My bold
I find that a strange statement. Do you have any reason to claim that any part of the video is fake?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

You're ignoring the fact that many 9/11 truthies have already for a long time been regarding the Pentagon stuff as an obvious way to discredit the movement...

What did you do to falsify the other hypotheses for the delay? In other words, how did you deal with the probability that the delay in releasing the video had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories? Your statements reveal presuppositional filtration.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'll keep that in mind.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The videos do not show a lot, only the front of the plane. The plane must have been flying very low, but we already know that. I think that the ground effect -referred to by CT's to claim that he couldn't fly that low- actually helped in flying that low at high speed without hitting the ground.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

They have just shown the new footage on the BBC. It's shows even less than the existing 'white blur' clip!

The 'projectile' approaches at a very gentle angle, close to the ground. The newsman said that this was surprising in so far as most people expected a steeper angle of decline pre-impact.

CTs will no doubt marvel at the skill of the pilot in flying so close to the ground. Is it true that there were no skid marks on the ground in front of the impact hole?

The big problem with the video is that the security camera only shot 2-4 frames per second, as opposed to the roughly 30 frames per second that we see as "real time" movement in TV shows and movies, so we were never gonna see a complete play-by-play of the collision.

A lot of CTs I know are talking as if video evidence is the only thing we have that would suggest it was an airliner, as if the majority of eye witnesses present that morning who saw an airliner crash into the Pentagon with their own eyes were somehow deluded, and as if the DNA evidence of the passengers and wreckage of an airliner was either planted or never existed in the first place.

I just don't get it.

Yes that's true. I do think it is easier to approach at constant altitude instead of an impact line. If you keep your altitude constant -and the ground effect is a good natural aid here- you'll collide with the Pentagon anyway. On an inclided impact line, your approach needs to be exactly correct, or you'll miss the Pentagon and hit somewhere into the ground.

Skid marks in front of the Pentagon and still hitting it at quasi full speed would amaze me more that just directly hitting it.

Obviously, the hijacker needed a lot of luck to succeed in his plan. But the filmed approach seems more likely of success than other approaches to me. Don't forget that the pentagon is a very low building, so an inclined approach towards its side is very difficult to do with such an aircraft.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Laymen thought process below. Feel free to add and correct. Please, no mocking.

OK - mild mocking only please. No your mamma jokes. Thank you.

I'm wondering two things. First, I assume that the time in frame is somewhat faster than the frame rate - that is, it would take a bit of luck to capture AA77 pre-impact in the frame. Is there a way to determine probability for that event?

Second, I assume that the time in frame is somewhat slower than the shutter speed (or CCD equivalent) so that the pre-impact image could be captured.

Who can explain this better for me?

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

What do you mean by 'time in frame'?

It takes a full scan of the feild of vision once every half second. It takes about 1/60th of a second to scan that frame then waits , doing nothing, for the time to scan another frame.

Security cameras often take only a few frames per second in order to save storage media be it tape, DVD or hard drive.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

The amount of time measured from when AA77 enters the camera's field-of-view to the time it impacts the wall of the Pentagon. You could add let's say the time it takes 1/2 of the airframe to disintegrate or breach the wall.

The thought is to try to work out how long an identifiable AA77 was visible to the camera.

I think I will need the camera's field-of-view, the path of AA77, the speed of AA77 in the frame and the time it takes the camera to capture an image.

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

I am not a conspiracy person and I hope people won't assume I am by pointing out that we saw so many images of the towers being hit that it got boring and were never shown the pentagon hit, I don't make assumptions about this but it is weird. I saw the footage on Comcast today and I am sorry to say that so far Alex Jones and the "Loose Change" people seem to be right. I can't see the plane and this is the exact footage shown on the many conspiracy sites. We can now be assured that the Girl Scouts, the Free Masons and the Flat Earth Society were indeed behind a plot to destroy the Pentagon using a team of trained hummingbirds which formed the shape of an AA jet and set off the hidden explosives be remote control. Damn birds. I will now go and make my tinfoil hat so the aliens don't steal my thoughts. Thank you.

I am by pointing out that we saw so many images of the towers being hit that it got boring and were never shown the pentagon hit, I don't make assumptions about this but it is weird.

It's not really wierd, and in fact I'd be more worried if there were a lot of images of it.

