FLIGHT 77: THE WHITE BLUR

This is not a truly important point I suppose, but an old pet peeve. The security gate camera "tailfin" and the magical white plume of smoke behind it. Most people on both/all sides of the debate seem to see it this way, whereas I've always felt the white IS the plane, and the 'tailfin' some sort of artifact. A while back I did a video to explain why, and I just finally got around to posting it. here, for people with too much time on their hands.

Watch Flight 77: The White Blur in Activism Videos  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Note to CIT adherents: I borrowed their video title in a sense, since they made such a case of all those witnesses describing the plane as white. This in no way rules out its actually being silver - all those witnesses (ElKournayti, Reyes, Veronica, Mrs. Hubbard) saw it from the south. Guess which direction the sun shines from? Add to the white plane witnesses this video and Alan Wallace, both from a similar vantage point just north of the impact point. Both saw it from the north and STLL describe it as white, so maybe it really was white... but both Wallace and the video have the plane flying in low and impacting the building, so that's not something CIT wants to hear... Hmmm, what to conclude...

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 9:38

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 3: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 9:38
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
August 7 2008
Last Updated 8/10/09

For those who see no reason to question the official time of the Pentagon attack, this post will be unnecessary. But for those confused by claims of different times, primarily 9:30-32 am, this may prove quite useful. If you're willing to learn... (sigh). Of all the times cited for the impact/explosion/whatever at the Pentagon on 9/11, one stands above as the most-cited, most-supported, and most-likely true – by this I mean, approximately, 9:38 am. Officially the explosive impact of Flight 77 is given as 9:37:45 or :46 based, it seems, on the Flight Data Recorder. In reality, the impact time is impossible to pin down exactly, but likely a bit after this, probably between 9:37:50 and :55 (see FDR section, first up). Following is a nearly-comprehensive list of the most direct evidence establishing the impact at right around that time.

1) Flight Data Recorder:
Much rhubarb has been made of the information on Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder and how it doesn’t match the reality necessary to get it inside the Pentagon where it was said to be found. The last frame of data recorded is 9:37:44 or :45, depending on the exact file one’s looking at. While this is officially the moment of impact, the recorded values do not match those evident in the physical damage (most important – too high!) This is taken by some nitwits/liars as proof the plane didn’t hit. Another view takes this as a clue that this last data is actually NOT from the moment of impact, but a mile or more back, as the INS positioning says (it’s prone to error of about 1/2 mile I hear). Most analysts have come to this realization, though opinions differ on how far back, how much data is missing, and why (which is beyond the scope of this piece). Estimates range from 2 to 10 seconds remaining to impact at last frame, with the upper end of 8-10 seeming most likely to me, and placing impact at 9:37:50 or later. This slight variation of the “official” time alternates with it in the list below and illustrate that roughly all evidence points at a roughly 10 second time range best rounded to the minute as 9:38.

2) Radar:
We’ve always heard the radar data supported and defined this impact time, but fact is it can’t tell us exactly when, or even if, the plane impacted. The raw data of the Air Force’s 84th radar evaluation squadron (84RADES) was released in 2006 to researcher John Farmer, showing all returns from the DC area on 9/11. As I understand it, ‘blips’ are sent and returned every 12 seconds; the last three attributed to Flight 77 are at 9:36:48, 9:37:00, and 9:37:12 (see graphic at right, from Marco Bolletino’s reconstruction of the data). Before the next return, the airliner dropped below the coverage level of app.2,000 feet above ground [this altitude is passed by FDR about 9:37:18]. There is an established NEADS clock issue, known to be app. 25 seconds slow relative to other clocks in the FDR and at ATC facilities. Therefore, the last return would actually be at about 9:37:37, with impact presumably some seconds after that. This support is vague but would hint at an impact somewhat later than the official time less than ten seconds hence. On the other hand, the FDR pressure alt for 9:37:37 is 786 ft AGL, which seems too low to be just disappearing from radar. Perhaps I’m confused on the timeline discrepancy. Anyway, it’s all there… it doesn’t prove a 9:38 impact, but it fits it just fine.

1a+2a) FDR/Radar Combo:
In its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission gives the impact time of 9:37:46 [p 96], citing as its source NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," created Feb. 19, 2002 by the National Transportation Safety Board. The full document in question is available in PDF form [here. The report in turn lists its sources as FDR data “as well as” (implying no conflict with) “radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Route Traffic Control Centers, approach control at Washington Dulles Airport, and the U.S. Air Force’s 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron.” [This is the data examined above]. From this, the report summarizes that “the airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.” Ooh! A one-second discrepancy! And both were likely a bit early, with the Commission closer it seems.

3) Arlington County Emergency System:
From Arlington County After-Action Report, and its first-hand access to emergency communications , we can see that key information was called in just before and after the 9:38 mark, and reactions followed in the next minutes, as recorded and logged as at a time generalized as 9:38. [emph mine].

“In the moments immediately before impact at the Pentagon, the Arlington County ECC began receiving 9-1-1 calls reporting a low flying airliner that seemed off the normal flight path. When the crash actually occurred at 9:38 a.m., all area communications seemed simultaneously overwhelmed. Firefighters calling the ECC couldn’t get through. Relatives of Pentagon workers found cellular and land lines jammed. Emergency traffic flooded radio channels.” [page A-34]

“Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 were […] traveling north on Interstate 395 [when they saw] a commercial airliner in steep descent, banking sharply to its right before disappearing beyond the horizon. At 9:38 a.m., shortly after American Airlines Flight #77 disappeared from sight, a tremendous explosion preceded a massive plume of smoke and fire. Unable to pinpoint the precise location, Captain McCoy immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center (ECC), reporting an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th Street Bridge or in Crystal City.” [page A-34]

At 9:38 a.m., a large smoke plume appeared beyond the Rosslyn skyline. Arlington County Police Corporal Barry Foust radioed the ECC that he saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. The ECC swung into action [page A-35] […] [B]etween 9:41 a.m. and 9:43 a.m. on September 11, the ECC Administrator, Steve Souder, acting on his own initiative, contacted the Fairfax, Alexandria, and District of Columbia fire departments. He gave them identical instructions: deploy four engines, two trucks, one rescue unit, four EMS units, and a command officer to a staging area short of the Pentagon and hold them there until called forward.” [page a25]

4) C130 pilot report via FAA:
The 9/11 Commission briefly discussed the “second plane” at the Pentagon, a C-130H cargo plane dubbed “Golfer 06.” The Commission noted on page 26 of their final report:

“At approximately 9:38 A.M., the C130H aircraft reported to Reagan Airport controllers that the aircraft it was attempting to follow crashed into the Pentagon.” The source is given as “FAA audio file, Washington Tower, Tyson/Fluky Position, 9:38:52 .-M.; FAA letterhead memorandum, 'Partial Transcript; Aircraft Accident; AAL 77; Washington, DC; September 11, 2001,’ 7.

