Pentagon video postscript: moment by moment
posted at 1:32 am on May 17, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Kevin Aylward and I were scratching our heads this afternoon over the screencap he took from one of the 9/11 videos released today. Clearly something’s there — but what the hell is it? I thought the white blob might be part of the plane; Kevin agreed. But then someone pointed me to this fabulous conspiracy-theory debunking from 2004 and I realized (a) the image isn’t new — it was released to the public four years ago (see the “Extra Information” gallery in the sidebar), and (b) that white stuff isn’t part of the plane. It’s smoke.
Let’s look at the screencaps. Here’s the last shot of the calm before the storm, taken at 0:24:53. Note the horizon directly above the yellow ticket dispenser on the right.
Here’s the next frame, the one Kevin screencapped, taken at 0:25:07. Don’t focus on the white blur; focus on the area above the ticket dispenser.
There’s a dark triangle there now, which logically can only be either the tail of the plane or, if it was rolling over, one of the wings. Ergo, the white blob to the right must be a smoke trail. Kev and I didn’t recognize this earlier because we didn’t have the first frame with which to compare; for all we knew, the black triangle was part of the background landscape. The author of the post at “Above Top Secret” had figured it out (or guessed correctly) eighteen months ago, though. Click and scroll down to the section titled “The Gate Camera” and see what he had to say. I think he’s stretching when he claims he can make out the nose of the plane by enlarging the image, but the point about it banking right — away from the camera, thus obscuring the front part of the fuselage behind the ticket dispenser — rings true.
The next frame in the sequence, at 0:25:97, shows the impact. You can clearly see it’s a smoke trail here.
Here’s the impact frame overlaid with the second frame so you can trace the trail all the way in.
The new video released today doesn’t show as much of the plane as the old one, but here are the three impact frames in sequence so you can get a good look. First, at 1:26:40, the last moment before the plane enters the field of view.
At 1:26:53, the nosecone (or wing?) appears at the right, level with the horizon.
At 1:27, impact.
You can see the smoke trail here too, I think, although it’s fainter due to the flash from the explosion. Note the black strip indicated by the arrow. It’s not visible in the previous two frames, although that might be due to that nasty glare on the lens.
So there you have it. Do read the “Above Top Secret” piece; it’s a marvel. And watch this short video from CNN about the release of the videos today. Reporter Jamie McIntyre humiliates the conspiracy theorists by showing how his own reporting — live, on 9/11/01, in front of the Pentagon — has been twisted by the “Loose Change” crowd to suit their wacko agenda. Classic stuff.
Update: Here’s a typically worthy post from Captain Ed explaining why there’s so much smoke coming off the back of the plane and why it’s so low to the ground. Don’t miss it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yea I saw this about 2 years ago.
This is the Pentagon, I’d suspect they’d have top security cameras (better ones) all around that place.
What about that gas station or hotel tape, across the street, that they took for evidence. They should release those too.
ryan on May 17, 2006 at 2:26 AM
Unfortunately, nothing will stop the moonbat conspiracists. As I remember there were over 100 eye witnesses that saw the plane skim the ground then crash into the Pentagon. There was also some wreckage found.
But why spoil a good conspiracy with truth and facts?
LewWaters on May 17, 2006 at 2:45 AM
Allah you missed it tonight. Coast to Coast had Alex Jones and another conspiracy theorist on talking about the new video. Jones was all ready with talking points about how this is just to whet the appetites of theorists and in 6-12 months the Justice Dept. will release the other tapes and they’ll show Flight 77 definitively hitting the Pentagon.
But see it’s all a scam. They release this evidence debunking conspiradroids, but won’t address “the deeper questions”. This is all a scam to discredit the theorists and avoid answering “all the other evidence” like hijackers reported alive and well in the Middle East by Arab press, like “Operation Northwood”, or Mossad’s warnings to the U.S. (”I have the AP article in my hand!”) just prior to the attacks, and all the information proving the hijackers were secret American agents controlled by a group “above the government that definitely controls parts of the government.”
I laughed, I cried, and then I turned it off. There’s no way to debunk this stuff for them. Every peice of evidence contradicting their assertions is just more proof of the broader conspiracy.
“This evidence directly contradicts your assertions.”
“Oh. My. God. It goes so much deeper than we ever imagined.”
Dun Dun Duuuuuun.