There is 1 set of footage of the first plane hitting the WTC, and that was pure luck because a film crew happened to being doing a documentary nearby and the cameraman spotted the plane flying low so shot it. I have heard some people claiming that this group was part of the conspiracy because they knew to be there, so effectively we now have the "it's suspicious that it was caught by a film crew" and the "It's suspicious because it wasn't caught by a film crew" contradiction. Most images of the impacts come from the 2nd plane hitting the WTC. By that time there were hundreds of cameras pointed at it because of the first hit. That's why the footage is there. There was no lucky camera crew at the Pentagon, nor any reason to have a heap of realtime camera aimed at it. Thus the security cameras are all there are, and they are positioned and timed to see people doing things they shouldn't, not planes crashing into buildings.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I didn't see the nose of the plane in that video, but I definately saw the entire rear half of the fuselage the moment it hit the Pentagon.

It'll be a while before the professional CT-mongers respond, but, predictably, the amateur CTers are already proclaiming it a fake.

Just have a look at GLP or the bigger Indymedia sites.

__________________
Please enjoy your trip through this door.

Is it not as I foretold? Proof positive of my psychic powers.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

OK, I see what you mean.

MSNBC reported that the plane was doing 533 MPH when it hit. I don't know if this is from calculations done from this video or simply information gleaned from the flight data recorders.

If the frame rate is 2 per second then the plane moves 390 feet between frames.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

...and the plane itself is 178 feet long.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

I was not talking about myself here, but making a statement about what many other "conspiracists" believe to be the case. So, no such presupposition.

However... can anyone explain to me how this video was supposed to be at all relevant to Moussaoui's trial? I don't really see how. Neither, I believe, could JudicialWatch.

Where did you see that? Can you make a screen capture? As far as I have seen and read, there is one frame with the nose entering the image, but the next one is just a fireball as far as I could tell.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Pictured here:
"...Whatever speed the cameras actually recorded at, the released video only contains two frames per second...the television showed us, between reports on the NSA spying on your phone calls, pictures of no Boeing 757 while insisting they were showing you a Boeing airliner..."

I like how some CTists are bellowing about how "you can't see anything", then turn right around and say things like, "this is what the video shows".

According to some CTs, the government had to be holding on to hours and hours of 30fps, 5 feet away, DVD quality video of the object hitting the Pentagon, yet wouldn't release it because it would blow the vast conspiracy.

Obviously, capturing a very vast airliner hitting the building by silly little security cameras is problematic.

Lots of people saw that airliner hit the Pentagon with their own eyes that day. There was airliner debris recovered and photographed in the wreckage. There were bodies recovered and identified with DNA from the flight. The damage to the Pentagon was consistent with what is said happened, if of course you know anything at all about the dynamics of high-speed impacts.

That's all rational people need.

Hi Spitfire!! Great aircraft by the way: just love it!!

I think one of the saddest parts of our modern world is the wasteful passtime of Conspiracy Theories: "Fake" Moon Landings, Holocaust Denials, Da-Vinci Codes, JFK, UFO Coverups and ESPECIALLY 911. It's all such a tragedy that people seem to have replaced religion in their lives with these even (potentially) greater wastes of time, energy and intellect. Will our Western Society EVER grow up?

I sometimes like a good conspiracy, I really do. But have so many people really lost their touch with reality? Perhaps my question is more moot than rhetorical.

As Chesterton may or may not have said: “The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything.”

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Well one thing the cornspiracy nuts can't explain is what then happened to flight AA77. Lets not forget that flight AA77 was a real plane with real people on board. If the Pentagon were hit with something other than flight AA77, where did AA77 run off too?

And the other thing the cornspiracy nuts can't explain is that if it wasn't flight AA77, then how did all of its parts and passengers end up in the Pentagon?!?

Frankly, I found the video completely uninteresting and irrelevent. We know what happened on September 11, 2001. All this cornspiracy talk is nonsense perpetrated by people with way too much time on their hands and only half their synapses firing.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

A quote which would be equally true and equally meaningless if you remove the "not" from it.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

That does not answer where Daryl71 saw the tail of the aircraft though.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Did anyone catch Jim Marrs (S9/11T FM) on Coast to Coast AM last night? He, like Prof. David Ray Griffin (S9/11T FM), are of the mind that the Pentagon was protected by anti-aircraft missile batteries on 9/11. (See Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor and 9/11: The Myth and the Reality, Conclusion [Notes, #92].)

Hey, if a Saudi officer confirmed the existence of the Pentagon missile batteries to Thierry Meyssan, why should anyone doubt it?

It might be an excercize in pixel-counting, or I might be going blind, but I swear that you can see the 757's tail at the moment of the explosion.

Oh, here are two screenshots I took of the video:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9...ntagon16jn.jpg
Before...

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9...ntagon27wo.jpg
And After...

Okay, so it's not exactly the "entire rear half of a fuselage" (I think I was seeing the trail of dust kicked up by the plane). But there's no way it's a cruise missile, it doesn't look like part of the Pentagon, and it sure looks like the vertical stabilizer of a Boeing 757 to me.