Although the two planes had crossed path just a minute before, both radar and the pilot’s own words agree that Golfer 06 was too far away to see Flight 77 itself at impact, but was close enough to see the smoke and to know where it was coming from. Certainly the impression was there from the beginning, and was only confirmed as it approached at 9:38, passing nearest to impact point at 9:39:15, after which it veered off to the north and west and continued on to witness the crash site of Flight 93 as well before reaching base in Minnesota.

5) 9:39 News Report - NBC:
Among the most solid clues to at least the general time of the attack of the Pentagon attack is in NBC News coverage of the 9/11 events. [video link - when watching the video, note that it starts at 9:12 am, so the video time is to be added to this for the real time] At perhaps 10 seconds after the 9:39 mark [26:24 video time], the newsroom interrupted its coverage to let Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski bring them their first news of something awry there. He told the nation:

"I don’t want to alarm anybody right now, but apparently - it felt, just a few moments ago, like there was an explosion of some kind, here at the Pentagon.” He explains he was on the east side of the mammoth building, opposite from the impact, so it was a big explosion. He saw no smoke from his side, inside the E ring, and didn’t know what was going on. “I just stepped out in the hallway, security guards were herding people out," he explained, meaning some time at least had elapsed. So far impact is looking to be one minute, 15 seconds before this broadcast. Sounds like “moments” to me.

6) Security video time stamps – Pentagon, Doubletree, Citgo:
Though neither the Citgo or Doubletree videos, released in 2006, shows the official time in their on-screen clocks, both timers roughly bracket it: Doubletree – 9:34:10 impact (app 3:35 behind) Citgo 9:40:36 (app 2:51 ahead)
It’s a very small sample to be conclusive, but this is what’s called a normal distribution, that sets a center point of app. 9:37:00. That’s pretty close for a sampling of two clocks, one of which also bears the default date of Jan 1 1993 [for a clue to the professionalism and precision of their deployment].
Regarding the time stamp of the Pentagon’s own CCTV gate cameras that famously captured the plane and impact, Col. Alan Scott told the 9/11 Commission in May 2003:

“The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have.” [source]

It should be noted that the time stamp is not reproduced on-screen. The initial five released framed show a time of the following evening Sept 12 – much to the delight of mystery-mongers, it’s more likely the time the frames were processed and labeled “plane,” “impact,” etc… but they seem to have been recorded in the 9:37 slot on the correct day, and were in fact instrumental in setting the time initially. We find later it’s actually near the end of that minute, but still technically not 9:38.

7) Eyewitnesses:

Considering the known unreliability of eyewitness recollection, and that most people do not directly time-stamp their memories, it should not be surprising that this sector of the evidence is the least clear on the actual impact moment. Just a few of the published accounts provide useful clues, while many specifically disagree or are hopelessly vague. The oft-cited “9:30” is too common a rounding point to be taken too seriously, and it appears several times. A small sampling that are said to specifically cite something more like 9:32 were outlined in a previous post. But the sampling of five below does establish a normal distribution around the minute all other evidence is pointing at.

“It was about 9:35 […] it came from the south. […] I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down came down right over 395 into the Pentagon.” – Don Wright
“At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards… in front of me.” - Donald R. Bouchoux
“At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me.” - Vin Narayanan
“At 9:35, as we were watching this on TV, we heard over the loudspeaker “All medical personnel report to the front desk of Medical.” We did not know at that time that the Pentagon had been hit.” - Captain William B. Durm
“About 9:30 or so — I don't know the exact time, maybe quarter to 10 — we were still in the conference room, and we heard and felt the loud explosion of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it reminded me of an earthquake.” – Lt. Col. Frank Bryceland [note: the mid-point of the range from 9:30-45 is 9:37:30.]

Update:As the brilliant JREF member Mangoose pointed out to me a while back:

I would also draw your attention to the witness account of William Paisley who posts as Pinch at JREF and who has a blog http://www.instapinch.com/.

You might want to contact him directly but he has elsewhere related that he was at Crystal Park 3, 10th floor on 9/11, and was watching NBC coverage of the terrorist attacks; when he saw Jim Miklaszewki's report at 9:39:10 he took a few steps to his office window and immediately saw a billowing, building mushroom cloud of black smoke rising up above the roofs of the buildings between his building and the Pentagon. This is pretty good confirmation that the explosion was not too much sooner than 9:39.

8) Wall clocks at the Pentagon:
In the Book Pentagon 9/11 [Goldberg, 2007] is pictured a wall clock from an office above the impact area, stopped at 9:36:27 – one minute, 25 sec behind the time in discussion. This is reasonably close and solid evidence of the general time at least.
Ironically enough, the famous 9:30-ish stopped clocks, which stand as the best (basically only) evidence for a blast at that early time, may also support the 9:38 time-frame. Non-nutty 9/11 Truther Russell Pickering decided that the low time is a case broken mechanisms as the clocks hit bottom-first after falling from their mounts, with simple gravity responsible for pulling the hands down to near bottom. He issued a challenge for anyone to take, which no 9:32 event supporters did, For one, CIT ally Mirage of Deceit (nutty) later confirmed the results (link unavailable). The pictures indicate the minute hands were somewhere past the 6, not before, but little else can be said for sure. But since everything else says it all went down at 9:38, is it not reasonable to call these a double-confirmation of that time with gravity rounding it down towards 9:30? [note: although it seems to have fallen differently and onto carpet, a similar effect could be behind the above clock’s being behind – or perhaps someone at the Pentagon actually was synched over a minute behind.]
Case Closed
So now that the 9:38 case looks strong enough to actually absorb even the best early-attack evidence, I’d like to turn to some assorted other evidence that doesn’t fit, and for shits and giggles use it to craft smtig even stupider than the 9:32 Pentagon attack meme (which CIT doesn’t even buy). Who knows, some bold Truther might just run with the 9:30-or-before scenario (oops, they already have) or the 9:25 WTC attack (no takers yet).

THE VIDEO RECORD {masterlist}

The reason the attack on the Pentagon has been able to be such a magnet for controversy and speculation, since the day of 9/11, is that unlike the vividly witnessed New York leg of the assault, this one happened out of public view. There was no video of the plane hitting. Of course there are those for whom even such an image is insufficient proof of an attack by a real hijacked airliner, but without such a single piece of undeniable evidence, even reasonable people have been led to let the mystery take hold and turn their imaginations loose.

Note: this is NOT a frame from any video - it's a collage I made from three or four different frames to say "hey, here's the video section!"

