[MMike]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

Real? or did it just take this long for George Lucas to finish of the video?

 

[Tenchiro]

Wow, I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[Transcend]

So how CGId will the plane look?

 

[MMike]

I'm imagining a South Park like animation of a stock Boeing photo with someone in the backgorund yelling "BOOM!!"

 

[fluff]

How dare Bush not fake this attack!

 

[jimmydean]

Requires WMP, anyone have a link to a GOOD viedo format?

 

[jimmydean]

Now I want to see it!

"The video clips last for around two minutes, but the nose of the jet is seen for only a fraction of a second before the explosion. It is followed by footage of flames and smoke."

 

[chicodude]

Um....that didn't really look like a boeing jet.....

 

[Tenchiro]

Time to get the popcorn and wait for Changleen.

 

[syadasti]

Requires WMP, anyone have a link to a GOOD viedo format?

WMV is a good video format - its basically improved MPEG4

WMV is not built solely on Microsoft in-house technology. It is believed that WMV version 7 (WMV1) was built upon Microsoft's own non-standard version of MPEG-4 Part 2. However, as WMV version 9 has been standardized as an independent SMPTE standard (421M, also known as VC-1), it's reasonable to believe that WMV has sufficiently evolved in a different direction than MPEG-4 to be considered a unique codec in its own right. There are currently (April 2006) 16 companies in the VC-1 patent pool. Microsoft is also one of the members of the MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 patent pool.

The video stream is often combined with an audio stream of Windows Media Audio and encapsulated in Advanced Systems Format files, carrying the .wmv or .asf file extensions.

FYI, next generation video formats, HD-DVD and Blu-ray, have adopted WMV (VC-1) as a mandatory codec, meaning all video playback devices will be capable of decoding and playing video-content compressed using WMV.

 

[jimmydean]

WMV is a good video format - its basically improved MPEG4

Yup, the quality was GREAT. My mistake. Doesn't change the fact the WMP sucks ass.

 

[Changleen]

Can't view it at work, I'll have to wait for this evening.

Why has this taken so long?

 

[syadasti]

Yup, the quality was GREAT. My mistake. Doesn't change the fact the WMP sucks ass.

The video didn't show much but thats not the format's problem.

Next generation high definition video formats use WMV, not Quicktime as their container format. WMV was the better choice for the future

 

[syadasti]

Can't view it at work, I'll have to wait for this evening.

Why has this taken so long?

Court cases typically take a long time to be settled. The reason given for the delay of FOIA video release:

Judicial Watch first filed the FOIA request in February 2004. It received a letter from the Pentagon in January 2005 that it possessed a videotape responsive to the request but wouldn't release it since it was "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui." Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in February 2006, arguing that the Defense Department had "no legal basis" to withhold the tape.

You could check it out on other sites, CNN seems bogged down.

How about BBC or "fair and balanced" Fox News?

They only released the footage from one more angle and it doesn't really clear things up much. It also doesn't mention the footage from the gas station, hotel, etc...

 

[jimmydean]

Too bad the gas station camera, the 2 hotel cameras, the traffic control camera, and the 5 cameras mounted on that side of the pentagon didn't see anything.

 

[Changleen]

Even if it clearly shows a jet strike, proponent's of the official version still have many other aspects of the story to answer questions about.

WTC7, The happy Jews, 10 second demolitions, failure to intercept... there is a huge list of shady to get through.

 

[RenegadeRick]

They only released the footage from one more angle and it doesn't really clear things up much.

The whole "no plane at the pentagon" thing is just noise. It is not an important issue as far as the truth on 9-11 goes. It's just a BS distraction from the real issue.

I posted the timeline before: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2074519#post2074519

The real question on this issue is how could this plane have remained in the air after being known hijacked for so long in the most heavily defended airspace in the world? Incompetence doesn't even begin to explain it.... Negligence... maybe.

 

[jimmydean]

Even if it clearly shows a jet strike, proponent's of the official version still have many other aspects of the story to answer questions about.

WTC7, The happy Jews, 10 second demolitions, failure to intercept... there is a huge list of shady to get through.

Dude, wait until you see the video. It shows NOTHING, zip, zilch, nada as far as a plane. It does lead me more toward the cruise missle theory though.

 

[jimmydean]

The whole "no plane at the pentagon" thing is just noise. It is not an important issue as far as the truth on 9-11 goes. It's just a BS distraction from the real issue.

I posted the timeline before: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2074519#post2074519

The real question on this issue is how could this plane have remained in the air after being known hijacked for so long in the most heavily defended airspace in the world? Incompetence doesn't even begin to explain it.... Negligence... maybe.

If you watch Loose Change they explain how military aircraft was out of the area on training missions either in Florida or Canada. I have not seen or heard anything that disputes this. It could have been poor planning on the military, but I doubt it.

 

[H8R]

What plane now? I see nothing that resembles a giant plane in that video.

 

[H8R]

Nother site showing...nothing.

Maybe I'm missing it?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2006/05/16/national/w095930D05.DTL&o=0

 

[pixelninja]

Dude, wait until you see the video. It shows NOTHING, zip, zilch, nada as far as a plane. It does lead me more toward the cruise missle theory though.

