blown-out" portion in the back of the president's head, yet none of the purported autopsy photos show any such wound.

Faked photos and videos are part and parcel of government conspiracies here and abroad. JFK, Moon landing, 9/11 etc.

[defendandprotect]

48. Yes . . . did you ever hear Walter Cronkite on his experiences in trying to expost that?

It's on the internet somewhere . . .

but at one point, there was a TV program which must have begun with the intention
of getting the info out on what doctors/nurses -- and a whole bunch of witnesses
had seen at Parkland, etc.

Walter Cronkite was the host. I remember the program and the expectations that the
cover-up would be broken and America would understand what had truly happened.

At any rate, as I recall it, the Doctors from Parkland went into a room where they
were to indicate what the wound looked like -- paper and a drawing of a head supplied.
Presumably they told the truth.
However, Cronkite then begins delivering a pro-Warren Commission cover-up report!
Everything's OK, folks -- you can leave now!

It was an obviouss rip-off -- promising one thing and then reversing it.

HOWEVER, Cronkite says that the was betrayed -- that his expectation was that the
true wound in the rear of the president's head would be revealed but that the cue
cards were saying something totally different -- from beginning to end.
And he was reading them!

I'll have to try to find that again -- so much disappears from the internet, but I'll
have a look.


PS: Just want to make clear that Cronkite is reciting how he was betrayed and it
makes clear that the head of his network was certainly involved. I don't remember
which one it was. However, the stealing of votes by computer has to also have had
the protection of the corporate-news -- high officials. It's been said that many
journalists left corporate-media as the computers came in and this all became so
obvious.

[SDuderstadt]

50. do you have any proof of this whatsoever?

do you honestly expect us to believe that cronkite expected something, but the cue cards said something different and he just read them?? again i ask, is there any conspiracy theory so goofy that even you won't embrace it?

[NowHearThis]

51. All of the medics in Dallas saw the massive BOH wound and...

there are many videos on YouTube in which Parkland doctors who treated JFK talk about the president's BOH wound. Clint Hill (SSAgent who jumped onto the limo) observed the massive wound in the lower right back of JFK's head. It was so large that a rubber dam and plaster of paris had to be used to fill the empty part of JFK's head. You can see the avulsion in back of JFK's head even in the Z film -- clear and unambiguous proof of a bullet which entered from the front.

None of the extant autopsy photos show such a wound in the back of JFK's head.

Most physicians are honest. One of my cousins is a doctor and my ex-father-in-law, too. However, physicians in the military must obey orders and the military autopsists at Bethesda were given orders to keep their mouths shut about what they observed and what they were told to do and not to do during the autopsy.

You can see the small entry wound in JFK's temple area (as described by the embalmer) in one of the autopsy photos. Anyone interested in the assassination would be well advised to first learn the consensus of the basic facts about the murder, then study the medical evidence.

[defendandprotect]

55. All true . . .

Unfortunately, too many now aren't reading about Watergate or the coup on JFK --
and right wing cover up is still very much active.

Still no one seems to have sufficient power to reveal and overturn this fascism.

Keep at it -- many, even here at DU, need to hear it!

[SDuderstadt]

59. Please produce this photo of JFK with...

a small entry wound in the temple, otherwise, this is just more of your bullshit. BTW, how anyone can watch the Zapruder film and not notice that JFK's exit wound was, indeed, towards the rear of his head, but on the SIDE. Are you really arguing that the would was to the front side of the head?

BTW, it's now 46 years since JFK was assassinated by Oswald. When do you guys expect to solve this case? What are you waiting for? For all the witnesses to die?

[NowHearThis]

54. Who doctored the film and phot evidence in the JFK case?

It sure wasn't an AMATEUR UNtruther.

[SDuderstadt]

60. "Truther Logic"

when the evidence does not support your goofy claim, just claim it was all "doctored".

[smiley]

18. I thought he made a compelling case....

by slowing down the released video. Especially when you see the fireball start to erupt but still see the supposed fuselage in the same spot. However this could have been doctored just as easily.

But he really lost my support when he showed the aerial shot of the pentagon. This IMO looked extremely doctored. But who's to say. There is so much bogus information out there anymore, who can you trust?

