What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
242 Comments
- dagnabbit, on 10/12/2007, -15/+153Could it be that the framerate is extremely low, the plane was moving several hundred MPH, the camera is far away from the site of the crash, and its very low quality video? Nah, couldn't be that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+153THe goverment should stop screwing around and just release all the video of the impact.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -82/+15913 more soldiers died in Iraq this weekend . . . and we are _no_ closer to getting Bin Laden, Al Qaeda is stronger/has more members than ever, and in fact ALL anti-US terrorist groups are gaining membership, and . . . "A May 2006 Zogby International poll indicated that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."
We've gone through the looking glass. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -21/+89this video shows 2 things:
1) 5 years to conclude this ***** quality video from a quarter mile away shows nothing = our government is ***** inept
2) morons still sensationalize this. the description here and the bloggers description are ENTIRELY different. the blogger basically says "this video sucks and you cant see *****", whereas the submitter makes it sound specifically (especially with the . . .) that if it werent for some government hijinx, you should be able to read the sides of the plane.
marked as "i want to stab the submitter in the face with a rusty ice pick for sensationalism" - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60Thank you FBI for releasing this useless tape. Now if you could share the other 3 or 4 with us, It would be very helpful.
- psykomf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54actually the description makes it clear that you cant see the plane from that angle, only the smoke from the impact
- groverblue, on 10/12/2007, -8/+59I guess one would have to know the landscape to make an informed judgment on whether or not a plane should be seen. Perhaps the original video could provide more detail, but this one is not that useful. I dugg anyway.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53I agree, it looks like about 5 fps, tops. Considering that the plane hit at 500 MPH or so, it would be moving about 800 feet per second. Given that, the angle of the shot, and the quality of the video, it would be nothing but massive luck to be able to see the plane at all.
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -19/+67the 9/11 conspiracy... is a government conspiracy!
- macatak, on 10/12/2007, -35/+70"13 more soldiers died in Iraq this weekend . . . and we are _no_ closer to getting Bin Laden" etc.
Cos Iraq had a LOT to do with Al-Qaida... - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33It looks to be about 5 FPS. I came to the same conclusion as you. Even the ~40 mph cars appear to jump from place to place in the shot.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34Amazing...The Pentagon, one of the most top secret government installations in the United States and all we have is a security camera from a parking lot gate and a crappy video from the Double Tree down the road.
- TyRaNNOus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Showing an event everyone knows happens is a security risk how? That is the biggest ***** reason I have ever read in my life.
Name one bad thing that could happen as a result? Surely nothing worse then what 2 half assed video's could do. Whether or not it was a plane is not the issue for me, it's why they won't produce evidence to even defend themselves. This arrogance is scary, the lack of transparency when it comes to the lives of people's families and citizens who make your country so great is equally disturbing. It is greatly unjust to deny the citizens the truth over some ridiculous theory of terrorism. Terrorism is no more an issue then it was 75 years ago.
The fact is this happened. You cannot protect the future while hiding the past it is simply a ludicrous idea. It's impossible for a video like this to put you or your family in great danger, if you truly believe this then your ***** detector is currently at color red, and you need to get the ***** out of your house and stop watching the "news". - S201, on 10/12/2007, -17/+40There is a highway right in front of the pentagon. You can tell by the elevation of the cars going by. The plane hit the pentagon so low that it was blocked by the highway. Also you can tell that the explosion you see was not the full thing. The bottom was cut off.
I can easily see why the FBI was not releasing this. They thought that this would be the source for more conspiracy stories. 9/11 was not a conspiracy. It makes no sense whatever to say it was. The government had no motive and the evidence the conspiracy theorists have put forward isn't very compelling. (Other than this video that is.) - teckjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -22/+40well here's another video for all those guys that make crappy PowerPoint like videos of 9/11 conspiracies.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19That's because the Pentagon isn't in Manhattan... you dip. :)
- doctorfungi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Well this video is clearly doesn't show anything. To say it doesn't show a plane is correct, but to then conclude that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon because of that is just silly. The Pentagon isn't even in sight in this clip. You're looking at the side of an onramp.
I feel the conspiracy theorists are relying too heavily on video footage to determine that a plane hit the building. What these conspiracy theorists cannot explain with a reasonable answer is:
a) Why 150+ recorded witness testimonies don't mention a missile.
b) Why there is visible evidence of the wreckage of, not only an American Airlines Jet, but a 757 in particular.
c) Why no one has said that they saw something other than a commercial jet liner. Military experts who saw the event even determined the plane was a 757 BEFORE it hit the building. One guy said a "small plane", but he was over 2 miles away when it happened.
That alone proves that nothing other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11. And not to mention all the passengers of Flight 77 were identified along with other remains believed to be of Arabic males (The Hijackers).
