Case Closed? - You can see the Plane

Source: thewebfairy.com...

No Plane



And Plane



You can clearly see the tail, you can almost see the Label (AA) on the tail and you can see what I would consider to be smoke behind the plane (squigly white).

I don't know if it closes the case.
but it's a good as a lot of UFO pics, i see posted around here, and other places.

I'm afraid there isn't enough detail to really prove anything..

Looks like a sailboat to me.

Case not closed...and Im not really on either side...however these pictures are highly blurry and more imporantly the from end of the what apears to maybe be a nose cone in the second photograph is also in the same place in the second...leading me to belive that you have not in fact caught the PLane on film..

What i dont get is this...IF...the pentagon was struck by a plane...then how come they siezed all of the video footage immediatly afterwards. That my big beef with the government...they only hide things when they know they could get in trouble.

Also...If a plane didnt hit that would mean that planes 93 and 77 were shot down... while i severly dislike loss of human life...is it really all that inconcievable or wrong to think that the military shot the planes down. Makes sense no?


I dont know....nice try though...but Case is still WIDE open

One question, where would that white smoke be coming from, and what is causing it?

And pls point out where you 'almost' see the AA...

There is no way in hell you can see a 757 in that pic, unless that's what you want to see.

Case closed Try again, maybe you need to reach a bit more

Originally posted by Xenophobe
Looks like a sailboat to me.

It's a SCHOONER, not a sailboat!

Originally posted by promomag
Source: thewebfairy.com...

No Plane

And Plane

You can clearly see the tail, you can almost see the Label (AA) on the tail and you can see what I would consider to be smoke behind the plane (squigly white).

Come on guys, promomag is clearly being sarcastic(I do it all the time when I feel silly). He obvioulsy photoshopped the first pic, cutting out the background up top. I had a pretty decent laugh.





[edit on 20-5-2006 by commonsense4u]

can I get some Way Above love

I love sarcasm, satire and parodies, I might have to resort to that if I continue to post here in the future.

Originally posted by promomag
can I get some Way Above love

Hmmmmm LOL....

Originally posted by LogDog

Originally posted by Xenophobe
Looks like a sailboat to me.

It's a SCHOONER, not a sailboat!

I stand corrected, yep definately a schooner:

You can see it. But is it flight 77?

OK, lets just say that this is the plane.

At the height it was 'flying' as portrayed in this picture, then where is the damage to the grass? There must have been some, mustn't there?

As for seeing the 'AA' logo, sorry, but i cant see jack.

I'd say it is a drone craft or small private jet.

Hardly case closed. Indeed we see a plane. But nothing even remotely close to the size of a 757.

www.physics911.net...

I found this link and this guy makes an interesting point. Every piece of a major aircraft like passenger liners are individualy numbered and yet following 9/11 the Bush administration has yet to release a shred of evidence of the aircraft.

The pentagonvideo shows something lear jet size and thats at best. I'm sure we've all seen that comparison picture of what a 757 should look like compared to the pentagon.

Sorry, but with these pictures, I cant see anything CLEARLY. To me that looks like heavily pixellated anything. Could be a plane, could be a submarine, could be a cruise missile, could be that seagull-ufo from a couple months ago....

As said above, these pictures look extremely photoshopped.

On picture one, if you look at the skyline.. or.. well, the line where the sky becomes that pretty blue... well, it's a line. It's a horizontal line and there is no way the landscapers up in DC keep the trees that even

Photo number two, looks like some darkness was put in, and then run through an emboss filter.. you still see the line.

So what ya say, promomag, how close am i?

*Edit - Actually, I think the correct filter may be the plastic wrap one, come to think about it, don't know why I first thought it was emboss.

*Edit - Spelling error*

[edit on 5/20/06 by niteboy82]

[edit on 5/20/06 by niteboy82]

A lot of craft out there have tail wings so this doesn't prove much and as everyone is asking where is the proof this is an AA flight?

Might be a modded Skywarrior or some similar craft or even some experimental drone we don't even know about.

I'm guessing it was put in flight from a nearby military field and then guided into the pentagon on some kind of beacon.

Flight 77 was in fact landed at the same base when contact was lost with it and the plane was made to disappear. Who knows what happened to the crew and passengers.

The alien/brotherhood that runs the US and the world have capabilities that you cannot dream of yet. Some of it is hinted at within these pages.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Flight 77 was in fact landed at the same base when contact was lost with it and the plane was made to disappear. Who knows what happened to the crew and passengers.

May I ask your source for this? I know it left the radar, but hopw do you know thats where a base is at?

Proof these pictures are EDITED....

Originally I took both pictures above and opened them up in Corel Paint Shop Pro X to figure out why the grass changed colors from one frame to the next.

In the first photo, the majority of the grass has a Red Green Blue (RGB) values of:

R: 127
G: 116
B: 253

In the second photo, the majority of the grass has:

R: 116
G: 128
B: 64

The second photo's grass is obviously more green then the first... but that is NOT the proof that it found.

The proof that it is edited lies in the COLOR COUNT. Using the Count Image Colors function provided by Corel PSPX I found the following:

The first photo has only 86 unique colors in it.

The second photo has 34725 unique colors in it.

But that's not the only difference between the pictures.

The very first picture is in the GIF format that limits its colors to 256 total, and is the ONLY format that allows animations. And the second picture is in the JPG format that allows color counts in the millions, but cannot be animated.

Since the first picture shows nothing but the lawn at the Pentagon, nothing would need to be edited, so the format should stay original. And since the majority of these Pentagon pictures are in a sequence, and ANIMATED to flash from one frame to the next, it further supports my theory that the first photo is in its original GIF format.

That only leaves me to answer the question "why is the second picture in JPG format?". Well here is the answer.... If you wanted to use popular tools that are commonly found in photo editors like the BLUR tool, the SOFTEN tool, or the BLEND tool, you ABSOLUTY have to increase the color count in order to do such tasks. Because those tools utilize multiple shades of colors in order to achieve seamless results.

Now if my photo analysis intelligence training is correct, that would mean the second picture that supposedly shows a 757 vertical stabilizer with AA painted on the side is an EDITED PHOTO AND IS NOT ORIGINAL.

By the way, the source link even states they are edited. And i dont trust ANY edited material.

One would ask them self, "why do you need to edit the photos?". They must be hiding something.... truth maybe.

-NOW THE CASE IS CLOSED-


[edit on 29-5-2006 by LAES YVAN]