Of course there is the physical evidence and the eyewitness accounts to draw on in piecing the scene together, but in a surveillance age, it seems there had to be some video or at least still images we'd been allowed to see of the moment of impact. Indeed there is a video record, though it's been kept remarkably tightly sealed from 2001-2006 as the various Hunt The Boeing arguments unfurled their vines of speculation and obfuscation. Last year, however, the pool of evidence began opening up and expanding what we can learn from. This masterlist will direct you to posts here, both up and upcoming, dealing with the emerging video record of that mysterious attack.
--------
History of the Video Record:
> Nothing to see here: The initial catalog of unseen video
> The 2002 Stills: From ??? with love.
> The FOIA Wars: Farrell vs DoD vs Bingham vs DoJ - the tangle of lawsuits in search of the hidden videos.
---------
Pentagon CCTV Video, released Feb 2002/May 2006
Left, camera two, from which five frames were release in 2002. Right, comparable frame from camera one. Both were released as one frame/second "video" in 2006 after lawsuits (see above).
What They Saw: Understanding the field of vision - the cameras were located side-by-side at the secuity gate guarding access to the north parking lot. Their field of view was 90 degrees, with fisheye lenses, south across the access road, the Pentagon's west face, and the west lawn and heliport.
- Update, 2/15: I just updated the blocked view field - my previous one was too narrow and too close to the building. this one is based on four sample lines approximating widths across the field of view as based on landmarks like the crook in the foreground walkway, the heliport, and the app. base of the building and shadow line. All the measurement lined up failry well,indicating that this almost the precise angle, location, and width of that which would be hidden from the view of camera 2, and I feel confident in this as my final take on the matter.
- Update, 7/25: I also fixed the mislabeling of the plane positions (cams 1 and 2 had been switched), and narrowd down the camera 2 position in the top left box to the same pylon as the security bar.
> The White Blur: Of smoke and Mirrored Surfaces - an analysis of moving vs. stationary objects in the five frames, with "black tailfin" and 2006 "nosecone" included.
> Correcting for the fisheye effect
> Measuring the Crime Scene
> Distance/Speed, frame rate and camera offset analysis and exploring the possibility of one or three frames missing: Flight 77's Home Stretch
---------
Citgo Video, released September 2006
> - External link: Loose Change Forum Russell Pickering explains the Citgo video and what it shows to Loose Changers – including eventual Pentagon forum moderator Lyte Trip. Excellent read, and based on his massive research and on-site inspections - with Lyte (aka Craig Ranke) and Merc (Aldo Marquis) of the north of the Citgo flight path-promoting PentaCon.
- Citgo Video Analysis: station and camera layout, embedded videos of the shadow and two flashes and some initial analysis - a bit dated now.
- How the Citgo Video Contradicts the North-Side Claim: An Analysis of... Flight 77's Shadow? Some excellent clues say yes, and it's south of the station.
- Who is Person #1?
- Citgo camera mystery and mystery camera
- Proof that CIT was manipulated? - on manager Barbara's 'proof' that the video was altered.
---------
Doubletree video, released December 2006
> The Doubletree video: analysis forthcoming. Some see a plane wing or tailfin there, but I don't think they undesrstand what they're looking at. It shows the explosion but neither the plane nor the Pentagon itself. This camera just didn't have the field of view to give us what we're looking for.
---------
Other Videos, not released yet
> Total FBI-confiscated videos remaining unreleased: 83.
> Pentagon security cameras unreleased, Number unknown. All but the two gate cameras But for example, one camera I'd like to see the video from.
> "Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack." An excellent thread at Above Top Secret.com started by Craig Ranke (Jack Tripper) based on on-site investigations with Russell Pickering. There are some interesting photos and facts in there about confiscated video, removed cameras, and other suspicious secrecy. Will help fill the gap 'till I get something more up.
---------
A Reason for the Secrecy Besides Hiding the anti-757
> Bees Around Honey, Flies Aroud Sh*t: Is it getting sticky in here, or is that just me?

PROOF THAT CIT WAS MANIPULATED?

PROOF THAT CIT WAS MANIPULATED?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 21 2008
[rough ]

Criminal manipulation of the Citgo security video became a necessary charge for CIT as soon as the video was released on September 15 2006. It was quickly noticed that their 'star witness' Robert Turcios, first announced just five days earlier, was not visible in the video reacting as he said he did. While he had claimed to run out of view to a raised mound to see the plane on a north path and perform a pull-up before apparently impacting, Russell Pickering felt the only person that could be the witness is seen under the canopy at impact and running inside the store after. This is indeed what the video shows. Video contradicts this witness account = video is wrong, wrong, wrong.

CIT of course has zero evidence, aside from this conflict, that Robert was edited out, that another person who runs inside was edited in, or that the shadow of Flight 77 on the road behind that person was painted in south of the station. They also have no absolute proof the video is manipulated at all, but they do have the findings of others that seem to indicate this. They’ve cited John Farmer, who protests, and who has found no signs of tampering. They’ve cited a guy called “Interpol” at the Loose Change Forum. And most importantly, the manipulation that proves the evidence disproving Turcios was proven by Russell Pickering himself, who denied that this is what he proved, and his suspicious behavior vis-à-vis the video and Turcios eventually led Aldo at least to suspect that Pickering himself was involved in the alteration - that he had just proven. As Ranke summed up more soberly:

“Strangely; Russell has been virtually silent about some of the most important, and in my opinion, best work that he has ever done. Ultimately his research proves evidence tampering which is a Federal crime within itself. [… Russell found that the FBI] removed this critical camera a couple of hours after the event: Because THEY MANIPULATED THE DATA TO REMOVE THE VIEW OF THE CAMERAS THAT HAD A VIEW OF THE PENTAGON THAT RUSSELL HAD JUST PROVEN WERE REMOVED AFTER THE ATTACK!”

All he really did to that end was write this, and a few other posts like it, regarding I believe his first visit to the Citgo station during their joint-venture, on August 22 2006:

"According to the manager of the Citgo [...] They were evacuated for about two hours from the Citgo and minutes after they reopened the camera was taken. She never viewed the video herself. [...] The Citgo manager physically took me out under the canopy and showed me the location of the removed camera. It was pointed at pump 2. [...] The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well." [source]

Three things about this camera were found out by Pickering, all via the manager, whose name has been given only as Barbara. The first two key to making the alteration case, the third helpful for making the first two work:
1) The location of the camera and confirmation that it had a view of the Pentagon, as seen in the passage above.
2) The camera was on-line and recording on 9/11, so it's not being in the final video proves alteration. I don’t have Russell’s explanation handy but Ranke said “They [...] manipulated these views from the data […] We know this because the manager of the citgo TOLD US that the views were online.”
3) The camera was physically taken – for no reason I can fathom – and never replaced, which is why it was not there when she pointed to it. “I’m not making it up! The FBI took it!”

THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE VIDEO WAS MANIPULATED in any meaningful way.

True, there is no such view in the video, and there is a remarkable asymmetry in the known video camera set-up. IF a camera were at that spot on 9/11 and pointed the right direction, it’s arguably possible it could have captured valuable clues of a possible north flight path (although unlikely IMO comparing to other views that are included).