Public statements have been released by the FBI that none of the 'civilian' footage around the Pentagon clearly show a plane hitting the building. They have stated the reason these tapes aren't being released is because there are ongoing investigations and cases still open in relation to 9/11. For example, Zacarias Moussaoui and Khalid Sheik Mohammad.
If you expected a CCTV camera to produce a DVD quality image of a plane hitting the Pentagon - you are delusional. Especially this camera because it doesn't even show the Pentagon.
As for the Pentagon tapes themselves, they are a matter or National Security. If you asked for a tape from the Pentagon from any day of the year, you'd get denied. They don't just freely hand out security footage from the main military installation in the United States. If the FOIA allowed you to gain access to any surveillance tape in the USA - a lot of bad things could happen. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Uhh... you mean this one?
"CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack"
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk - ozid, on 10/12/2007, -14/+30@p337
I was going to digg you until you started accusing me.
I think the same way about it not being a plane. Where did the plane and the people flying on that flight go if it wasn't a plane? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27I'd like to see the camera from the service station that was aimed right at the spot the 'plane' impacted the pentagon.
You know, the one the feds had confiscated less than 5 minutes after the explosion, the one with the really good view of what had happened. - curtvdh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18If the Pentagon report is correct, the plane was travelling close to the ground at near full-throttle - i.e. about 500 MPH (about 800 km/h or 222 m/s). Most security cameras record video at 24 frames/s - so each frame captures about 0.04 seconds (not counting retrace). So, the plane would be travelling about 9 m for each frame. At the distance shown in the video, I would estimate that the camera would have captured about 15 to 20 frames, but each would be badly blurred. It also looks like the ground is obscured by the buildings in the foreground.
There must be video shot from a camera closer to the site - but I doubt that it would show any useful information. As the field of vision narrows, fewer frames would be captured, and the blurring would be even worse.
By the way - the speed of the plane also explains why very little debris or human remains were found - with that much mass, and that much kinetic energy suddenly converted to heat energy, most of the plane's structure would have been vaporized. - WestDC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+142001 is like, so last century.
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13the title should read like this:
New 9/11 video released by FBI [VIDEO], got nothing
seriously guys...you can't tell nothing from that video. - WestDC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Double negative!
So this video tells us all there is to know about September 11! - MichaelJN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13doctorfungi:
How exactly are five year old security tapes from private businesses (hotels and gas station) nearby the Pentagon a "matter of national security"? And no one has suggested this tape proves a conspiracy, quite the opposite - most people are complaining that this tape is useless and answers nothing. There are videos from businesses with a much better vantage point of the Pentagon that were immediately siezed by the FBI and these are the tapes that will actually answer some questions.
Is it really worth having Americans questioning, and perhaps even afraid of, their government? If there is nothing to hide than simply release these siezed videos and prove it once and for all. The claim of ongoing investigations does not hold water - it has been five years and the public viewing the video will not compromise any such investigation. - Dougcope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Direct video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21yea it is just you. i see the traffics.
- digg0digg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The video can be viewed at the website, Flight77.info
http://www.Flight77.info
All documentation related to the FOIA lawsuit can also be viewed there. - misterblommer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I've been on DIGG for only a few weeks, and I'm pretty sure I'm correct that most people who come here are IDIOTS. There is obviously a large object that hits the Pentagon in the video. My guess? AN AIRLINER. FLYING LOW.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15From what I remember about the other video the plane was REALLY freakin low to the ground. I assume thats why it cant bee see from this angle.
- sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25@gbacich
As a fellow New Yorker who was also in the line of sight on that day (watching effects of the first impact from my bedroom window, and seeing the second impact and the collapse from my 26th floor conference room at 43rd and Madison), I have a theory about this--I believe that the reasons that so many people revert to conspiracy theories with respect to 9/11 are:
1. They only saw it on TV, and it seemed "unreal" to them through the lens of television news. At the time, the prevailing commentary on most news channels was about the "Hollywood-style" special effect qualities of the spectacle.
2. They are fearful people. People who live in safe places with idle minds under circumstances that barely challenge their intellects ('hmmm, should I go to Applebee's or Outback tonight?'--being an example of the high-water mark of decision-making for them) tend to fear the unknown and indulge in absurd, small-minded and idle speculation about the causes behind the effects they observe. (see also, Roswell, NM)
3. They are indoctrinated with progressive groupthink, which unthinkingly attributes evil to the unholy triumvirate of government, religion and big business. What was once helathy skepticism has, over the past few generations, devolved into a new dogma of victimism.