[William Seger]

25. That wasn't the "released video." That's the whole point.

The video from the security camera was 1 frame per second. Slowing that video down would reveal nothing that isn't seen in the individual frame captures, which I posted above. (I took those from the videos on the Judicial Watch site, which they posted as received as the result of their FOIA request.)

What's happening in the version he's looking at is that extra frames have been added, with one frame "dissolving" into the next, i.e. the two frames have been merged in the added frames with a series of partial transparencies. Some software does that to give the illusion of motion, rather than simply slowing down the frame display rate (which would just look like a jerky series of still images). That might have already been done in the QuickTime version that he downloaded, to make the original 1 fps video look smoother, or his own software might have done it when he slowed that version down. The point is, that's not what the original video looks like.

[smiley]

26. I agree

it did look sketchy to me. but the original released video didn't do much for me either.

[david_watts]

36. Interesting clip

Interesting clip

[anigbrowl]

37. I don't think it's very good

Many of the video artifacts he's saying are suspicious may have been introduced when the footage was recorded, converted for TV broadcast or during subsequent conversion for YouTube. Since the security camera footage has been released by the Pentagon, it's likely available under the FOIA. A good thing to do would be to obtain an uncompressed copy of said footage and make it available along with details of frame rate, original video codec (if recorded digitally) or analog system (if not) along with details of the video head and lens employed on the security camera.

4 out of 5 articles/comments I've read about this an other footage over the last 7 years seem to come from people drawing conclusions about what the video shows without knowing the first thing about photography or video technology. While those observations may be made in good faith this can lead to a lot of mistaken conclusions. Starting out by saying 'here is the best quality video which is available, and here's the technical information which was supplied about its provenance' would result in more productive discussions.

http://website.lineone.net/~bosankoe/analysis.htm is an example of (mostly) going about it the right way - it involves a lot of math and so forth, but the author is developing a scientific argument in a scientific way. I think he has overlooked some important things, unfortunately; stuff like the nonlinearities of cheap fisheye lenses. You'll notice the author makes a correction for barrel distortion, which is good, but if you're making a 20% correction it's a red flag that you're dealing with some severely compromised optics. You can see in the post-correction photos that the orange traffic cone in the foreground now looks somewhat curved.

There are some other weaknesses, but for an amateur analysis, working things out from first principles, this is very good and certainly offers fruitful possibilities for more refined analysis (eg we could try to refine the optical correction, establish an error factor for sensor variability in the camera, possibly ID the camera make and model and so on). To sum up, my point is that this is the minimum level of detail someone should be bringing to the table if they want to propose something based on a forensic video analysis.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Sweet God, Seger's trying to make it simple.

NBC "doctored" this video. They took the individual frames given to them by the Pentagon, and edited them together into this video. They start with one, fade into the next, fade into the next, and so on. And the ignorant dumbass cries foul and puts up one more stupid YouTube video.

Man, oh, man.

[NowHearThis]

56. Does the Pentagon now have its own security cameras in place?

I gather from some of the Untruthers that they share our concern about the appalling lack of photographic evidence of the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. Does anyone here know if the Pentagon has since installed its own cameras around the entire edifice, you know, just in case another angry Arab who hates our freedom decides to hijack a plane (maybe using some advanced Muslim magic potion to subdue everyone on board) and fly it right into the most secure building in the known physical universe and try to best the Big show put on by Hani Hanjour? It won't be easy, I know. That was really a spectacular pyrotechnic display and some argue it exceeded
even Hani's amazing piloting skills. But, it's hard to believe that anyone could do all that AND be as lucky as Hani was in "crashing" into a part of the building that has yet to be reinforced.

[SDuderstadt]

61. The Pentagon DID have multiple security cameras in place that day, but...

it's really stupid to think that the cameras would be aimed in such a way as to pick up a jet barrelling towards it. It's even dumber to think that, even if said cameras detected the jet, that they could have done much about it. What do you think they should have done and with what?

[Realityhack]

62. "...just in case another angry Arab who hates our freedom decides to hijack a plane..."

You do understand how stupid that statement is right?
The object of security cameras is NOT to document planes crashing into the building so airheads on the internet will feel better about what happened.