Also, one must wonder how many managers they needed, when all the old stories cite Jose Velasquez, a Costa Rican native, as in charge at the time. He’s the one who said in 2001 that "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film," but it may have shown the impact. I’m sure someone has talked about this situation somewhere, but I couldn’t find it easily enough. Barbara’s account of evacuation and video seizure minutes after returning fits with Velasquez fine and makes perfect sense. her knowledge of these details indicate she was in the know and on the premesis on that day of the attack, or at least had been informed enough to seem that way. Anyway, let’s presume she was there, but that does not prove that she was being truthful about what happened when she talked to Pickering and later to Marquis and Ranke. 

So… in essence, “some of the most important, and in my opinion, best work” that Pickering ever did was… to pass on the words of the Citgo manager. That’s it. Barbara provided the 'proof,' all on her own free will for whatever reason, weeks before the video was even released. Is this suspicious in itself? Not really, but what it it were part of a larger pattern? All throughout the discussion is a presumption by CIT that there’s no way the word of the CITGO MANAGER who actually TOLD them something could ever be suspect. As manager of a military facility she might well be part of a military deception to support the official story, but any clues that counter it must by default be honest slips from someone not up-to-date enough on the details.

And did she ever slip and keep slipping; this helpful manager is of course the same person who two days later freely offered the account of Robert Turcios, an employee of hers she was “90% sure” could verify a north path (perhaps she hadn’t asked him yet if he would?). Is it possible she knew what the video showed, and so in proving the video manipulated offered this evidentiary escape clause, for anyone who chose to use it, as cover for the witness? She was careful to echo Velasquez in claiming not to have seen the video, so this would seem unlikely. But of course things are not always as they seem.

I’m guessing she was also the one who approved the on-site interviews with Turcios, Lagasse, and Brooks two months later as the north path just congealed all around her head, apparently humming away oblivious to the implications. I’m not concerned at the moment with exactly why Barbara proved so helpful to the emergence of this meme, but is it not curious how much all of this hinges on that one woman? A need to protect the witness she and she alone provided, using evidence that she provided. And for failing to embrace this loop as CIT has enthusiastically done, there’s something wrong with the movement at large. As craig ranke put it:

“You see this is EXACTLY why Aldo and I get frustrated with the "movement".

Russell Pickering should have freaked out when this video was released and used all of his connections to get people to realize how incredibly important it is that the government released data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager. [emph mine]

This is HUGE! But instead it's ignored and used by Russell, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and even Dylan Avery to support the government story! This is how bad some people out there want CIT to be wrong and the official story to be right.

CIT will continue to scream loud about this and all evidence that proves a 9/11 military deception and cover-up but it does no good falling on deaf ears.”
[source - is craig really unaware aware that excessive screaming is a prime cause of deafness?]

Anyway, so there’s your best proof from CIT that the video is manipulated somehow, and whether or not actual view information was altered, which was always the point, all such questions are rendered moot and the evidence is to be ignored altogether, except in the fact that it further implicates the perps via the absolutely proven manipulation. Now I would never claim to have proven anything here, but looking at all this, it's clearly worth noting how entirely well this manager managed the situation; even before Craig and Aldo put the CIT in Citgo, Barbara had already added the Go.

CITGO VIDEO: WHO IS PERSON #1?

CITGO VIDEO: WHO IS PERSON #1?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 3 2008

I've just completed my first analysis of the Citgo security video extracted with Aimersoft DVD ripper from a disc sent by John Farmer, obtained by him from Juducual Watch and copied right off the original. The Software was not registered when I took all the cropped stills out, so it says 'Evaluation Copy." Sorry this looks unprofessional, but the data is still the same - just as allegedly fraudulent as it ever was. I can't prove to myself or anyone else this video is accurate and not doctored. So I won't even try. Let's just look at what it shows, whether or not that's what actually happened.

Youtube page link

What we have is blurry, ill-defined blobs that alone could be almost anything light or dark of some rough size, but by comparing to site photographs and tracking relative motion we can establish basically what’s going on. Various objects are here highlighted and persons tracked, especially one individual - marked in red as person 1 - who spends most of the time hovering between pump 1 and some mystery object.

The video is unreadable for the labels, so in order of appearance:
gas pumps and garbage can (green)
a truck or SUV that pulls in (blue)
'east entrance' doorway (green)
inner wall facing ENE (gold)
restroom door (green)
mystery object (yellow)
"unclear things happen here" (yellow)
person 1: ? (red)
other persons (purple)

The time-stamps for the segment I've analysed is 9:37 – 9:41 (camera time), looking at cameras 2 and 4, facing northwest and southwest respectively, and together covering the area under the station’s south canopy over its ‘east entrance’ and ‘single pump side.’ This is a photo re-creation (montage of two Farmer shots, 2007) of the FOV of cam 4, single pump side. Compare to labeling above.
The video shows this red-boxed someone hovering around the right pump, garbage can, and mystery object, doing things of an up-down back-forth nature. Details are nigh impossible to determine. This person goes into the restroom at 9:37:41 and apparently re-emerges at 9:39:04 then goes back to 'work.' At 9:40:35 a large shadow appears south of person 1, who moves suddenly, or drops something, in response, but stays put. Just after the glow that appears on the inner wall two seconds later, person 1 runs into the store via the east entrance door. Here are some key moments from the last segment.




This person's locations and activities generally - and partially - fit the account of only one published witness I know of. But I've heard it said that person is not in the video at all and they have offered an account that differs from these actions in important ways. It could also be another person doing similar things, or an inserted blob of pixels. Who is this person? Any guesses? Bonus points for hypotheses on the nature of the yellow-labeled mystery object and its relation to person 1.

Let the reasons to entirely ignore this evidence proceed as well... See comments below

9:32 EVENT EVIDENCE ADDRESSED

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 3: 9:32 EVENT EVIDENCE ADDRESSED
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 5 2007 3am
last updated 8/10/09

All The 9:32 Duckies Lined Up
In the previous post I established the overall logic (found wanting) of the claims for a 9:32 attack at the Pentagon, vs. the official time of 9:37:45. Now it’s time to analyze the evidence that is behind all this theorizing; something got people wondering ‘what happened at 9:32?’ We’ve looked at the two frozen clocks a bit, and will return to them by the end, so let’s start with the yet-unexamined supporting evidence first. If some major violence happened at that time and was covered up, it might leave traces pointing at some kind of coherent reality. Until he was temporarily banned and then seems to have stayed away, LCF member Terral hammered away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact [1], based on Barbara Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing at about that time [2]. Analyzing the two together and dismissing those that have nothing to do with a set time of about 9:32 I have identified seven points, including the clocks combined as one point. Supports attempted for 9:30 I have disregarded as too early to fit this model and will be addressed separately in a later post.

