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