I just watched it and I didn't see any plane.

 

[Silver]

You can see something streaking toward the building in the frame before the impact.

Sure as hell doesn't look like the nose of a jumbo jet though...

 

[Echo]

I don't see anything in that first frame

 

[Changleen]

Sounds like it's a GREAT video...

I can't wait to see it...

But like RR says, the whole Pentagon plane/no plane thing is just noise. There are far juicier questions to be resolved.

 

[Toshi]

Next generation high definition video formats use WMV, not Quicktime as their container format. WMV was the better choice for the future

uh, step back from the crack pipe and realize that both wmv and quicktime are wrappers for codecs, and that this makes your statement invalid.

as for the video, take a look at my attachment. do those things look like a plane at a distance? your call.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

uh, step back from the crack pipe and realize that both wmv and quicktime are wrappers for codecs, and that this makes your statement invalid.

as for the video, take a look at my attachment. do those things look like a plane at a distance? your call.

Speed bump??

 

[syadasti]

uh, step back from the crack pipe and realize that both wmv and quicktime are wrappers for codecs, and that this makes your statement invalid.

I already said that but you/JD can't read/comprehend:

WMV is a good video format - its basically improved MPEG4

Next generation high definition video formats use WMV, not Quicktime as their container format.

And it was WMV7 that was based on MPEG4, WMV9/VC-1 improves on MPEG4 to "support the compression of interlaced content without first converting it to progressive, making the codec more attractive to broadcast and video industry professionals."

 

[Toshi]

MPEG4 is a codec. thus you refer to WMV as a codec in one sentence, and as a wrapper in the next... perhaps your sequence of thoughts appeared to make sense to you at the time, but as an outside observer i can assure you that they do not.

and quicktime supports plenty of mpeg4 codecs, notably H.264/AVC, so i still don't know what your point is.

 

[H8R]

as for the video, take a look at my attachment. do those things look like a plane at a distance? your call.

Nope.

 

[syadasti]

MPEG4 is a codec. thus you refer to WMV as a codec in one sentence, and as a wrapper in the next... perhaps your sequence of thoughts appeared to make sense to you at the time, but as an outside observer i can assure you that they do not.

and quicktime supports plenty of mpeg4 codecs, notably H.264/AVC, so i still don't know what your point is.

Last post on this as it does not relate to the topic.

WMV7 is a wrapper for a non-standard MS version of MPEG4 codec, so you can call it a codec or a wrapper since its a MS modified version.

WMV9 (current version) is a next generation codec which is the basis for the standardized VC-1 codec.

Quicktime does not yet support the next generation codec, VC-1, used in HD and Bluray players.

 

[jimmydean]

Last post on this as it does not relate to the topic.

WMV7 is a wrapper for a non-standard MS version of MPEG4 codec, so you can call it a codec or a wrapper since its a MS modified version.

WMV9 (current version) is a next generation codec which is the basis for the standardized VC-1 codec.

Quicktime does not yet support the next generation codec, VC-1, used in HD and Bluray players.

My post had more to do with the fact CNN wanted to use WMP. That was the point, I could give two SH!Ts about the format as long as it is supported by VLC and I do think WMV is.

But when the video being displayed is as bad as that was, why use "the next gen" when an animated GIF would have been good enough.

 

[syadasti]

But when the video being displayed is as bad as that was, why use "the next gen" when an animated GIF would have been good enough.

Yeah 1/2 fps security video is pretty bad. The Pentagon needs 1080p60 for their surveillance cameras

 

[Changleen]

Fox News:

One of the tapes is from a security camera that was used to produce five still shots on that day. That video, which takes pictures in half-second increments, shows the nose cone of the plane clearly entering the picture, then a blur and then a fireball.

Clearly. Toshi, can't you see those 5 pixels in your image are CLEARLY a 757?

 

[Changleen]

OK, I just DL'd Toshi's frame, stuck it in Fireworks and spent a few minutes looking for anything I might be able to call a plane.

This is what I came up with (enlarged to 300%), outlined in red pixels:

What do you think?

 

[Changleen]

Here is Toshi's image again for comparison:

 

[Cave Dweller]

God dam, for a highjacker with almost no flying experience he sure did a good job at bringing it in nice and low, about 2 meters above the ground

Is it a plane, who knows, sure doesn’t look like it. Will they release other footage from other cameras, who knows, and if they do in this day and age of computer graphics could you believe it anyway??

Is it true or false, we will never know.

As far as history is concerned it has been written and indoctrinated into the American mind and it will never change, terrorists hit the pentagon and wtc, anyone who says otherwise is smoking crack in their conspiracy pipe.

 

[MMike]

Yeah that video is less than compelling...

 

[jimmydean]

As far as history is concerned it has been written and indoctrinated into the American mind and it will never change, terrorists hit the pentagon and wtc, anyone who says otherwise is smoking crack in their conspiracy pipe.

Puff, puff, pass. It's to the right, man!

 

[pixelninja]

OK, I just DL'd Toshi's frame, stuck it in Fireworks and spent a few minutes looking for anything I might be able to call a plane.

This is what I came up with (enlarged to 300%), outlined in red pixels:

What do you think?

I think you're wrong. I see this: