Personally, I am not at all surprised that there is nothing there . Thankfully, the video is available on Youtube as CS points out. Can you see a plane in the video?
Yes - the plane is the big white object that appears in the right of the frame at 25 seconds, shortly before it hits the building in the next frame with a big boom. How can you not see it?
Why didn't the NTSB investigate the crash?
Well, they did - although it's not in fact their responsibility.
The NTSB's remit is to "conduct independent investigations of all civil aviation accidents in the United States and major accidents in the other modes of transportation." (from the NTSB's website, emphasis mine).
The key thing to note is the word 'accident'. This is significant because the NTSB's analysis of an incident is inadmissable in a court of law - a rule intended to ensure the independence of their investigations. The idea is that they wil not be pressured by people fearful of criminal prosecution into fudging something in the report.
This also means, however, that when you're faced with a crash that is quite clearly the result of criminal activity, rather than an accident, the Attorney General can appoint someone else to lead a criminal investigation - in this case the FBI - to produce evidence which could be used in court.
Though the FBI led the investigation, they did request the help of the NTSB, due to their expertise. As the NTSB reported on their website on September 13th.
quote:At the request of the FBI, the Safety Board has sent investigators with knowledge of aircraft structures and flight recorders to the crash sites in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. They are assisting in the search for the cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders - the so-called "black boxes" - and helping to identify aircraft parts.
quote: A plane travelling at 500mph moves 733 feet/sec. The average video camera takes at least 24 pictures/second. That is a picture every 30.5 ft of travel. There should be a clearly visible plane in those videos.
Want to explain how you can look at that video and think that it's running at 24 frames a second ?
A plane travelling at 500mph moves 733 feet/sec. The average video camera takes at least 24 pictures/second. That is a picture every 30.5 ft of travel. There should be a clearly visible plane in those videos.
Well, a couple of things.
First, the frame rate. A CCTV camera typically has a frame rate much lower than "the average video camera". Fortunately, we do not have to speculate on this issue. You can see what the frame rate is by looking at the car pulling up at the start of the video. You can see how jerkily it appears to move. I make it that it appears to move nine times in twelve seconds, giving the camera a frame rate of 45 pictures per minute, not 24 per second. That is a picture for every 977 feet that the plane would travel, according to your figures. Given that, it's pure good luck that we get to see the plane at all.
Second, "clearly visible"? Well, here's the image the camera (plus YouTube-ization) produces of the bit of the four-story building that the plane later crashes into.
That's not clearly a building. If someone told you that that was a picture of a cliff, you'd believe them. You can't see any windows or other architectural details, it's just a gray mass. So why would the plane be anything more than a white blur, if recorded by the same camera?
Here's a broader image:
Note that the only thing remotely in focus is the drop arm gate. Even the nearest part of the Pentagon is a mishmash of gray pixels.
And when you look at the video, you can see that the frame-rate is that low, that the focus is that poor, and that YouTubing the video has pixelized it all to fuck. And yet you say that "there should be a clearly visible plane in those videos". Well, I'll ask you again:
Edited by Dr Adequate, : Because I found out that the right word for those things is "drop arm gate".
Sandy Hook was staged by the Obama administration as a means to take away our guns
Alternate theory: Sandy Hook was staged by the gun and ammo manufacturers to create a panic about confiscation and thus a run on their products. Follow the money. note: this is a satirical theory, not my actual beliefs
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Well we know that people, businesses, and governments do conspire. Part of the issue is that if you want to get away with it, then the plans tend to get awfully convoluted, and that makes them look less plausible.
Sure it is implausible to you and me. My point is that you and me can have only the vaguest clue about how hard it would be for a bunch of ideologues at the height of power to start a war and blame it on the other guy. All that we have is the highly filtered evidence fed to us. The complete lack of transparency does nothing to alleviate the tendency for people to imagine alternative explanations. It took a court case to get the confiscated tape from the hotel released and what did it show? Nothing apart from a cloud of smoke. WTF?
Video was also seized from a gas station close by. The attendant reported,
quote: "Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. 'I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.'"
So if I raise the point that it seems unlikely that the scratchy video offered as evidence is the best that the pentagon can do you really cant just wave it away and say 'don't be ridiculous'.
My point is only that there are legitimate questions surrounding the events of 9/11 and you can not attribute them to some sort of paranoia caused by the fact that I am a nobody with an over active amygdale. I have not reached the conclusion that there was some sort of conspiracy but I have reached the conclusion that there are many unanswered questions that should be able to be answered.
What is the interpretation of the long, skinny silvery object entering from the extreme right at 24 seconds:
When I stop the video at 24 sec I see a white streak on the right and something that could be the tail of an aircraft immediately above the right hand yellow box. A tail with no plane in front of it. The streak looks to me like smoke or dust and if you stop the video at 25 sec you see the streak runs from the right side of the picture all the way to the building.
At 33 sec I thought that I saw the bright flash from the Men in Black memory wiper so that may be why I can't seem to recall actually seeing a plane.