The other guy had two soundbites from McIntyre. One from today with McIntyre saying he has photos of the debris he took on that day, and another from 9/11 saying the plane had disintegrated and there was no debris. Then he asks “Was he lying then or is he lying now?” It’s clear that the 9/11 reporting was when he first arrived on scene and he was giving his initial impressions which matured and changed as more info became available, but the CT doesn’t even mention that. He just asks “Is he lying now or was he lying then?”
These guys are just plain taking advantage of stupid people.
The Apologist on May 17, 2006 at 4:00 AM
Before 9/11, they could take a picture of my license plate, and in a much higher rez…..
…..But for some strange reason, no camera could get a clear shot of a plane they knew was coming.
You’d think a building like the Pentagon would be swarming with cameras.
:/
VonHelton on May 17, 2006 at 8:42 AM
Couldn’t care less what the moonbats think. Innocent Americans are dead, so raise the black flag and make someone pay for our loss.
If they did not die in DC or PA, they certainly died in NYC. So if it’s Iraq that’s got the pay the price or someone else that’s just fine with me.
But when are we going to learn and just stop screwing around? Take the whole damn country, throw everyone who lives there out and make it one huge refinery. Then maybe these 3rd world hell-holes learn a lesson and think twice before the elect these screwball “leaders” that condone the killing of Americans.
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 17, 2006 at 9:48 AM
Personally, my guess, and it’s strictly a guess, as to why the lack of clear photo evidence of the plane could be due to cameras being placed where a perceived threat would come from, the parking lots. The plane came in low over the lawn, something no one anticipated.
Like everyone else, the Pentagon does not have an unlimited budget, so resources would focus where they would be deemed most effective. When the unthinkable happens, we come up short.
Like the President said, we have to be right 100% of the time. The terrorists only have to be right once.
LewWaters on May 17, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Actually I was kind of surprised by the quality of the pictures. Sure they’re not great, but it’s a security camera, what do you expect? For a camera not made to catch images of something that fast, it’s not too bad.
Looks like it could almost be a shadow caused by the smoke. The sun angle is right, and thick smoke like that would have likely caused a shadow effect.
high_desert_wanderer on May 17, 2006 at 10:38 AM
One thing to think of, a large plane travelling that close to the ground would kick up a lot of dust. Depending on the ground conditions et cetera, it is concievable that the apparent smoke trail could be dust forced up by the plane’s passing. The ground would be prone to dust in September. Such a dust trail would leave no easily seen trace afterwards, so if the plane didn’t clip the ground first, you would have no evidence of it’s passing except the impact. I seem to remember some conspiracists yelling “A-HA!” because there was no trace on the lawns.
As for the cameras that could read licence plates, they are specialized systems with a preset focal plane to catch people running red lights or driving through EZ-pass toll lanes with-out having an EZ-pass. Even if something like that was aimed at that side of the Pentagon, I doubt it would have gotten any better of a shot at the distances involved.
Matt Andrade
Jerub Baal on May 17, 2006 at 1:36 PM
I don’t think that that dark line on the ground is damage caused by American 77. I went here and looked at photos 4 and 5 (from the top) and I don’t see any damage to the lawn. I suspect that the dark line is a shadow caused by the fire and smoke rising up from the impact. Compare the angle of the shadow thrown by the building and the angle of the dark line to the top of the plume. Check the video to see if the dark line elongates as the smoke rises.
Tuning Spork on May 17, 2006 at 2:55 PM
Yeah, that’s it. George Bush ordered a cruise missile be sent into the Pentagon. Although, I wonder what foreign prisons he sent the passengers of the plane to??
gary on May 17, 2006 at 6:19 PM
I love how the libs tell us how stupid Bush is, yet somehow he’s soooo brilliant, that he can fool millions of people inton believing airplanes crashed into buildings. He’s not stupid, he’s an eeevil genius! He’s Wile E. Coyote (super-genius), Dr. Evil and Lex Luthor all rolled into one.
Wow, he’s quite impressive!
Let’s continue his evil reign by electing Condi in ‘08!
Tony737 on May 17, 2006 at 9:14 PM
Anybody . . . is there or is there not a video taken from the roof of a nearby hotel?
When US District Judge Wood was assassinated in San Antonio in the early 80s the pre breakup Soviet Union allowed the FBI access to their spy satellite photography in an effort to identify the vehicle the shooter drove.
If San Antonio is under spy satellite surveillance (they had 4 military bases there at that time) then certain DC is
under even better surveillance. Lets ask for those photos. Write the Russian embassy?
Labamigo on May 17, 2006 at 9:23 PM