- The video frames in this article are
taken from the DoD website in their original size and resolution with no
adjustments.
-
- This second released video angle gave
us the height of the "fuselage". So I found a 757-200 image at
approximately the same angle and with the light coming from the same direction
as it is in the new video. I matched the fuselage height exactly to the
height of the object in the video. That automatically scales the rest of
the graphic plane. Here is what the new video should look like then.
-
-
-
-
- The first thing that stands out to me
is the expected reflections and bright red color. You can clearly see the
angle the sun is coming from and the fact that the aircraft would have
been completely illuminated by it. You can even see the face of a building
behind it reflecting sunlight.
-
- To give an example of the detail this
video camera actually captures look at the frame below with a vehicle passing
by in the background. I watched it move through a couple of frames and
captured a still where it was in line with the object claimed to be the
nose of a 757-200.
-
- Let's assume this is 15 feet long like
the average vehicle (a Jeep Cherokee is 14'). It is an additional 150-200
feet further away from the camera than the object in the video based on
the closest possible on-ramp to Washington Blvd.. You can still see the
brightness and reflection which we can assume a polished aluminum aircraft
would also do. The building reflections are obvious here too.
-
-
- I copied the exact same aircraft
that was measured by the height of the "fuselage" in the new
video and placed it into the original video frame from the camera that
is further back. I slightly reduced the size of the aircraft to make up
for the extra camera distance. The interesting thing was that if you lined
up the tail height of the graphic aircraft with the "tail" silhouette
in the original frame, the graphic aircraft was in the ground and the engines
were far below the "vapor trail". So I chose the middle where
the two lined up. The other thing I noticed was that the shape of the alleged
tail in the original video was quite different than a 757-200 empennage
- even if you account for something coming in at a slight angle. What is
claimed to be the tail in the original frame does appear to be pretty flush
and not at a severe angle though. The one thing we should not underestimate
is the difference between a black blob and highly polished aluminum. Even
the "vapor trail" is illuminated by the sun.
-
- I located the tower exactly using one
of the other photos when it was illuminated in the fireball. The tower
is reported to be 44 feet tall which is the height of a 757-200 with the
gear down within six inches. The Pentagon wall is 77 feet high which is
almost exactly half the length of a 757-200 (155 feet). The red line represents
the length of the aircraft on a vertical axis. I moved the base of it to
the perspective of the wall at the estimated impact point and found where
the roof line intersected the middle of the red line and it all worked
perfectly as a double-check. If the gear were down on the graphic aircraft
it would be a little shorter than the tower which it should be since the
impact was behind the tower.
-
- Trying to mathematically figure perspective
and camera distortion can twist the brain, but if you use known objects
in the same vicinity you can get real close. Even if this is off by a few
feet you can still see a very different picture than what we have been
told. The other point that might be criticized is that the aircraft was
reported to have come in at an angle. That might affect length slightly
but not the general height of an object.
-
- I believe these two sequences of newly
released video are authentic. Obviously they didn't fake anything because
there is nothing in them of substance. You can see too that the artificial
time/date stamp originally on the first five frames when they were "leaked"
is not present on the full video sequence. I used to think the frame of
the initial explosion in the original video had been artificially lightened,
but the blast frame in the new video does the same thing. It may be that
the auto-aperture did not have time to adjust. The debris dispersal, the
fireball and the smoke progression all correlate perfectly between the
two videos even in the anticipated subtle differences since the two videos
are slightly out-of-sync chronologically. I measured the time between various
events in each of the videos for comparison and they are dead on. For instance,
I timed from the explosion up to when the police car was at a certain point
on the lawn and everything matches perfectly. It appears that the footage
is at 1 frame per second despite what was published about 2 fps.
-
- The police car that goes through the
gate is not the same one that goes out onto the lawn. The one going through
the gate has two people in it. The person that actually took the car out
onto the lawn was Officer Mark Bright. He was working in the guard shack
at the time and claims to have seen an aircraft. The person driving the
police car through the gate had a white shirt on and in the Steve Riskus
photos of Mark Bright next to his patrol car on the helipad he was wearing
a dark shirt. You can read Mark's statement and see the Riskus photo here:
- http://www.pentagonresearch.com/043.html
-
- One important thing to note is the debris
that rains down in the video. It matches between the two videos in every
respect. I also cross-checked some still photos of the area and the debris
landings corresponded to where pieces came down in the video to the inch.
The temporarily glowing objects in the video were expelled tree branches
on fire that can also be seen burned up in still photos of those areas
further into the incident. If you look very closely you can see some of
the larger debris in the videos that are in later photos further out on
the lawn. Fire apparatus would have been arriving shortly after the released
video clips end and there is nobody running around "planting"
anything. The major pieces we are all familiar with appear instantly.
-
- It strikes me that something flew into
the Pentagon. I don't know what to say though because it also appears nearly
as certain from all of the comparisons that the size, bright color and
reflection of the object in the videos does not match what you would expect
from a 757-200. I am NOT endorsing a missile or anything else! I am just
looking at the physical evidence without a conclusion.
-
- It does seem that they do not want us
to have any clear picture of what it was exactly.....for now. I think the
warnings people have made about a possible booby trap are valid. Don't
bite on all of this and go on a tangent. They could pull something solid
(or apparently solid) out of the bag and ridicule us later. We should focus
on the irrefutable evidence like the demolition of WTC7, the free-fall
speed of the towers, Norad, PNAC etc., in other words, things that are
WELL documented. The Pentagon situation is always going to be a sticky
mess. I think they have made themselves look bad enough without any more
help from us.
-
- Russell Pickering
- www.pentagonresearch.com
- DoD videos (half way down this page):
- http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html#911video
|