4. They are obsessed with justice. They cannot accept that there are no clear answers in the world. They have no patience or faculty for historical complexities. They are utterly detached from the rest of the world (this, despite their guilt-fueled covert prestige for 'indigenous peoples'). They move blindly forward with the winds of ignorance at their backs, pointing blame at the only symbols of power that they can actually name off the top of their heads -- the president, the vice-president, the guy on the news who talks for the Pentagon ...uhhh things get a little fuzzy after that. - zenmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sorry, but this video is worthless, and just goes to show that whether you believe the official story or not, the government is not going to divulge any information until they're good and ready (which usually means never). This guy probably spent thousands on a lawsuit, just to have this pile of crap "released."
- yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16you need to realize that people here don't want there to be an airplane, so they don't see it.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Has anyone questioned how many frames per second that camera captures at?
Cameras like that are usually like 12 fps, not nearly enough to capture a jet airliner moving at 600mph. - maddla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I used to do video analyst for a privatized firm. If I saw this video in 5 minutes I would come to the below conclusion, then I would go to the client (FBI) and tell them to get me some better F'ing footage if they had it.
Here is my 5 minute formula->
520 MPH which equals 763 feet a second which from the scale of the video the average car is 16 feet long which means the plane was traveling 47 car lengths a second.
References: If you don't believe me that the average car length is 16 feet long then Google "average car length"
I am NOT going to get into the angles relevant to the camera is to the ground (how many degrees the cameras angle sits on it's vertical axis) So basically there is a LOW LOW chance that the event which was about 3/4 of a second long could be caught on camera.
Perhaps when I awake in the morning I will find a REAL video and I can actually analyze it, but in reality in order for ANYTHING to be accurate I would need the exact position the camera was in. Which I am sure the FBI knows, hmm. Maybe I should sue? - Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Just zoom, enhance the image, and press a few buttons, wait a few seconds, and you can see the plane. Just like on CSI.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13After viewing that video full screen you can CLEARLY see the tail wing of the airplane...
You can also catch the left wing in the air!
Watch the video several times, the plane is clear as day. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11There are about 20+ other surveillance videos of the event.
- greggish, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The first time I watched it I clearly saw the top part of the tail of the plane sticking up and moving from left to right above the elevated highway. I can't understand how all these people watching this video refuse to see it.
- TheGiveUpKid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't understand how people find our skepticism foolish. I don't have any particular theory about what happened at the Pentagon, but if the government isn't trying to hide anything, why are they hiding everything? Why not release all the tapes, and today? The United States government has no right to keep information secret from it's citizens except in the case of a threat to national security. Can anyone tell me what could possible be on this video that would give cause for the Government to hold on to it for 5 years? What information could possibly be on the other 80 videos that you can't be trusted with? Did someone accidentally leave plans for a Nuclear Bomb on the Pentagon lawn?
Why retroactively classify parts of the 9-11 commission report that suggested complicity? (look it up if you don't believe me, it was in the goddamn papers.) Everyone knows that in the free market, an idea without merit will always be easy to spot, but suppressing an idea only gives it strength.
Again, if there's nothing to hide, than why hide anything?
And if you're so certain that every word after contradicting word of the official version of events is so goddamn accurate, ask yourself HOW you're so certain, and whether you ever actually took the time to learn what the official version of events IS? Or are you so confident that you don't even need to know in detail what happened that day to make your final decision? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Please provide me a link with these "experts" proving it. (An associate professor of home economics at a community college does not count as an "expert" in engineering).
- hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17S201: "The government had no motive"
What fantasy world are you living in? Regardless of whether or not you believe the conspiracy theory, saying the government had NO motive is just completely wrong. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the obvious motive is a crucial part in keeping the conspiracy theory alive. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7S201 is right. I grew up in Arlington and there is a highway/hill blocking the view of this camera. Also, the extremely low framerate doesn't help. The camera was focused on the parking lot, not the side of the Pentagon, and it was only trying to capture cars in the lot and people, not planes moving a couple hundred mph.
- Rfriaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wow. I see parallels between 2pac's post-humous releases and the FBIs...
- MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Yes, sunchild... Interestingly enough, the progressives thought they could trust the president. I think everyone has learned their lesson.
- Naui, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-flight77-lg.jpg
Looks like part of a plane to me. Also you gotta realize that the pentagon was built to withstand an attack, whether it be bombs, missiles, etc. So this would cause a 500 mph jet to basically shatter into the smallest bit of fragments.
Also, popular mechanics did an article on debunking all these theories: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
And I don't know about you, but I think that popular mechanics is a bit more credible. - bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Did everyone miss that small white very fast moving blob that was angled right at the pentagon just before the explosion, kinda looks like an airplane tail......
- SiNiK, on 12/31/2008, -0/+6If you look close you actually see an object moving towards the area before the smoke appears, it is bright white, and larger than the truck behind it. I def see it....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 244 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 