The meat and potatoes of 9:32 evidence is as follows, as debunked as I care to try for along the way:

1) An Early FAA Chronology: A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) document called Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 reported that at “0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.” [3] Assembled just six days after the attacks, this official report’s stated time has since been amended – cover-up or correction? ATC (air Traffic Control) means radar; they don’t see things crashing, just disappear from screens, which happens when it drops below a certain altitude. In the case of the Pentagon attack, it appears the plane dropped off screens at 9:37:15, 30 seconds before impact, not the 5-6 minutes before required for this report to be correct. Many have taken this as a temporary slip and admission of reality - but one still openly available despite its damning implications.

Another likely possibility is that this report was somehow wrong, perhaps a confused report reflecting, for example, the 9:34 call mentioned by Gaffney in the previous post– “American 77's lost […] they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.” [4] It seems likely to guess it crashed – perhaps this report was hasty and based on some initial report to this effect without double-checking – and not necessarily a clue of anything.

Regarding early FAA reports from 9/11 and their relevance on timeline questions, for Flight 11 they reported (at one point, it's also since been revised) a shooting of passenger Daniel Lewin at 9:18 am (it had crashed at 8:46, documented and uncontested) and then “at 9:25 am, this flight crashed directly into one of the towers of the world trade center.” [5] Compared to AA’s flight 11 mix-up (possibly the origin of the ‘Phantom Flight 11’ that distracted defenders from the real threat of Flight 77), a single mis-citation of 77’s crash time is quite mundane.

And besides, it seems highly unlikely that ATC with their radar screens would report a non-plane related 9:32 explosion, however they may have heard about it, as evidence for the disappearance of a plane they were tracking - So this evidence’s connection to Honegger’s case is less than clear.

2) Per Stig Møler: The son of two Danish parliamentarians and a member of Det Konservative Folkeparti [6], Møler was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11, two months prior to his being appointed Foreign Minister of Denmark. The morning of the attack, Honegger recounts, “he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.” [7]

This seems to be good evidence; one would think if his watch was five minutes off, he'd know that and correct for such a momentous occasion. Or is he simply embellishing the watch check, and actually filling in the time based on some flawed source? [The FAA’s chronology would not be released or days, so that’s not a possible culprit]. Or is Honegger inserting the watch embellishment herself, while Møler only ever said it happened at 9:32? Her sources was listed as “interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time.” The excerpt she included said “I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” That in itself doesn’t clear things up, and being disinclined to find the original audio and get it translated, I’ll leave this point as vague at best.

Update: Someone named Josarhus from Denmark checked out the interview, joined and started a thread at the JREF forum about this:

Further more Per Stig Møller CLEARLY states that he thinks the time was around 9:32-9:34 based on when the meeting was supposed to end. The meeting was supposed to end at 9:30, but he didn’t look at his watch. In other words the time could very easily correspond with the official time of the crash.

To make it short, if anybody in the future claims that Per Stig Møller said that he heard an explosion and saw smoke and flames 5 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, tell them that the claim is based on an incorrect translation by the Dane Henrik Melvang and on deliberate distortions by Barbara Honegger.

3) Robert Andrews Top Civilian at Pentagon and director of “Special Operations” under Rumsfeld, Andrews shared with Honegger another wristwatch recollection. He told her in an interview that he had been in the Pentagon’s basement when “a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.” [8]

Barring another embellishment by the author (who does seem unable to provide direct quotes where witnesses clarify they got the time from their watches), this is quite specific and good evidence – almost too good. A Rumsfeld aide tells us the event occurred at 9:32. I'm starting to wonder if there really is a pattern behind all this evidence besides coincidence, but that it’s closer to Pentagon disinfo than emerging reality. If so, Rummy's 'missile-transcription” set the trend. Does ‘special operations” include disinfo work? Otherwise, maybe he just misspoke and said 9:35 when he meant to say 9:45. Then he could be referring to the 9:38 plane impact or to the later explosion around 9:43, depending on just how far ahead his watch was.

4) Al Gonzales Before becoming Attorney General, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales gave a lecture at Honegger’s Naval Postgraduate School in which, as Honegger noted, “Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. [9] It’s matter of public record and probably true that he indeed said this, but I don't see why it necessarily means anything. He may have just read an erred report – like the FAA’s cited above – while doing his background research for the speech. Or if there were an official effort to seed this idea, as suggested by Honegger's Andrews interview, there's no good reason to rule out Gonzales deciding to affirm it almost to Honegger's very face for her later use. For the moment I'll stick to the more innocent explanation.

5) The Doubletree Video Timestamp:
Neither the Pentagon nor the plane that hit it are visible in the Doubletree security video; with its view blocked by the raised roadway nearer the camera, only the massive column of fire and smoke in the distance gives us a clue that the Pentagon was struck at – 9:32? The video is very glitchy; an onlooker in the lot also blinks in and out of the screen twice and a totally different camera view of another parking lot comes and goes and later wrestles for dominance with the main view. The time-stamp is as jumpy and flickery as the picture but moves unsteadily along a natural timeline stamped 9:34. As the explosion rises at 9:34:42, the timeline then flickers to 9:32:43, which hold for one second until rolling back to 9:34:44. [10] A minute change precisely at the second rollover, simply showing a 2 instead of a 4 during that slot seems just a glitch; the date field also changes for one second at different points. 09-11-2001 briefly turns to 9-03-2001 (at 9:30:54). No one has yet claimed this as evidence of an explosion at the Pentagon eight days early.

Passing up the chance to make a fool of herself again, Honegger failed to include this anomaly of the minute space as evidence for here case, but 9:32:43 was taken up enthusiastically by Terral and analyzed (see above, his graphic) as another solid proof of his 9:31:39 event. “The proof is in the pudding,” he explained. “The Double Tree Security Video shows signs of monkey business. :0) I cannot tell you ‘why,’ but can show you ‘what’ the evidence clearly reveals from the 9:32:43 AM recorded explosion taking place […] This is another case of the ‘evidence’ supporting my 9:32 AM “first explosion”” hypothesis.” [11] Terral clearly is implying it was altered from 9:32 except for that frame, but as I asked him, “why would they 'alter' the time of the 9:32 blast to look like the 9:38 blast, but change the time to 9:34 instead and then let it flicker back to 9:32 at the end? What on Earth can this prove?” [12] Proof by glitch as further 'corroboration’ of a 9:32 event. He even used the quotes himself, and included that trademark clown face emoticon. This is just how seriously the case deserves to be taken.

