 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Hey guys, where is the black box after all? I mean, it should have survived, right? 
Where is it? Why haven't I heard any comment from the media about it? |
If the black box always survives... why don't they make the whole plane out of a black box?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
If it is as the guy on the "video" indicated, that the plane hit the ground first, and then plowed into the building....should there not be some indication ON the ground that something 15-20 feet high, travelling at least 250mph and filled with fuel HIT the ground? I just went back to the photos to look.
|
Let's see. Plane comes in at a dive, probably doing about 500 mph. hits the ground just in front of the building at say a 45 degree angle.
First off, the plane collapses into the point of impact while the forward momentum carries it into the building (think of a stone skipping on water). Most of the debris gets blown into smithereens and dispersed by the explosion, particularly the wings which are loaded with fuel.
Secondly, the building then collapses.
Want to find the hole in the ground? Look underneath the rubble in front of the building.
 Attachment: pentagon.jpg
This has been downloaded 120 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Hello. I usually hang around the Civ3 forums and just came accross this today. I was just wondering what made you start questioning if a plan did indeed crash into the pentagon???? I have not heard of or seen anything that would contradict the news reports that a plane was crashed into the pentagon. First we know that something crashed into it. What other explannation do you guys have if the plane did not crash into the pentagon, then what did? I dont know why anyone would want to trick people into to thinking that a plan hit the pentagon, when really something else happened? To much media coverage to try and cover up something like that and make people think something else really happened. Too many people saw what happened. You mush remember that the plan was fully loaded with fuel for a cross country trip and most of the plane was blown in to very small pieces when it crashed into the pentagon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
If the black box always survives... why don't they make the whole plane out of a black box? |
There is a very good reason for that. Today cars and planes are designed to crush when they hit something. The goal of this is to extend the time of the impact so that the force that is exereted on the people in the plane is not smaller and thus people will be able to survive the crash. If they made planes and cars like black boxes the cars and planes would come out of the crash in pretty good shape, but the people inside would not be so lucky. It all comes down to impluse. What this is the average force that is necassary to stop something over a given period of time. Say it takes 2000 lb of force to stop a car going at a certain speed. Let say it takes the car 2 seconds to stop, then that means 1000 lbs of force has to be exerted on the car each second untill it stops. But if you increase the time it takes the car to stop to lets say 5 seconds then the force that needs to be exerted on the car each second is 400 lb a second. Much smaller. Imagine if you were in the car, and it stop in 2 second, how much of a force would be exerted on you. I dont think a 1000lb of force bieing applied to your body would be very good for you. So that is why the dont have planes like black boxes, so that the time of impact and be lengthen and thus give the people inside a greator chance of living through the crash.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grrr
|
 |
of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Dec 2000
time: 18:18
|
|
Zoomed
 Attachment: img2.png
This has been downloaded 34 time(s).
Last edited by Grrr on 16-03-2002 at 00:54
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
We've been puzzling that stuff out too, GRR...here's our analysis and answers to those questions. Not definitive, but what we've been able to piece together/deduce:
- Does the camera bob back and forth?: Unknown. Even if the camera is on a revolving base, the footage shot is too short to account for that level of movement (unless they just have the camera zipping around an rediculous speeds).
- Why are there missing frames?: Unknown. It appears obvious that there are at least a few frames missing, but that could have some "normal" explanations (if they're not using a digital recording device, it could just be old tape, rendering a frame unviewable, and so they nixed it for clarity).
- Why does the color balance constantly change, (Look at the carpark). ?: Unknown - Whatever accounts for the jittering motion of the camera may also be responsible for the change in hue in the various frames, although admittedly, the hue change makes the tape look suspect. Again, this can partly be explained away be old media, assuming a non-digital recording source.
- Why are the corners cut off in frame two?: Unknown, but it lends further credence to the notion of the footage being intentionally doctored.
- How did they focus the camera?: Given the nature of the building the camera is parked out front of, you'd expect a motion sensitive focus, however, it appears to be a static focus, given the fact that whatever the object in the background is, is so badly OUT of focus.
- And WTF are those two things in front of the explosion in image two. Where are they in image one?: This one, we got the answer for. I'm assuming you mean the boxy shaped silouette you can clearly see when the fireball begins.
If you notice, there's also a tree in front of that. Using the tree as a reference point, we were able to compare the film footage with the photos from the link that began this website. The tree is visible there as well, and near it, there's a small "outbuilding" that matches the shape of the silouette in the footage. That building is probably what you're seeing, backlit by the flames.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
Frame 2 does seem out of place, at first glance I thought it was doctored. In the other frames you can just barely see the round limit to the footage. The frames were cut out of this round area, to focus on the impact area. This definitely is not "clean" footage in that respect. The edges become more pronounced in frame 2 because it is cut from the top of that round footage. The smudges on the camera still maintain the same spacing in relation to the edges.
In an impact like that there is certain to be some sort of shock wave. The motion of the camera is probably due to that. Frame 2 has a much brighter subject matter (and probably moreso from the previous frame). If you stare at a bright light then look away, it takes a moment for your eyes to adjust. Camera's (especially digital) are also affected the same way. It also could just be from the digital formatting of the pictures for the web site. When the photos were compressed, the extra color range in frame 2 could have very easily caused a slightly different palette.
Overall I can't find anything wrong with the pictures other than the obviously missing frames. I'd assume a 30 fps camera. That would leave at least 4 or 5 frames where at least part of the airplane should be visable. The shock wave could have left some of them either too out of focus, or with the camera moved far enough to not include the subject matter. But the shock wave couldn't have hit until after the plane did in any case, there are missing frames.
Looking at the dark area Grrr was talking about, it seems those are trees in the background. I could be wrong but there are still similar dark shapes in the same area which remain through all 5 frames, just smudged by smoke/heat/debris in the air. The scale doesn't seem right for a 155 foot object, but it's hard to tell the exact depth, so it could be. The other problem is that I assume the plane would not be black, but rather metalic or light colored. With the angle of the sunlight there should be some reflection off a rounded object, regardless of the color. The dark area does conform to the shape quite well though, so I could be wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I don't know about the fps. Granted it could be just about anything, but at a high security installation like the Pentagon? I took a telecommunications course at a small local college and even they had a 30fps security camera for us to play around with which only required a standard coxial cable. I would be suprised if the US government couldn't do as well or better.
The plane itself is 155 ft in length, so in your scenario it would be in view (at least partially) for roughly 1/3rd of a second. At 10 fps there should be 2 or 3 frames with a portion of the plane visable. In the last of those frames the tail of the plane might be engulfed by the explosion though. 1 fps seems almost worthless from a security standpoint, too much could be missed (like say, a plane hitting your building).
Also a 45 degree angle would be very steep for the purposes of hitting the side of the Pentagon. To hit the ground floor with the nose of the plane would require most of the impact to be absorbed by the lawn outside the building at that rate of descent. |
The camera was set up to check on cars entering a parking lot. In that case, even the Pentagon wouldn't spend a lot of money installing broadband cable feed to the camera. One fps would be adequate for that purpose (probably transmitted over ordinary lines)
Having said that, I'm not an expert on these cameras.
As for the 45 degree angle, I was referring to a lateral angle from point of impact (e.g., if camera is at the north then a/c is coming in from SW).
But anways, what is the point of all this? The plane is somewhat visible on the video.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2002 20:32
:P
Attachment: 
And certainly more expensive to build.
|