6) April Gallop’s watch: A third wristwatch recollection related by Honegger Is that of April Gallop, an “Army employee with a Top Secret clearance,” had stopped by her office with her newborn son Elisha when her section exploded. Honegger’s point in including this curious witness was that “Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30.” [13]

April certainly went through hell that day, with her baby, and suffered serious injuries to her right leg I believe, so it’s possible her watch was mechanically stopped by something that hit her arm as well. And if so, we have another stopped clock showing a time closer to 9:32 than 9:38. Given what Gallop went through, it may seem cold to cast aspersions, but of all the points on this list, she is in my opinion the most compromised by mis/disinformation concerns. Among the oddities of her account(s), she later told Jim Marrs “I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel […] I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.” [14] She’s also helped promote the PentaCon, and has described climbing out through the entry hole, which she has elsewhere incorrectly verified as “perfectly round” and “didn't appear to be big enough for the 757.” [15]

Even Terral knew not to touch this point, and she was not included in his five-point list. He explained “I omit Ms. Gallop’s testimony from my work entirely, because the other ‘clock damage’ appears to be from the ‘concussion’ of the explosions and not from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That means Ms. Gallop needed to strike her wrist against something at this critical time to stop the movement mechanism, OR my EMP suspicions are inaccurate.” [16] Okay, perhaps credibility was not his reason, but it should have been.

7) Those Clocks:

The pivotal evidence that started the whole search for a 9:32 event is that double-corroborated time recorded on those two famous clocks. This point has also proven the hardest to debunk with certainty. Since I have no solid rebuttal, and since this post is already too long, I'll just summarize what's up with that. Pickering seems to suggest mechanical damage after 9:32, with the diesngaged minute hands falling with gravity towards - but not quite to - the six, and proferred a challenge for anyone to try it at home and videotape the results. [17]. To my knowledge no one has taken him up (I have a clock but need to borrow a camera). In short, I have no sure answer for the clocks showing the wrong time. Just on their own strength, the possibility that they're right must be considered. Therefore, these seem to me the main possibilities:

1) Both clocks were about right and stopped at the impact time around 9:32
2) Both clocks stopped around 9:38 but were six minutes behind by sheer coincidence
3) Both stopped at 9:38 but the mechanism was broken so the minute hands only swung back towards the 6 or something to that effect.
4) Subtle psyop to confuse people: “be sure to move than hands back to 9:32 before the museum guys pick it up…”
5) Combinations and permutations – one was six minutes behind, the other broken, etc.

Why Not 9:32?
Some might wonder why I would bother dismantling this timeline construct. After all, if 9:32 were proven, a massive lie would be uncovered that could unlock yet more secrets. The problem with this case is that no matter how solid it seems at first glance, compared to the 9:38 case, it absolutely fails to hold water. With so little supporting evidence that pans out to suggest anything in particular happening at that time, two clocks does not a valid alternate make. Even if we ignore Honegger’s silly and unsubstantiated bombing/A3 attack, or Terral’s missile/flyover-and-A3 attack, just taking the first explosion at 9:32 as from the 757 impact (ala Gaffney), dozens of points of data had to be shifted ahead to around 9:38 for no good reason I myself can see. The next post in this series will endeavor to show just how much corroborating data would have to have been coordinated to bolster the official timelie. It’s really quite a bit…

rest coming...

Sources:
[1] Posted by Terral. Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16133&st=0
[2] [7] [8] [9] [13] Honegger, Barbara. The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie. Appendix to The Terror Conspiray by Jim Marrs. Published September 6, 2006. html link - PDF link
[3] Federal Aviation Administration. Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 September 17 2001.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf
[14] Marrs, Jim. Inside Job. Origin Press. 2004. Page 26.
[17] Posted by Russell Pickering, September 20 2007, 12:32 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Clock Question - Did Internal Explosions, Stop the clocks 5 to 11 minutes before…” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15994
rest coming...

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT

FIREBALL FAKERY: CHALLENGE TO CIT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 20 2007
pretty much final Nov 21 3 pm

In the interest of critical thought regarding fakery of the Pentagon plane impact, I’d like to address the massive fireball unleashed when the plane *supposedly* struck the building. This was reportedly unleashed from the exploding fuel tanks of the 757 that impacted at a 39 degree angle traveling 530 mph or more. By the laws of physics, the motion of the expanding fireball would be determined by some combination of its general expansion (in all directions,) the forward momentum it retained from its flight there, and the angle of deflection and as such should spread across much of the building face, especially to the left (north) of impact, pressing against limestone and glass alike on its way. It would also have some tendency to rise and roll forward over the facade, igniting the roofing materials.

If there was a staged overflight with on-the-ground explosives and pyrotechnics used to create the fireball, it would either somehow have to mimic this pattern, or reveal the deception with inconsistencies. Ignoring for the moment the likelihood of this fakery, let’s look at some of the evidence of this event and its aftermath; whether it was stage-managed or simply crashed into, what does the building and the scene reveal about what actually happened?

The Crappy Video Evidence
First, let’s look at the famous and much-questioned CCTV security gate video of the attack. These choppy sequences of images (video at one frame per second) were captured by two cameras near each other at a security post just north of the supposed crash site. They show the plane (in black or white, depending on how one sees it) for one frame, about 600 feet from the cameras and closing at an oblique angle, less than a second before a bright flash at impact in the next frame, followed by a surging orange fireball that engulfs the building (below). That seems to make sense. The silhouetted structure is the heliport tower. Note this for later.


Note the deflagration's apparently triangular or conical shape, peaking just to the left of the building edge. I’ve seen this taken as a static, Christmas tree-shaped mass of fire, rising straight up from an epicenter in the building – as if the upper floors weren’t there, proof of obviously bad photo-editing. Another explanation is that the incandescent mass is rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera, if the ‘official’ trajectory is any clue. And a third possibility is that it was Photoshopped right to look like it should, which would look the same as the second option.

If the blast originated within, as a flyover would indicate - and the video were honest – I feel it would look something more like this (at left): an apparent fuel explosion (I'm not sure) inside the building five minutes after impact radiating out from the first and second floor impact wound. What we see here is indeed consistent with a fireball rolling forward with plane’s momentum – from right to left of course and also somewhat towards the camera (see below). The glowing mass spreads along the façade to the area behind the heliport – it’s certainly difficult to imagine any inside-the building incendiary package actually doing this.Debris movement as seen in the video is another clue; some fragments hurtling out and ahead of the fireball seem to move backwards, but the larger pieces go forward, and presumably towards the camera, another clue of its overall momentum. As so many have said before, of course, this controlled video footage would have been easy to doctor, and so we're left with the old question - is it live or Memorex?


Post-Attack Photos
For whatever reason, photographs of the scene are not as often accused of fakery, but in fact they are easier to doctor. But ignoring the pit of paranoia that opens, here is a photo of façade burns after the impact and collapse, taken from an angle similar to the gate cameras. In fact, the cameras are in and in front of the small foreground buildings. The taller structure between them is the heliport/fire station. Compare the burn area to the left of the collapse zone to the narrower area to its right (not so clear in this shot). Also note for reference the security camera in about the middle of the wide left area.

This face-on early shot taken by Steve Riskus shows the area before the collapse, just minutes after the impact. Already we see that even after the fireball has passed, there are rectangular patches of fire that has somehow gotten inside of widows, and much further to the left than to the right (heliport cropped off the left side). This is yet more evidence of a fluid combusting with forward momentum consistent with a path from the southwest combined with expected deflection angle.


Upper Floor Fires
And in this picture, again after the collapse, note the same asymmetry and also the fires flaring out from inside on upper left, some of those that raged and smoldered inside for over a day. I’m not certain of the official take but would guess these are believed to be caused by the impact fireball breaking out windows in the un-renovated wedge two, and entering the upper floors though these breaches.

ASCE, Pentagon Building Performance Report, 2002:
“Clearly, some of the fuel on the aircraft at impact did not enter the building, either because it was in those portions of the wings that were severed by the impact with the facade or with objects just outside of the building, or because it was deflected away from the building upon impact with the facade; that fuel burned outside the building in the initial fireball.” [p 41] "Windows that had not been upgraded generally were broken for several hundred feet to the north of the impact point." [p 28] "A large fireball engulfed the exterior of the building in the impact area.Interior fires began immediately." [p 20]

These observations of the ASCE would support the theory that these upper floor fires far from impact were injected by this possible engineered inferno. The following passage however is confusing: "Most of the original windows in a vast area of Wedge 2 were broken after the fire was extinguished. It is probable that some of these windows were broken by the fire or by firefighting efforts rather than by the effects of the impact." [p 44] This gives little clue of just how the fires got started behind these intact windows. With the fire unable to spread laterally through walls from the actual wing impact points, let alone up through floor slabs, it seems likely the fire came in from outside.

The Running Eyewitness Evidence
The rolling deflagration was reported by eyewitnesses, including Fort Myer firefighters Alan Wallace, Mark Skipper, and Dennis Young, close enough to have to run for their lives as it billowed towards them. On duty at the Pentagon’s heliport (which has a mini-fire station beneath it and an on-site engine, ‘foam tender 161’), Wallace and Skipper were outside the station, inspecting 161 they had just parked against the Pentagon’s outer wall. As Newsweek reported:

“The two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away -- the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." [source: "Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html]

Wallace’s account is interesting in that his image of its trajectory and altitude indicated imminent impact; and being so close to its said impact location, he’d have the perfect vantage point to see it work its flyover magic, (80 feet off the ground minimum to pass over). But being so close to its anticipated impact point from 25 feet up and 600 feet away, he was running with his eyes pointing away from it at the time. At any rate, it’s a good thing they ran instead of standing and fighting the fire like men. It would have won. This is Foam 161 afterwards, at the spot they were standing when the plane first came into view. Jon Culberson photo, Smithsonian

By the flyover hypothesis championed by some, however, this palpable pressurized explosion was not the effect of impact, but something engineered beneath the steeply pitching plane.

The Challenge
The usual proposal for non-plane damage is a truck bomb out front, or bombs inside the building. Any number of explosive materials could be used – including a jet fuel element to simulate a 757 strike – and different mechanisms employed to create the angle of the engineered fireball. Who knows, huh?

Well, for people who claim something to that effect actually happened, it would be useful to have some guesses at hand. So I challenge Craig and Aldo of the Citizen’s Investigation-ish Thing to offer a plausible method for how this was all faked. An unseen incendiary catapult hidden behind the generator to hurl a fireball against the wall as the explosives blew outward? I seriously challenge them – describe the least Rube-Goldberg-esque contirivance, the least exotic weaponry they feel may have been actually used. Diagrams, specifications, numbers, guesses as specific as they’re willing to get. Brainstorm on it. People are watching.

Simply branding it as another point that could be done any number of ways will not suffice. Sure, they’re investigating people with theoretically unlimited power and they’ve said before they don’t need to explain how, since their witnesses prove this was all staged somehow. While that presumption remains contested, if this fireball fakery was another of the many points of deception, it had to happen in some way, by some mechanism, or it wouldn’t happen. Columns can be bombed. Poles can be clipped or torched down and hidden. Fences can be torn down. Generators can be pushed, etc. But what on earth could hurl a fireball like that against the façade of the Pentagon? I’d love to see any guess as to what, other than a crashing jetliner, it could have been? Or failing that another tap dance routine will suffice.

I'm not trying to push this as some smoking gun debunking either, just a good point to offer a firm challenge on. And Aldo, you aren’t banned here. Feel free to comment.

FLIGHT 77'S HOME STRETCH

HOW LONG TO CROSS THE LAST YARDS?
And an analysis of "Zebra's" alleged missing frames
last updated 3/6/07

I've been looking at the two Pentagon CCTV security cameras that captured the "white blur" crossing the West lawn before exploding into the building. Both videos show a portion of the blur in exactly one frame, and the next is the explosion. Here I attempt to break down how this lines up with the camera's frame rate. For simplicity, we are here going to ignore possibilities like different craft or speed range, different distance from the camera or approach angle, and the possibility of manipulated footage. Those all open an infinite number of variables that makes it impossible to verify anything.

First, Flight 77's speed: reports vary but include:
FEMA: 532 mph
ASCE: 479 mph
9/11 Comm: 530
Russell Pickering: more than 400
Flight Data Recorder, NTSB study: about 550-575 mph
others have cited figures like "at least 250" and "at least 300 mph." The high end speeds would seem less likely, as the higher the speed the harder the handling at extremely low altitudes. Yet the Flight data recorder shows a final rate pushing the plane’s top speed of about 600 mph. So I settled on a range of sample speeds; 350mph (0.097 mps), 420mph (0.117 mps), 460mph (0.1333 mps), 530mph (0.1472 mps), 575 (0.159 mps).

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), in their 2002 Pentagon Building Performance Report, calculated the distance to the building from nosecone in the 2002 stills (camera two) as 320 feet. My same distance based on my camera field of view analysis and generally accepted flight path is 350 feet. Close enough, I’ll go with their numbers for now.

Time needed to cover remaining distance to the building (320 feet / 0.05 miles):
@ 350mph = 0.58 sec
@ 420mph = 0.48 sec
@ 480mph = 0.42 sec
@ 530mph = 0.38 sec
@ 575mph = 0.31 sec

So I can only offer a liberal range of times needed to cross that last distance, from 0.31-0.58 seconds, give or take for exact distance, all well under the one-second frame rate. From Camera one’s view, the plane is further back - the frames captured by it seem to have been a split-second ahead and caught the nosecone just crossing the threshold of peripheral vision – distance to building then, by my estimates, is about 450 feet (.08 miles), increasing the time needed to cross – then the span is more like .5 to .8 seconds – nearing the frame rate expectation of a second glimpse, but still falling short.
Left: camera two. Right: camera one. (click to enlarge)

Presuming neither video is missing any frames, this gives us 0.4-0.6 seconds for the impact fireball to erupt before the next frame was taken by camera two. With camera one we have about 0.2-0.5 seconds for the same phenomenon, explaining the overelming brightness of the younger burst recorded there. In short, at that frame rate and those speeds, we should expect exactly one frame of the plane from each camera’s view, no more and no less.
The explosion: what's the time lag in these corresponding frames?
Now to the analysis presented by a fellow member at Above Top Secret (screen name“Zebra”) whose well made website alleges that one frame is missing from each camera’s record just as the plane enters. Seeing the plane nosing into cam 1 and fully present in cam 2, he saw two different frames and wondered why there weren’t corresponding frames for the nosing-in phase on cam 2 or the fully-present phase in cam 1. After the analysis above, it’s clear however that if such frames did exist and were excised, this means the plane flew about 130-feet between the frames, given the ASCE’s numbers, which roughly jive with my own.

At one second apart, that gives it a speed of 72 mph between the two stages. To cover the remaining distance from the fully-present stage to the building’s wall (320 feet) at that rate would take it three seconds, necessitating another three frames missing from each camera’s record. In fact, I'm pretty sure airliners stop flying altogether when they get down to 72 mph.

So what else could account for the positional difference in the two frames we’ve seen? As Zebra summed up the possibilities, “either the speed of the flying object is tremendous or another incident with the camera generated a frame totally out of synchronization or those two frames are in fact 1 second apart and have each a corresponding frame missing in the other video.” My money’s going on the speed one. At even the slowest sample speed of 350 mph, that 130 foot difference would be covered in .2 seconds, and the higher speeds would in fact lessen the time difference needed. So 0.2 is the high end. and Zebra himself admits a delay of "no more than 0.1 second" (I'm not sure where he got this exact difference). At any rate, a difference of .2 seconds falls closer to the small time lag between the two cameras than it does to the frame interval within either camera. Judging from the differences in other correlary frames compared to frame-frame differences within a camera, I'd guess the time lage between them at noticeable but well under 0.5 seconds - anywhere from 0.1 to 0.3 and a perfect fit for the differences in the white blur frames.

Updates: Now here's where I went wrong the first time. The frames before the plane, as Zebra lays them out, seem to line up with a slight delay, camera one ahead. After the plane, they line up about the same, even with the three blank spaces inserted. (except at row 27, frames 0864 and 2719, where camera two seems to be slightly ahead judging by the projectiles at the top, though this is probably a trick of perspective I can't explain right now). Anyway, the point is even if we ignore the two "missing" frames that give the plane a ridiculous speed and that cancel each other out, one camera must be missing a frame for these to line up both before and after.

But I'm also seeing other problems with the anlysis I'd glossed over before. Zebra's identification of the plane is off, in my opinion. In cam 2, he sees nosecone, right wing and right engine. At almost no angle but near-head on would we be ale to see even the tip of the right wing out ahead of the nosecone. They are set too far back for that. and in cam 2, he's been tricked by the dark tailfin, seeing the same white that was just plane now as smoke behind it, and seeing the plane itself suddenly black. This makes the possibility of the frames being off seem more likely, giving us a greater positional difference of about 475 as compared to 105, giving us a semi-plausible speed of 320 mph. But this is still far slower than most reported speeds, and of course relies on that baing the tailfin, which I'm pretty sure it isn't.

TERROR IN STILL LIFE: THE 2002 FRAMES

Eyewitness accounts of the 757 strike on the Pentagon apparently didn’t carry the same weight as the real time video we saw at the World Trade Center, and secrecy and speculation ruled the day. Only after Meyssan’s no-plane arguments hit the news did somebody finally release five badly compressed stills from cameras on the Pentagon’s grounds that were said to show the plane and the first few seconds after its impact. These were published on March 7, 2002 by the Washington Post and on the 8th by all other major media outlets, clearly in response to Meyssan’s weeks-old inflammatory charges. The American media widely pushed these as confirmation of the official story, if still curiously weak. But strangely, no one would vouch for the pictures; according to the Post:

“Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. […] “The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos “were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice.” [1]

Wherever they came from, the stills attracted quite a lot of buzz and served to remind everyone what the “War on Terrorism” would be all about in the dawning year 2002 and beyond. Indeed, they offered no evidence toward any theory, predicting the continued “trust us” mentality the Bush regime had been fostering as it pushed ahead into Iraq and other adventures regardless of evidence.

The pictures I had found back in 2004, I thought from CNN, had time stamps and frame labels at the bottom, whereas the ones I just found on the same CNN website have these Cropped off. (link to images on page: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/)
Maybe I just used a different link from the source I got them from. Anyway, I have older copies of frames one and two with the original time and title stamps and superimposed those on the cropped versions of these frames – the other three are left unlabeled. Then I found a full uncropped set on a 757-denier page, but I liked this unique set and I don’t think anything worthwhile was cropped from the other three.


Frame one was the only one that, according to its title, showed the plane itself, a blob of about 100 whitish pixels of uncertain shape and size mostly hidden behind an unknown boxy object (far right in the shot above, just below the horizon line). With the label “plane” cropped off – as well as half of the pivotal “plane’ itself in an inexplicable right-crop – this seems almost designed to show as much nothing as possible. In its entirety, as the ASCE noted, this frame “captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. […] the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.” [2]


Frame 2: “impact.” Its brightness and contrast are different from the others, and some have noted the aqua blue optic distortion on the left side of this frame, the worst of which has recently been cropped off. This is probably an effect of the exceptionally brilliant flash. Oddly, with nothing at on the far right to show, this frame actually has less cropped than the first.


Frame three: Here we see an explosion rolling forward with the plane’s trajectory and hurling debris away at other angles, possibly having deflected off the façade.


Frame four: The Pentagon Building Performance Report explained these apparently continuous frames were “taken approximately one second apart.” [3]


Frame Five: Now large debris hurtling forward, explosion dimmed down – plane’s smoke trail dissipating. As for what’s with the smoke trail, I’m working on two posts dealing with this: one to sort out what was object and what vapor in that first still, then one to explain the obvious smoke trail in the other four frames which ordinarily should not be there in an airliner attack.

As for the cropping of these new photos: while likely innocent and irrelevant, the reason the excised stamps are significant is the time and date: September 12, 2001, 5:37 pm. It’s got the wrong date and time on it - it’s clearly shot at the time of impact from the angle of the sun and the facts that the first frames show an intact wall that ended on 9/11 and that nobody recalls a staged explosion on 9/12. Of course no one believes it was shot on 9/12, but some have taken this as evidence of tampering. I never got that – and take this as a sign that the video was analyzed repeatedly and finally finalized, official story decided, then had it catalogued at 5:37 pm on the 12th. It may have been doctored then, or earlier, or later, or never at all. The timestamp reveals nothing, but rather than simply explain this - which they have never done to my knowledge - the stamps have been removed from newer postings, I suspect to “quell conspiracy theories.” It should be no surprise if it has the opposite effect.

sources:
[1] Pino-Marina, Christina. “New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon.” Washington Post. March 7, 2002. Accessed November 5, 2005 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7¬Found=true
[2], [3] Pentagon Building Report – p. 14